Alain Mabanckou already knows most of what’s wrong with his book. After a hundred and twenty odd pages of his desultory jabbering he lays out, nice and clean:
“I’d write down words as they came to me, I’d begin awkwardly and I’d finish as awkwardly as I’d begun, and to hell with pure reason, and method, and phonetics, and prose, and in this shit-poor language of mine things would seem clear in my head but come out wrong, and the words to say it wouldn’t come easy, so it would be a choice between writing or life, that’s right , and what I really want people to say when they read me is ‘what’s this jumble, this mess, this muddle, this mish-mash of barbarities, this empire of signs, this chit-chat, this descent to the dregs of belles-lettres, what’s with this barnyard prattle, is this stuff for real, and where does it start, and where the hell does it end?’”
To this Mabanckou astutely addends a well predicted complaint about his complete avoidance of full stop punctuation and other standard structuring tools. In a book full of convenient page breaks and awkward run-ons where full stops should have been, his avoidance of conventional punctuation feels totally forced and unsuccessful; he lacks the grammar and flourish to pull it off.
Since I let him begin his indictment, I’ll let him begin his defense:
‘this jumble of words is life, come on, come into my lair, check out the rotting garbage, here’s my take on life, your fiction’s no more than the output of old has-beens designed to comfort other old has-beens, and until the day your characters start to see how the rest of us earn our nightly crust, there’ll be no such thing as literature, only intellectual masturbation, with you all rubbing up against each other like donkeys”
Great. Are we done? I’m done. I can’t handle quoting him anymore. I’d just start compiling his ham-fisted and incessant literary “references” with which he woefully oversalts this narrative and then lining up a few gross-out passages full of poop or quarrelling just to make it clear how generally unpleasant the whole environment of this book manages to be.
Now, I’ve read the bulk of what he’s referencing. I’ve enjoyed works that swirl around confusing, failed autistic drunks (Becket); I’ve enjoyed the avoidance of punctuation in favor of punishing, psychosis-conjuring onslaughts of strange (Bernhard); and I’ve enjoyed the literature of the African ghetto: Ben Okri, Dambudzo Marechera, Ayi Kwei Armah—even the less well crafted, streetier efforts by whoever wrote “Going Down River Road” and some of the Heinemann African series stock and trade (to say nothing of the “Palm Wine Drinkard,” which was lovely in its over-ripe and fantastical, oral-tradition of story-telling conventionlessness). But Mabanckou doesn’t belong amongst these craftsmen, these story-tellers or these punters. He lacks the vision, the technique, the patience or the purpose. When he drops a reference (or twenty in a row), it is as if he is just going through a list of famous book titles and figuring out the quickest, easiest way to refer to them before crossing them from his list—sort of like Joyce figuring out how to include the name of every river in the world into “Finnegans Wake,” only Mabanckou’s references aren’t embedded bones deep in his language while evoking meticulously choreographed and dynamic themes.
I don't think Mabanckou tried hard enough; the book was too angry, too uninvested and too self-assured. "Broken Glass" seeks-shelter and validity in its references, only to sprawl around on the floor, throwing feces and trying to be shocking. It has nothing to do with “how the rest of us earn our nightly crust”. This book is not informed by social justice or the working poor and it fails to underscore the superficiality of the cultures which it wishes to charm by slightly offending (while paying constant obeisance via cultural reference).
Yes, I grant you, that somebody who has never set foot in Africa may finish this book with a small and somewhat authentic vision of what it can be like in certain places—of the local bar culture and its satellites; of how some folks quarrel and what a rant might sound like in Doula. But if that was its goal, the book got derailed at some point and becames something more scattered and less revealing, something frail and sorry.
I’ll read something else by Mabanckou, just to be sure. But if it is also hastily constructed of referential scaffolding and muck, it’ll be the last.
And now, lastly and with a charitable heart, I have to rank Mabanckou well ahead of the heavy-handed moralists and state-sponsored, legend-regurgitating recidivists that fall seamlessly into heavy-rotation in African lit classes and high school syllabi. Go ahead and read him before you read another nationalist/symbolist piece of mindrot. Definitely, some young people might like him.