Andrea wrote: "On the other hand, I am glad we read this book, since it is one of the earliest pieces of African literature I've read. I wish I owned a copy so I could go back to it easily at some point to see i..."

i totally agree Andrea. I also think it's the earliest pieces of African literature I've read. I'll have to dig out my college books to see if i've read any that were earlier...i also would like to have my own copy; i have no doubt i'll want to refer to the book again in the future. even though my reaction seems mostly negative, i actually enjoyed reading it and i think this has been my strongest reaction to a book from our Tour d'Afrique thus far.

Phyllis wrote: "Marieke wrote: "Phyllis wrote: "I finished the book last night and thoughts are still forming. I suppose I should try to imagine the author's audience (The French) and the era in which this book w..."

the titley book is *really* good. it's not dry at all. bokassa is fascinating just by himself, but the CAR-French relations were also interesting to learn about. i enjoyed Bokassa's fascination with Napoleon. i'll start a separate thread for that book...hopefully others will read it!

On the other hand, I am glad we read this book, since it is one of the earliest pieces of African literature I've read. I wish I owned a copy so I could go back to it easily at some point to see if I can gain some new insights.

Marieke wrote: "Phyllis wrote: "I finished the book last night and thoughts are still forming. I suppose I should try to imagine the author's audience (The French) and the era in which this book was written (1920..."

LOL - I'm of the same mindset as you re: this novel -- thoughts are still scattered and I thought about re-reading passages to gain greater understanding -- but quickly decided against it.

Admittedly, my exposure to French novels is limited; outside of this one, I've read the translations of Maryse Conde's works and they are of a different era and aren't overly simplistic at all.

I agree re: the flat characters -- very little depth or breadth -- rather dull, imo. Your comment echoes another reader's question re: how Africans were portrayed and/or perceived during this era -- did this work show a different view or reinforce existing perceptions.

I'll have to check out the Titley book as time permits.

Phyllis wrote: "I finished the book last night and thoughts are still forming. I suppose I should try to imagine the author's audience (The French) and the era in which this book was written (1920's) in order to ..."

i felt that way too at the end. i sat there thinking "huh?" and then i wrote my immediate unfiltered reflections and questions. i'm not sure i've ever really gotten my thoughts together.

i tried to do the same: i tried to read it/understand it as the author intended his audience to but i've been unable to for the most part. i have a feeling i'll be returning to this book and it may pop up in later discussions about other books the group selects.

i liked the simple writing style. i don't know French, but i wonder if that style has anything to do with the fact it was originally written in French. i feel like other (translated) French novels i've read were also spare and simple in style.

that's an interesting point--perhaps Maran was trying to convey the characters' humanity by showing them as somewhat tragic flawed figures...but unfortunately they did not come across as three-dimensional at all. i think it would be interesting to see how Africans had previously been portrayed to French people who only knew about Africa from reading about it.

i agree that Batouala's resentment was clear throughout the novel...but somehow i felt like the whites' impact on their life was not shown as clearly as Maran could have shown it. i felt like i had a *very* clear understanding when i read the first chapter of Brian Titley's book "Dark Age: the Political Odyssey of Emperor Bokassa." colonialism did horrendous things with its exploitation of labor among others...but i just did not get a strong sense from Maran's book about just how profoundly Batouala's people had been affected by the Europeans. i felt more like they had been a nuisance to Batouala but not much else.

I finished the book last night and thoughts are still forming. I suppose I should try to imagine the author's audience (The French) and the era in which this book was written (1920's) in order to appreciate its offerings -- the detailed description of the environmental surroundings, indigenous food/diet, daily snapshots of village life, societal attitudes regarding gender roles and responsibilities, etc. At the time, this novel might have been fodder to fuel the European's interest in African life (I'm guessing here).

The author wastes no time getting to the point: Batouala's reflective rants about the European's work ethic, clothing, appearance, vices, technology/devices, and morals clearly illustrate their chasm between the cultures; each side dismissing the other's system of beliefs/traditions and neither side is interested in bridging the gap. Batouala seemed to fear and loathe the "heartless, lying, and cruel" Europeans for disruption of village life and customs as he (and his ancestors) knew it and for the implied ills that colonization brings to his land. He clearly resented the European.

As for the writing -- the prose was simplistic (reflecting the African lifestyle perhaps)? I found most of the characters to be a bit skeletal -- not too much "meat" on any of them; all were flawed (pride/arrogance, lust, jealousy, etc)-- I guess intentionally so to illustrate their humanity (I'm guessing again). The novel ended abruptly and I was left thinking, "is this it?" It was not a good feeling.

I'm not sure if the book conjures the same passionate and urgent rally to end colonization found in the foreword but I think there is (some) support for this cause within the pages via Batouala's thoughts and condemnations -- because one theme was persistent from beginning to end: Bataouala consistently holds to his resentment of the whites until his dying breath.

Off to read and reply to earlier posts....

And we look forward to your contributions, Phyllis!

i just quickly reread through all the commentary...jeffrey mentioned "Things Fall Apart" and Andrea mentioned "Houseboy." i read Things Fall Apart a long time ago and i read Houseboy as part of this Tour d'Afrique (i'll go reread our comments momentarily). i think there are interesting comparisons to draw...i'll go out on a limb and say that TFA and Houseboy are probably more successful than Maran's book...but i wonder if it has more to do with the time period in which the books were written or because Oyono and Achebe were from the places they were writing about...

Andrea wrote: "Welcome, Phyliss!"

Thank you - seems like a great group of people and I'm looking forward to contributing.

Welcome, Phyliss!

welcome, phyllis!
i'll be curious to see if you think it fails at what several of us have said we thought would be its objective. are you able to read the entire book via Google? that would be great, since your library doesn't have it. it's short, so it shouldn't be too much of a pain to read it that way.

if i remember correctly, according to the introductory material, French readers at the time responded the way Maran hoped they would...i wonder what they saw in it that I haven't?

Andrea wrote: "I'm also confused because the opening seems to suggest that this book will be largely about the problems caused by French colonialism and how Africans feel about that. But the only time it really ..."

I'm new to the group and just read the Preface and first chapter via Google books (it's free) and my library didn't have the book. I agree with your assessment because after reading the preface, I would think the novel would highlight the negatives of colonization or at least the devastating effects it caused the Africans.

I'll keep reading -- but will admit, I'll be slightly disappointed if it fails at this (implied) objective.

I'm also confused because the opening seems to suggest that this book will be largely about the problems caused by French colonialism and how Africans feel about that. But the only time it really seems to come up is in the long speech Batouala gives. It's not part of the plot of the book. Maybe because it was so early and I'm comparing it to more complete discussions that were written later, such as "Houseboy."

I think in some way that Maran is over playing his hand. He's setting out to display life from Batouala's point of view (or what he imagines it to be, as you pointed out), and, while I can't comment on what was culturally acceptable in France at the time of publication, saying things to inflame the difference between the perceived European vs. African mentality. Early on there is an extended description of Batouala waking up, where it mentions that upon waking up Batouala needs to "exercise his manliness" (not an exact quote) and thus takes his liberties with his still-sleeping wife, who, having become accustomed to this, doesn't stir. The tone of the description presents it as: this is very much how things ought to be.

I agree with you Marieke, that Maran doesn't succeed in giving his characters their full humanity. He leaves it mostly as: we do this, and you do that, and we think your ways are ridiculous.

i agree, andrea. i think that is a big part of my confusion about this book. i feel disoriented and i'm not sure if it's because i know close to nothing about french colonies in africa, particularly the area that became the central african republic. does anyone else feel confused? or have any insight that might help me feel less confused? am i overthinking? :D

Yes, Marieke, I'm glad you put in the long quote. If beating women was accepted in that culture, Maran would naturally report it, but he could also have a point of view about it. His narrator doesn't ever seem to make clear whose point of view we should take as the "normal" one.

i finished. i enjoyed it more than i was thinking i would (soap opera indeed!), but i'm a bit confused about what maran's point was. i need to reread what he had to say about the book and his reasons for writing it. i was under the impression that he wanted to write something that would prompt french people to confront their government and demand an end to colonialism there. so i was expecting something that would be highly critical of colonialism and would show in scathing detail how colonialism had made a mess of things. i didn't really come away with that at all.

i don't really know where to begin with my problems/questions. my questions are essentially the same as andrea's in her above post... where is the line between the actual culture of Bamba and what Maran believed based on stereotypes? how would this book be different if a local person, rather than a black person, himself from a colonized culture yet working for the colonial authorities, written this book?

i was impressed with the imagery and how maran wove in the presence of whites even though there was no real white character...the whites were just background. for the first big chunk of the book, batouala just kept saying things about whites, but no whites had appeared in the story, which made me wonder how he was forming his ideas about them. so i enjoyed the discussion that batouala and his father led regarding the blacks' mistakes since the arrival of the whites.

but aside from the complaints about whites not wanting them to sing and dance and requiring them to pay taxes, i didn't get a strong sense of a profound impact on their lives...they seemed to be living pretty much as they always had, using animal myths to explain everything (which i enjoyed), although here and there it seemed some people -- unnamed youth and Bissibi'ngui (Yassigui'ndja's lover) -- were showing signs of rejecting ancient wisdom and questioning traditions. however, for the most part, things seemed intact -- the coming of age ceremony, funeral traditions, respect for nature. no one seemed to be actually working for the whites, although if it was mentioned, it was likened to slavery, yet the only slaves mentioned were slaves belonging to batouala's people. the narrator's voice simply noted white condescension about the native people's culture and lifestyle, which batouala obviously didn't like, but generally seemed to shrug off. he was just as condescending toward white ways of doing things.

since i know so little about the area comprising the Central African Republic, i have no idea how to judge Batouala and his wife...did they comport themselves properly? what were Batouala's duties to his people? did he fulfill them? how are wives expected to feel about their husbands? is love involved at all in a marital relationship or is that a european concept?

what was maran trying to accomplish with his final scene? I sincerely don't understand it. maybe i'm only able to read the story superficially, but overall i came away with the thought that maran had merely reinforced a lot of ugly european stereotypes about black africans. i was expecting a book that would simultaneously show how traditional black africans (of this region) appeared to europeans, then reveal what was actually happening with the native population. that only happened for me in a couple of spots and certainly did not define the book for me.

and lastly, the most disturbing thing for me was the misogynistic undertone of maran's story. was maran a misogynist? or was the culture he was describing misogynistic? for instance, in chapter 5, "Boundjous," the chapter i really enjoyed because it did the most to explain the blacks' feelings toward the whites, maran writes:

"For the most part, we would certainly obey the 'boundjous,' without even thinking of protesting, if they were only more logical with themselves. the sad thing is that it is nothing like that. One example, among so many others. Hey, two or three moons ago, wouldn't you know that that animal Ouorro, drunk like a white man, wouldn't you know that my Ouorro decides to beat one of his 'yassis' unmercifully.
"By N'Gakoura, I assure you that as far as thrashing one's wife is concerned, no one does it better. Ayayaille! He thrashed her well, i guarantee it. She was just sores and bruises all over. No doubt it was a beautiful job. Blame him if you want. Who among us has never beaten one of his wives?
"So up to then nothing out of the ordinary. This is where the affair becomes complicated. Our hussy, instead of going back in her house, quite calm about her drubbing, decided to go complain to the commandant, who was hosting some touring whites that very day!"

(a *beautiful* job?!?! our "hussy"?!?!)

The scene continues...the commandant orders a black militiaman to find the husband to lock up the husband but the militiaman is confused by the gap between crime and punishment, because it is acceptable for a man to beat his wife black and blue. yet everyone is incensed when the militiaman is abused and ridiculed by the white people when he is too slow to act on the commandant's order. it's okay to beat women but not okay for men to be beaten? and then, at the very end of the book, as Batouala lays dying, he muttered that there is no such thing as "Bandas nor Mandjias, neither whites nor blacks--that there were only men--and that all men were brothers." on the one hand, it's a nice thought on a humanistic level. but when juxtaposed with the apparent treatment of women, who are apparently nothing but sex objects and objects of derision to be beaten on a whim, it's rather galling.

as i said at the very beginning of this really long post (sorry!!!!!!), i'm confused about the point of this book and whether or not Maran accomplished what he set out to do. help me out!

Really good questions, esp. since some of our earlier comments refer to not feeling particularly "close" to these characters. I feel actually more sympathy for the wife than for the husband. Batouala seems rather uninterested in his wives as individual people. Was this an accurate portrayal of an actual "typical" attitude, or was it what Maran believed based on sterotypes?

I'm finally reading this. I'm reading the one translated by Barbara Beck and Alexandre Mboukou with an introduction by Donald Herdeck of Georgetown University. I chose this copy simply because it is smaller than the other copy I have from the library. Later i'll check my second copy to see if it has different introductory material.

I think the comments so far have been really interesting. I'm curious to see how I react to the book. I liked Bedouin's comments about "wide-angle cinema style"; i'm using that to shape the imagery of the book for myself.

I'm wondering what people thought about any introductions or prefaces they read (if they read them...sometimes I read that sort of thing after I read the actual book). the thing that struck me, was the amount of non-black/non-african reaction to the book...i'm curious to know what a black african person thinks of this book, particularly a black person from this area; rene maran is an "outsider" afterall. he's still writing about village life as an visitor, even though he was a black visitor who understood colonialism in a way a white european would not. if someone from what is now CAF reads this book, or if a black african writer/intellectual reads this book, are they going to see an authentic experience, or a caricature of their traditional life?

it seems to me that maran wrote the book for white people to read, not black people, and it was white people who gave him a prestigious literary prize. does maran's work influence black african writers in any way? or has it?

the very beginning of herdeck's introduction was interesting to me:

"...many French critics attacked Maran's book as 'obscene,' 'poorly composed,' and on of the 'scandals of the epoch'...(a-hem, my interjection: um, my own prejudices about the French people tell me that they would *love* and should *embrace* a good scandal!)
...By so doing, they failed to recognize that Maran had attempted to write the novel as he believed Batouala, the African chief who is the key character, saw reality."

So, my question is, just because Maran was black, can he authentically convey the life of an African chief? (I have absolutely nothing against writers doing such things, that is what the imagination is for...but when a man writes as a woman or vice-versa, it's clear that the author is taking some poetic license...) but when the white world reads a black author writing about black people, it is not so clear, and the black author is given authority that may not be so deserving (or it may!). would batouala's story ring true to the people Maran wrote about?

Yes, the book seems very visual. I saw a contemporary Nigerian-made movie at a friend's house a few months ago and it reminded me of this story; the storyline (of the movie) itself was very broad and almost like a folkstory, but the scenery was very vivid and a lot was told through movement. When the rival comes upon Batouala and his mother in the bush, I keep expecting some sort of climactic action, but instead Batouala tells several stories and then the whole thing is a sort of anti-climax because more people arrive. I'm surprised, given how B. seems to have set the lover up, that he doesn't find a way to do him in even with the other people there.

Somehow I felt like this book was something of a precursor to "Things Fall Apart". Granted, of course, the colonial struggle plays only a tiny part of the story, and, to agree with Andrea, one comes away with far less of an appreciation for Batouala's character. It was strange that so much time is spent not on Batouala, but on his wife and his rival. From the very outset he seems like he is fighting his own fade into irrelevancy. His death, then, seems not premature but fated. The most illuminating glimpses into the village's social life were the women's gossip and insult trading. For me the novel succeeds more in placing one in the village than in placing one in the character's minds. I kept imagining how beautiful the scenes would be filmed in grand, wide-angle cinema style. I enjoyed this novel, but ultimately more for its historical value as one of the first of its kind, than for its intrinsic qualities.

Andrea wrote: "**SPOILERS**
I've finished the book and don't really know what to think. The wife and lover seem so completely thoughtless. Would they really do that in the hut while he's dying? Maran doesn't s..."

It's funny but when I was reading this it kept reminding me of a soap opera - like the the wife and lover in the hut or the cattiness of the wives. If this was written now, I would say it was all to "sell" the book. But in 1938?

**SPOILERS**
I've finished the book and don't really know what to think. The wife and lover seem so completely thoughtless. Would they really do that in the hut while he's dying? Maran doesn't seem to want us to judge any of the characters, but then I'm wondering if that isn't what fiction is really all about, judging the morality or "goodness" of characters, or at least whether we can sympathize with them. I can't really sympathize with these characters. I understand their instinctive reactions to danger, sexual attraction, hunger, but I don't feel like I get into their minds and feelings very much. If that's the author's purpose, I'm puzzling over why he would choose to write about his characters that way. I can see why Hemingway likes this writer, no messy emotional stuff. Or is there?

Two of mine arrived but i haven't had a chance to see what the major differences are or see what different information exists in the intros...

interesting! mine's a 1973 edition and new translation by Alexandre Mboukou. The introduction says that it rectified a lot of the earlier omissions and mistranslations.

Mine is actually a 1987 translation, I guess, but it says it is based on the 1938 version of the book.

I already returned mine to the library but I think it was a slighter newer edition.

i just fetched all the ones not marked "missing." so i have asked for 1922, 1932, 1973, and 1987. hopefully at least one of those is actually available!

i just fetched a copy for myself...i selected the 1987 edition, but i'm thinking of also asking for the original 1922 book to see what the difference is...and maybe i'll get the 1938 as well? and 1973? HM! could be interesting and i suspect no one else is asking for these books.

Okay, just started into the book and am really surprised that this could have been published in 1922, but I see the edition I'm reading was a re-issue from 1938 that is described by the publisher as more "frank" than the earlier edition.

Have just got the book from the library yesterday - hoping to have a read some time this weekend!

Just got the book last night and read the intro. Will start this week

Just finished! Anyone else read or started to read yet?