Are these Kenya’s finest literary critics?

What you need to know:

  • It is possible to argue that in so far as literary criticism is concerned Africa stands shoulder to shoulder with the West.  The critical works of Chinua Achebe, Wole Soyinka, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Walter Rodney, Eldred Durosimi Jones and Lewis Nkosi are as powerful as any others.

Kenyan students of literature tend to value literature primarily in terms of the creative productions of the country’s writers, paying little consideration to the contributions of the country’s literary theorists and critics. 

In most cases, comments on the theoretical or critical productions of Kenyan scholars appear only as outcomes of debates among the country’s intellectuals, in which each is determined to prove their might in Kenyan literary theory and criticism. There are very few scholarly works that document the views of Kenya’s literary theorists and critics.

It would appear that students of Kenyan literature have yet to internalise the truth that literary theory and criticism are as important, in so far as the growth of literature is concerned, as creative literature. 

It would appear that they have yet to see the point that the country’s theorists and critics deserve as much attention, support, and recognition as its creative writers. 

The problem seems to be an inability on their part to comprehend the complimentary role that the three branches of literature (creative writing, theory, and criticism) play in the development of a people’s literature.

So, exactly who are Kenya’s most accomplished literary theorists and critics?  What ideas do we associate them with? What are their ideological orientations?

And how do those ideological perspectives manifest themselves in the theoretical or critical perspectives that they bring to the discipline of literature? Finally, in what form have those ideas been packaged? 

Let us begin with a reflection on the complimentary relationship that brings together the three categories of literary scholars under discussion. 

To begin with, in so far as the responsibility of the creative writer is concerned, there is, really, no difference between him and scholars drawn from other disciplines in the humanities or social sciences. 

His most important pre-occupation is the determination on his part to raise the consciousness of the reader in regard to important aspects of human nature as manifested in the social context under examination at that particular moment of time. 

Essentially, the creative writer is like a doctor.  Creative texts are comparable to the specimens medical practitioners use to diagnose the diseases that are ailing the entire body.  By closely examining the circumstances that are represented in the text, the reader should be able to draw important conclusions about the issues that are of most concern to the prevailing social context.  

The differences between creative writers and other scholars have to do more with the uniqueness inherent in the tools that they use to communicate their ideas to readers than with their overall scholarly responsibilities. 

In general, creative writers do not proceed by “telling” their readers what exactly they feel about the issues under consideration.   Rather, they concentrate on “showing” them what those concerns are — through narration, description, and dialogue.  To the extent that an author deviates from those rules, he works against the interests of creative writing.

It is within this context that the responsibility of the critic will be appreciated most acutely. The critic’s responsibility is, essentially,  to re-write the creative work in pedestrian language — the language of the essayist — for the common reader  to apprehend.

To understand the responsibility of the theorist, we must begin with a comment on “reality,” since the two are intimately connected.

The theorist comes in primarily because of the complications that are inherent in “reality.” Reality does not exist in concrete terms.  It is not an entity that one can point at and say, “That is reality.”  Rather, reality is constructed, it is the perceptions from our socialization over the years.

This implies that reality is not universal. It exists in multiple forms.  Theory and criticism are intimately connected.  Theory provides the interpretive categories that the critic requires in order for him to articulate the perception that the creative writer brings to reality. 

For example, Marxist and materialist theory enables the critic to deal most effectively with class issues, feminist theory with gender and patriarchal issues, psychoanalytic theory with mental issues, and post-colonial theory with imperial(list) issues.

It is clear, therefore, that literature is by no means simply about creative writing. Therefore, we should pay equal consideration to these three branches of literature.

The West has solved this problem.  In Western scholarship, theorists and critics like Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ferdinand de Saussure, Jacques Derrida, and Louis Althusser attract as much attention from students of literature as creative writers such as William Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens,  and Vladmir Nabokov. 

Shoulder to shoulder

It is possible to argue that in so far as literary criticism is concerned Africa stands shoulder to shoulder with the West.  The critical works of Chinua Achebe, Wole Soyinka, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Walter Rodney, Eldred Durosimi Jones and Lewis Nkosi are as powerful as any others.

The problem is that the same cannot be said about Africa’s literary theorists.  The explanation seems to be the general absence of interest on the part of students of African literature in literary theories derived from within African culture.

I believe Wole Soyinka is perhaps the only African who has produced theory that is comparable to the theories that are associated with the West.
So who are Kenya’s most important literary theorists and critics?  

Prof Chris Wanjala of the University of Nairobi has written many books, participated in many conferences, and published many articles in academic journals and newspapers on Kenyan and East African literature.  How come we do not have serious studies of his contributions to theory and criticism?

Prof Emilia Ilieva of Egerton University has written a great deal on African writing, particularly on gender issues.  Which scholar has evaluated her work in a book-length study?

Prof Peter Amuka of Moi University is one of the country’s most accomplished critics, essayists, and stylists. How come we do not have any serious work dedicated to his theoretical and critical views?

Dr Walunywa teaches at Egerton University’s department of Literature, Languages, and Linguistics. He is also the editor of Egerton Journal.