Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookpossum
Achebe writes with such apparent simplicity and yet the effect of the book is profound.
|
This was my reaction, too. At first, I was a little taken aback by the writing; it seemed to me that Achebe was using a very stripped down style to evoke the primitiveness of the society he was describing, and indeed this was an element, but then it became obvious to me that just as the society, despite being primitive, was at the same time highly evolved and complex, so Achebe's style was a good deal more subtle than had initially been apparent to me.
Written in the language of the oppressor, but with a rich vocabulary of native words, the two stories evoke all the messy contradictions of post-colonialism and raises many issues that are ultimately irresolvable. Just as the Victorians had as a matter of faith that colonialism was good, we have have the same ingrained reaction that says colonialism was bad, as indeed it was evil. And yet Achebe doesn't shy at the violence and cruelty of pre-colonial life. The exposure of new-born twins and the killing of Ikemefuna are the most obvious examples, but in addition we have the treatment of women, and I'd argue that Okonkwo stood in a similar relationship to his wives as the colonial masters did to the natives, where punishment could take place on a whim (the banana leaves) with no recourse. The difference of course is that his wives were fully integrated into their society and didn't perceive an injustice, but viewing it from the outside the issue of absolute power over absolute dependence seems uncomfortably similar.
Ultimately, it's impossible to go back to that innocent time; it's the mark of Achebe's craft that he evokes it so well while also acknowledging the contradictions and difficulties of exploring it from the post-colonial perspective.