A critic is the man who knows the way but can't drive the car, says one Kenneth Tynan. Another man named Dale Carnegie quips over the same issue, saying any fool can criticise, condemn and complain - and most fools do. I would like to know the profession of these gentle human beings, but anyway what is important is the appearance of truth in both statements. I think it is easier to criticise than actually get things done. Based on these two statements, in what perspective are we to evaluate the critic? This isn't suppose to be a simple rhetorical question, but I doubt if I can successfully provide an answer, hence I shall offer mixed thought in this first part, as I begin to tackle what seems to be like giving the critic the bird.

Myself as a quintessential character, I don't think I can manage a school talk less of a country as big as Nigeria. Yet I can easily identify all that is wrong in a certain government. Perhaps the oddity and absurdity of my own case is not the criticism itself, but if I dare profess or masquerade that I can preside over a country. Is this what they call hypocrisy? I believe the critic should first remove the plank in own eyes before dwelling on removing the speck of dust from the government's eyes. The former must break heavy chain of darkness, which threatens to strangle fertility everywhere in our land while the latter must be in the realm of fertile imagination on the idea of national cure. Is it as simple as I project?

Criticism is as old as the goverment itself, and as governments abuse the office so do critics. Neither can be substantially wiped out. A genuine critic, in my opinion, should serve as a bridge between the government and the governed in an effort to analyse, appraise and attack. Because of the sensitive nature of the critic's position, she should not use it for favour or whitemail, otherwise she finds herself in God's wooden or the wrath of Mortal beings.

Two types of critics are on my mind. There are those portraying themselves as visionary schemes for solution. They are the prophets who know the beginning and the end. They are almost close to God Himself. They know everything and it shows in their thinking. Some of them might be angry citizens whom society had deprived of certain success, and therefore turned their anger - in form of criticism - as revenge. And most of them are vulnerable to being recruited for the purpose of causing pandemonium. They are likely to preach "a war of attrition" while they live comfortably in their new fatherland - America or wherever. They  are physiologically and ardently devoted to their adopted mothers at the expense of their poor mama whom they wish excruciating death.

Whereas digging up some hair-raising facts about these lads shouting war, we would be surprised at their cowardice, meaning they could be as timid as a rabbit. These baby rabbits are likely to be the first to pick race at the sound of bullets. These puppy critics are mainly interested in being controversial and nothing more. Their primary point of leverage has been to cause confusion, and they seem to enjoy evey moment especially  when readers follow them dogmatically. Or what is the difference between the critic whose chewing word is destruction and those being accused of destroying our land? I can even understand a tone of anger or sadness, but if the critic's mission or innate talent is to destroy, then call me not a critic.

There are innocent critics. They are simply disturbed because of the unnecessary suffering that pervades their land of birth. These are critics who know they have no answers to all the problems. They are just contributing to the development of their land - in their own little way. They are aware of their own inconsistencies or errors. They know to err is human. They shy away from hypocritical writings (coffin of any critic). They write with compassion and truth in its wholeness, harmony and radiant form. Even readers see the lapses in their writings as innocent mistake rather than attribute it to hypocritical or violent mind. The critic in this category would never mask under objectivity to indulge in acts of subjectivity.

As a result, instead of looking for objectivity only, readers should probe deeper to be sure of the critic's intent. Is she being sponsored or using the forum to solicit contracts or whitemail for a ransom? Does she possess a marvellous imagination or just trying to be like a professor, who has intellectual capacity to turn false into truth? What is she howling for? For we have witnessed critics - giant critics indeed - serving under the government they  criticised.

Late Dr. Tai Solarin and Prof. Wole Soyinka easily come to mind, and probably fit Kenneth tynan quote on a critic. The former was a formidable social critic especially in his Sunday Tribune column, State of the Nation. He piloted the affairs of Nigeria in words, and did it meticulously. His column was a must read for both government and citizens because of the frankness he projected in his imagination. Then he was called upon and agreed to chair the People's Bank, but could not achieve as much as if he were to write about the bank. He eventually resigned probably realising the sharp difference between knowing the way and knowing how to drive.

The Noble laureate also suffered similoar fate. He was offered an appointment by the same government to head the then Road Safety Corps (I still wonder the connection between such office and literature) but resigned without really achieving much, unlike if he were to lecture or provide erudite work on the project. He too credibly realised  the distinct flavour between conceptual theory and practical implementation. Wise and full of knowledge, the two incorruptible souls could not withstand the truth and vigorous practical experience of governance. Or they were not given the chance to prove their mettle.

For me, their experience is a test case: that those who criticise others often are not perfect, either. And there is a lesson to be learnt. When a critic has reached the two's stature, it is advisable not to accept any offer from the government - Nigerian government I should say. My assumption is that such offer would never be in good faith. It would always be to tarnish or destroy such a critic's reputation. Alhaji Lateef Jakande, former Lagos State governor who late served under that lunatic, is in the position to attest to this. Chief Ebenezer Babatope, a die-hard Awoist, can also relate to this experience. These eminent critics cum politicians are typical example of supposed democrats serving under undemocractic government.

Perhaps the critic's mind that usually accepts to participate in any government is a symbol of experience, older so her mental and spiritual point of view has entirely changed, thus showing the two contrary states of the critic's sould. The question is whether such contrary is inevitable. William Blake, an English poet, provides the answer in this way - I know of none better: "Without contraries is no progression," he says. "Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence..."

Robot  Villager

# 1 A critic is the man who knows the way but can't drive the car, says one Kenneth Tynan. Another man named Dale Carnegie quips over the same issue, saying any fool can criticise, condemn and complain - and most fools do. I would like to know the profession of these gentle human beings, but anyway w...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 07.12.2005 16:22