Abstract In this article, I explore the following relationships: the relationship between Dambudzo Marechera and Rhodesia/whiteness, Dambudzo Marechera and Zimbabwe, Dambudzo Marechera and Flora Veit-Wild, Zimbabwe and Europe/Britain, and the relationship between Zimbabwean critics and Flora Veit-Wild. These relationships are all examples of the complex conditions that shaped Marechera’s writings and their reception, and Veit-Wild’s writings (about Marechera) and their reception among Zimbabwean and African readers. Using these relationships, I want to propose a reading of Marechera and Veit-Wild’s works, together with a reading of their critics’ responses, informed by the concept of mistrust. I argue that the mistrust stems from Africa/Zimbabwe’s colonial relationship with Europe/Britain, a coloniality that continued even after independence. Thereafter, the good that Europe could bring to Africa, or Britain to Zimbabwe, or Veit-Wild to Marechera began to be regarded with suspicion and mistrust because (post)colonial relations were [still] predominantly meant to benefit the coloniser. Marechera’s writings are fraught with that kind of mistrust. However, Marechera takes the mistrust further and is suspicious of the vision of Zimbabwe that he believes is anchored on an elitist foundation, itself a product of a vanguard that had become ‘white.’ Marechera’s readers suspect him of being European because of his ‘European’ style of writing and perceived lack of commitment to the African/Zimbabwean cause. In the same vein, the readers are suspicious of Marechera’s relationship with Veit-Wild and suspect her of gaining, just as a colonialist, from her relationship with Marechera. Utilising Marechera’s writings and interviews, Veit-Wild’s They Called You Dambudzo and critical works on these writings, I argue that reading Zimbabwe, Marechera and Veit-Wild is like reading three biographies of mistrust.
Read full abstract