I really enjoyed "The Super Lady." I think the quaint nature of that short passage shows the relativity of Africa to the Western world. The marriage between our earthly protagonist and the "Super Lady" is an allegory of what is needed to raise Africa out of fixed images of cultures - a governance and union of both societies (ghostly and earthly, African and Western) to encourage a flight of physical and social understanding. It seems a bit more realistic, but I've noticed one thing about Tutuola - his language remains uncorrupted by Western influences. Simple and short syntax create a natural and poetic formation to story-telling (not just writing). The expressions of the ghostly and the African mixes with the influences of the Western world but logically remains distinguishable.
Even though the the protagonist slowly assimilates into this world of ghosts, I'm unsure whether this is a representation of gaining subjectivity or losing humanity - an ambivalence that leaves me completely perplexed. Though the case, I think it powers on the idea that colonialism versus independence is just as ambivalent. Therefore, I question the character's disposition when he returns to the earthly world, for he "loses" human qualities - a demise of emotional and ethical reasoning - lackluster by brother's slave ownership and guilelessly agreeable to being simply "recognized" by his older brother. In addition. Tutuola's nameless protagonist occupies the emblematic position of having "no right to describe" himself.
I think that Tutuola creates this metamorphic fantasy of the mind where the specter of childhood struggles to battle with the straightforwardness of the adult world. The protagonist's adventure appears to be a 'rite of passage' into the trouble and, especially, the adventures of life, dealing with the disparities that come with living. If living creates problems of recognition of individuality, then Tutuola's ending suggests that living is harder than existing with the non-living.
I really enjoyed reading your thoughts in your second paragraph, especially the ambivalence of which of the two are more ideal: colonialism or independence following a reign of foreign control. This is still a difficult decision for me to come to a decision and I feel like the nameless protagonist feels the same too. I wouldn’t go so far to say he losses human qualities because he spent over two decades in a ghost world and had to develop from a young age to be able to deal with each “unique” town. Yet, I do see what you mean by having “‘no right to describe’ himself.” The final paragraph of this novel encapsulates the difficulty of wanting to be reunited with his family, but the desire to return to the bush. In the world of reality, he probably cannot go by his original name (whatever that is) since it may seem so separate from himself. Also, in the bush of ghosts, names/titles went to figures of power rather than your run-of-the-mill ghost. Lack of a name does result in the loss of individuality and without any more options, could cause one to be identified by the group, such as the short ghosts or the 10th town. This is how I understand your last statement of how it is more difficult among the living than with the nonliving. With the living, so much is uncertain in a newly independent nation whereas the bush, while a foreboding place, offered old world order to what could be utter chaos among immortal beings.
ReplyDelete