A Layman's Thoughts on Ngugi's Wizard of the Crow

Over on the Wealth of Ideas blog, Emmanuel Sigauke is elated that Ngugi waThiong’o has been nominated for Man Booker Prize. I share Brother Manu's happiness. That happiness is born out of recognition that Ngugi is a colossus and the nomination is a long overdue recognition of what he has done to inspire African writers of younger generations. I hope Ngugi wins it.

Ngugi has an impressive portfolio of literary works but his last work, Wizard of the Crow, is at the bottom of the totem pole. This could be a result of this poor reader expecting something along the same lines as his epic novels like Petals of Blood and Devil on the Cross. I think of Ngugi more as a social commentator who uses novels as a vehicle to articulate his positions on prevailing issues. I bought the novel thinking that it was a tome on the Zimbabwe body politic. Ngugi cleverly used a cover illustration in which the bigger crow has a military-style cap with the Zimbabwe bird on the rim band. Moreover, the truncated Zimbabwean flag on the cover leaves the impression that it is about Zimbabwe.

To add intrigue to it all, the title has allusions to Zimbabwe. You will recall that gunguwo was a derogatory epithet for Bishop Muzorewa - Sekuru Gunguwo – because of his religious vestments. Our gunguwo's was politically killed by the almost magical political and oratory skills of Mugabe. Some dare liken President Mugabe's skills to wizardry. To me, the superficial Zimbabwean metaphor simply stands out but what is inside is something else.

It would be fairly easy to posit that Ngugi tried to pull a sly marketing gimmick by exploiting Mugabe’s unpopularity at the time of the publishing of the book. I have no idea what motivated Ngugi into using the Zimbabwean imagery. I will leave that to gurus of literature. I do not have a degree in writing with a keen eye for literature analysis. I am a simple scientist. Be that as it may, my comments aired herein and elsewhere are not an imputation of Ngugi’s book. I do not regret buying the book.

Anyway, a comparison of the author's works is inevitable. I would call it the unavoidable consequence of unintended relativity. For a layman like me not well-versed in the intricacies and academic intrigues of literature beyond what I did at O-Level, I can say not all of a writer's books are equally good. Some will be exceptionally good and some will be relatively poor while the rest will be somewhere in the middle. In science we call that trend a Gaussian distribution. It is quite common, like a dictate of nature.

This is the case with all the books of famous writers in my library. I have copies of Mark Twain's Joan of Arc, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. In my opinion, the latter two are classics – classics are not just books I display, I read them, too. The former tastes sour by comparison. I say so because I have read all three. I could say the same about John Steinbeck novels, Tony Morrison novels, Achebe novels, Lewis Lapham books and so on and so forth.

Ngugi is proud of his Kikuyu lineage and writes in his mother tongue. What the rest of the world consumes from his plate are translations. It is well and fine to bear this in mind. However, can this be used as a caveat to shirk a comparison of his novels? When we invoke such caveats about his the novels, as we read them in English, originally written in Kikuyu, does it not come across as a circuitous admission that the work under discussion is relatively substandard? As Ngugi himself states in Decolonizing the Mind, his most celebrated novels published after Petals of Blood were originally written in Gikuyu. As far as my rudimentary literature tastes are concerned, the quality of these books was not diminished by translation into English. Why would Wizard of the Crow be an exception unless it was comparatively poor right from the very beginning?

The judgement passed on the quality of a book is a matter of personal taste akin to snake venom; some call it poison that has to be avoided at any cost while others use it as medicine.

Is Pastor Chris A Charlatan?

Last night I read the review on Pastor Chris’s book by Ms Sarudzai Mabvakure. With all due respect, I think Pastor Chris is confused. When he says Jesus died for us, I wonder where Jesus ever said that. I know Paul made such wild declarations. I have read the Bible but I have never come across any part in which Jesus claimed that he would die to conquer death for his followers.

While we are at it, how does Pastor Chris define the process of getting born again?

The idea that kings rule by Divine Right, as alluded to in Ms Mabvakure’ review is debunked by First Samuel 8:10-17. Anyway, who are supposed to be ruled by the believers of Pastor Chris' ilk? This quest for temporal power is strange if we bear in mind that Jesus said blessed are the poor for they will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. The world does not need anymore theocratic oligarchs. The few we have are more than enough!

Equally strange is the notion that “The right or the privilege to live is reserved for the born again Christian.” What about the billions who were put on this planet by God and who do not subscribe to Pastor Chris’ brand of theology, by what authority are they denied the right or privilege to live? Does it mean that they all deserve the grizzly fate of the Amalekites?

Pastor Chris' claims have a sulphurous smell of bigotry that could easily verge on the genocidal. Let us not forget that Pastor Chris is a Nigerian Pentecostal whose country of origin is notorious for pastors who force members to pay fees for exorcism and anyone who fails is condemned to death by emollition; please watch the video posted by Rense. Be warned, it is very graphic and sickening.

One question commends itself, is Pastor Chris a charlatan? I sure would like to exchange correspondences with him because I find his claims deeply disturbing and devoid of scriptural merit.