The Comic Spirit in Ola Rotimi‟s The Gods Are Not to Blame…€¦ · · 2017-02-10The Comic Spirit in Ola Rotimi‟s The Gods Are Not to Blame: A ... The study takes a cursory

A Journal of Theatre & Media Studies Vol. 1. No. 2, April, 2016

58

The Comic Spirit in Ola Rotimi‟s The Gods Are

Not to Blame: A Critical Survey

Edward Egbo Imo Department of Theatre and Film Studies

University of Port Harcourt

[email protected], 08037321863,

07018198952

Abstract

The study takes a cursory look at the comic devices deployed by Ola

Rotimi in driving home the tragic vision in The gods Are not to Blame.

The thrust of the paper is to unveil the uniqueness of Rotimi‟s dramatic

techniques whereby he infuses a reasonable dose of comic devices in

his serious and tragic masterpiece-The gods Are not to Blame.

Drawing from the infusion of such comic devices as humour, pun,

insanity, wits, farcical characterization, mechanical rigidity,

misunderstood motives and intrigues, the paper brandishes Rotimi as a

contemporary Nigerian playwright whose dramaturgical canvass

accommodates the mixed form just as we find in the works of his

Western contemporaries as epitomized in William Shakespeare. The

study adopts the literary methodology and qualitative approach to

research as it relied on the play text of The gods Are not to Blame as

primary source of data collection while the method of the analysis is

largely phenomenological based on the Researcher‟s analytical point

of view. The fundamental finding of this study is that Rotimi is one of

the few Nigerian playwrights whose creative vision and dramatic

experiments are flexible enough to accommodate the mixed form. The

study therefore beckons on budding playwrights to disentangle

themselves from stereotypes and playwriting rules that limit their

creative ingenuity and embrace the romantic spirit that encourages

freedom of creative expression. The recommendation is an offshoot of

the researcher‟s position that playwriting is, fundamentally, a product

of inspiration and inspiration, in turn, functions maximally in an

atmosphere devoid of rules and restrictions.

Keywords: Comedy, Tragedy, Genre and Survey

mailto:[email protected],%2008037321863


59

Introduction

Since the inception of theatre in the classical Greece of the 5th

Century

B.C to the gladiatorial theatrical tradition of the Roman theatre down

into the Middle Ages and the Renaissance era, drama has always

manifested itself in two broad genres namely; Tragedy and comedy. In

their commonest definitions, tragedy refers to dramatic genres that are

heavy in tonality ,treat serious issues such as the death or misfortune of

the hero who often times is of noble birth while comedy applies to

dramatic forms that are expressed in light and fast tones, treats

domestic issues such as love, marriages with hilarious characters that

deviate from societal norms in their strive for societal relevance.

History has it that the Renaissance era, amidst its clamour for the

humanist perspective to ultimate realty, brought about some

proliferation of sub-genres within the two major genres of tragedy and

comedy. But with the Elizabethan and Modern periods came the rise of

the mixed forms as evident in melodrama, tragi-comedy, satire and so

on. Today, modern playwrights are at liberty to experiment their

creative impulse in various dramatic forms whether tragedy or comedy

or a mixture of both. Driven by this poetic license, as a result of the

triumph of the romantic spirit of creative liberty over the dogmatic

principles of Classicism, playwrights resorted to the fusion of comic

situations and incidents in a supposed serious play or the introduction

of serious dramatic atmosphere in a supposed comic piece. The

consistency in this eclectic experiment has brought about a multiplicity

of dramatic sub-genres which gain their root from either tragedy or

comedy. Today, it has become possible for theatre analysts, reviewers

and critics to classify a piece of drama as either “Serious Comedy” or

“Dark Comedy” or “Dark Humour” when such a dramatic piece

express life threatening issues in a crude humorous style just as we find

in Theatre of the Absurd. On the other hand, it is common amongst

theatre theorists and critics to label a piece of drama as melodrama

even when the drama involves the death of some characters including

the hero(es) of the play just as we find in Zulu Sofola‟s Wedlock of the

Gods.

The thirst, quest and consequently, the patronage for the mixed form by

contemporary playwrights have occasioned some form of skepticism in

the strict compliance to the Aristotelian concept of tragedy which

insists on the use of sublime language in its completeness with high


60

level of actions that would ultimately lead to the downfall and possible

destruction of the hero due to a flaw in his dispositions.

This paper therefore examines the comic content in Rotimi‟s The Gods

Are Not to Blame with the aim of investigating whether the infusion of

comic relief in such a tragic masterpiece downplays or facilitates the

intended tragic vision of the playwright. It attempts a critical survey of

Rotimi‟s deliberate and intermittent infusion of comic relief through the

machinery of contrived plot, humour (euphemism, circumlocution,

verbosity, non-sequitur, repetition), metaphors, intrigues and farcical

and hilarious characterization.

The Comic Spirit: A Conceptual Statement

Research in the past and even the present reveal that of the two broad

generic classifications of drama i.e tragedy and comedy, the latter poses

more difficulty to be defined. This is largely because comedy has had

such a complex theatrical history, passing through so many forms and

styles, or perhaps because the comic spirit, as it exists within the

individual human being, is itself so complex so as to resist definition.

Pickering observes that one of the factors militating against scholarly

attempts at defining comedy is the lure to explore such side issues as

the psychological and even the physiological basis of laughter. He

therefore, opines that “the best place to begin an examination of

dramatic comedy is not with specifics but with generalities-with the

comic spirit” (51). Pickering‟s concern here is to reinforce the

argument that comedy transcends the risible even though laughter is the

yardstick by which we usually measure comic success. According to

him:

For most audiences and critics alike, the most

successful comedies are those that get the most laughs.

However, laughter is not restricted to comedy but is

also an end product of various emotions and physical

situations that have little or nothing to do with

dramatic, artistically created comedy. Laughter may be

the result of certain types of physical stimulation, such

as tickling, or of too many martinis, or of hysteria, or

of an attempt to cover up either embarrassment or an

excessive emotional reaction. In many cases, people

choose to laugh because they are too ashamed

or embarrassed to cry. (52)


61

In Pickering‟s analogy, what is at the heart of the comic spirit is an

emphasis on life as it lived, day by day and even hour by hour.

Similarly, Wright notes that the very heart of comedy lies in man‟s

recognition of how far his fellow man has fallen from the ideal. From

Wright‟s thesis, comedy is often measured by the sharpness of our

perception in recognizing those differences between what man is and

what he pretends to be. “Comedy is the sworn enemy of hypocrisy and

pretense…it is God‟s gift to disaffect the world of pomposity” (Wright,

49). Wright acknowledges the fact that comedy is the most

miscellaneous of all the dramatic forms and the most difficult to define.

He traces this difficulty partially to man‟s characteristic oversight and

negligence of the comic genre. He observes that no one would question

that comedy is one of the most popular of all types, being challenged

only by farce. “If man wants escape he can usually find it through

laughter , and too often he cares not how it is provoked”.(Wright,55)

He goes further to draw up some basic tests for comedy having

surveyed the best comedies in twenty-five hundred years of theatre

history and experience. His thesis reveals that across the ages, comedy:

Treats its subjects in a lighter vein even though the

subject may be a serious one; provokes what can be

defined as “thoughtful laughter”; is both possible and

probable; Grows out of character rather than

situation; Is honest in its portrayal of life (55).

Interestingly also, such prominent psycho analytical theorist as

Sigmund Freud and his followers believe that comedy allows us to

release tension and deal with the dangers and stresses in the world.

Esslin amplifies Freud‟s thesis on laughter in his book An Anatomy of

Drama when he notes that:

Freud, another important writer on the nature of

laughter, thought that laughter was caused by the

relief of anxiety: what shakes us when we laugh is

the nervous energy released when we realize that the

misfortune we saw coming does not directly affect

us, that we are free from it‟s consequences (72).

For Seyler and Haggard, comedy is simply a point of view. It is a

comment on life from outside, an observation on human nature. One

would seem to agree with Seyler and Haggard when we observe that an

emotional acting of a serious part involves absorption in the character


62

i.e identification with it, losing one‟s self in another‟s but on the other

hand, comedy seems to be the standing outside a character or situation

and pointing out one‟s delight in certain aspects of it. It is for the

forgoing that comedy:

…demands the co-operation of another mind on

which this observation is to be made-the audience,

and is in essence the same as recounting a good story

over the dinning table-table. It must have direct

contact with the person to whom it is addressed, be it

one‟s friend over the port or one‟s friends in the stalls

and pit (Seyler and Haggard 9).

Establishing a direct contact with an audience in Seyler and Haggard‟s

opinion refers to some kind of subtle psychological bond i.e the

subconscious acknowledgement that the intention of one‟s job as

comedian is to point out some thing to an audience, and that the

audience‟s reaction to this makes up an integral part of the comedian‟s

job. The deduction to make from the above is that all degrees of

comedy have in common the “subtle psychological bond” by which

you say one establishes contact with one‟s audience.

Altshuler and Janaro‟s thesis would be of immediate relevance here.

For them, the value of one‟s critical awareness whether theatrical

comedy works or not is to enlarge the sphere of one‟s potential laugh.

In their opinion, the consumer of serious comedy such as those of

Shaw finds pleasure in what has been called “laughter of the mind”

while the popcorn eater is likely to persist in the delusion that comedy

has no intellectual aspects and is off limits to the highbrow (205). It

suffices to state that the immediate effect of the comic in the theatre is

to make us feel better about things. Unarguably, the experience of

being in the theatre with others, laughing with them, creates an

undeniable sense of high spirits. In the process, personal problems tend

to be less pressing than they might the next morning. However,

Altshuler and Janaro are skeptical about the ephemeral nature of comic

happiness:

To run to comedy as a means of “forgetting” is to ask

for a false happiness that resembles intoxication-fun

for a while but pain when it wears off. Each time one

returns from a laughing holiday one is likely to find


63

his personal problems seeming a little bit worse…

(205).

Furthermore, Altshuler and Janaro view incongruity as the essence of

the comic. For them, the basic function of all good comedies is to give

us a fresh perspective by making us, at least saner, for the time being.

Their position must have been informed by Bergson‟s analogy in his

masterpiece, Laughter where he states that we always laugh at either

the incongruous or the irrational. From the clown that slips on the

banana peel to the subtlest form of verbal wit, comedy offers something

that violates our reason. It turns the world topsy-turvy for the moment

and in so doing, shocks us. “The tension we experience from this shock

finds its release in laughter. Laughing is the victory of reason over

unreason” (Bergson cited in Altshuler and Janaro, 206).

Upon a critical examination of both the corroborative and divergent

scholarly opinions on the concept of comedy, one observes that it is

practically possible for comedy to evoke laughter without being

pointedly satiric and even satire must contain ingredients other than

criticism. It is stating the obvious that the comedies that have filtered

through the years are characteristically and structurally couched on

funny premises. The implication is that the very idea which is central to

the plot represents a fundamental incongruity.

Tragedy and Comedy as Complimentary and yet Distinctive Terms Across the ages and among theatre theorists, there has been a great deal

of difficulty in trying to disentangle tragedy from comedy or vise versa.

This is largely because both dramatic forms find their roots from the

same source of human experience. Esslin notes that the several attempts

by respective scholars to speculate and philosophize the disparities

between tragedy and comedy has tremendous influence on the actual

practice of playwriting, acting and production in general (67). Esslin

argues that there is no generally accepted and acceptable definition of

both dramatic genres and that the simplest definition which many

theoreticians discharge as simple-minded is the one that defines tragedy

as a play with a sad ending and comedy as play with a happy ending.

However, one of the ways to distinguish the two forms is to examine

their areas of focus, or what they tend to depict. Tragedy is concerned

primarily with the individual, while comedy is concerned with society

as a whole (Grawe, 6) .This underscores the fact that tragedy focuses

on death while comedy focuses on life. The individual, must of


64

necessity, die, but society continues to procreate and to live on

generation after generation. Grawe makes an interesting comparison

between tragedy and comedy in terms of their structure and purposes:

…tragedy asserts humanity‟s moral dimension, often

going on to assert that a person‟s morality may make

it impossible for him to keep living. Tragedy

repeatedly asserts that there are situations in which

humanity‟s “higher nature” forces us to take action,

even when such action must end in our own demise

(16).

On the other hand, Grawe attempts a description of the role and

purpose of comedy, thus:

Comedy‟s basic message is that the human race will

survive, that it is destined to carry on… comedy as

seen from a formal perspective is the representation

of life patterned to demonstrate or to assert a faith in

human survival ,often including or emphasizing how

that survival is possible or under what conditions

that survival takes place(17).

It is largely on Grawe‟s premise that comedy enjoys so much

popularity. Life and survival are messages that people want to hear, and

judging by the success of comedies during serious and deadly times,

such as the great depression and World War 11, perhaps it is something

that we need to hear..

Upon a more critical look at the two most outstanding dramatic genres

(tragedy and comedy), one realizes that they are intertwined and

interwoven to the point that the existence of one is largely determined

by the existence of the other. For instance, tragedy, on one hand, deals

with the individual, but, at the same time, it is universal, and on the

other hand, comedy broadly deals with all of society, but is more

specific to its time and place. Comedy has the power to show us truth

and in this power lies comedy‟s incongruity essence. Merchant informs

that the entanglement between tragedy and comedy as dramatic forms

dates back to their earliest days. He goes on to describe several

examples of the comic in the context of tragedies of E, Aeschylus, and

Sophocles showing how closely the two forms have always been

related (16).Even the very basis of tragedy has been described in terms

that are very similar to the way we defined comedy ab initio. Northrop


65

Frye notes that “…the incongruous and the inevitable…are combined

in tragedy (42).

As revealed above, tragedy and comedy are distinctive in

approach, form and content. However, there is a complimentary

disposition that has led to an emergent sub-genre under the

umbrella of tragic-comedy which has grown so popular in

contemporary literary parlance. It is this mixed form genre that this

study sets out to examine.

Synopsis of The gods Are Not to Blame

The story of The Gods Are Not to Blame bothers on fate and

predestination. As an adaptation of Sophocles‟ classical tragic

masterpiece, Oedipus Rex, it unveils the story of Odewale, who, in a

bid to runaway from the oracular pronouncement that he would kill his

father and marry his mother, gets entangled in the same tragic web.

Upon his birth into the household of King Adetusa, the King of Kutuje,

the oracle, through the mouth of Baba Fakunle, pronounces that baby

Odewale has to be killed in order to avert the tragedy that he has

brought into this world from the gods. As it is the custom, the priest of

Ogun prepares the baby for the ritual murder and hands him over to

Gbonka, the King‟s most trusted messenger to oversee the final

execution at the evil groove. On his part, Gbonka, overwhelmed by the

milk of human kindness and compassion, spares the life of the baby and

entrusts the baby into the custody of Ogundele, a hunter from Ijekun

Yemoja that strays into Ipetu bush.

Years after, Odewale grows into a vibrant and hardworking farmer and

warrior from the court of Ogundele and in an attempt to assert his full

independence and self determination, he embarks on a journey where

he encounters two rival communities at war (Kutuje and Ikolu) and he

lends a helping hand to the people of Kutuje and together they defeat

the people of Ikolu. In excitement, the people of Kutuje, break their

tradition and make Odewale, a supposed stranger, king. However, the

tragic twist sets in as the people of Kutuje are thrown into plague,

famine and drought all at once and in their quest to know the reason for

their suffering, the oracle reveals that the murderer of their late king

resides in the palace with them. From this moment, Odewale gets

agitated and pronounces series of severe punishments for the “would

be” murderer of the king. After series of traces and revelations

especially from Alaka and Gbonka respectively, it dawns on Odewale


66

that he is the murderer that he seeks and in a bid to keep to his kingly

pronouncements, he disgorges his eyes and embarks on a journey into

oblivion alongside his four children-products of his union with his

mother, Queen Ojuola, who equally commits suicide.

The Comic Spirit in The gods Are Not to Blame

It has been established earlier in this study that whereas Rotimi‟s The

Gods Are Not to Blame is an archetypal tragedy, it also embodies an

intermingling of a reasonable dose of comic devices as made manifest

in humour, wit, sarcasm, misunderstood motives, pretentiousness,

madness, mechanical rigidity, pomp and pageantry and so on.

However, for purposes of clarity and precision, the comic spirit in the

play would be examined along the broad elements of contrived plot,

humorous/witty language and stereotyped, hilarious, pretentious and

psychopathic characters.

(i) Comedy Arising from Contrived Plot: The comic spirit in

The Gods Are Not to Blame is conveyed largely through the

use of contrived plot which, in turn, yields series of comic

situations. In the prologue, Odewale bemoans the tragedy

ravaging the land of Kutuje as a result of famine, drought and

plague. In course of his lamentation, he recounts how he was

made king. Rather than allow Odewale to mention it in

passing and continue with his tragic narration, the playwright

deliberately catapults us to the glorious and hilarious past

when Odewale was crowned amidst singing, drumming,

dancing and merriment. As Rotimi puts it “(CHIEFS come

forward and invest ODEWALE in royal robes and crown

while the TOWNSPEOPLE dance round him, paying

homage…Heavy bata drumming bursts forth, and ROYAL

BARD dances off to the rhythm of kutelu) (Rotimi,7) The

playwright‟s invocation of this atmosphere of merriment,

celebration and pomp and pageantry amidst Odewale‟s

pathetic narration in the presence of his hungry, sick and dying

subjects, is geared towards dissuading the audience from

getting too attached to the tragic feeling which would arise

from the narration.

After the comic relief occasioned by the coronation revelry, the tragic

tonality comes back more alive as the people of Kutuje herald the

palace amidst sprawling, vomiting, lamentation, despair,


67

disillusionment and anguish. The height of their sorrow and suffering

accelerates to the point that the people of Kutuje drop their traditional

courtesy and reverence for their king by refusing to notice his presence

and greet him in a way befitting of a king. Even when the chiefs try to

prod them to greet the king, First Citizen is quick to wave it off saying

„…What use are greetings to a dying body? (Rotimi,9) The response

from the citizens above best captures the depth of psychological trauma

that the pestilence, epidemic, famine and drought in the land of Kutuje

have inflicted on the citizens. Amidst this melancholic atmosphere,

Rotimi introduces yet another hilarious moment by announcing the safe

arrival of Aderopo from Ile-Ife where he had gone to consult the gods

so as to know the root cause of their suffering. Upon the reception of

Aderopo‟s arrival, the people of Kutuje jump out of their bereavement

and cheer up with an air of optimism even without seeing or hearing

any good news from Aderopo. This sudden transition from the mood of

bereavement to that of joy and excitement even without confirming the

content of Aderopo‟s message from the gods is one of Rotimi‟s

numerous techniques aimed at occasioning the comic spirit in the play.

The comic spirit drawn from Aderopo‟s arrival lingers as the people of

Kutuje begin to listen to Odewale as he admonishes them to go about

their struggles with gladness. The playwright portrays the villager‟s

optimism, thus:

TOWNSPEOPLE (Inspired, beginning to disperse). We

shall go!

Long may your highness live!

We thank you, our lord!

May your reign be blessed!

Long may the crown rest on your head!

And the royal shoes on your feet! (Rotimi,

15)

The passage above strikes an ironic note when viewed against the

background that it is the same group of villagers who had earlier

questioned the import of greeting the king that now praise him to high

heavens.

The playwright tries to sustain the comic tempo by planting a

psychopath, Iya Aburo who refuses to exit with the towns people

because she seems to have breached communication with humanity. On

seeing her standing aloof in the palace, Odewale beckons on Iya Aburo,


68

thus; “…Sister, I hope it is nothing” In response, she kneels

deferentially as she coos: “ He will come, your highness. I …I told him,

the gods bear me witness…I told him and he said he was coming too.

(Rotimi, 15) The use of disconnected dialogue characteristic of

absurdist plays facilitates the comic spirit as we see some form of

linguistic ambiguity. Iya Aburo‟s response and trail of thought quickly

brandishes her as an insane person and so Odewale orders his guard,

Labata to take the baby from her. The comic spirit again is sustained as

Iya Aburo gladly hands over the baby to Labata saying “…carry her

well…she must live…to eat yams in small small bathrooms (Rotimi,

16) She mutters the same words until she backs out of sight, thus

holding forth the comic tempo that has been on since the hilarious exit

of the people of Kutuje.

Another comic scenario woven into the plot of the play is the entrance

of Alaka, Odewale‟s long lost friend and “perceived” tribes man into

the palace. Oblivious of the tragedy that has engulfed Kutuje, Alaka

insists on seeing the King and after series of resistance, he finally

makes his way into the palace boasting of his tribal connection with the

King. He goes ahead to threaten the guards, thus: “…Let the king come

out and you will all know me! Look…all of you…(Rotimi, 41) When

accosted by Abero to know his identity as requested by the King, he

responds, thus: “ …tell him the Farmer wants to see the Scorpion!”

(Rotimi,42) Having responded to Abero‟s question, he turns to

Ojuola‟s direction and reminds her that his calabash is empty meaning

that he wants more wine. And when finally Odewale appears, Alaka

jumps around in joy and excitement as he consistently embraces

Odewale amidst praise singing:

ALAKA; Scorpion! One that must not

be vexed Smooth on the surface

like a woman‟s jewelpoison at the tail.

It is you I greet, (Prostrating himself)

Son of my master the hunter who squats

playfully to kill a lion (Rotimi, 43)

Alaka‟s excitement culminates in a stylized dance movement purported

to be an Ijekun dance step. His warm and cheerful disposition takes

Odewale momentarily from a state of melancholy to that of revelry,

thus dousing the lingering tension in the land of Kutuje. When finally

Alaka gets the drift of Odewale‟s looming tragedy, he absorbs the


69

situation and tries to parry it by injecting subterfuges and intrigues all

aimed at dissuading Odewale from bothering so much about his true

identity. But when he observes that Odewale is unrelenting in his quest

for his true identity, he reveals to Odewale that, contrary to his long

held conception, Ogundele and his wife, Mobike are not his biological

parents. This revelation further complicates Odewale‟s true identity,

thus:

ALAKA: The hunter Ogundele and his wife Mobike…

you think they gave you life? Anyway lets not bring

that up now

ODEWALE; What do you mean?

ALAKA: Never mind.

OJUOLA: They are not his mother and father?

ODEWALE: I am a butterfly then, calling myself a bird.

ALAKA: (getting up to leave). I pray you, my bowels are

heavy, I must go ease

ODEWALE: (pulling him down toughly to his seat again).

What is this joke?

ALAKA: (trying to sound casual). I am glad to see that your

youthful, hot temper is still with you, my brother.

Scorpion…one that must not be…

(ODEWALE hurls ALAKA to the fl;oor, and pins him down.

Genral commotion) (Rotimi, 61)

The excerpt above aptly captures Rotimi‟s infusion of the comic spirit

all in an attempt at toning down the tragic depth that has been

predominant in the plot. Alaka‟s series of attempts at trivializing and

shying away from such a serious issue is a deliberate attempt by the

playwright to juxtapose tragedy and comedy. The infusion of the comic

lingers into the final lap of the play when the long awaited Gbonka

arrives at the palace. Amidst tension, panic and inquisitiveness in the

land over Odewale‟s true identity, Gbonka, the former king‟s most

trusted messenger, now fully old, saunters in to exhibit another round

of frivolities. Rather than provide straight answers to Odewale‟s

questions, Gbonka resorts to counter questions and unnecessary ad-libs

aimed at downplaying the serious issue of hunting for the true killer of

King Adetusa. With a profound sense of indifference and detachment

Gbonka volunteers the information that Odewale seeks as he points in

the direction of Ogun Priest saying he ordered him to kill baby


70

Odewale in the bush. Having made his point, Gbonka saunters out

without any attachment to the tragedy that looms in the palace.

(ii) Comedy Arising from Language: Language is yet another

vehicles through which Rotimi drives the comic machinery in

the play. This is evident in the generous use of sarcasm, non-

sequiturs, repetition, humour and so on. The first

manifestation of comic language register is in the lines of IYA

ABURO who speaks more of disconnected language i.e

expressing words the way they came into the mind without

recourse to rational control. She hallucinates about her late

husband‟s death and in the process resorts to the use of

apostrophe in order to convey the depth of psychological

trauma which her husband‟s demise has caused her. Also,

Rotimi uses the death of IYA ABURO‟s husband to portray

the damaging effect of the epidemic and famine in the land of

Kutuje. She expresses her psychopathic dispositions through

language, thus:

IYA ABURO: I thank you, your highness…He said

so, I swear… (Laughs loudly.) He was coming, he

was coming, then he went and got all dressed up, and

went directly to the farm, not looking right, not

looking left (Rotimi, 17)

The language above is a non-sequitur since it does not respond

coherently to Odewale‟s beckon if she needs help. The language also

lacks logical sequence since there is no synchrony between the premise,

proposition and conclusion. Even when LABATA, one of the king‟s

messengers gets close to her, she looks in his direction and addresses

him, thus: “… You come too late, my husband. We have…oh, pity…we

have just finished eating yams in the king‟s small small

bathroom…small small bathrooms…(Rotimi,16) IYA ABURO„s lines

above produce high comic results since it is termed incongruous that a

mad woman tarries in the palace when all other towns people have

departed just to curry the king‟s attention. And when finally she has the

platform to speak, she resorts to surrealistic language. We are bound to

laugh more when we appreciate the fact that no normal person would

prefer to “eat yams in the king‟s small small bathrooms”.


71

Another hilarious moment driven by language in the play is the

encounter between Odewale and Akilapa in Act Two Scene Four where

Akilapa in a bid to respond swiftly to Odewale‟s summon , rushes in

and scares Odewale. Rotimi‟s portrayal of the scenario is quite

intriguing, thus:

(Bodyguard AKILAPA bursts in, spear in hand.

ODEWALE springs defensively to his

feet, wide-eyed with

fright.)

ODEWALE: Who sent you to kill me!

AKILAPA: (panting). The Queen. She

says your highness calls

me.

ODEWALE: (somewhat relieved). So,

do you have to

tear in like that?

Hunh?

(seizes him by the neck.)

Man. man. man… look at

him! Everything: gira,

gira, gira…power, power,

force, force…action,

Action!

No thoughts, no patience,

no coolness of blood. Yet

you go about

shouting that you are

better than women,

superior to women…

(Shoves him aside.) Get

out, braggart, go marry a

woman and

learn coolness of mind

from her.

AKILAPA: (astonished). Aha! But my

lord, I already have seven

wives!

ODEWALE: (sharply). Well, marry

again, Idiot!


72

AKILAPA: (resignedly).If it is your

will, my lord…(Rotimi,

40)

The excerpt above embodies a handful of the comic spirit as it reveals

Odewale‟s admiration and soft spot for women as well as his fears in

the face of danger. He springs defensively to his feet with his eyes wide

open with fright when Akilapa bursts into the palace. This is highly

comic since his reaction betrays his exalted position as a dreaded king

and warrior. Odewale‟s use of the term “gira gira gira” which means

“force force” in Rotten English parlance, is an attempt by Rotimi to

devalue language as well as portay Akilapa (and indeed all men) as

machine-like creatures bereft of rational faculty and coolness of the

mind. Little wonder, he charges Akilapa to go marry a woman and

learn coolness of mind from her. In mild protest, Akilapa informs him

that he has seven wives already but Odewale becomes more sarcastic in

response as he sharply urges him, thus, „Well, marry again, Idiot!”

(Rotimi, 40). Odewale‟s charge on Akilapa is highly comic as it strikes

an ironic note considering that Odewale‟s charge on his poor servant

to take an eighth wife came up at a time that his kingdom has been

impoverished and ravaged by epidemic, famine and drought. It can be

argued that Odewale‟s charge on Akilapa is a gimmick which Odewale

deployed to get out of the melancholic mood he has been thrown before

Akilapa burst in. Shortly before Akilapa‟s dramatic entrance, Odewale

has been engrossed in a deep thought and out of share dilemma, he

performs an expiatory ritual as he laments, thus:

ODEWALE:…(cleansing himself in the sacred water.)

Cool me, Ogun, cool me…

The blood is hot. The blood is because

fear grips the heart of Odewale, Son of

Ogundele, a stranger in this land. Fear

now grips my heart as I discover how

King Adetusa, who ruled this land

before me, was killed.

Minds are not clean. If Adetusa, a son

of Kutuje, could be killed in Violence,

and the murderer be hidden from

vengeance; In this same Land, what will

the people of Kutuje not do to me of


73

Ijejun tribe? Who I Trust? Ogun, who

can I ? (Rotimi, 40)

Upon a critical examination of the tonality in Odewale‟s language in

the passage above, one realizes that he sounds sober, uncertain, unsafe,

scared-quite characteristic of a man in dilemma but Akilapa‟s dramatic

entrance jolts him out of that melancholy and his tonality automatically

changes to that of a man of authority, bravery, agility, and total control

of his emotions and kingdom. The sudden twist in Odewale‟s language

and temperament produce that warm atmosphere which the comic spirit

thrives.

Another manifestation of the comic spirit through language is the use of

metaphor by Alaka to describe himself as well as Odewale. When

accosted to reveal his identity in Odewale‟s palace upon the king‟s

insistence from his inner room, Alaka simply says”…tell him the

Farmer wants to see the Scorpion!” (Rotimi, 42) His reference to

himself as the “Farmer” and Odewale as the “Scorpion” aptly creates

an air of familiarity and conviviality as it makes reference of their

glorious and happy days as successful farmers back then at Ijekun

Yemoja. On seeing Odewale, Alaka, through the device of praise-

singing, reveals further one of Odewale‟s weaknesses which would

facilitate his tragic end-the weakness of uncontrollable temperament.

As Alaka puts it: “…Scorpion! One that must not be vexed…” (Rotimi,

43) However, Rotimi coats the supposed tragic import of this adjective

with the comic tonality of praise-singing. In reciprocation of Alaka‟s

encomiums, Odewale introduces Alaka to Ojuola as his master and

mentor that taught him everything in his father‟s house at Ijekun but

Alaka cuts in sarcastically in mild protest, thus: “ I did not teach you

hot temper though!(Rotimi, 44) Odewale flows also in the comic drift

as he admits in a subtle tonality, thus: “No.no. Sango, the thunder lion,

taught me that one…(All laugh.) (Rotimi, 44) Again, through the

device of euphemism, Alaka reitirates Odewale‟s uncontrollable

temperament which would later contribute to his tragic fall. The

laughter that is drawn from Alaka‟s reference to Odewale‟s

temperament is quite typical of laughter arising from humour.

Also, Alaka reveals the demise of Odewale‟s foster father, Ogundele, to

Odewale with an usual casualness. As he puts it “…Well, your father

has fallen. Two years ago. But your mother refuses to follow him…”

(Rotimi, 58) Even when Odewale pressurizes him further to know how


74

his foster father died, Alaka responds in high tones of euphemism, thus:

“ …The man became very heavy with years and so he let the earth

receive his body…” (Rotimi, 58) Rotimi‟s resort to euphemism here is

aimed at playing down on the tragic muse in the play.

The language of the deliberation between Odewale, Ojuola and the

chiefs over the place where Adetusa was killed is also comic because of

the playwright‟s use of call and response quite characteristic of the

musical staccato rhythm in a crucial moment in the plot of the play. In

their confusion over the exact location where Adetusa was killed, the

chiefs alongside Ojuola engage in a deliberation that confuses Odewale

the more:

ODEWALE: That the king was killed where?

OJUOLA: By ten thieves, near the town of Ede

SECOND CHIEF: At the place where three footpaths

meet on the way to Oshogbo

ODEWALE: At the place where three footpaths

meet?

FIRST CHIEF: Yes, my lord.

THIRD CHIEF: On the way to Ede

ODEWALE: (impatiently). Why cant you people

say one thing and stick to it?Why, is

everybody mad? Once you said the

king was killed near EdeNext

everyone talks of Oshogbo, then Ede

then Oshogbo, Ede,Oshogbo, Ede

Oshogbo-what‟s the matter?

FIRST CHIEF: The King was killed on the road to

Oshogbo,my lord, but the place was

nearer to Ede than to

Oshogbo…(Rotimi, 54)

The excerpt above portrays the height of panic and tension that has

gripped the palace such that even the chiefs that are supposed to be the

custodians of the history and tradition of the land now feign loss of

memory and when accosted by Odewale, they resort to word jugglery

and circumlocution. Whereas the discordant tonality above portrays the

height of confusion in the palace, it drives home the comic muse which

the playwright has sustained from the beginning of the play. It can also

be argued that the chiefs‟ resort to circumlocution is aimed at confusing


75

Odewale to the point that he would drop his hunt for the murderer of

the king and consequently, get disentangled from the tragic web that

has been designed for him from birth.

Having arrived at fetching Gbonka, the messenger alleged to have been

responsible for the execution of baby Odewale, King Odewale

summons his body guards to go fetch Gbonka from Ilorin. At first the

body guards try to shy away from the errand by claiming not to know

him:

OJUOLA: Who among you doesn‟t know Gbonka?

AGIDI: Gbonka, Gbonka?

LABATA: Gbonka who?

AKILAPA: There are countless Gbonkas all over the

world, your highness

AGIDI: Gbonka, Gbonka.

ODEWALE: …Bodyguard to the former king, you

goats!

AGIDI, LABATA, AKILAPA: (in unison). Ah! Gbon-

n-k-a-a-a!

AGIDI: Gbonka, son of Elempe.

AKILAPA: A-ah, the man left Ilorin a long time

ago.

ODEWALE: Where is he now?

LABATA: Dead.

AKILAPA: Liar! My brother Degelu, saw him on

his farm in Ipetu onlylast

Market day. (Adressing AGIDI, seeking

corroboration.) Don‟t

you know my brother, Degelu, son of my

mother‟s brother who

married Motara the sister of your wife‟s

mother, Niniola, who sells

palmwine and pounded yam at the market

near..

ODEWALE: You are wasting time! Where is Gbonka

now?

AKILAPA: Ipetu, my lord. He has a farm, a cassava

farm in…( Rotimi, 56)

Akilapa‟s sense of description here is highly verbose and comic especia

lly against the background that the king expects an urgent and swift


76

response from him. Again, Rotimi uses circumlocution to occasion

comic situations even when the tragic vision permeates the entire plot

of the play. Even when Odewale cuts him short so they can proceed on

their journey by asking about Gbonka‟s present location, Akilapa sees

in this question another avenue to express his sense of verbosity. First,

he responds to his master‟s question by saying “Ipetu, my lord” and

then continues with the adlib that “…he has a farm, a cassava farm…”

The comedy here lies in Akilapa‟s fondness for irrelevant details in

situations that require mono-syllabic or straight answers. Akilapa‟s drift

above also embody some form of language devaluation since he is

more interested in describing Degelu, the man who claimed to have

seen Gbonka rather than Gbonka himself.

Rotimi‟s recourse to creating comedy through language lingers into the

very last scene in the play during Odewale‟s interrogation of Gbonka.

In course of the interrogation, Odewale asks Gbonka if he can still

remember Alaka but rather than answer the question, he returns yet

another question to Odewale, thus: “(after glaring at ALAKA). Did he

say he was the man that killed King Adetusa?” (Rotimi, 66) The

question is highly incongruous and consequently, risible since it does

not have any form of bearing with the question posed to him by the

king. Gbonka also uses language to express his indifferent disposition

to the tragedy that has set in in the palace. He prefers to hug Alaka after

recalling his ordeal with him in the past rather than face the issues for

which he has been brought from Ilorin and out of impatience Odewale

separates him and Alaka from the embrace and accosts him, thus:

ODEWALE: This man said you handed him a baby boy in

the bush of Ipetu

GBONKA: Hunh?

ALAKA: Old one, have you forgotten? You gave my

master a baby boywhen we met at Ipetu

bush

GBONKA: If it was so, it was so…(Rotimi, 67)

Gbonka‟s response above is more of begging the question. It is absurd

and comic since it does not advance the course that Odewale seeks. It

becomes more comic when viewed against the background that

Odewale, the King is in a desperate mood to get to the very root of his

quest for his true identity and consequently, the murderer of the former

king. The incongruity therefore arises as a result of the variation in

Odewale‟s mood of inquisitiveness to discover the murderer of the king


77

and Gbonka‟s reluctance and frivolities of recalling his long lost

memories in the palace.

(iii) Comedy Arising from Characterization: Characterization is

yet another device through which Rotimi drives the machinery

of the comic spirit in The Gods Are Not Blame. The characters

that embody the comic in the play include; Alaka, Gbonka,

Akilapa, Labata, Iya Aburo and Agidi .

Alaka stands out as the iconic representation of the spirit of comedy in

the play. From his entrance to the very last scene, Alaka sustains the

comic tempo in the play through his hilarious and easy-going

dispositions. Upon his arrival at the palace, Ojuola serves him palm

wine which he drinks and then smacks his lips with relish before

affirming that he is indeed, in the house of an Ijekun man. Out of

excitement and satisfaction from the palmwine, he begins to unravel his

relationship with Odewale to Ojuola unasked and in the process of his

narration, he asks for more wine in a sarcastic manner, thus: “…Good

woman the calabash is empty…” (Rotimi, 42) His comic charm springs

mainly from his gift of elocution and his sense of trivializing every

issue including the ones that determines Odewale‟s fate and destiny.

After dropping the hint that Ogundele and his wife are not Odewale‟s

biological parents, Odewale gets panicked and jittery over his true

identity but rather than face the issue squarely as expected of an elder,

Alaka makes to shy away from the subject by feigning to be pressed. In

anger, Odewale intercepts his intended exit and pulls him back to his

seat. In submission, he reminds Odewale, thus; “…I am glad to see that

your youthful, hot temper is still with you, my brother. Scorpion! One

that must not be...(Rotimi, 61) Here his comic gab fail him because he

fired a wrong shot ab initio by revealing to Odewale in public that

Ogundele and Mobike are not his biological parents. This is contrary to

Odewale‟s long held views about his paternity.

The characterization of the palace Guards (Akilapa, Labata and Agidi)

also contribute to the comic tempo of the play. In Act Two Scene Four,

Akilapa scares his master, Odewale, as he bursts into the palace with a

spear in his hand quite suggestive of his readiness for war but when

accosted, he responds subtly, thus: “The Queen. She says your highness

calls me” (Rotimi, 40). Here Akilapa exaggerates his response to the

King‟s summon by bursting in with a spear in his hand as if he is in the

battle front. Akilapa‟s farcical mannerisms and gestures here produce


78

high comic results. In a similar vein, he wallows in verbosity and

ambiguity in an attempt to prove to the King that Gbonka is still alive

against the false claim by Labata that Gbonka is dead. He is a loud-

mouthed fellow who cannot keep to agreements with his fellow palace

guards. He uncovers Agidi and Labata‟s false claim that Gbonka is

dead because they do not want to go in search of Gbonka in such a far

away land like Ilorin. Akilapa thwarts their plan by declaring them liars

before King Odewale and Queen Ojuola and goes further to prove that

Gbonka still lives, thus: “…My brother Degelu saw him on his farm in

Ipetu only last market day…” (Rotimi, 56) Akilapa‟s testimony above

is highly comic since it sets out to justify his initial claim that Labata is

a liar. It is also puerile and, therefore, laughable for palace guards to

outwit and undo themselves before their master for purposes of

sycophancy.

The psychopathic disposition of Iya Aburo also reinforces the comic

drift in the play. While we feel pity for Iya Aburo for being subjected to

some form psychological trauma over the loss of her husband due to

the plague, drought and famine, her mannerisms, gestures and language

are incongruous and surrealistic. Rotimi describes her actions in the

palace, thus:

…(…IYA ABURO, on the ground fumbling with her baby

undecided to saddle it on her back, or simply drop it.

Somehow, she manages to strap the baby to her side, and

starts crossing the stage,a lullaby… (Rotimi,15)

The description above aptly captures Iya Aburo‟s state of dementia as

well as elicits laughter from the audience/readers because of the

mechanical rigidity with which she behaves and reacts to situations.

After some moments of incoherent communication with Odewale and

the Chiefs, she engages in yet a more absurd and mechanical action

whereby she “…releases baby from her side, carries it upside down,

and begins to back away, resuming her lullaby…(Rotimi, 16). Typical

of insane personalities, Iya Aburo vacillates between the conscious and

the unconscious in her rationality. She hallucinates about her late

husband as though he were present in the palace and out of pity,

Odewale beckons on Labata to relieve her of her baby and when Labata

approaches her, she absorbs Labata‟s movement towards her in her

consciousness and reacts, thus:


79

…You come too late, my husband…we have just

finished eating yams in the king‟s small small

bathroom…(Sniggers coyly)

…Oh, you want the child? (She readily lets

LABATA take it)

I beg of you, carry her well, do not hurt her

fingers…she must live

…to eat yams in small small

bathrooms…(Rotiimi, 16)

Iya Aburo‟s reaction above embodies some form of mirth because of

the incongruity of merging the rational and irrational in one trail of

thought. Her plea to Labata that her daughter be properly taken care of

is quite pathetic but the pathetic feeling is diluted with laughter when

she says that her baby “… must live to eat yams in small small

bathrooms…” (16) The above scenario, again stands out as one of the

many instances where Rotimi introduces comic relief in order to dowse

the intended tragic intensity in the play.

Our study so far, reveals that Rotimi‟s The Gods Are Not to Blame is a

sincere reflection of the distinctive and yet complimentary relationship

that has always existed between tragedy and comedy. Our argument in

this paper is that, just as life is a mixture of sorrow and happiness, so is

tragedy another face of the same coin with comedy and as such, it

becomes limiting, if not misleading to invoke such extreme expressions

as “pure tragedy” or “archetypal tragedy” when analyzing Rotimi‟s The

Gods Are Not to Blame. It is also pertinent to state here that this study

is not, in any way, intended to challenge or debunk the preponderance

of the tragic muse, tonality and thematic thrust in the play especially

because The Gods Are Not To Blame is an adaptation of Sophocles‟

Oedipus Rex (Oedipus The King), an age long classical Greek myth of

the tragedy of King Oedipus who fell to the whims and caprices of fate

and destiny to kill his father and marry his mother.

In terms of content , Rotimi appears to be faithful to his source as he

replicates the same story of a king (Oedipus/Odewale) who, in a bid to

run away from his tragic destiny, runs faster and closer to it until he

faces tragic destruction. In terms of language, he uses both poetic and

prosaic registers all expressed in verse and prose forms unlike

Sophocles who wrote straight in sublime language and verse form

characteristic of classical Greek tragedy. Unlike Sophocles also, Rotimi


80

demonstrates his knack for the craft of comedy through the infusion of

comic characters with peculiar comic traits. The deduction here is that

all the comic elements deployed by Rotimi in the play are products of

his innovation and creative ingenuity in course of the adaptation and

not a hang over of Sophocles‟ craft in Oedipus Rex.

Conclusion

The propelling motivation for this study is to shock reviewers, analysts

and critics of the drama out of the rigidity of genre classification

especially as it concerns tragedy and comedy. The study has established

The Gods Are No to Blame as an example of a classical tragedy but

laced with some comic tonic in the areas of language, plot and

characterization. The variation manifest more in comic forms in order

to occasion comic relief just as we find in the tragedies of William

Shakespeare. The study therefore, locates Rotimi‟s craft in The Gods

Are Not To Blame within the confines of eclecticism having woven the

play around the classical doctrine of the tragic hero being of noble

birth, the romantic doctrine of freedom of creative expression as

evident in the infusion of comic relief in a supposed tragic piece and

the use of every day language and characters of low status to drive

home the comic spirit in the play.

The paper canvasses the need for Nigerian playwrights to allow their

creative inspiration to determine the generic thrust of their plays rather

than allow themselves to be overwhelmed by the rules of playwriting

when crafting their works. It is the position of this study that over

reliance on the rules of dramaturgy truncates the creative process.

Playwriting is product of creativity and creativity, in turn, is a product

of inspiration. Just as we find in Rotimi‟s craft in The Gods Are Not to

Blame, writers are encouraged to embrace the mixed form since it

creates the avenue for comparison and contrast and consequently,

suspense in the drama.

The study also advocates the need for theatre critics, analysts,

researchers, historians and stakeholders to channel or intensify their

research interest in the area of comedy with the sole aim of identifying

and categorizing the core sources and elements of laughter in Nigeria.

Bamidele has expressed this concern earlier in his book titled Comedy:

Essays and Studies when he states that:


81

Moses Olaiya and his many imitators have left the

Nigerian scholars with a task of investigating the

Nigerian laugh…Is it through incongruity as Baba

Sala has often indulged in? Is it through mechanical

encrustation on the living as many comedians want

us to believe in their creation of the drunkard, the

mad man, the childish clowning on the stage? Is it

throug the sense of superiority of the artist over lesser

beings in upholding manners and abnormal

behaviours to ridicule as we find in the humour in

Femi Osofisan‟s Midnight Series? Or is it through the

aesthetics of the bawdy which makes us think that the

pollutic scenes and the invectives on Nigerian stage

are the stuff of which comedies are made? Is it

through the literature of gossips which present acts of

of the busy-bodies and only then will Nigerians

laugh? ... (58)

Works Cited Altshuler, Thelma and Janaro,Richard Paul. Response to Drama: An

Introduction to Plays and Movies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Company, 1967.

Bamidele, Lanre, O. Comedy: Essays and Studies. Ibadan: Stirling-

Horden Publishers, 2009.

Esslin, Martins. An Anatomy of Drama. London: Temple Smith, 1976.

Freud, Sigmund. Jokes and Their Relationship to the Unconscious.

Trans. And ed. James Strachey. London: Rutledge & Kegan

Paul, 1966.

Frye Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism. New York: Antheneum, 1966.

Grawe, Paul. H. Comedy in Space, Time, and the Imagination.

Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1983.

Merchant, W. Moelwyn. Comedy. London: Methuen, 1972.

Pickering, Jerry. Theatre: A Contemporary Introduction. New York:

West Publishing Company, 1981.

Rotimi, Ola. The Gods Are Not Blame. Oxford: University Press, 1975.

Seyler, Athene and Haggard, Stephen. The Craft of Comedy. New York:

Theatre Arts Books, 1957.

Wright, Edward. Understanding Today‟s Theatre. New Jersey: Prentice

Hall, Englecliff, 1972.

Documents

The Comic Spirit in Ola Rotimi‟s The Gods Are Not to Blame…€¦ · · 2017-02-10The Comic Spirit in Ola Rotimi‟s The Gods Are Not to Blame: A ... The study takes a cursory