Modernism in james joyce's ulysses and wole soyinka's the interpreters : a comparative study

Abstract

The purpose of this dissertation is to challenge the orthodox view of Modernism as an art dismissive of politics, history and social commitment and as exclusively oriented towards style, technique and cosmopolitanism. By comparing James Joyce's Ulysses and Wole Soyinka's The Interpreters, we aim at redefining European and African modernism through taking the colonial and postcolonial contexts into account and employing a neo-Marxist critical approach to assess the political implications of the Modernist mode of writing. The first chapter is a review of the traditional and contemporary perspectives on Modernism as a mode of writing and as a worldview. The second chapter deals with the historical, social, cultural and personal backgrounds of James Joyce and Wole Soyinka. In the third chapter, we discuss the form of Joyce's Ulysses. We find that the different innovative techniques in the novel evince a subversive political vision. The fourth chapter studies the content of Joyce's Ulysses. We discuss those aspects of Ulysses that can be read as a diagnosis and critique of the social ills brought to Ireland by British imperialism, capitalism and the Catholic Church. The fifth chapter is concerned with the form of Soyinka's The Interpreters. We contend the salient features of Soyinka's style are motivated by context. We explore Soyinka's language as part of his critique of 'late capitalism' and neo-colonialism in Africa. In the sixth chapter, we analyse the content of The Interpreters. We find that Soyinka is highly concerned with the socio-historical background of post-independence Nigeria, essentially through capturing the state of disillusionment that characterizes his society. In the conclusion, we find that the Modernist mode of writing is quite capable of producing powerful subversive political statements through its form and content, but that this subversion can have its limitations and little political impact as the ordinary reader is not equipped to appreciate it and as the two writers fail to suggest alternatives to the order they undermine.