Dambudzo Marechera And His Influence on Zimbabwean Literature
Commenting on my poetry collection, Forever Let Me Go, a good friend of mine pointed out that he was a bit disappointed that the only Zimbabwean author alluded to in the poems is Dambudzo Marechera. He feared that this tendency is a growing one among contemporary Zimbabwean writers and academics, but it may do a disservice to all the writers who have influenced new Zimbabwean literature. It seems every new writer is being measured according to Marechera standards, so, for instance, Ignatius Mabasa is the Marechera of Shona literature, Christopher Mlalazi's work has its Marechera moments, and Brian Chikwava is a walking Marechera, or his nameless narrator is a reincanation of Marechera, etc.
I like the critique as it refers to a potentially damaging image of African literature, of taking only a handful of African writers and using them as the models for and only representations of the full extent of African writing. According to my friend, there is more diversity in African writing than is often represented by "these academics" or "critics" .
I am happy that one reviewer said of Forever Let Me Go:"it straddles Mungoshi and Hove" and is a bit reminiscent of Musaemura Zimunya (who is my true mentor); that was such a great honor. Critics can see these things.... writers just write, and when it gets really serious, your writing cares not who influences it; it will just happen...
I am conducting Marechera-based interviews, and some of the questions deal with this issue of measuring contemporary Zimbabwean writing against Marechera as opposed to Mungoshi, Vera, Dangarembga, etc.
My friend brought to my attention a book by a David Pattison, published by Africa World Press in the USA (2001), which portrays Marechera as an irresponsible, insecure, unaccomplished writer...etc.
I have read everything of Marechera I could find, including the detailed "Sourcebook" of his life, but have always told myself that as much as I appreciate the talent and the writing, I could not follow his lifestyle. In my life outside of Zimbabwe, especially at the beginning,I had moments of asking, as a writer, "What would Marechera have done in this situation?" But I found myself telling the thought, "No, thank you".
Perhaps Brian Chikwava is the Chikwava of Zimbabwean literature, while Mlalazi always has his Mlalazi moments, and Mabasa is the Mabasa of Shona literature? Or is this now the anxiety of influence Harold Bloom talks about, of either exceessively embracing past works or completely dismissing them altogether?
With the renewed interest in Marechera's works and life, this might be a time of self-reflection for some Marechera followers.
I like the critique as it refers to a potentially damaging image of African literature, of taking only a handful of African writers and using them as the models for and only representations of the full extent of African writing. According to my friend, there is more diversity in African writing than is often represented by "these academics" or "critics" .
I am happy that one reviewer said of Forever Let Me Go:"it straddles Mungoshi and Hove" and is a bit reminiscent of Musaemura Zimunya (who is my true mentor); that was such a great honor. Critics can see these things.... writers just write, and when it gets really serious, your writing cares not who influences it; it will just happen...
I am conducting Marechera-based interviews, and some of the questions deal with this issue of measuring contemporary Zimbabwean writing against Marechera as opposed to Mungoshi, Vera, Dangarembga, etc.
My friend brought to my attention a book by a David Pattison, published by Africa World Press in the USA (2001), which portrays Marechera as an irresponsible, insecure, unaccomplished writer...etc.
I have read everything of Marechera I could find, including the detailed "Sourcebook" of his life, but have always told myself that as much as I appreciate the talent and the writing, I could not follow his lifestyle. In my life outside of Zimbabwe, especially at the beginning,I had moments of asking, as a writer, "What would Marechera have done in this situation?" But I found myself telling the thought, "No, thank you".
Perhaps Brian Chikwava is the Chikwava of Zimbabwean literature, while Mlalazi always has his Mlalazi moments, and Mabasa is the Mabasa of Shona literature? Or is this now the anxiety of influence Harold Bloom talks about, of either exceessively embracing past works or completely dismissing them altogether?
With the renewed interest in Marechera's works and life, this might be a time of self-reflection for some Marechera followers.
Comments
I can tell you, though, that comparisons of your stories to Chekhov have gotten me to read Chekhov seriously, and with that, I have learned that scholars like Harold Bloom have divided short stories into two schools: the Chekhovian and the Borgesian; the rest are liminal or hyphenated, for instance, the Borgesian-Kafkaesque or the Chekhovian-Joycean; I tell you, it makes you want to find a school to fit in; I did a test on my writing and noticed I may fall under the Borgesian-Kafkaesque; don't you see a pattern? Not only do you admire Chekhov, you read Toibin, who reads Joyce, who read (but tried to reject the influence of) Chekhov-- sometimes comparisons, when done well, are a reader's paradise. When I was reading Harare North, I found myself re-reading Faukner, especially The Sound and the Fury; when I was reading The Thing Around Your Neck, I sought Joyce Carol Oates (the critics wanted me to seek Achebe, of course)and T.C. Boyle.
My friend was probably reminding us to avoid making these quick associations. When every male Zimbabwean writer gets compared to Marechera, and all females to Dangarembga, there is a problem, that's what I'm getting from this discussion.
I too worry about these quick associations and as your friend pointed out, it is a potentially damaging image of African literature.
Regards,
JD