Except with propagandists, bona fide writers and artists should accept the basic fact that they no longer have control over the message the moment it reaches the other end. Sooner or later, propagandists, too, have to contend with the knowledge that their messages might find no takers entailing them to be more persuasive or subtler.
By Tichaona Zindoga
Many people may have been left fascinated reading the op-ed piece by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's spokesperson Luke Tamborinyoka yesterday in which he sought to foist a guided reading of his boss' book.
He was responding to reviews of "At the deep end" by the media and other analysts, including Professor Jonathan Moyo. Predictably, Tamborinyoka reserved a couple of potshots at Prof Moyo, which had nothing to do with the analysis of the book itself. By and large, the article could have been a mistake on Mr Tamborinyoka's part, who wrote on behalf of the master, although he pretended otherwise.
He exposed himself so glaringly, just as PM Tsvangirai ultimately did through his book that he today might be cursing the very idea of having it published in the first place.
First, it is astounding to learn that the premier's spokesperson believes, and actually wishes, people would read and get the message just as the premier wanted. This is fallacious. It is not only impractical and unrealistic but also undesirable in a democratic society.
MDC, the "party of excellence" the premier leads, is a democratic party, by all means! Or so we are told.
All works of art, from sculpture and painting to music and writing are open to various interpretations that are informed by the audience's backgrounds, philosophies, orientations and so forth. Even in media schools,
which Tamborinyoka, a former editor at the Daily News no doubt went through, this basic communication fact is taught.
For Tamborinyoka to therefore teach what constitutes the "juicy" is not only unfortunate but also impractical. It is anathema to democracy that allows for free thought and expression. It is a slightly different case with newspapers where classically it has been taught that news is what the editor says is news. Mr Tamborinyoka's editorial background could have misled him.
Except with propagandists, bona fide writers and artists should accept the basic fact that they no longer have control over the message the moment it reaches the other end. Sooner or later, propagandists, too, have to contend with the knowledge that their messages might find no takers entailing them to be more persuasive or subtler.
In the case of "At the deep end", which was written for PM Tsvangirai by William Bango, his former spokesperson and who interestingly also has a Daily News background, there are things that are less subtle.
They are in black and white, as PM Tsvangirai's ruing that he lacked weapons to fulfil people's wishes after a "stolen" election. This is on page 485 in which PM Tsvangirai states: "I had won two elections in a row
but still failed to execute the people's mandate. For a moment I did not know what to do. I had no arms of war. I lacked the wherewithal to force myself into power to fulfil the people's wish."
This is, it has to be emphasised, in black and white and all those who can lay their hands on the book can see it. It is an uncomfortable and incontrovertible truth. Perhaps it was said without much thought in what is called "kuomoka" or "kuvhumuka" in Shona.
This is where the beauty and the bad of artworks are.
One can betray what is hidden in the dark crevices of conscience. Words spoken in sleep can give away a cheating spouse just as a troubled and sickly soul of a witch can account for the death of the village's children.
A single word can be the tip of an iceberg. Those who have elementary knowledge of psychology will quickly relate to Freud. You cannot wrap that which has horns, counsels traditional wisdom.
In which case, it is only logical, but almost fruitless for Mr Tamborinyoka as the PM's current mouthpiece, to do a bit of fire fighting. He is fighting the fires stoked by his predecessor. In part, he tries to do that by diverting readers and analysts from the uncomfortable zones to the "juicy" ones. It is little doubt whether other readers would share Mr Tamborinyoka's assessment or take of the "juicy".
What if they regard his professed lack of knowledge of electoral laws, which does not bode well for a leader aspiring high office in the land, as juicy? Or if people find out that he profited from tribalism, of which he has shown to be a great practitioner, as juicy?
Or still that he did not go to war against racist Rhodesia because he was self-centred? All this is contained in PM Tsvangirai's book. This means that there cannot be a universal matrix of the "juicy". There is a very compelling dimension to this whole thing. Looking at precedent, it might appear as though Mr Tamborinyoka might be headed for writing another book for his boss.
So he better be more careful with what he writes and says on behalf of the former trade unionist. There won't, and cannot be, a monolithic reading of the words. People are bound to read both the black and white as well as between the lines.
Unfortunately, one won't have control over what people think or say, unless authoritarianism is taken to the Divine stretches. This means that one should not lose sleep over what some people think or read into art.
One can take comfort, as Mr Tamborinyoka tries to do, in the belief that there are other people who think favourably or who find the "juicy" elsewhere where there could be mutual pleasure for the source and his interlocutors.
This is why Mr Tamborinyoka apparently wasted his precious time trying to parcel out blinkers with which to read his boss' book.
It is his democratic right, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment