PROXY LIBERTY (A FEW GOOD NIGGERS) by
Brian X
a comment from Chris Hamblin AEL 25th April 2002
picture
from the front cover
Some of you, like AEL, may have been
sent email publicity for this small
publication, which proclaimed it to be "A MUST READ FOR ANYONE WITH A
THINKING MIND AND AN OPEN CONSCIENCE."
My first reactions to the title were not good as I grew up in UK where
the N word was being actively dropped from common speech. Anyway
the N word is not a word in common use in Zimbabwe. Thinking citizens
with a conscience, here, have not permitted others to get away with a K
word. This author on the other hand fights so shy of a cock that he calls
it a cork, but is able to accurately spell a huge range of obscenties.
I think that we only help to realign our mindset by adjusting our
vocabulary to create a better society. A recent case in point is the use
of fighting language in election campaigning. Reference to beating the
opposition and such like openly promote an implicitly violent approach
to the subject. If the media took a step in toning down fighting references
in their reporting we might make some headway along the path toward
freedom of expression. Getting more votes is not the same as physically
beating someone, necessarily.
This book is crude, obscene, and evidently wallows in it's sadistic and
cliched approach. It is hardly a must read for anyone past the first
paragraph and for quantity of paper (6 A4 pages), less calorific value than
a daily newspaper. Brian X needs to seriously rethink his approach if he wants
anyone to value his work.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PROXY LIBERTY (A FEW GOOD NIGGERS) by
Brian X
re: review by Chris Hamblin AEL 25th March,
a response from the author BRIAN X
Dear AEL
Thank you for your review of my short story Proxy Liberty (A Few Good
Niggers) which I read with interest, more so when I noticed you still can
not bear to say the “N” word in full. Firstly I must say I think
that
reading the story clothed in the stifling regalia of political correctness
will only leave one quite bewildered and offended to the point of reducing
the story to a debate on nomenclature. A bit more honesty is needed
here I think.
I do not think it is simply the language that some readers may find
insurmountable but the device that is used. The fact that it works by way
of a total subjugation of the reader’s perception of things by the racially
chauvinist and omnipotent being (from which the story is perceived) does
demand that the reader liberate him/herself from any sense of social taboos
if not a paradigm shift. The reason being that in the story one
will invariably be forced to see things through the goggles of the very
racist mind that they despise so much. A natural reaction to this is
predictably outrage against the hijacking of one’s viewpoint as a reader
by this chauvinist omnipotence and the “unnecessary” race sentiment
that it “recklessly” sprinkles over the obviously ludicrous happenings
in
the story, thereby clouding up issues.
If one were therefore to be able to get
themselves on ground zero in terms
of social taboos and a host of other inhibitions, they would realise that
this device of a racist perspective creates a two tier story where at one
level it is a satire of happenings in Zimbabwe while at another it mirrors
the violent hijacking of people’s opinions in the country, where people
are,
against their will being forced (through a polarisation of every aspect of
their lives) to confront their existence on the repugnant terms of race.
One of the greatest tragedies of people
I believe is that they are open to
imprisonment by their own concepts. Violence in the history of mankind has
always been a primitive expression of transcendence and power.
The reason why we can not deal with it is partly because our elaborate
social concepts are much more concerned with its spectacular if not cosmic
aspect than its anthropological significance; a realisation which may help
one appreciate its role in the story in question.
But then again on the other hand if the
story comes across as sadistic in
its approach, it is probably because it is the product of equally sadistic
and untenable social conditions. And anyway what is writing that does
not seek to transcend the natural and social order? As a writer I would
like to think that meaning comes out of testing and pushing the limits
as a means of feeling out the limits of my times and mind. If I can not
spread my mental arms out to the point where I feel the social limits,
then there is no point writing; no meaning to anything. And how do you
begin to have faith in your infinite dimensions as a being if you’ve
never
dared spread the wings of your mind simply because they stretch
beyond your social or mental cage? Such questions may explain why
the Marquis de Sade would mean a lot more for Zimbabwean right now than
say.. Cinderella.
Regards Brian X
PS: To add a little more about violence:
historically and otherwise,
resort to violence has always had the social ability to turn one from being
object to subject. That is why I believe that in these trying times in
Zimbabwe, if Jesus was to find himself somewhere in violence torn Gokwe,
even he and his horde of impressionable fishermen would be wielding sticks
and machetes much to the glee of God above. And it wouldn’t be because
they delight in gory activities, but because even they in their blokish ignorance
would have instinctively realised the danger of being turned into helpless
objects by their violent environment. It’s a social reality that exposes
the naivety of principles like pacificism and the foolishness of dreaming
of another social order without first deconstructing the human being.
{Brian, Thanks for your response. Interested
readers may purchase PROXY
LIBERTY (A FEW GOOD NIGGERS) by Brian X for $200 direct from Z Arts z-arts@graffiti.net
or at the BookCafe Book Shop}
___________________________________________________________