kagablog

In his article “Copy rites and wrongs” published in the Mail & Guardian of 26 September 2008 Stephen Gray takes it upon himself to “pass judgement” upon “a local literary icon” Zakes Mda who is found guilty by Gray of “the most spectacular instance of (crossing) the fine line between creativity and cribbing in South African literature”.

The 1375 word article is an irresponsible hatchet job with many factual inaccuracies as well as some low-grade petty bitchiness about incorrect tense changes and split infinitives - the kind of tetchy criticism one would expect from a provincial schoolmaster in the colonial period when it was still-fashionable for so-called white folks to speak with those risible accents that emulated “the Queen’s English” in such toe-curling fashion.

Well and good, Stephen Gray is entitled to his opinions but the real question that arises is why has the Mail & Guardian decided to publish this exercise in vitriol? It was in July of this year that The Weekender broke the story (on its front page nogal) of Andrew Offenburger’s essay purporting to “out” Zakes Mda’s supposed purloining of Professor Jeff Peires’ original research for his book The Dead Will Arise for use in Zakes’ multi-award winning novel The Heart of Redness.

On July 21 Ben Williams’ excellent book.co.za website took the story further and on 22 July he published both Zakes Mda’s response to the allegations of plagiarism as well as, importantly, Jeff Peires’ dismayed reaction to the charges levelled against his friend and colleague Professor Zakes Mda. A reading of both of these documents puts the allegations into perspective. Storm in a teacup. Andrew Offenburger was clearly hoping to build an academic reputation over the back of a globally respected man of letters (not merely a “locally” respected icon).

Why then has the Mail & Guardian seen fit to rake up the coals two months later? Has any new material come to light? No. Is there new evidence that should be taken into consideration? No. In fact Stephen Gray has used the Offenburger allegations as an opportunity to deliver a salvo of ad hominem shots to Zakes Mda in a poisonous diatribe that includes the notions of “fakes and phoneys”, “con audiences” and “scam artist” all used in connection with Zakes.

Gray takes parsimonious umbrage at Mda being described on his book sleeves as “the internationally acclaimed playwright, novelist, painter and academic”. “..without a qualm..” as Gray puts it. But it’s all true. Why should Zakes have qualms about describing himself thus? Even if it was he who described himself so. And it probably wasn’t, that is how his publishers describe him, how the media describe him.

Gray’s article puts not one shred of new evidence onto the cutting block. It isn’t an autopsy leading to significant new results. It’s simply a cut, paste and slice-job of what readers of The Weekender and Book.co.za already know. With one grievous distinction. Gray entirely disregards Jeff Peires’ rejection of the plagiarism charges.

Gray writes “Being generous-spirited, and not inclined to elevate his own reputation by joining any mudslinging, he has decided not to pursue the matter.” This sentence disingenuously tries to refocus Peires’ outright rejection of the charges as if he was merely doing so in order not to make a fuss. This is a sentence reminiscent of the famous “prima facie” case against Zuma which found him guilty without having to take him to court.

Stephen Gray, the author of Hottentot Venus, has revealed himself to be an odiously mean-spirited literary mudslinger. By publishing “Copy rites and wrongs” the Mail & Guardian have done Professor Zakes Mda a great wrong. Apologies are in order to set things right.

Aryan Kaganof

see also book.co.za