ABSTRACT F.U Okoro’s keyhole theory of conflict assumes that “textual conflicts consist in series of locked doors and actions in the text comprises in attempts to unlock these doors”. Further, this theory of textual conflict recognizes the importance of what Aristotle has called the “depth burden of the past” however, it explains this concept in a slightly different way. The keyhole theory explains that the state of the key hole at the point of opening directly affects the state of the keyhole at the exit door. As explained by mr Fidelis himself, what we see as a comedy is just the manner of actions that sees to the opening of all the doors in a text, by contrast, a tragedy thrives because the hero meets difficulties and is ultimately unable to open the exit door both incidents are as a result of opening the first door with either the right or the wrong key. According to A.N. Akwanya, the theory is ‘a comprehensive statement which means that it must apply in the same way to a vast range of objects’. This can be further explained to mean that a theory must overlook he distinct properties of the individual object. This raises the question : can F.U Okoro’s keyhole theory of conflict qualify as a theory? Again, to what extent can it be able to apply in the same way to a vast range of literary text. A literary text here covers both prose narratives and plays.

THE KEYHOLE THEORY AND DRAMA Now, without further ado, I will set about examining the extent of applicability of this theory by using it to analyze the textual conflict seen in Wole Soyinka’s Strong Breed. The play in question is a tragedy, so although praying for my alternative hypothesis to triumph, my analysis will be dwelling under the null hypothesis that: there is no significant relationship between the events at the opening door and that of the exit door. Although the play is developed using a complex plot technique, one can for easy understanding take the point of opening of the play to be the parts introduced in the play text using flashback. It follows that the story begins in Eman’s village, his encounter with Omae, Tutor, old man, Sunma and ultimately Jaguna and Oroge. Eman’s first door can therefore be traced to his encounter with Omae. He tries his best to keep her from disturbing his initiation and his tutor but yet he fails. How does Eman open this first door? with disobedience and arrogance. This opening of the first door with the wrong key determined all the other actions of his the play. His disobedience earned him exile and in exile he remained. It is true that Eman is like every tragic hero fated and controlled by a superior being; however, the saying that although God made us without us, he can’t help us without us directly applies to Eman. His Hubris is his pride and as well his lack of ‘the will’ power. In his present situation at Sunma’s village, Sunma persuades him incessantly to spend the New Year day elsewhere but still Eman refuses. Finding no reason why he should listen to the advice of a “woman”. Further in the text, when the men comes to take Ifada their carrier, his arrogance and pride surfaces again. He tries to boast to the that he knows more than them in terms of offering sacrifices: Eman; I know others who have done more {Ifada is brought out, abjectly dumb-moaning} Eman: You can see him with your own eyes. Does it really have meaning to use one as unwilling as that? Oroge: {smiling} He will be willing, not only willing but actually joyous… Eman: Then it is only a deceit. Do you believe the spirit of a new year is so easily fooled? (Strong Breed page 10) Eman apparently enjoys asserting his superiority of knowledge over others. This attitude of his is what eventually brings him face to face with his destiny. He couldn’t run away from this last door. The dark depth burden of his past trailed him until the end.

SYNOPSIS From the foregoing, it can be deduced that Eman’s attitude towards opening his first door or towards solving his first conflict is what directly affects the state of his last door. As the keyhole theory proposes, his inability to disentangle himself in his mist of his final conflict, that is, the last door, is what qualifies the play as a tragedy. His depth burden of the past comes as a result of the fact that he is of the “strong breeds” by birth. And as such can’t avoid being the Azazel archetype or the escape goat.