Though there are occasional exceptions, as a rule I avoid reading the reviews of books before the books themselves. But I couldn’t escape reading couple of reviews of ‘Masque of Africa’ that is due to be released in September.
A picture of Mask from Belgian Congo: Chokwe Masque - Pwo - with chingelyengelye cross motif / ex Belgium Congo.The mask represents a beautiful female ancestor - Pwo. The forehead includes a version of the chingelyengelye cross motif, a Chokwe tribal scarification design commonly interpreted in literature as a version of the imported Portuguese Cross of the Order of Christ.
Having heard about it here and there over the last few years, I have a vague sketch of the subject of the book. But personally I am not very well acquainted with the intricacies of African beliefs. I haven’t been Africa, (no not even to climb Kilimanjaro for charity) so I cant say I know the continent and its people well.
But I do have an idea of Africa especially from interacting with people of African origin, and their postmodern problems – for instance, how a highly qualified African male struggles to find an African woman of equivalent professional qualification.Well, anyway coming back to the book, to me, it is an interesting exercise to read the book - partly to accrue information and party to set aside the observations to hopefully compare against my own experiences in the future.
Now, let’s check the reviews. Here’s the Telegraph review. I haven’t ever heard of Sameer Rahim. He dismisses the book without uttering one single word of personal judgment that could be evaluated if not verified. Yes, Naipaul is mean and nasty and old and yes tired. People have done that before. But what about the book? He quotes from the book and takes juvenile potshots at the writer conveniently avoiding any judgement or opinion on the book.
Here’s the final segment of the review:Naipaul’s imposing achievement has violated an essential part of his being. There is something deeply sad about watching him in the African forest, a wounded animal, looking for a final vindication of his own painful journey.
Can someone explain what he is trying to say? For all we know, there is nothing in the review that suggests that Sameer Rahim has ever been to Africa?
The second is the Guardian review. Aminatta Forna is at least an African sounding name. And she has at least written post-colonial novels based in Africa. But she is bound by the good old Guardian principles – be refined, be neutral, do not commit to a judgment – offer a good point to every bad point review. At the end of the day, you have read a review but haven’t learnt anything from it.
The point is a Naipaulean book needs a sophisticated reviewer, one who is at least ability and experience to understand what is being said in the first place to write a proper critique. And I don’t see many around. Don’t know may be James Wood. May be.
