By FLAXMAN QOOPANE
I have always been fascinated with genre of literary criticism. I remember decades ago when I lived in different countries around the world how I used to burrow into eclectic critical works.
Such tantalising literary studies which gripped my critical attention in those burgeoning days included works on Langton Hughes, Jack Hirschman, Peter Schutt, William Shakespeare; and of course African Literary giants like Ngugi, Achebe, Soyinka Ayi Kwei Armah.
Over the last few years Pule Lechesa has been making attempts to establish himself as a serious African literary critic. He has pitched his tent alongside “tough” critics like Lewis Nkosi, Sommerset Maugham, or even the great poet, T.S. Eliot.
The danger of climbing a lofty pedestal is that one can be sent crashing down with devastating effect; with legions of literary personnel ready to take potshots at the likes of such critics. In such a case the panacea is to ensure that one’s latest literary offering is devoid of blemishes – the same mistakes Mr. Lechesa is fond of exaggerating in other writers.
I was thus very much interested in reading his new book. Essays on Free State Black Literature. I thought the author would have simmered and wisely removed many potentially provocative passages from his eventual book.
But to my surprise, he is even more ebullient and controversial. For example, the chapter where he takes on Sipho Mnyakeni reflects very badly on Lechesa, rather than Mnyakeni. I see nothing wrong with Sipho’s excellent poem that deserves such an unfair ridiculous attack by the author.
Similarly, it is crystal clear that Mr. Lechesa approaches certain literary works from a negative prism. For example, his extra – ordinary attack on Hector Kunene’s debut work was quite cruel, and could have destroyed the literary career of the young man.
Similarly, the title of his attack on Jah Rose’s work (poetry) ironically applies to Lechesa himself. This critique is an overwhelming example of “hubris” in itself, I see nothing hubristic in Jah Rose’s maiden book. I have been in this “game” for decades and I can say that I don’t think Lechesa has the right to kill the literary spontaneity of young writers and poets.
Brazenly, Lechesa even tries to take on a world class prose stylist like NNM Duman. Here he makes a terrible mistake. Is this a case of ‘hubris’ that I referred to earlier – criticizing even the world famous Bronte Sisters? To refer to them as “childish” is very unfortunate and disrespectful.
Again, contrary to what Lechesa claims, the character Jane Eyre was actually a very early example of feminism in those days, as many literary commentators have pointed out over the decades.
It is no surprise that Lechesa in his book rather identifies with the scholar Archal Prabhala who visited the Free State in 2011. Both of them apparently love to focus on negatives, as can been seen from Achal’s article. Happily enough, many perceptive commentators have condemned the excesses of Mr. Prabhala, in the same way Lechesa should also be warned against going overboard.
One would have thought that a critic like Lechesa who frowns at every small mistake in others’ books will have ensured that he did not make similar mistakes in his own book. But I counted quite a number of spelling and stylistic mistakes in ‘Essays on Free State Black Literature.’
A few examples will suffice here. “Inspired” is miss-spelt on page 5; just as “Poet Laureate” is miss-spelt on page 44. On page 64 the text should have been a new “pant”, not pint. A cursory glance at the Contents page also shows that the latter part of the chapters is messed up.
Lechesa’s latest book is an important addition to the corpus of Black literature, but as this essay has shown, it is not free from blemishes.
