Dear Nigerian Writers,
I believe that there is a current problem with Nigerian literature in contemporary times, and it is simply and squarely the problem of its social and cultural irrelevance. There is no longer an identifiable ideology behind literary pieces in contemporary Nigeria, which leads to the conclusion that there may no longer be a Nigerian literature. I am familiar with the debate on this certain issue especially recent ones that draw from Oris Aigbokhaevbolo ‘The Death of Nigerian Literature’. It is however good to state that the foundation of my argument is independent of any prior argument.
For such an argument to have a proper premise, the definition of what Nigerian literature is must be somewhat quintessential. I have read various essays that have attempted to define Nigerian literature. A few of them seem to miss the point entirely and some others misinterpret the key features. A proper analysis of literature through the years in Nigeria would help us understand that the concept of Nigeria literature must be understood within the context of literary writings for Nigerian readers, addressing Nigerian issues. This is such that social realties cannot be alienated from Nigerian literature. Before written literature became a thing, Nigerian literature still existed in forms of folklore, songs, myths and legends. All these forms of literature in each of their different eras still told a single story. It is needless to also state their cultural impact in instilling moral values in the society. The point here is that the essence of Nigerian literature is in its ideology; its social and cultural relevance. This means that not every literary writing by Nigerians can qualify as Nigerian literature.
Ngugi Wa Thiong’o rightly believed that the foundation of African literature was essentially connected to the African experience. To him, literature was beyond mere aesthetics as some may place it to be. It was an expression of the human creative spirit; the creative spirit which he believed is necessarily conditioned by specific social, historic and political factors. As such, the African did not write for ‘writing sake.’
Making reference to this generational model of Wa Thiong’o, many academics have been able to periodize Nigerian literature into four generations. Gazelle Mba in her article, “The Four Generations: Nigerian Literature, The Booker Prize and Beyond,” made an attempt to capture these four generations; an attempt I admire so much. Making reference now to Mba’s article, I would like to highlight the four generations of Nigerian literature.
The first generation of Nigerian writers are placed between 1950s and the early 1970s, with figure heads such as Chinua Achebe (considered the father of Nigerian literature), Wole Soyinka and Flora Nwapa. Nigerian literature in this era was mostly cultural, traditional and supernatural, as writers were faced with the most difficult challenge of making known, the Nigerian culture and civilization, as well as debunking claims of Europeans like Hugh Trevor-Roper that Africa had no history. They introduced Nigerian literature to the world. More so, at the end of this generation, a few writings on the Civil war (which also came to an end in 1970) emerged as well. Some scholars argue against defining Nigerian literature as they believe such a ‘tag’ only entrap Nigerian writers. I would contend such a viewpoint as an escapist route and a mockery of the efforts in which the first generation writers placed in their crafts.
The second generation of Nigerian writers features names like, Buchi Emecheta, Niyi Osundare and Ken Saro Wiwa. While they are often grouped from the late 1970s, the prime of this generation was however, in the 1980s. Writings in this generation were directed at military rule and the fight against violence and corruption. In Mba’s words, this era saw writers turn into “walking targets, especially those who criticized the government directly.”
The third generation may include writers who lead in the 1990s and early 2000s. In this generation, names like Chimamanda Adichie, Okey Ndibe and Helon Habila are prominent. This generation is popularly known for writing post-independence stories/poems. In other words, writings in this time focused on trying to recapture Nigerian history on paper. However, this generation also picks up with a certain Western influence which could be observed in its introduction of the Nigerian speculative fiction (Afrofuturism). This Western influence may go ahead to become one of the problems of the next generation and more particularly, in the words of Femi Morgan, the ‘eye for international approval rating’.
It is good to note at this point that what this generational periodization does is that, it takes into consideration when a group of writers are most prominent, or as some may say, ‘in their prime’ and not necessarily when they stopped writing. This is because some of the first-generation writers are still writing and this goes for some in the second and third group.
Now, many academics argue that the generational periodization becomes quite difficult when trying to map out the fourth generation of Nigerian literature. The reason is simple, each of the earlier generations produced a diverse number of writings, with most writings telling a single story of the Nigerian experience and pointing to a common ideology. It is not that this generation has no writers, however, Nigerian literature periodization does not only focus on the writers but also on the contents of the writing; and contemporary Nigerian writings only seem to be going in circles and with no particular direction.
I may assume that academics who may try to back the relevance of contemporary Nigerian literature may do so on the grounds of a “cosmopolitan argument.” A cosmopolitan literature is one that cuts across traditional boundaries; not restricting itself to the social themes of a specific social order. Some may contend that there is really no problem in Nigerian literature being diverse, stating that it only indicates growth among Nigerian writers. While this may be true and a fine line of argument, I will tell you that such an argument only redefines my point. Placing Nigerian literature under such auspices re-emphasizes the problem, that it is no longer Nigerian literature. More so, it is not so difficult to observe the constant eye for internationalist approval ratings and a buried focus on the commercialization of literature. The result of all this is that Nigerian literature continues to reside in the realm of aesthetics and mere attempts at individual exposition. I do not believe that literature is dead in Nigeria as some may argue, but rather Nigerian literature today is nowhere to be found.
Arguments of this sort have rapidly sprung up in many platforms within the last five years and more would come as well. This is simply because there is a certain lacuna in contemporary Nigerian literature and each year more persons are able to observe and try to give an account of it. This argument may not be the general consensus of all literary scholars. However, my conclusion strings from a simple syllogism.
Nigerian literature comprises of works that address Nigerian issues, and the essence of Nigerian literature is in its ideology; its social and cultural relevance.
The fourth generation of Nigerian literature has no ideological direction behind it. Writings from this fourth do not connect to form any social and cultural relevance.
Therefore, there is not yet a Nigerian literature in the fourth generation.
I did not see any need to draw up heaps of praises to emphasize that I do not in any way condemn literature in Nigeria in this generation neither do I play down the efforts and invaluable creative minds we have today. Even with this in mind, I believe my claim remains valid. Afterall, this problem of contemporary Nigerian literature is not a singular problem of writers. It also has deep roots in Nigerian publishers, the entertainment industry and even the government sector. Some believe that this problem of Nigerian literature is somewhat a conscious attempt by certain social structures to lower the voices of writers, therefore resulting in the social irrelevance of their works. Such a belief is left for further study and what we are to do about it then becomes a discourse for another day, we have work to do.