Letterkunde en Krisis: 'n Honderd Jaar Afrikaanse Letterkunde en Afrikaner-Nasionalisme - Taurus Author: Ample Coetzee Reviewed by: Vasu Reddy Our literary tradition in South Africa is a fragmented one; as Breyten Breytenbach put it, "historically we are a cracked society."1 However, Letterkunde en Krisis, Coetzee's preliminary enquiry into the rewriting of Afrikaans literary history, attempts to deconstruct, to bridge the gap as it were between history and the struggle for a unitary South Africa. Challenging Kannemeyer's liberal humanist treatise in Geskiedenis van die Afrikaanse Letterkunde - undoubtedly the best standard work on Afrikaans literature to date, Coetzee's book (or should I say essay), which also appears in the essay collection Rendering Things Visible (1990), offers a trenchant dialectic critique of the crisis in Afrikaans literature. Coetzee's reading probes more questions than the "solution" he hopes to provide. Citing Gramsci's concept of crisis, Coetzee posits five dates which delineates important historic events in South Africa. To this end, his interest appears to be less in the texts' repertoire of symbols and metaphors, than the way in which the text can be manipulated to give voice to social and political concerns. To a very real extent, the significance of the dates cannot be over-emphasized. During 1875-1922 the discovery of diamonds and British colonialism resulted in the Rand Rebellion. 1922-1948 saw the rise of Afrikaner nationalism. 1948-1961 was characterised by the formal construction of apartheid through the legalisation of racist laws. 1961-1976 saw the resistance of the PAC and the ANC. The period after 1976 was shaped by increased resistance from black and banned organisations, and the oligarchy's desire to combat militancy by focussing on its own military. What problematises this issue is precisely the chronological priority that fails to show how Afrikaans, English and African literature can be located and integrated within Coetzee's program. Although I agree with Coetzee that compartism needs to be abandoned; at the same time, I disagree that one can randomly locate texts in a given delineation, without taking into cognizance the different traditions that inform our society. For example, in Western thinking, literary history is divided into 'periods' and 'movements'. In Eastern thought,'it is shaped by 'schools', 'styles' and 'dynasties', whilst in African Vol5No4 1991 essential proUem seenas'window-dressi^' T t •* he Ch°°SeS- The literature m his discussion, may be Edition. is also truePto * j £ t & ^ S * T *£ W U C i al to a biographer; but it And it is the case that So m t T/ d n Ot oversh*dow one's project, being too - m i Z ^ i r ^ ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^0- * ^ ^^ discussion of the literacy renalsance f ^ l ,P r "' ^ commentary on the apPLn tTndiff^n changes. ^difference of some Afrikaans poets to these f ^ °n ^^ 2 6"27 a nd h is f°r 6 X a m p le h is PP LirSe^crS imaginative heteroclosm to show h by historical circumstances I T W H e r J P i f ^r stoivourSnoni sttus'/ reductionisic -ading Sn ^he discussion would m e a n T « l ft t he aesthetic text (as it may have b other aspects of the text » £ ^ re suitable definition of what he daims be a major weakness of this book °n the Canonical text as a" t e X tS a re sh«Ped and canonised °f ^ * « *W ' b e c a u se t he a r x i st c««e t he ^ xt to a purely from t he P^e and untouchable Pl3Ced °U t s i de °f h i s t o^» to Pe^? In fact, the lack of a " and "universal" seems to we cannot reject the cZl of iT , ^ fthePast Af^ainthePast30oZrsor B ?"" haS COme out of South African literature. African l i tt W Z TZ T^ * " °Ur liter°*ure, it is South it is our heritage build a new But *'want to Phad *"* f,nT 5" "^ *?" °f' ref™™ until we 7 W ° HeW Mature, it eafrmieofZieZeh hard in the future thatlealZtZl' "" " " * "* «""« °« more orTs^rigoroutly^Zte^JS ^if* °f Masek^a's claim (which is yet my concern lies i t h T t T k ^ S ^ ^ ' ^ ^ ^ * *1* *0'* o ne c a° reconcile her notion of uang the canon as a "frame of "1 Jsmissal-ofthe canonical text TL c f 'T ^ C°e t z e e >S m o re blatant U C ml q U e s t i on is wI»at exactly does this "frame of reference" entail? w l u c h B f °U g ht to be written about his Vol5No4 1991 Vasu Reddy views based on a limited body of evidence from the paroxysm that characterise the marginalised and oppressed. More important, in his discussion of Adam Small's oeuvre, "the first black and politicized poet writing from the coloured) world, whose drama, Kanna Hy Ko Hystoe (1965) has been canonised, Coetzee fails to show why this drama enjoys great respect in the Afrikaans literary establishment although his other works do not receive a similar accolade. Of special importance is the fact that the "Sestigers" and "Tagtigers" created a literary revolt. As Coetzee points out, these writers, despite their generally apolitical stance, did allude to certain social and political issues; but found it difficult to be radical opponents of the regime. In this regard, particular mention needs to be made of Etienne van Heerden and Antjie Krog's acceptance of the Hertzog Prize, although these writers are popular for their rejection of the government and its policies. See for example an oversimplification on page 32, in his discussion of the Sestiger author's preoccupation with Europe. In another instance when he says that Karel Schoeman's Na Die Geliefde Land (1972) provides a negative scenario for change in South Africa because of the text's privileging of ideals and the individual, Coetzee might be promulgating a rigid formula for future writing. Likewise one needs to examine recent interviews by some critics to note their prescriptive orientation. Indeed, one may single out Marlene van Niekerk's review, "Askoek en pampoenmoes..." in Die Suid-Afrikaan (December 1989), in which he literally undermines Betsie van Niekerk and Anlen Marais' integrity as writers, by describing their debut work as "catastrophes". It turns out that Van Niekerk set out to identify and to denounce the Eurocentric angst in their texts, and to encourage (if not to impose both writers to embrace, more fully, Afroc.entric values and perspectives. But can boundaries be crossed without accommodation? This is perhaps an open question to Coetzee and his clan. Again, this is a matter worth mentioning since it brings into debate the question of criticism, which Coetzee's book so cogently illustrates. I should say with justification that the jacket design of Letterkunde en Krisis offers an apt visual image of the issues Coetzee raises. On the contrary, the title ought to have been Kritiek en Krisis. Clearly, the collapse of the Tower of Babel (or is it the tower of literature?) signifies the disintegration not only of Afrikaner nationalism; rather, it serve to undermine the very dogmatism of Coetzee's treatise. In this regard, one is prompted to recall his words of wisdom at the Victoria Falls Conference in 1989: "In our deliberations on the historic role of Afrikaner literature as co-determiner of Afrikaner culture and the eventual rise of the ruling class, and on the role it may have to play in the future of South Africa, we should be careful not to tinker too much and not to be prescriptive. Perhaps the most that can happen, is that we can attempt the re-interpretation, "rewriting" of it very carefully - to fit into the context of a national culture."3 (emphasis added) Vol5No4 1991 141 use one initial advice of has African lite th tucT H mslf 6 X p r e S S eS t he dual-ixnage of many *1 to have faith in-itics w*° a n°t h er to rontradict their °f N j a b u l° Ndebele'S ^ VleW>>- Nevertheless, this disdain h is tiation of ing and, of South representative South "commonalities", rather tht sharethecredit, oughtto be vision of a to embolden C 0 UPl ed W l th «» desire of critics to need T he traditional liberal humanist v iw of lfrikan e X is achieved in this project D ^ i f ef errors in some places, C o e t e S^ valuable (though somewhaTimn ?T " P6^1 33 b e St s u m m ed UP in h is Aand (1973): "ft doeTalso oft h exculpated - that the political r o ^^ ' ^ of the literary-. Call thTs £ $ Footnotes t!n d ed a rg ^ e nt against the h i s t o iy- However, little and spelling s t a tement of Brink's Kennis van Die 6 V en B r i nk e a n n ot a l w ays be ^ ^ £ ^°^P^^ ] ' hteTary ^ * £ ^ ^^ Bramty^Taurus 24- Ndebele, N 1989 (1): 23-35 5 QrOasi** Writers meet the ANC. Current Writing Vol5No4 1991