Reterritorialising the CaribbeanMarching alongside Earl Lovelace

Resumo

This study revolves around the figure of Caribbean writer Earl Lovelace. The thesis demonstrates that the current emphasis on the deterritorialisation of the Caribbean region and focus on transnationalism has meant that cultural products produced within its geographical boundaries are sidelined in favour of what is produced beyond them. The study vindicates the relevance of the narratives produced by Trinidad-based writer, Earl Lovelace, as it argues that these offer a perspective which is either absent or less promoted in the postcolonial literary field. In the first chapter, “Arts and Politics in the Caribbean”, the relevance and power of writing as well as the centrality and paramount role of writers in their societies, and particularly in the Caribbean context, is foregrounded. The idea that art is devoid of sociopolitical effect and that the writer or any artist cannot strive for social change is rejected; instead, the figure of the writer as an intellectual is defended as one of the main actors with the responsibility to offer alternatives to the dominant narratives and in so doing contribute to the advancement of his or her society. Importantly, the necessarily collective dimension of social struggles, a crucial aspect that recurs throughout this dissertation, is here introduced. This first chapter explores the contribution of some of the most relevant West Indian intellectuals who have aimed, with their works, at bringing unrepresented issues and peoples to the surface, thus contributing to the transformation of Caribbean society. A crucial aspect in this transformative task has been seeing the diverse nature of the region as a highly enriching feature that allows for the creation of a new future. The figure of the self-defined West Indian ‘cultural worker’ or intellectual, Merle Hodge, is highlighted, as it is argued that the similarities and connections with Earl Lovelace make it impossible to study the latter without making close reference to her work. In fact, Hodge’s fiction and scholarly writings, as well as an interview conducted by the researcher on November 2013, which is included at the end of the dissertation, have been instrumental in the study completion. The second chapter, “Postcolonialism and/in the Caribbean”, is divided into two sections. The first one is devoted to observing the current privileging of postcolonial texts, which accords with received notions such as ‘universality’. At present, only those postcolonial texts which carefully measure their difference are appreciated, so that the only difference encouraged is that which does not cross the line of unfamiliarity and can be easily incorporated into the so called ‘universal’ – Western – norms. The discussion is organised along three main ‘relational factors’ that determine postcolonial texts’ eligibility in the Western literary field: location, topics and language. These three ‘relational factors’ are first analysed in the postcolonial literary field in general and subsequently in the West Indian literary field in particular. The second half of the chapter revolves around the use of theoretical approaches to analyse West Indian literary texts. It argues that even though Western academia holds transnationalism as the most appropriate and encompassing approach to deal with Caribbean literature, its applicability is limited to those writings produced in metropolitan spaces. The focus on transnationalism as the most appropriate approach to analyse postcolonial texts is questioned, as it inadvertently privileges routed over rooted cultural products. As a consequence, the Caribbean is seen as the deterritorialised culture par excellence, the social importance of national literatures is devalued and non-diasporic West Indian authors are sidelined. Instead, in this dissertation a national approach, currently on the wane, is vindicated, particularly for peripheral nations. Nationalism, not understood as a static and purist notion but instead as one that is inclusionary and fluid, is defended as an approach that attends to the social and political well-being of the citizens of peripheral nations. In fact, due to the transnational nature of the Caribbean region itself, it is possible and most desirable to see the Caribbean as both an intercultural and transcultural space and to recognise that the nation-state is a reality. All in all, it is argued that the use of the two approaches side by side is the most appropriate theoretical frame through which the full range of writings coming from the Caribbean literary field can be analysed. The third chapter, entitled “Earl Lovelace: The One Who Stayed”, revolves around the exceptional figure of Trinidadian writer Earl Lovelace. First of all, the chapter analyses the circumstances that explain why Earl Lovelace has been one of the few West Indian writers to have remained and built a writing career in his home-island. The failure of the majority of postcolonial governments of the region, and in particular the Trinidadian one, to understand the centrality of the arts in the development of the region is pointed at as one of the main reasons which explains the scarcity of West Indian-based writers and artists in general. The lack of institutional support in the promotion and dissemination of culture, together with a history in which the West Indian artist has been criminalised and subsequently non-legitimised, helps explain the connection in the West Indian psyche between being an artist and living abroad – a connection which still holds true in the region. Within these contexts, the different route chosen by Earl Lovelace is analysed through reference to his five novels, While Gods Are Falling (1965), The Schoolmaster (1968), The Dragon Can’t Dance (1979), The Wine of Astonishment (1982), Salt (1996) and Is Just a Movie (2011), his collection of essays Growing in the Dark (2003), and the interview conducted by the researcher on November 2013, which is included at the end of the dissertation. The figure of Trinidadian writer Earl Lovelace serves to reclaim the importance of Caribbean-based writers. Lovelace’s alternative journey distinguishes him from the majority of West Indian writers. To start with, he has made the extremely political choice of staying in Trinidad and has thus rejected the pull towards migrating, which is still a staple for the West Indian artist. However, his choice is not without consequences. As a result, he has been labelled a regional and national writer and his writings have been excluded from the mainstream postcolonial literary field. His decision to stay in the region, together with the fact that his work is not tailored for a Western readership but offers context-based narratives in which Creole language is present are pointed out as the main reasons behind his being sidelined. This thesis foregrounds Lovelace’s writings as an extremely important intervention in the Caribbean, as they prove that the Caribbean nation is also a place where people can build a life. With his life choice and in his writings Lovelace contests the representations which establish the perceived impossibility of residing in the Caribbean and the pervading idea of the region as a non-place populated by non-people who have created nothing – a construct which ultimately contributes to maintaining the region dependant on Western approval and tutelage. Furthermore, Lovelace’s narratives prove that the reality of the national space is complemented by the transnational character of the region. As a Caribbean-based writer, he offers the kind of discourse that transnational approaches claim are limited to texts produced in metropolitan spaces. Thus, Lovelace’s texts demonstrate that the transnational dialogue needs the local and national perspective to be able to offer a complete picture of the Caribbean literary field. Like many other West Indian creative writers, Lovelace has theorised on Caribbean culture and literature. Aware of the historic roots of the ills of the region but optimistic about the possibilities of constructing a new society, he has emphasised that the heterogeneity of the region is its most enriching characteristic and one that allows for the creation of a new future together. Lovelace has argued that the diverse and heterogeneous nature of the region, as its real heritage, not only needs to be valued, but it needs to be seen as a precondition which allows for the creation of a new beginning for the region or a ‘New World’. Importantly, Lovelace’s crucial concept of the ‘New World’ – which, according to the writer, has the Caribbean at its centre –, can only be collectively constructed. Finally, the fourth chapter, entitled “Translating the Caribbean and Earl Lovelace’s Works”, looks back at the collective dimension of social struggles to incorporate the figure of the literary translator. While the Trinidadian author argues that the construction of a ‘New World’ for the region can only be accomplished through the collective involvement of the different communities, this study argues that in order to reverse the trend that sidelines non-diasporic, context-based Caribbean writings which use Creole, a similar collective endeavour is needed. This collective endeavour includes a variety of cultural agents: writers, intellectuals, activists, publishers, critics, scholars and translators alike. Indeed, ethically and politically motivated translations of West Indian literary texts can also participate in the critical network that contributes to the collective dimension of social struggles. Through their artistic renditions of a source text, literary translators can help spread these narratives’ symbolic force. This chapter focuses on the analysis of the use of Trinidadian English Creole as a crucial aspect in the translation of Earl Lovelace. It is argued that the different Creoles of the region which distinguish and enrich West Indian literature demand, first of all, that the translator should be capable of distinguishing and understanding Creole. Translators must recognise that the use of Creole alongside Standard English offers the West Indian writer the option of consciously or unconsciously encoding multiple meanings. Since West Indian texts can contain a level of ambiguity which might escape non-Creole speakers, the translator needs to also be able to distinguish Creole even when this is not orthographically represented. This study contends that the translator of West Indian texts, as its most intimate reader, cannot continue to disregard Creole, because failure to decode opaque areas for non-Creole speakers may produce impoverished translations of West Indian texts. Moreover, it is argued that since any translation of Lovelace’s texts should highlight the cultural and linguistic diversity of the region, translators should resist the pull to standardise the text. Finally, translating Earl Lovelace’s texts into Spanish is highlighted as an action which contributes to the reinforcement of a much needed dialogue between the linguistically-differentiated parts of the Caribbean region, namely the English-speaking and the Spanish-speaking regions, and beyond. As a conclusion, this study seeks to render more visible and accessible the currently less-attended literatures from the postcolonial world. In the case of the Caribbean, it calls for the urgent need for Caribbean-based writers to also receive critical attention, in particular those from the younger generations who started writing after transnational approaches gained momentum, and whose works have been even more sidelined than Lovelace’s. Those younger authors who have neither succumbed to leaving, have not been deemed eligible by mainstream publishing houses, and have been virtually ignored by the Western critical establishment. Yet their narratives, like so many in other postcolonial nations, cannot continue to be ignored. Furthermore, the analysis of the exceptionality of West Indian writer Earl Lovelace serves to exemplify the necessity that postcolonial scholars contribute to reversing the imbalance that privileges routed over rooted narratives in the postcolonial literary field. In this way, with their works postcolonial scholars are seen as marching alongside writers such as Lovelace to change the world for the better.