Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
selenak: (City - KathyH)
Back in Munich as of last night, and somewhat damaged, as I caught what's referred to as "The Book Fair cold", i.e. the inevitable result of spending a week in circulated air with millions of people. But never mind that - it was a thoroughly busy and splendid fair for me, with the Book Trade Peace Award yesterday given to Svetlana Alexejivich meaning it went out on a high note. I must confess I hadn't read anything of hers before, but I most certainly will now.

Svetlana Alexijevich, who is from Belarus, had a few scholarships abroad but always went back home and still lives there, despite the fact that she's no longer allowed to be published there, having run foul of the Belarus dictator. Her three most famous works, all non-fiction novels a la In Cold Blood, are (and I'm using the German titles translated into English here, so maybe the English titles are different) : "War has no female face" which dealt with the then completely unexplored part Soviet women played during WWII (this brought her the accusation of maligning the Great Patriotic War, and it couldn't get published until the onset of Perestroika in 1985), "Boys in Tin" about the Russian/Afghan war and specifically the soldiers coming back to a Soviet Union which no longer existed, having fought in a deeply unpopular war, and being thoroughly damaged, often suicidal. When there were quotes from this book in the speeches I was struck by how you could change "Russian" for "American" and "socialism" for "democracy" and have the exact same passage written today: "Kabul 1988. An Afghan hospital. A young Afghan woman, her child in her arms. I approach her and give the child a teddy bear. It takes it with its teeth. "Why does he take the teddy with his teeth?" I ask. The Afghan woman drops the thin cover in which she had wrapped her child, and I look at a small torso without any arms or legs. "That's what you Russians did."
"She doesn't understand," the Sovjet captain standing next to me says, "we brought them socialism."
"Go home and practice socialism there. Why did you come here?" says an old Afghan man who is missing a leg. (...) Then I am in a canteen. Troubled faces of our boys, who don't understand for what they're dying here. They reply angrily to me: Shoot or be shot, such questions as yours have to wait until after the war. If you shoot, you kill first; if you don't shoot, you get killed. All want to get home to their mothers. Some were made drunk with vodka, put in a plane, and in the same night they arried in Kabul. They cried, screamed, attacked the officers. Two committed suicide. They hung themselves in the restroom. Others volunteered. Children of village teachers, of doctors - they were educated to trust in their country... they will return home within a year, and the country which sent them out to kill will no longer exist."


This book brought her a lot of lawsuits for "slander of the Sovjet army", and more were to come when she wrote the definite book on Chernobyl, "Chernobyl: Chronicle of the Future": "The firemen who fought the fire during the first night all died. A nuclear reactor, and they were called as if to a normal fire; they were not given any protective suits. They each got radiactive poisoning over hundred times the lethal limit. The doctors did not let their wives to them. (...) In a thirty kilometres radius around the plant, thousands of people left their homes - forever. Early on nobody would believe that. Buses full of people and a quietness as if in a cemetery. Around the buses there were a lot of pets - dogs, cats. The pets were left. The humans didn't dare to look at them. 'The birds in the skies, the animals in the woods - we all betrayed them. Our beloved dog Sharik we left a note; 'Forgive us, Sharik.'"

These are all quotes from Svetlana Alexejevich's acceptance speech, and which, like the laudatory speech by Karl Schlögel, was full of such vivid detail going right under the skin. One of the most remarkable things about her: that all these interviews did not make her into a cynic or nihilist, on the contrary. That she still believes in reaching humans when she transcribes their voices.

Something else: usually the Book Trade Peace Award is given in the presence of the President. Only twice it wasn't, and today was the third time, which was why a few demonstrators were outside holding up pictures of Joachim Gauck saying "where are you?". Speculation from the guests was that yes, this was for political reasons. Instead of him, our equivalent of the Mr. Speaker in Parliament come, Norbert Lammert (ranking of German offices: President - who hasn't got political powers but represents the republic -, Chancellor, Mr. or Ms Speaker), and at the celebratory lunch afterwards, he thanked Svetlana Alexejevich for "exposing the so called lupenreine Demokraten as the autocrats and dictators they are". This was a pointed allusion to a phrase former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had used when palling around with Vladimir Putin, whom he described as a "lupenreiner Demokrat" ("a democrat even if you use a microscope to look at him"), which is remembered as particularly shameful not just because, well, Putin, but because Schröder immediately after his tenure as Chancellor ended went to work for Gazprom, the Russian oil-and-gas giant.

Earlier during the Book Fair, I had chatted with Gert and Gisela Heidenreich, both writers, and she told me that back when Schröder said this she left the party (i.e. the SPD) even though she still considers herself a social democrat in her politics. Almost as depressing, they both said, is what's going on with the US right now; one of the oldest ongoing democracies self destructing, inwardly because of the crazy Tea Party nutters and outwardly because of the paranoia and disregard of anyone else's rights. After what happened to Ilja Trojanov, Gert Heidenreich was wondering whether he'll be refused entry the next time he has to attend a conference in the US as well, given he wrote as critical things as Trojanov did. And Guantanomo continues while nobody cares. He had another thing on his mind: during the last two years, he'd worked with director Edgar Reitz on the later's project Die andere Heimat, "The other Heimat" (we had a lengthy discussion of how Heimat is an untranslatable German term because it really is not at all the same as Fatherland/Vaterland), which had its premiere during the last weeks to raving reviews. Now Gert Heidenreich developed the story with Edgar Reitz, wrote a novella on which they then based the script, and is duly noted as co scriptwriter in the credits. During the first two showings of the movie, they were both attending. And then the glowing reviews started to drop in, and suddenly Edgar Reitz, who was also coming to the Book Fair, decided that all future appearances were to be of him alone, and wrote an email to Heidenreich's publisher accusing the later of "trying to cash in to my success" by promoting the novella which was published simultanously with the film release. This was bewildering the nth degree to Mr. Heidenreich because he'd thought they were friends (plus, of course, it had been their shared project from the start); at a guess, it might be because Edgar Reitz wants critics to see Die andere Heimat as the crowning of his autobiographical oeuvre (his tv series "Heimat" years ago became a modern classic), and sharing credit is inconvenient to the lonely auteur theory. Still, it's a shame and conduct unbecoming.

Books I browsed through which I want to read at a later point: Jung Changs new biography of the Empress Dowager Cixi, in which she reclaims her from evil caricatureness; Pat Conroy's "The Death of Santini", in which he dispenses with the fictional guises and writes straight autobiography about his dysfunctional family & himself. I had met Pat Conroy many years ago, and he'd been funny, moving and very kind to a shy young woman, i.e. yours truly, which I never forgot. Of his novels, I have some I love ("The Prince of Tides") and some I like ("Lords of Discipline"), and only one which I thought was a mess ("Beach Music"). He does get repetitive if you read all the books, true, but the majority of them still left a profound impression on me, and a first look at this new book, which is far slimmer than the weighty and messy "Beach music", left me with the impression he was back to form. Mind you, it also left me thinking once again that most fannish hurt/comfort dark fics have nothing on the Conroy home life, but, like Svetlana Alexjevich, he tries to give written form to the traumatic horrors that happened and by that reaches people. Which is what so many of us try and not that many manage.

Mind you, it'll be a while until I can get to those books, probably not until Christmas. Meanwhile, there is tv to catch up, and the book fair cold to cure. Till later!
selenak: (City - KathyH)
The conference is mostly over (just one more reception tonight and recitation of poetry tomorrow to attend), and here a few more impressions, plus a few more photos.

One undisputed highlight: the first evening which was devoted to the "writers in prison" and "writers in exile" programs. In past years, these evenings, despite their dramatic subjects, could drag on because of the presentation - none too good translators, for example, or not too well prepared questioners, so that not all of the writers could really get into a conversation with each other and the audience. Not to mention that not every writer can do a good job of reciting his or her own work. So this year, there was a change of format, and an inspired one it was. This year's emphasis was on Iran, China and Turkey, with a writer from each country who was in Germany due to PEN's "writers in exile" program and had been persecuted in their own countries because of their writings. Each of these writers got to pick three texts - poetry or prose, their choice - from their country's current literature (didn't have to include their own work, but could). These texts were recited in German translations by two actors; afterwards the writers were introduced (via a short biography) and interviewed by the head of the German "writers in exile" program, with a (good) translator at their side. They had been given the gist of the questions ahead of time so they could prepare.

The result was an immensely moving evening with Khalil Rostamkhani from Iran (being in Germany the longest, he actually didn't need a translator), Zhou Qing from China and Pinar Selek from Turkey. Along with depressing news (twelve more executions of journalists & writers reported from Iran, for example) and very practical calls for action (Khalil Rostamkhani pointed out that Germany accepted only twenty refugees in the aftermath of last year's crashdown of the opposition, and that's something one can lobby against, plus Nokia is making a lot of profit supplying Iran with surveillance equipment). One of the stories Zhou Qing - who was crucial in discovering and making public the food scandal, if you remember, and otherwise specializes in writing about the workers without steady jobs - told was about one of the farmers coming to the city - or rather, one who tries and ends up six kilometres away from actual Bejing in a miserably paid job at horrible conditions; one day he snaps, steals a taxi, drives towards the city centre and after getting 40 people killed in his amok drive is killed himself. The awful punchline is this: of the 40 people killed, many were former farmers like himself. Others were city people. Everyone's family got some financial compensation, but the ones of the former farmers were paid 20.000, whereas the ones of the city folk were paid 400.000 per person. The reason for this gap in financial value placed on a human life is due to the difference of status and the disdain in which the "floating people" (don't know whether I translated a term which in German is itself a translation correctly into English) are held. Mind you, here some of the comparisons Zhou Qing used made me balk inwardly, because he said in his opinion it was not only worse than apartheid in South Africa but the Nuremberg Laws in the Third Reich. I have no claim to any kind of knowledge about current day China beyond newspaper reading, but generally, Third Reich comparisons accomplish nothing and should be avoided; every evil is evil enough on its own without this. Otoh, one of the things he said was something all three exiled writers agreed on, re: being here in temporary safety but away from home and their own language: "I have gained heaven but I have lost the earth."

They all came across as scarred, literally and metaphorically: Pinar Selek, who has an ongoing trial in Turkey, despite being cleared of the charge once already, compared it to a room she visited in the Jewish museum in Berlin where everying is slightly out of focus. Khalil Rostamkhani said he still is afraid when a car or a motor bike drives slower in a street he's walking on. One of the texts read was about his prison experience, and how the other prisoners got younger and younger, especially those executed. Asked about his biggest fear, he said that the world forgets the very much alive Persian opposition because of the attention on the "nuclear issue", and that the later is what defines Iran in the public eye.

Faced with these writers, all of whom had experienced prison, torture, and had been in fear of their lives, one felt one's privileged existence more keenly than ever. Speaking of privilege, one of the big debates yesterday and today was about a declaration re: Afghanistan. This had been brewing for a while, but yesterday our president made headlines via an interview quote where, in reply to a question re: German soldiers in Afghanistan he said, among other things, that securing one's trade routes did legitimize even use of military force. Cue a lot of indignation from every corner, including his own party, hasty retraction and declaration his reply was referring not to Afghanistan but the use of force against the pirates at the Somalia coast. The debate was, among other things, about whether or not the declaration should address Köhler's (i.e. the president's) quote or not, given that he retracted the statement (not that anyone believed the retraction, but still, a retracted statement can't be treated the same way) or be a general statement against the war in Afghanistan. One participant wanted a statement written in an ironic way, congratulating the president to his honesty, whereupon another wearily pointed out that ironic statements should be avoided at all costs because they usually end up making awful quotes in the media and never accomplish anything with potential readers. Then there was a debate about whether or not the war - which now is called "war", a new event, because until a few weeks our politicians painfully avoided the term - was unconstitutional (since our constitution forbids any war of aggression or participation or preparation of same), and a lot of sarcasm back and forth, until the final result was a declaration that basically said that because of the assymetric nature of the war in Afghanistan, even if one assumes the best of intentions, only more war, more dead civilians and general hatred among the population will follow, so we protest its continuation. Honestly, I don't think it will accomplish anything, but the general idea was that an orgination of writers which is explicitly political and argues for writers in other countries can't be silent about a crucial policy in its own country and had to say something.

...something also included the phrases "in this ciy of peace" and "if after thirty years of a devastating war the Westphalian peace could be achieved, then...". Nobody mentioned that the negotiations for the Westphalian peace after the Thirty-Years-War took five years.

On that note, have more pictures from where said peace was negotiated. )

Profile

selenak: (Default)
selenak

April 2025

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
1314 1516171819
20 212223242526
27282930   

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated Apr. 23rd, 2025 01:35 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios