African Studies/ Krog's Country of My Skull

In Country of My Skull, Krog has described her life and role as a journalist reporting on the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission) process, alongside the stories of many, many apartheid victims. Some people have claimed she is trying to do too much at one time (Levey et al., 32). They have picked up the book in order to discover the truth and clear culpability, but Krog's method of combining an autobiographical voice with the voices of others is said by them to be too complicated. For example, in the first chapter of the book, we see Antjie Krog jumping back and forth, between her life on the family farm and the establishment of the TRC (Krog, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17).

To casual readers this seems almost random and would no doubt discourage those wanting straightforward knowledge. Nevertheless, there are always two sides to every coin, so we shall now turn away from the negative and focus on the positive. Some readers appreciate that Krog mixed her autobiography and other people's testimony. They believe that in this way the book does not make inferences or improperly speak for others (Levey et al., 30). It merely gives the testimonies and then lets Mrs. Krog-who was a witness to the TRC trials-give the possible implications from her personal standpoint. In this way she puts no words in anyone's mouth but her own. By doing so, readers with a positive view of her book declared that she promoted the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Out of the three controversial points, the second one has to be the cause of most of the hullabaloo. Country of My Skull is full of many truths, but at the same time it is full of many untruths. Krog does not try to hide this fact in the least but states it freely. “I prefer the word “lie”. The moment the lie raises its head, I smell blood. Because it is there…where truth is closest.” (Krog, 50). Several of the testimonies and facts have been intentionally distorted or fictionalized in her book and this has raised the ire of many a reader.

They are appalled by the damage this may do, and are afraid her “lies” will be perceived as the actual facts (Levey et al., 28). Besides that, they feel her technique of distorting or making her narrative seem fragmented is too unclear and sows the seeds of confusion. But wait, some have been so bold to say that by telling lies we often reveal a greater truth. By fictionalizing aspects of her story some say Krog is able to address beneficial subjects or make valuable points that actually never happened. Plus, they state that in fragmenting her story she is not weakening it, but rather strengthening it by symbolizing the sense of chaos that seemed to revolve around the TRC (28). Positive proponents of Country of My Skull all agree that by taking certain liberties the book is ...