Blockchain Papers

Ulysse Pavloff, Yackolley Amoussou-Guenou, Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni

International audience

AARON JAFFE

No abstract is available for this record.

Aaron Louis Rosenberg

This anthology represents a valuable contribution to scholarly explorations of stylistics and its viability as a tool to be used in the elucidation of the literary and socio-cultural aspects inherent in African literatures and oral forms of expression. As is made clear in the introduction by Russell West-Pavlov and J. K. S. Makokha, the collection attempts to cover as much of the topic in geographic, generic, and theoretical terms as possible, limited only by the responses received to their call for papers. Unfortunately, there were no scholars working on literature from the Maghreb or Egypt who responded to this summons and thus the volume is concerned only with Sub-Saharan Africa. Certainly, given the transformations going on in this part of the world over the past few years, it would have been valuable for those of us studying African literatures to have the opportunity to study the literature emerging from here.This blind spot notwithstanding, the book and its contributors strive to provide a broad range of case studies, which can give the reader both a broad understanding of the field of literary stylistics at the same time as they may focus in on those specific works and theoretical perspectives that may be of interest to them. Thus we have studies of a conventional if not canonical nature such as the analysis of metaphor in Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart by Adeyemi Daramola which, though covering fairly familiar ground for the majority of literary scholars, manages to position the analysis of metaphor in a more specifically and exacting linguistic trajectory drawing on the work of Lakoff and Johnson, Halliday and Ortony, among others.Speaking from my own personal perspective, what I found to be most valuable in the volume are the ways in which various authors have chosen to approach their subject matter. Firstly, there are various articles which make a concentrated effort to present and profoundly analyze African literary and verbal art in its original language whether that be a Europhone language with its particular authorial inflections such as English, French, or Portuguese, an indigenous African language such as Swahili or Igbo, or a language such as Mauritian Kreol with its combination of French and non-French elements in the same language as is the case in the essay by Shawkat M. Toorawa. Although the sometimes lengthy transcriptions and translations of these passages in the texts might be thought to be a bit tedious to those who do not understand the original language, taking a leaf from the intellectual tree of the great scholar Okot p'Bitek, who stated that “[i]t is important to stress that these are my own translations, and I believe that there can be other versions. It is for this reason that the vernacular had to be included, to give other translators and scholars the opportunity to criticise my translation and also to attempt their own” (Okot p'Bitek Preface. In Horn of My Love. London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1974. x.), I feel that such presentations in the original are important and useful. This is, of course, particularly relevant in a collected work where questions of a linguistic nature are paramount, such as is the case here. Judging from Mikhail Gromov's essay on Modern tenzi and mashairi poetic forms in Kenya and Tanzania, I can safely say that the presence of the original texts for a Swahili speaker such as myself was manifestly enriching to his analysis and clarified various points under discussion. The only text that left me more than a bit disappointed in this respect is Michael Wainaina's intervention dealing with Gikuyu popular music in which he has chosen to render the translations of the song texts in English translation only, without providing the transcription of the works in their original Kikuyu. Given the tonal nature and orthographic complexity of Kikuyu (there have actually over time been various methods of rendering the Gikuyu language in print) I sympathize with the scholar's choice to streamline the excerpts provided but do nonetheless feel that transcriptions in the original would have made it easier to zero in on the various forms of discourse, which he underlines in the opening section of the study. To take a contrasting example as my model, Iwu Ikwubuzo's contribution on Igbo riddles in the volume does take on the added complexity of these riddles in their original and thus makes a profound technical study of the linguistic aspects of these artistic works in miniature possible alongside the more contextual elements brought into play in the analysis. While I still found Wainaina's essay compelling and useful, I suspect that it would be more so if he had been moved to include these songs in their Kikuyu form.Having mentioned Wainaina's work on Gikuyu popular songs, I feel obliged to recognize and give praise where praise is due to the sheer breadth of the collection in terms of its generic scope stretching from novels through poetry, popular song, and on into riddles. As a scholar who has maintained a concerted effort in my work to trace similarities across these generic boundaries, I was heartened to see the successful attempts made here to carry out detailed and meaningful studies of so many distinct yet clearly related forms of expression.The only problem that I encountered reading the text, and this only sporadically, is an apparent lack of attention in some cases to proofreading before the final proofs were submitted. While direct spelling errors were rare (and would in any case most likely been identified by a standard word-processing program) there was a tendency in numerous cases for authors to employ awkward turns of phrase or verbs in tenses that did not apply to the contexts in which they were being deployed. While I understand and am sensitive to the pressures of academic work and the extreme limitations which are often put on our time, I do feel that, given the nature of this volume as in large part a linguistic study of literary stylistics, greater attention should have been applied, both from the authors themselves and the editors in charge in order to ensure that the language used in these articles was more carefully crafted and accessible to its readers.In any case, the volume's positive attributes far outweigh any such difficulties and provide the attentive reader with a broad and profound introduction to the state of the field of African literature studies in terms of literary stylistics. Throughout the essays and taken as a whole the authors do an excellent job of communicating the importance of narrative techniques in building a greater knowledge of various genres and these works’ importance in transmitting cultural knowledge in African communities as well as between such communities and the increasingly globalized contexts through which they move.

Kyle Wanberg

I think one also writes for the dead.—Jacques Derrida In the European marketplace, literature by African writers is often commodified as a distinctly cultural product, having an “African” identity. This need not be clearly defined either in terms of the writer's ideological, geographic, or ethnic orientations, just so long as the work reflects some vague traces of its “Africanness,” which can be thematized through lurid imagery splashed across the cover of a book or comprised of equally lurid blurbs on its back cover. In some cases, critics exhibit complicity in minimizing complex identities by regarding literary works as cultural products and describing them as “truly African,” or “the first of its kind.”1 Emphasizing either the originality or authority of the writer, such critics seem caught up in the search for a “Zulu Tolstoy,” tending to bestow laurels only to rescind them immediately.2Deceptively laudatory remarks about particular African literary and cultural productions can be problematic not only because they often assume an impossible intimacy with the sum of African cultures in all of their complex and variegated forms. Such remarks can also represent a backhanded gloss on the quality of African work as a whole. Moreover, a hostile solicitude toward the history of African letters tends to ignore its indigenous oral and literary past and assume that it constitutes a relatively new history, originating only through colonial influence.3The market of African literature unevenly distributes capital and mystification between author, publisher, and audience. It domesticates the text while exoticizing the product. In this study, I explore this paradoxical trend as illustrated by the critical reception of two novels by West African authors: Le regard du roi by Camara Laye and Le devoir de violence by Yambo Ouologuem. The literary criticism of these two novels is haunted by discrepant responses of authentication, uncertainty, and contempt. At the same time, the works themselves evoke another form of haunting, namely the specters of violent histories of colonialism and neocolonialism. Illustrating the kind of European writing about these histories that Laye and Ouologuem subvert, this study includes a brief discussion of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. My examination of Conrad's novel foregrounds the other works in this study against the horizon of colonialism.Laye and Ouologuem have each been accused of plagiarism or forgery. The cases against the authors are very different, and it is my own opinion, especially with regard to Laye, that these accusations are tenuous and unfair. However, I do not wish to engage directly in the debates over these authors' authority or originality. Rather, I would like to examine the terms of this debate for the values they reflect. I argue that staking the value of a work on the identity of the author disengages one from the text and can lead to violent misreadings. Shifting these stakes, I look to a concept that undermines legal or proprietary judgments about the pure originality and authority of either Laye or Ouologuem: ghostwriting. Being the of the publisher, author, the text a complex between and its while the of specters in the writing of judgments about an originality can two while authority on the they also the of that to a with this of originality are about the and to on the originality of the work is to and a of the one in the of this of the work as of a pure of writes that “the originality of literature in its in the of or to its The to originality is to look not for first of a to of works that have been and are the of of other that have been or that of the or and and this is constitutes of literature and it in this is an the in the form of judgments about writers and their This an of the of that a cultural works of and literature in the their not only to the of the have also to the of their concept of so and so in its European an in oral In and in West that in African for that a would the same that that would be that in the a of of of Laye and Ouologuem this problematic between African and European literary The to have its in the European to represent the work of as a kind of from the to the of that as a of the of and in the literary works are and have very to do with African of of African for of productions of literary as cultural not an of literary and up to the of the such as and the of in a European in is an it is in in as the of to other a text or of other as to the to of from African as as European these as and for a to on the of writing with which a particular author is in The and author the first and is to to a on an with its own and of to to another in an and in to to critics the authority of writers like Laye and they to a about these plagiarism or are that be to have against a of colonial and of these writers first as and as some of the first literary from the African and as and The critical of African authors that on the of is a in the reception of African cultural not just a of a The cases against Laye and Ouologuem for a kind of and the of the African to this of the of the author the of the or not the author own as a the of the African is a of is a as the originality or authority is critics an of and between European and African the laurels that the work as a of African cultural the is by in European and a for African of the of between European and African critics the between these the same that they ignore this the of against Laye and The in is that a work as own it by in it is that as own a work that from other In that are because they about the very of from to is and one to about one a work from a legal because and authority are The debates and are in to of In to the terms of this I examine the of in their the of a legal debate on of authors like Laye and Ouologuem have been accused of an can be a of its a and by a author, a it can The of the author on the horizon and of the Le regard is a as not have such a a of this kind of it an to explore the concept of as a of the of the with the of the between the author and the writer, or between the and the by that of It to originality and to it as a of as the of an in It to the of writing by writers accused of or of and of writing through that in the of histories of very that have not been or to this in its as as its to as as the about the of colonialism by the the writing of history and its of writing and can be or haunted by complex of writing that between the oral and the or between the author and the in that their In this study, I from the from these can is the of a form of that a particular and a through a of between the author and in the of The or is to form and to a that not be the a book and often or in the and of the a cultural product. Moreover, a of is the by is by the a the from oral to its tends to represent a form of It that is not and on a work not be and from their own writers are in this is only in a because tends to be unevenly between an author is and a work is to In other cases, as can works from an oral In this the of author and are it is the of the oral that and for which the tends to the of about is the of that Ouologuem which I explore in in the of this The of the is to legal about literary while a new for literary I this is a is to the very and of literary this the history of through of an in on of an of the as Ouologuem the of the to on the and history of are the of ghostwriting. to been an of the to an audience. Derrida that “the in the is a for by which not which not so to in and which their in that this a form of the the of the as a of the of The in a paradoxical to own they on a of their also the of and the concept of the in of as as other the of the and a of that are that be as in an also the of to the of the which as an to form an with histories of and that this It is because is a of with history, a of writing The of the the that to by history and can a form of writing that is a of with the of to the traces of the past in the as as in or oral traces the between and writing because writing tends to be a of cultural oral of the of colonialism is the to cultural by to European which writing as cultural that is are because of their Moreover, the are not a to be its because it not been and because it a of This is the need to the colonial to to seem and that and can be between and on from to The a and is as a to its This is the of the which can represent that against have which to to the of the the the in the of and for the is Rather, the to be through a kind of to and just such a In its writing and can also be a for haunting, the is and its is not the kind of writing that in the the of in the by the writing which is a for a kind of writing that can be also traces of the The traces of through some the author to writing or the writing to the it In other been or can to the of traces be to lead back to the that the writes in and The of a text is not a The not in the of the in the with the wish to the the to which it a it is in this It not only the also in another is in so on the and in an and of its it is not to in book on a kind of the literary of in the to the of the African of the that the complex identity and of the is a of African The of African and the text and its the of the are that the writing the of a of an This like a and to a through the the form of that also undermines African the critical reception of works by Ouologuem and Laye as a form of can legal of and to the of the in this the critics of these authors' works a kind of of their the about the of Heart of also an This book been the of an debate about the writer's complicity in and of The of the is with Joseph as The reception of the book reflects a writer's the of complex over the by own as to of the novel the as a of and an of The is in the of colonialism and of the Conrad's is in and Laye and Ouologuem in Heart of is of a that these writers writing this Conrad's book to a over of it one of the literary works about by a colonial and to the of European while a to all the African Heart of is by to Heart of to about the the one some critics Conrad's very criticism of the colonialism of of the the other as and have to criticism to colonialism and in its the novel reflects the of European a of the novel that the that Conrad's toward in the writing of the In other for the of the that for the of is for the and its the of or its to reflects Conrad's and the that in that “the of the is not a look it is by that the of colonialism is of the of the and of and in the It this the text by it an the impossible of of the In this is the of its as a that can be to the the of the its the of are not to not the reception and of writing by African The trend tends to a particular kind of and This is the of the in traces of this can also be Conrad's to a in the the of of indigenous in in which been The only African Conrad's and in is the This it back to in with as the is the only in the directly to the is by own of the to to of a from In a is the very of with which up the of violence and in the Moreover, a between the of and the that on I in a in a on the of The them in a all in a that to like the first of a the I and the of by the is not in in the of and in the and that this the of this also been one of the on the This is haunted by the specters of and colonialism the by the works that Conrad's Heart of as a Camara Le regard du roi an on a European in In one criticism of through a that is its in a particular about Heart of with the that the of colonialism its is to as the for the of two through which they explore their African as a in a is not about of and in as of Conrad's is it about “the as in of to the the in an African not of is not like the of Conrad's is to a form of as the of and as it that is the of the The the of with Conrad's in which are by another is the reception of the writer's critics have and responses to the novel a debate on the of of originality reflects the of like their that is to the to the to critics work as of by that to only a of and that not the same as the writes in Le de a de de de is not like and I is other the it is because that is it is because I have the from the to and I have in this not to The to novel is a from as The that Laye to work is of so to for some The of from European that African writers of the to have to do with This a of and from European in African for writing not the of the European writer, of of European by African writers this This have been as from the of African writers of this of critics like work Le regard for a of a of African often as one of the works of African the work is It on a to the in search of the with to an audience. The book with with the and of values are so in a is to have been from or to this as of and are often it for to to as a that or a and in new in in the of a The that it is to on a by to be the to that one for the of and is a a from of are the it that one the of that is I have for I that is not I not have for that is which I to for of be do of is up with of and as a in At the of that the of and such as an with the the that the to just not I a of and that and are the of In they represent the that be from and that be to these a because of In is to to the is is and a form of The that a that can only be through to for the of the of authority over the of in is the critical with the book that from literary and toward a the of the text the authority of the The is and of the as a and the that of Le regard is a of literary Laye a to to critics work of not have the to the accusations of which the of Camara Laye, to by and to of forgery. accusations not only Laye also and and by the of all of on the that are to that Laye not have Le only a which Laye to and is to have the book for Laye, is and on and In of about the literary Laye literature and first in and in for are to not only that Laye not have the to first two novels by also that not and that the of in Le regard be as a that Laye not the of that Laye not have the novel its and its cultural to and a of that Laye not be the author of Le book a as the is to the value of with The on not only have to Laye as a have also about authority and can represent values of literary and the that work the of book in also been by a of the of first novel in is a that on up as as on the and of that to The colonial of in and is which some have on with especially that its by This in by Le a kind of that in of European in in which to the in first its is by the in to In Le de Laye to the oral history of the of with the the of this Le regard seem a of first It is in an African across which the the of a in and are against the that the other the in and been with Laye so that in of the a between their identities is in Le de the two the one Laye a literary and of criticism that can also be in in to the as a work of oral African cultural on with the works of European the other and oral history of the that a with regard to the the author to Laye the very of European literary to critics because of the with which between and that the of plagiarism and are by the in and between However, these between can be in another have with that of through to be and for on that a them in of a a a novel of and and a of the of with of European not to to In it have been and to the of African that it for to on European such as and to a novel that the and of a that own of and Laye the in between the and and to about kind of writing Laye would have been of in about the of critics of the It is that on Laye been such a of over Le originality and Laye the of between and the In so Laye also European of it as a for by authors of as a an to literary of cultural about an the is that of such as to this I think the of these values is that of it by with a European of literary that Laye a for a of this to in the between the of African oral and European to have to be as a do European as as the while writing about Laye European is with regard to European as a whole. tends to European literary and in a with African of cultural and as with a of the works explore the with which is the same by African these writers and to of African oral with oral of cultural to European of writing with a of In this it would to of against especially with it is so from the The very of and of writing not be as that a European have been that over of work also be to that the for Le regard is the that Laye in a to and this of an the for to of Le also that as a not have a also that the complex that toward own do not as about on a with the is of of the to Laye with the of that in Laye as a of its and be for between and that this undermines is they a of European in of the of a of the colonial in complex about the of colonialism in to from writing in with Laye which Laye to from this that not to that to and to only in can from this that by the and to by writing in a have to the like of the need to in a and to author and the to a a on to in with toward the colonial so in reflects complex to the between and It also for work on this also in of a of that are in literary oral cultural a kind of that is and that on the by a of or de as Laye by a is book is a with the of African oral about can be as from the violent history of between the and literary of and Laye is caught in a of between and of writing that can and can in the of is problematic for such a only because is to to a kind of one that be and in work need to a with the European the colonial to and about between and as are for in Conrad's Heart of Darkness. works a to the cultural and of a European and an indigenous writer, Laye by a of The the of African the works as the European an by indigenous to the over and the traces in work of and cultural up novel have having the relatively of up in in first have been by the new work of African from the of a European on a in Le regard a of about it that the critics from the a European the of the is the of its it to about and European and in that not to the that an indigenous the and of with an African novel be an that is to be to in Laye to an of indigenous book been a The that the very that Laye the novel its reception a history of ghostwriting. by of such a a of that specters in the or in the of Laye a with work through with the This can be as a from the European that to writing in that that the Laye as a African author in as a of the of in the colonial in and have been a of the colonial and would have been as an for the new to by a to the in its not they would be so to that a and would the of to of to explore to and European can be with that of another West African writer, the Yambo Ouologuem. Le devoir de not to the the same This which the violent history of the a African and is not on the history of of for the novel by a of the originality. in Le the book as the African novel of the the cover of the first of its in the of a the book is the of Le as “the first African the history of African in the and in the of the been over some of this for the novel to its on violence by against other Le devoir an lurid and of and and with of from oral of It the of the the of the a of and is the of in critics have a of the of the Ouologuem a of the of and its in de de de de violence de du the of the in which the the of violence on of of to the with its of and the of a of the an and that of the and that to the of the with its on the the in with the the as as European the In is a between the toward the cultural that and in European and and toward the the are in the of and as is and of the are de have is of an market of that the other of a of these that de de this is the This is the of a on the be a the are is to be from the history represent the that is so that the can and The de this to its which is to European colonial and in the is a novel that to not only the form of the of the novel its for history is de de de de the one to that is to the of African is that the reception of Le devoir de violence such a The over the work to be as critics accusations of and of from novels by and de as as other works the the that work a of and of and the book from in across and have been have up for Ouologuem against these of novel to for its originality. for that of the from are and the that “the novel the of an to as a and as a these seem to is that the terms and to a of that novel their on the and authority of the author, they do not or the terms of the plagiarism In such in the of value that the European literary market as a of with of in the also in the over that the and to the works it or not Ouologuem the of novel that the is an for legal However, of the of and I Ouologuem the concept of ghostwriting. This concept for the values European literary with cases of plagiarism are with their own of and book the same Ouologuem of to The of the values of and originality the legal and proprietary of European the for that in its can a of The of the a as a from a of of In the that up the of the with regard to Ouologuem the of this as to the de de du de de this to in of its the work that as a on own to The and of the in a a that is from a from a that this not only can work to the European that the and originality of a also that it about the of the values that these the as that be of the and of have been an that all a Ouologuem can the of histories of the Ouologuem the traces can the history of the of the of to Ouologuem to the a with that over time, to In this Ouologuem up as a of the and with the problematic that and through de du de de de to this by a new work with an the of the marketplace, to the of a writer, is to it is a to the and in a be a like for the the that it a to about the as a of with a a for because is to this is a on the of the in with also to the to writing is a to the between and that Ouologuem to the to look it in the and it in the of the as in to its history in the of the to its of that have in the of the the a to and to the of the market for African writing originality and to about writing and the histories of violence and Ouologuem not only the African works of cultural can to a This of is a in which the of the history of in just as of from the of for an of these terms is a of the colonial against the history of of them in the form of a to this of history as a to colonialism and its that and to Ouologuem in in cases European have from African of or the of or the need to work on its own it to an on have to it as an of African as as European in the West have an plagiarism of and other writers the African writers Ouologuem and which African the of West African history, and the also the of oral of on the the against Laye and the against

Mihaela Sudacevschi

No abstract is available for this record.

Chris Bongie

Despite a great deal of cultural materialist work over the past several decades devoted to the insight that literature is, in Alan Sinfield's words, ‘an institutional arrangement we have made to dignify some writing (at the expense of other)’ (2004: 31), Francophone postcolonial studies, as I have argued on more than one occasion, remains invested in an idealist conception of the literary text as ‘“rising above” its conditions of production and reception’ (Sinfield, 2004: 31). One might venture that there is no greater proof of this belated investment than the excessive amount of scholarly ink that has been spilled – and that, as this volume testifies, continues to be spilled – over the manifesto ‘Pour une “litterature-monde” en francais’ since its publication by Michel Le Bris, Jean Rouaud et consortes in March 2007. What, we might well ask, is at stake in their (our) continuing investment in the salvific virtues of ‘literature’ – a word that might, at first glance, seem the least problematic component of a seductive buzz phrase like ‘world literature (in French)’? That is the question I want to address here, not by lingering over the actual manifesto and interrogating its purported deconstruction of the French/Francophone binary (authentic act of literary decolonization or yet another instance of Franco-phony rhetoric? … readers will have little difficulty identifying where I stand on that score), but by focusing on two Caribbean-born writers who contributed to the eponymous follow-up collection of essays published later that year by Gallimard ( Pour une litterature-monde ). In zeroing in on Edouard Glissant and, especially, the Haitian novelist Lyonel Trouillot, both co-signatories of the original manifesto, I aim to draw out the ‘post-political’ dimension of the manifesto's commitment to a ‘retour aux puissances d'incandescence de la litterature’ [return to the incandescent powers of literature] and of its insistence that this retour is part and parcel of the equally felicitous ‘effondrement des grandes ideologies’ [collapse of grand-scale ideologies] symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall (‘Pour une “litterature-monde” en francais’, 2007).

J. Michael Dash

B o o k R ev iew s that a capitalist bourgeois class was driven to overthrow a feudal aristocratic ruling class to which it was intrinsically opposed” (18). Rethinking the French Revolution provides a useful overview of both the revisionist historians whose work justifies that statement and of the classical historians whose work is under attack. Even casual inquiry into the French Revolution demands knowledge of the historiographical issues raised when historical facts are mentioned, and Comminel’s book is an informed and informative guide to the schools and debates with significant historiographical impact. But the book’s principal purpose is to give a Marxist response to what its subtitle identi­ fies as the revisionist challenge to Marxism, a challenge that is all the more pressing because of the long dominance of the Marxist concept of class struggle in Western understanding of the Revolution. Precisely because certain passages of The Communist Manifesto provide such handy summaries of traditional understanding of the Revolution’s underlying causes, the refusal of traditional views is—explicitly as often as implicitly—a refusal of the Marxist vision of the historical process in its entirety. As the violent eruption of a contradiction between the vital class interests of bourgeoisie and aristocracy, the French Revolution was an object lesson in Marxist thought. If no vital class interests were at stake, the violence becomes incomprehensible and the object lesson disappears. Comminel’s thesis is that the new consensus should not be understood as a challenge to Marxism because there never was a legitimately Marxist vision of the French Revolution as a struggle between bourgeoisie and aristocracy. That vision was in fact the self-conception of the bourgeoisie, first produced while the Revolution was in progress and then repeated throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Although Marx wrote much that shows him to have shared the dominant misconception, he did so only because he failed to submit bourgeois history to the same relentlessly materialist interrogation that allowed him to overturn bourgeois economics. According to Comminel, the long agreement between Marxist and non-Marxist historians of the French Revolution came not because Marx was right but because he was wrong. What was seen as the best proof of Marxist historiography was in fact its worst error: “ the theory of bourgeois revolution which [Marx and Engels] accepted was in fact a central expression of liberal bourgeois ideology, one which is intrin­ sically at odds with M arx’s own concepts of historical materialism” (50-51). Comminel sets himself the task of defending Marxism against Marx by establishing an authentically materialist approach to what could not have been the kind of Revolution Marx believed. He does so by contending that, because class struggle always entails the exploitation of one class by another and because the aristocracy in no way exploited the bourgeoisie in eighteenth-century France, the concept of class struggle is inapplicable to the conflicts between two hegemonic groups during the French Revolution. Comminel’s position is original and tightly argued. In combination with his survey of Revolutionary historiogra­ phy, it makes Rethinking the French Revolution a welcome contribution to bicentennial réévaluation of 1789 and its consequences. S a n d y P e t r e y SU N Y at Stony Brook Ronnie L. Scharfman. E n g a g e m e n t a n d t h e L a n g u a g e o f t h e S u b j e c t in t h e P o e t r y o f A im é C é s a ir e . Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1987. Pp. 133. $14.50. The divided self is one of the major preoccupations of Caribbean literature. The Carib­ bean writer is haunted by the darker implications of the polarities which divide master Prospero and slave Caliban, King Christophe and fool Hugonin, Castaway subject and cast-out other. The task of self-definition becomes the only valid response to a world made unintelligible by the coloniser’s signifying presence and traumatised by self doubt. As LéviVOL . XXIX, NO. 2 93 L ’E spr it C r éa te u r Strauss...