Joshua O. Osundina (2010)
Osun State University, Osogbo
Psychosis in Writing: A case study of “Aproko”
A conscious communicative tool writing is. As abstruse as the subject of “Aproko” is, it serves as an abacus for our ‘community’. One ponders at the ‘polygamous’ nature of issues in the discourse of “Aproko”. First, the enjoyment of the readers, or rather fans, at the abasement of the ‘objects of discourse’ which it claims ‘informs and create awareness’. Surprisingly, more or less consequently, it exacerbates and induces more negative acts. Second, the unresponsiveness of critical and analytical minds of the ‘community’. If, however, the ‘literature of writing’, more appropriately art of writing, is a tool with which the writer communicates with specific ideology to the ‘community’, often referred to as society, on the ills and likely solutions, which should be logical, then “Aproko” is subject to critical responses from the ‘community’ it affects.
Then, “Aproko” calls adverse attention to its idiosyncratic effects. It is a piece with aberration because of the poor logical and subjective nature. It, “Aproko”, is simply Argumentum Ad Hominem in scope. Psychoanalytic critics find writings like this characterized by psychosis. Psychosis in writing occurs when contact to reality is lost. This has to do with the state of mind of the writer at the point of writing. The writer willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously loses the liaison to reality in their piece.
Conscious or unconscious, “Aproko”, is deleterious to the mind. It should be noted that it is a ‘malaprop of style’, better still an abuse of style, from a malcontent. “Aproko” as of old gives info about happenings in the ‘community’. What is seen today is not “Aproko” but “NeoAproko”, a neologism for a seasoned cliché with modified objective.
Pen Name: Preceptor Tiff