Notes

Thanks for logging in.

Searching Member Sites
I’ve recently added a search function so that you can limit your Google search to just the blogs that are members of MetaxuCafe. I think that will be a good resource for everyone looking for literary topics online and you’ll find it right on the front page as well as other places on the site. Now if you want to read about, say Orhan Pamuk, but only want to search the litblogs you trust, you can narrow your search right here.

• Home
• About
• Blog Headlines
• Find Blogs
• Forums
• Roundtable

PEN World Voices: African Wars report

by literary saloon on May 03, 2008

Despite the heavyweight-panel—Nuruddin Farah, Chenjerai Hove, and Abdourahman Waberi—African Wars was the most disappointing of the events I’ve been to so far. It’s also the first (of the ones I’ve attended) where the audience was charged for their tickets (though my press pass meant I didn’t have to pay).

Farah and Hove are from countries very much in the news—Somalia and Zimbabwe, respectively—and between them one might have expected—if nothing else—some insight into the volatile present-day situations there. There was a bit of that, but overall things ranged far too far afield in what was an unfocussed and ultimately pretty messy sort of discussion.

Moderator Violaine Huisman’s introduction of the panelists was informative if somewhat drawn-out, but in trying to jump-start discussion with a quote from Ryszard Kapuscinski, that ‘Africa does not exist’, she definitely got off on the wrong foot. "Where is that man coming from ?" Hove asked (and noted then that he had once met Kapuscinski and told him that he was mixing fiction and journalism—and should put a disclaimer in his books).

Waberi sensibly tried to put the proper spin on the contentious words, noting that by the same token one could say ‘Europe doesn’t exist’, and that Kapuscinski’s statement is obviously a simplification, and that cultural differences exist in all these areas (Greece and Lithuania are both part of Europe, but very different, and it’s the same with the African countries, etc.).  But from there it was still hard to rein in the conversation.

Farah and Hove have apparently jousted frequently, and Hove smilingly said early on that they disagreed on a great deal. Their very different personalities—Hove tends a bit to anecdotal rambling, and readily offers up his opinion at any point, while Farah is more of an elder (literary) statesman type, his speech much more measured and carefully worded—could probably play well off each other, but it didn’t work out that well here. (Among the interesting potential in the personal dynamics: Waberi wrote his thesis on Farah and Hove recounted wanting to write his PhD on Farah as well.)

Getting the conversation back to the ostensible subject repeatedly proved difficult, but Farah at least spiced things up by suggesting more context must be allowed in considering war in Africa: after all Africa did not have civil wars at the time when you had them in Europe or America. The natural development in Africa, he said, was interrupted for over a hundred years, by colonization; cultural development (in its broadest sense) was frustrated by the arrival of other people, with other interests. And he suggested that, for example, the Thirty Years War in Germany was remarkably comparable to the situation in the Congo.

Hove disagreed, arguing against the idea that it was just Africa’s turn to go through such a war-cycle (and, presumably, sort of get it out of their system). He said: "Wars in Africa are simply about the distribution of power and its benefits."

(The two positions, at least as to the limited extent they were expounded on, don’t seem entirely irreconcilable, and Farah did agree that economics and power drive all wars.)

Another interesting aside of contention was a project that Waberi took part in but Hove declined to, where authors were sent to Rwanda to write, in some form, about what had happened there. Hove worried generally a great deal about the danger of authors being co-opted on the side of the victimizer, and he did not think the Rwandan project offered the necessary guarantees of independence; Waberi disagreed—and while an interesting issue in and of itself, it also got the discussion off track. Still, Hove’s points about the ease with which the author can be co-opted were interesting, and he recounted that he had been offered the position of Minister of Culture in Zimbabwe some years ago; he turned it down, saying he’d only accept the Ministry of Finance (because that was something he knew nothing about and could learn a great deal at, while he already knew everything about culture ... certainly, it’s hard to imagine he could have done any worse with Zimbabwe’s economic policy than the current regime).

The question-and-answer session was a complete disaster, with Huisman losing any remaining control over the proceedings, as audience members failed to grasp the basic concept of succinctly directing a (possibly relevant) question at the authors. A few stray comments of interest came up, and Farah did manage to stir things up by saying that they were not fighting for democracy in Zimbabwe right now (because democracy is something only arrived at at the end of a very long process, which begins with regaining one’s dignity and one’s integrity—Farah also noting that while the US was much farther along on the road to democracy, it was also still far from truly achieving it), but things were far from neatly tied up.

Not too much about any specific African wars, and what generalities there were also strayed far too far, making for an unsatisfying afternoon. Too bad, because all three writers did seem to have some ideas worth exploring—but under Huisman’s moderation it remained an oil-and-vinegar combination that just wouldn’t mix.

This post has been viewed (on this page) 54 times .