Wole as an imperfect narrator

One of the main complaints in class that I've been hearing about Ake is the fact that while the novel is supposed to be about the life of a 6 year old boy, it is narrated as though the story is being told by a 60 year old man. While this is understandable, seeing as Wole wrote this several years after the events in the novel took place, it seems like some feel that his adult perspective on his young life compromises the integrity of the story. I would argue that while Wole's elevated and eloquent prose may not mimic the thought processes and outlook of a 6 year old boy, it serves a greater purpose of giving the reader a much richer reading experience. If Soyinka were to write a novel about his ten year old self from a normal ten year old perspective, perhaps it would have been a bit more believable. However, because Soyinka elevated his character to a higher than average level of mental faculty, Soyinka the adult, speaking through his younger self, can make subtle social commentary about the various intricacies and subtleties of African culture that he might have not otherwise been able to do. A clear example of this would be the utility of having a 3 year old Wole being able to read. If he were illiterate (as most 3 year olds are), Wole as an author would not have a way to so completely flesh out Wole as a character's surroundings and circumstances. Imagine writing the market scene without a literate main character. The scene would not have been nearly as descriptive without 3 year old Wole being able to read at a fairly advanced level and describe the signs he sees to the reader. As such, I think that Soyinka made the right choice in having a precocious protagonist rather than a normal one, empirical accuracy be damned.