Write What You Want
I wanted this post to focus specifically on Zimbabwean writers, but it is applicable to most African writers as well. In fact, it's relevant to most writers anywhere. The message is simple: write what you want, or better, write what you feel like writing. The how may be influenced by outside forces, and often, that's good for the prose or the poetry. As for the why, you would have to make it apparent at some point in the process. For now, write what's within your radar (and this is not to say write what you know...but that which gets in the field of your writerly sensors).
This post is in response to the feeling I get reading the non-fictional writings, the occasional prose, of some writers who seem to argue that writing about the past takes us to an exhausted field. Since this is a blog entry, I am not going to require myself to prove who these people are; perhaps I am imagining them, but the argument that creative writing should deal with topical issues seems to violate the nature of the art itself; it is prescriptive and limiting.
Take, for instance, the state of Zimbabwean writing, especially fiction. In some arguments about what the writers should be focusing on, I have read, or misread, that Zimbabwean writers are being encouraged to deal with more current issues, to depict a relevant Zimbabwe, and to stop writing about exhausted issues like Chimurenga 1, which would mention vana Nehanda, Kaguvi, vana Lobengula. Or, the argument that we have read too many works about the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, so we should then encourage works dealing with the 90s and the first decade of this century, which, as we have already seen in a few books about the era, lead to some very interesting reads. All these recommendations, arguments, or complaints sound good, but what does it mean to say other eras have been exhausted? In art, what is to exhaust an era?
I say, without seeking to prescribe anything,that writers should write what they want (In a different blog we can define want). Notice the friendly "should". Perhaps it's not the period of the writing that matters, but the rendering, or worse, the execution, of the work. If we remember that writing tends to be experiential and sensory, we will also realize that there could be many versions of Chimurenga 1 stories as there are people in Zimbabwe. While I have read good and bad stories about the 60s and 70s, there are many bad and good stories about the same era that have not been written or published.
Perhaps this requirement only applies to African writers? When I go to the book stores I spend time admiring the new books on Cleopatra, Emily Dickinson, Helen of Troy, et cetra, that are still pouring out, and some go on to become bestsellers. It seems, sometimes, that some of the award-winning novels I see tend to be set centuries ago, driven often by the inexhaustibility of 1865, or 1776, or 1914, or 1100, and this is not to mention the possibility that someone may be writing another Cantebury Tales as we speak. Why then are African writers expected to focus on the contemporary problems of their countries while others can go back to whatever period they want?
Before I am required to define an African writer, let me stop here.
This post is in response to the feeling I get reading the non-fictional writings, the occasional prose, of some writers who seem to argue that writing about the past takes us to an exhausted field. Since this is a blog entry, I am not going to require myself to prove who these people are; perhaps I am imagining them, but the argument that creative writing should deal with topical issues seems to violate the nature of the art itself; it is prescriptive and limiting.
Take, for instance, the state of Zimbabwean writing, especially fiction. In some arguments about what the writers should be focusing on, I have read, or misread, that Zimbabwean writers are being encouraged to deal with more current issues, to depict a relevant Zimbabwe, and to stop writing about exhausted issues like Chimurenga 1, which would mention vana Nehanda, Kaguvi, vana Lobengula. Or, the argument that we have read too many works about the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, so we should then encourage works dealing with the 90s and the first decade of this century, which, as we have already seen in a few books about the era, lead to some very interesting reads. All these recommendations, arguments, or complaints sound good, but what does it mean to say other eras have been exhausted? In art, what is to exhaust an era?
I say, without seeking to prescribe anything,that writers should write what they want (In a different blog we can define want). Notice the friendly "should". Perhaps it's not the period of the writing that matters, but the rendering, or worse, the execution, of the work. If we remember that writing tends to be experiential and sensory, we will also realize that there could be many versions of Chimurenga 1 stories as there are people in Zimbabwe. While I have read good and bad stories about the 60s and 70s, there are many bad and good stories about the same era that have not been written or published.
Perhaps this requirement only applies to African writers? When I go to the book stores I spend time admiring the new books on Cleopatra, Emily Dickinson, Helen of Troy, et cetra, that are still pouring out, and some go on to become bestsellers. It seems, sometimes, that some of the award-winning novels I see tend to be set centuries ago, driven often by the inexhaustibility of 1865, or 1776, or 1914, or 1100, and this is not to mention the possibility that someone may be writing another Cantebury Tales as we speak. Why then are African writers expected to focus on the contemporary problems of their countries while others can go back to whatever period they want?
Before I am required to define an African writer, let me stop here.
Comments