Defending Achebe (just 'cos I'm trying to be different :P)

I’m quite fascinated by the discussions that Achebe’s article has thus far generated on the blog – they’re all very interesting, and mostly defend Conrad’s work. When I first read Achebe’s article I was quite disturbed by his aggressiveness in attacking HOD, and his assertion that HOD is ‘an offensive and deplorable book’ (11). But when I read all the people defending Conrad, I wonder if perhaps Achebe could be defended as well? I mean, his criticism must have some valid points in it to frequently be prescribed as the article to be read alongside HOD.

Thinking deeper about Achebe’s article, I realize that Achebe wasn’t solely attacking Conrad per se. Achebe, to me, was just using Conrad’s HOD to prove his bigger point: Western literary texts that deal with the empire mostly tend to perpetuate the overarching view of the empire as the Other; in this case, Achebe’s Africa is the Other. When Achebe wrote

Heart of Darkness projects the image of Africa as “the other world,” the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization, a place where man’s vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by triumphant bestiality (3).

Doesn’t it echo some of the other readings we’ve done on this course? That oftentimes, these binaries are present in these literary works and our readings of them could influence our own perceptions of Africa. Art has the power to influence, and Achebe worries that this influence is a negative one – one that continues to encourage these binaries rather than break them down. Hence, at the end of his criticism, Achebe proposes a possible change, ‘Perhaps this is the time when it can begin, when the high optimism engendered by the breathtaking achievements of Western science and industry is giving way to doubt and even confusion’ (14).

(297 words)

-Yuen Mei-