Plagiarism, Authenticity, Africa, Literature, Nonsense, and Redemption
Almost as quickly as it gained prominence upon its 1968 publication, Bound to Violence became something of a pariah book after 1971 when it was discovered (by one of its initial supporters, no less) that Ouologuem had stolen and rewritten several passages from other books by other authors, including Graham Greene and Andre Schwarz-Bart. Suddenly a book praised as “authentically African” was discovered to have stolen from the works of western authors. Ouologuem’s meteor flamed out, and he was seemingly lost to history.
Here is where Harold Braswell’s TNR article comes in. Braswell recounts the details of Ouologuem’s rise and fall (and of course I got the story at least partially from the article, so no ironic accusations out there in the blogosphere) but then shows how another generation of scholars began to engage in an attempt at rehabilitation, maybe even redemption. In a book published the same year as Bound to Violence, Letter to Black France, Ouologuem had argued something peculiar. He wrote that writers can take passage from dozens of the great books, cobble them together, and produce their own brilliant novels. (Note to graduate students laboring away on dissertations: If you have reached the phase where it seems as if this is precisely what you are doing, move slowly away from the notecards and photocopies, get out of the apartment, and go have a beer. We need our sources. We cannot rely on them quite this much, however.) Obviously, after Ouologuem’s thievery was discovered, the strands began to come together. However, Braswell shows that there is more here than meets the eye. He argues that in a 200-page-plus book, no more than 2-3 pages had been so pilfered, and even then they were rewritten (and perhaps even improved), and that his blurring of artistic lines and appropriation of European themes even as he created an “authentically African” novel represented a form of revolution, and not ethical transgression.
Obviously I do not buy this. Not entirely anyway. And I strongly encourage you to read the article, which is more comprehensive and well articulated than what I am here providing. But it has gotten me to thinking about a number of things. Of course our old friends Michael Bellisiles and Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin and many others come into play. But Ouologuem is a novelist (he has disappeared back into Mali and apparently has only written a pornographic novel under a pseudonym, Utto Rodolph, since) and maybe there are different standards. Or maybe the argument holds weight that by rewriting passages, and brief ones at that, in a longer novel with a great deal of merit, Ouologuem was engaging in something revolutionary. Or barring that, perhaps his sins are minor, blown up out of all proportion to the offense (after all Tom reports having seen Doris Kearns Goodwin on television of late, so at least in America, Fitzgerald notwithstanding, there are second acts).
Whatever it is, this case brings up fascinating questions, some of which I hint at in my title to this post. I am curious what Rebunk readers think, especially as my own opinions are far from crystallized.
NOTE: I am also using this piece as my first attempt at the new, kinder, gentler HNN coding system. If I like, I'll go with it. If not, I’ll return to keeping it real, old school style.
FOLLOWUP: Almost immediately I did not like it, largely because I may have not done it right. Maybe next time.