Category: Uncategorized

  • Editorial: Pasifika Voices

    Editorial: Pasifika Voices

    PEN Transmissions is English PEN’s magazine for international and translated voices. PEN’s members are the backbone of our work, helping us to support international literature, campaign for writers at risk, and advocate for the freedom to write and read. If you are able, please consider becoming an English PEN member and joining our community of over 1,000 readers and writers. Join now.

    The islands of Oceania – Kiribati, Tuvalu, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Vanuatu,
    We are the canaries
    in the coal mines of climate change.
    Singing and ringing the unruly bells.
    Beating the big drums.

    And yet,
    drowned
    out.

    These lines are from ‘Poem for the Commonwealth’ by Karlo Mila, a Rotorua-born poet of Tongan, Palagi and Samoan descent. They get at an intractable truth for Indigenous Pacific Islanders: that those at the frontline of the climate emergency – who are also those with long-sustainable relationships to the land (‘a wealth of knowledge, / intergenerational meditations / on what it means to be alive, / what it means to survive / in a certain set of conditions / specific parameters of earth and sea and sky’, Mila continues) – are also those whose voices are routinely excluded from the conversation and from policymaking.

    Over the coming weeks, PEN Transmissions is publishing personal essays by writers from across the Pacific, including a piece by Mila at the end of the month. These essays explore climate and land, but also a wealth of intersecting ideas – language, family, identity, sovereignty, politics. They have been commissioned with a particular index of free expression in mind: a writer’s freedom to write on what they want, in their own words, irrespective of what audiences (or editors) might presuppose to be ‘important’ to writers from particular communities.

    Nadine Ann Hura (Ngāti Hine, Ngāpuhi), whose piece opens this focus, challenges the very terms of a series like this:

    I don’t have time to write an essay on the ‘broad thematic thread of climate and the environment from a Pacific perspective’, because I should be spending time with my 16-year-old son.

    […]

    If there’s one thing I’ve learned since getting on the road to visit communities affected by climate change up-close, it’s that there’s never enough time. Sifting through priorities, and knowing where to focus your energy, is an exercise in both strategy and stamina. Everything is urgent; everything needs to be done now.

    […]

    I keep asking myself: what is the point of the refrain ‘amplify Indigenous voices’ if the people who need to hear aren’t listening?

    The pieces in this series are rich and urgent. They house copious ideas, experiences, imperatives and feelings; they say loudly what needs to be heard by those who need to hear. We hope you will read, and listen, and enjoy.

    Will Forrester & Nadia Saeed.

  • Editorial: Black Voices

    Editorial: Black Voices

    PEN Transmissions is English PEN’s magazine for international and translated voices. PEN’s members are the backbone of our work, helping us to support international literature, campaign for writers at risk, and advocate for the freedom to write and read. If you are able, please consider becoming an English PEN member and joining our community of over 1,000 readers and writers. Join now.

    PEN Transmissions looks to amplify the voices of writers from around the world, championing diversities of expression, perspective, identity and story. It looks to put side-by-side the broadest possible set of voices on international literature. Over the coming weeks, we’re pleased to be solely publishing work by black women writers, each with a diversity of experience and perspective – part of an ongoing commitment to publishing black voices, and an ongoing recognition that black voices write to differing ends, from differing standpoints.

    English PEN campaigns for the freedom to read and the freedom to write; for these truly to be freedoms, they must be equal freedoms for all. In order for the ideal of equity of expression to be advanced, individuals, platforms and organisations must use what faculty they have to combat inequity wherever it exists. I hope for PEN Transmissions to be a space of free and equitable expression, and a space for the frank exploration of urgent, charged, evolving conversations. I hope readers will enjoy these pieces, and join our continuing interrogation of the ideal of literary freedom and equity.

    – Will Forrester, Editor.

  • Editorial: A Digital Salon

    Editorial: A Digital Salon

    PEN Transmissions is English PEN’s magazine for international and translated voices. PEN’s members are the backbone of our work, helping us to support international literature, campaign for writers at risk, and advocate for the freedom to write and read. If you are able, please consider becoming an English PEN member and joining our community of over 1,000 readers and writers. Join now.

    The English PEN Literary Salon at the London Book Fair is a standout moment in our calendar – a moment in which we share with the publishing community our mission of celebrating diverse literature and championing freedom of expression. The Salon is a platform on which writers – some emerging, others with long careers behind them – address pressing contemporary discussions. Year-on-year, we are thrilled and provoked by what emerges.

    With the necessary cancellation of the 2020 London Book Fair, we resolved to create a new platform for these discussions. And so, this week, we present the Digital English PEN Literary Salon: five interviews on PEN Transmissions, published daily, featuring writers from the LBF programme.

    In these pieces, you will encounter discussions on reading and writing queer black British experiences;  on asking what we can (and should) write; on placing marginalised voices at the centre of surreal stories; on being a woman writer writing ‘unlikeable’ women; and on timeliness, in all its senses. 

    When fisherfolk can’t go to sea, they mend their nets. We’re pleased to have fashioned a new platform for these conversations, despite the storm we’re weathering. We hope Transmissions readers enjoy the catches.

    – Hannah Trevarthen (Events and Partnerships Manager) & Will Forrester (Editor).

  • Editorial: Transmissions in the Time of Coronavirus

    Editorial: Transmissions in the Time of Coronavirus

    PEN Transmissions is English PEN’s magazine for international and translated voices. PEN’s members are the backbone of our work, helping us to support international literature, campaign for writers at risk, and advocate for the freedom to write and read. If you are able, please consider becoming an English PEN member and joining our community of over 1,000 readers and writers. Join now.

    In the aftermath of the devastating 1928 earthquake in Bulgaria, John Galsworthy, English PEN’s first President, appealed to our membership ‘to come with their eloquence […] in this dark hour’. Wearied by such a crisis, we might ask: What can eloquence serve amidst disaster? Well, as Galsworthy had it: ‘Writers can best voice universal sympathy […] and stir that helpful sense of fellowship’.

    The PEN family, across the world, has always proceeded from the value of international fellowship – from the belief that the transmission of literature across borders is a sustaining force, and a right. In 1928, Galsworthy’s appeal centred the conveyance of literature to a space in need of it, from a space outside the causal crisis. In 2020, there are no such differentiations: whilst differing in our severity of experience, the international community is sharing in a crisis.

    It is amidst this crisis that we today announce that PEN Transmissions will be increasing our output, publishing new work by international writers every week.

    Coronavirus – a word that one senses will become short-hand for an era – grips all spaces. It drives us indoors, towards screens, away from convention; it deprives us of normality, of hard-won freedoms. Such deprivation, however, is in the service of good: this deprivation protects the most vulnerable, and those marginalised in myriad ways who are disproportionately affected by pandemic. One hopes the virtues it is forging – of community, compassion, intergenerational support, kindness to ecology – might even prevail when some version of normality returns. But in pursuit of good, a further level of necessary concerns emerges: of livelihood, particularly that of the self-employed, as many writers and literary professionals are; of loneliness, and how we might continue digitally to meet and converse; of joy, and by what means we might still be able to find it.

    The need for ‘eloquence’, now, is manifold: as a palliative to isolation, when its self-imposition is vital; as an outlet for experience, and a way of sharing it; as an imaginative escape from confinement; as a liberty, when liberties must be curtailed. This is why, for the duration of quarantine, lock-down, self-isolation – all those metonyms for our moment – PEN Transmissions is doubling its efforts. Last week, we shared Dima Mikhayel Matta’s extraordinary ‘How to Quarantine a Revolution’, an essay on how pandemic, revolution, and queer identity relate in Lebanon. Tomorrow, we publish an interview with Jason Ng and Joshua Wong, authors of Unfree Speech and pioneers in the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement.

    Alongside more regular interviews and personal essays from international writers, PEN Transmissions will also feature digital discussions that English PEN had hoped to hold through our live events programme. We will also be publishing more work related to our advocacy for writers-at-risk, whose circumstances we particularly consider at this time. Alongside other new initiatives across our areas of work, we hope these dispatches do something to sustain you, and to sustain the importance of the transmission of words and ideas across borders.

    Crises breed weighty literature – and often it’s more humane and benevolent than we might presume. From the literature of the Trojan war, we learnt not about conflict, but about the human condition – a discourse of compassion. Catherine Amy Dawson Scott, PEN’s pioneering founder, believed that ‘out of social intercourse comes understanding; and that if the great writers of the world met in friendship and exchanged ideas, a nascent kindliness would deepen’. Social, cultural, and literary intercourse are more difficult in this time, but there are ways, and they are vital. We hope PEN Transmissions can be one.

    Will Forrester, Editor.

  • Being both – a very personal revolution

    Being both – a very personal revolution

    ‘Three years ago I would have confidently pronounced myself British, yet I’d also have considered myself an Irish writer. I wouldn’t have thought these statements were necessarily contradictory.’ Jan Carson reflects on being Northern Irish in the age of Brexit.

    In February, my Irish passport finally arrived. I opened it, read my name and beneath it, my nationality, or rather náisiúntacht. I was an Irish citizen now. I sat down on the stairs and cried. I hadn’t anticipated such an extreme emotional reaction. I have been trying to understand my response ever since.

    I’m the first person in my immediate family to acquire an Irish passport. I was raised Protestant in rural North Antrim, born into a conservative, Presbyterian family at the height of the Troubles. My grandfather was an Orangeman. My grandmother kept her tea leaves in a caddy with the Queen on the front. She referred to anything South of Newry as the Free State; a dangerous place to venture with Northern Irish registration plates on your car. We did occasionally travel South; my uncle was a Protestant missionary in Cavan. However, as children, we spent more time visiting English seaside resorts. Back then I already knew I was British not Irish; I referred to England as the Mainland. I’d no idea others might find this problematic. Looking back now, I can see how, entitled as we felt to be British, we were different from the people we met in England. Our accents often proved incomprehensible, shopkeepers refused to believe our locally-printed bank notes were legal tender and in certain places, there was a wariness of the Northern Irish, an underlying suspicion I was too young to understand.

    Before the Brexit referendum I’d never felt the need for anything but a British passport. In 1998 the Good Friday Agreement ushered in a period of Northern Irish history where, for the first time in my living memory, it felt acceptable, for a Northern Irish person, to claim a multiplicity of identities.

    Three years ago I would have confidently pronounced myself British, yet I’d also have considered myself an Irish writer, part of a rich tradition of artists who’ve lived and worked on this island. I wouldn’t have thought these statements were necessarily contradictory.

    The Belfast-born poet, John Hewitt summarised this sense of multiple, co-existing identities, decades before the Good Friday Agreement, “I’m an Ulsterman, of planter stock. I was born in the island of Ireland, so secondarily I’m an Irishman. I was born in the British archipelago and English is my native tongue, so I am British. The British archipelago consists of offshore islands to the continent of Europe, so I’m European. This is my hierarchy of values and, so far as I am concerned, anyone who omits one step in that sequence of values is falsifying the situation.” Most residents of Northern Ireland are familiar with the notion of identity as fluid and complex. As a writer, it’s one of the aspects of our culture I find most fascinating. A great deal of my writing wrestles with belonging and identity.

    For me, Brexit threatens my freedom to construct my own complex sense of who I am. A renewed emphasis on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland scares me. If the border is no longer fluid, will we lose the concept of liminal space, where identity can be constructed and adapted to fit the individual? Will we have to choose which side we belong on? I acquired my Irish passport for practical reasons. I wanted to remain a European citizen and continue working in Mainland Europe. I hoped to be able to skip the non-EU line at passport control.

    It wasn’t until my first time approaching an airport check-in desk – both passports in hand – that I realised I’d be deciding which side I belonged to every time I used a passport.

    The last few years have given me ample opportunity to consider this question. Whilst I still feel a strong affinity to the Scottish people from whom I’m descended and I’ve felt a natural and immediate bond with most Northerners, increasingly I’ve begun to feel alienated from my own long held ideas of Britishness. I’m beginning to realise these notions were more grounded in English identity than any kind of nuanced understanding of the United Kingdom as a whole. I’ve slowly become more sensitive to how Northern Irish people are viewed by many people living in England, a huge proportion of whom have never visited the North of Ireland.

    I’m frustrated by the rhetoric coming out of Westminster; politicians who do not take the time to properly research the complex needs of my country and seem to consider us less of an asset than an ongoing headache. I’m annoyed by the portrayal of the Northern Irish in the press; the mistaken assumption that the DUP accurately reflects the majority opinion here. I don’t think I can bear to read another anthology or article which claims to reflect the voices of British Writers and yet contains no work by Northern Irish writers; and don’t even get me started on the Northern Irish stereotypes portrayed by most British television programmes. A cross section of these characters would suggest most of us are terrorists, alcoholics or, at the very least, permanently pissed off. I might sound a little whingey, but when your country’s been part of the UK for almost a century and you still can’t spend an Ulster Bank tenner anywhere South of Newcastle, you have to question whether you’re actually wanted or not.

    Recently, when it comes to British identity, I’ve felt like the kid who’s initially delighted to be invited to a classmate’s part only to discover the birthday girl’s mother has forced her to invite everybody in the class, even the children they don’t like.

    Perhaps I’m being overly harsh. It’s just that during the last decade, I’ve had the absolute opposite experience with Ireland. I’ve been consistently made to feel extremely welcome within the Irish arts community, included in festivals, journals and anthologies, positively championed as an Irish writer throughout the world, supported financially and most importantly, ushered into a community of warm support and creative collaboration with my colleagues in the South. It’s difficult to say this and I fully acknowledge that many people within Ireland and the UK would question my right as a Northern Irish Protestant of Scottish descent, to claim any sort of Irish identity. I’ve been through an absolute revolution in my thinking about national identity over the last two years and if I’m honest I feel more affinity with the Irish writing community than I’ve ever felt with British writers (a few notable exceptions withstanding). I now feel as much at home in the South of Ireland as I do in the North.

    These are confusing times and my thoughts on nationality and identity are constantly changing. For now, I’ll continue to be both Irish and British. I’ll write Northern Irish on any form which asks me to state my nationality, hoping this allows a certain amount of ambiguity. I’ve not yet used my Irish passport. I’ve chickened out twice at the check-in desk. It’s a big decision for me. The first time I travel as an Irish citizen I’ll be putting a little more distance between myself and the culture I was born into. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it feels momentous right now. It’s been a surprisingly emotional journey.


    Jan Carson is a writer and community arts facilitator based in Belfast. Her first novel, Malcolm Orange Disappears, was published in 2014 to critical acclaim, followed by a short story collection, Children’s Children (2016), and a flash fiction anthology, Postcard Stories (2017). Her work has appeared in numerous journals and on BBC Radio 3 and 4. In 2016 she won the Harper’s Bazaar short story competition and was shortlisted for the Seán Ó Faoláin Short Story Prize. She specializes in running arts projects and events with older people, especially those living with dementia. Her second novel, The Fire Starters, is out now.

  • A new life

    A new life

    ‘I became a mother when I was eighteen years old, and now I am twenty-one. I still feel like a child, one trapped in a strange and contradictory existence.’ Theodora Sarah Abigail (Ebi) reflects on how motherhood has upended her life.

     

    They say that the act of becoming a parent of creating a child, then breathing life into it is a lot like pulling the heart out of your body and allowing it to walk defenceless into an unknown world. Every minute you risk sudden death, an unwanted bruise a minor accident that hurts far more than you expect or want it to.

    I became a mother when I was eighteen years old, and now I am twenty-one. I still feel like a child, one trapped in a strange and contradictory existence. What went wrong?, I often ask myself. How did this happen to me? I who can barely take care of myself how could I have given birth to another life?

    This dissonance causes me to wake up some days feeling sure that I am in the wrong house. Where I expect to see the cream-yellow walls of my childhood home, I instead find smeared mosquitos, the hairline cracks in the ceilings, and curl up in a bed that is no longer only my own.

    In this house, this unfinished place, I have cleaved from my parents and started another family.

    In this house, my name is ‘Momma’.

    Parenthood brings new burdens for us to shoulder, and as we slip them onto our shoulders they sink us down into the earth. From the first day we are expected to always be “on”, to always be there for our children or risk damaging them in some irreversible way. There is no space left for our own sorrows and joys; tending to those would be selfish and wrong. Any waking moment that doesn’t revolve around our children, we’re told, is a sin.

    I spent many nights during those early days paralysed by fear, constantly questioning who I had become. Despite all the books I’d read on the matter and the experiences I’d gleaned from raising my three younger brothers, there were many questions I had no answers for. What temperature should porridge be served at? How often should I change her diaper? Is she still hungry? Is she getting enough sleep? Is she gaining enough weight? Is every miracle in her tiny body developing on schedule?

    As my daughter’s independence developed, so did her propensity for accidents. She would bite her tongue one day, knock her head on the next, get a finger trapped while trying to close a door. A single house offers hundreds of possible ways to experience hurt; the world millions more. What will cause my daughter to suffer next? Our lack of wealth? Her small eyes? This country that often does not want her?

    Suddenly, bringing a child into the world a girl, especially seemed extraordinarily selfish and cruel. As days snowballed into weeks, then months, my fears ballooned.

    I looked into the mirror and began seeing my mother’s own face staring back. Her frustration and confusion, her self-hatred and self-love, her insistence on battering us with love all these, I realised, had taken up residence in my own heart.

    That first night the night after my daughter was born I sat in my bed and stared at the curtain divider that separated me from the other women in the ward. I cradled her in my arms and stared at her impossibly tiny face. What a beautiful fragrance wrapped gingerly in a plush blanket, she had that familiar and powdery new-baby smell. She was a new responsibility. A new life. A new way of experiencing sorrow and anguish and wonder.

    And yet somehow, it felt that I was bringing a part of me home to die, and mourning.

    No parent wants to admit that they regret parenthood sometimes, or that on certain days when the sun is shining and no one else in the house is awake, they reminisce about the past, where the hardest decision they were asked to make was to choose the colour of the shirt they’d wear that day.

    Ah, but it’s perfectly normal to grieve at the birth of a child, isn’t it?

    It is never easy to juggle identity becoming a person is hard work, and it’s tempting to collapse into a singular role or archetype: the gloomy young girl, or the responsible, ever-loving mother, or the hardworking, productive writer. Rather than moving in flux with our needs and emotions, we staple these fractional identities onto our bodies and blame ourselves when we are not always ‘on’.

    It’s taken time for me to realise that the life I am living still belongs in part to myself.

    I am a mother. But I am also a woman, one who loves romantic displays of affections and expensive makeup and beautiful clothes. On some days I cook for myself things my daughter can’t eat. I’ve started spending more afternoons alone with my friends, laughing about the shows we’ve recently watched and books we’ve just finished.

    I think we need these minor respites from the many responsibilities we have to shoulder we have to tend to ourselves, too.

    It is a lie to say that growing up is the process of finding a singular ‘self’ it is, rather, about compromising between all the people you are and all the responsibilities you bear. It is about guilty pleasures like going back to sleep once your child has gone to school, and about stealing kisses from your lover when no one is looking, and that split second of sunrise, lounging in the chilly air. These are our birthright, and we were cared for by others precisely so that we could enjoy them.

    You must eye the crop of love and, yes, desire, and keep it green for your own sanity, and for your child. After all, you were raised for the joyous moments, and the child you so love must also learn that she deserves a happiness all her own, independent of anyone else’s presence or place in her life. With your actions you must be able to say, it is alright for you to leave, and it is only right for you to know your own happiness.


    Theodora Sarah Abigail (Ebi) is a Chinese-Indonesian American essayist, poet and author of In The Hands of a Mischievous God (2017). Ebi has written for Atlas Obscura, Catapult, Greatist, The Jakarta Post and Magdalene. Her works and essays mainly focus on the concepts of identity, heritage, and belonging. She is based in Jakarta. 

  • Blood on its hands: a conversation with Robert Menasse

    Blood on its hands: a conversation with Robert Menasse

    Austrian writer Robert Menasse’s The Capital (translated from German by Jamie Bulloch) has been called ‘the first EU novel’. We talked to him about political writing and his belief in the EU as a transnational project.

     

    What do you think about the relationship between politics and literature? Is literature political?

    At the moment when literature does justice to what it claims for itself, even the literature of apolitical authors is political. And for a simple reason: literature, like art in general, is one of the possible pathways to truth. And the truth is always revolutionary – because we live in ideologically complex systems of perception and have, consciously or unconsciously, veiled reality around us. To that extent the search for truth alone is a political project. There are people, artists, writers who do this consciously, and there are artists who do it unconsciously, with an incomprehensible and inexplicable instinct. That is the difference between Kafka and Brecht.

    Give me an example from contemporary literature.

    Let me answer that metaphorically. There are artists who build their art like bees build their honeycombs. The bees have no plan, but they build in infinite perfection. And then there are artists who are architects. Everything already exists in their heads. They can reflect on what they do, they can plan it. Of course, there are also mixed forms. There are people who already know what they are doing, but leave a lot of room for instinctive things. In contemporary literature I’m observing an interesting phenomenon. Many authors started their careers with certain political commitments. And they have all now become silent. There is almost an unspoken consensus in this generation: that there is no point. One of the last politically committed authors was Günter Grass. When he died I said that a literary epoch had come to an end.

    For my part, I was influenced by authors like Dickens, Èmile Zola, Balzac and Victor Hugo; later also by Latin American literature, which is a great narrative literature, always in opposition to a multitude of dictatorships. So it’s no surprise that I am who I am now. However, I am not at all interested in turning myself into a schizophrenic person: I don’t want anyone to think that I’m an artist one day and an activist the next. When I get politically involved, I do so as an artist. That’s important to me.

    It sometimes feels to me as if certain contemporary ‘national’ literatures are more political than others. 

    Well, let me give you an example of political literature from the UK where there is no obvious political intention, but where there clearly are political and analytical implications: Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day, which in a way tells the story of the fall of a political empire through a single character.

    But Ishiguro wrote this novel twenty years ago. His work has changed since then.

    I think that this mood (of not engaging politically via your art) is really getting stronger and stronger – to my great regret. It’s as if people think, ‘When everything is going down the drain, then at least I want to create something beautiful, but there is no point in getting involved in anything.’ On the one hand that is regrettable. On the other hand I’m actually quite happy when certain artists don’t say anything anymore because I have noticed that they are simply not very well-informed. When you talk about the EU with writers, you notice that they simply have no idea what’s going on. Then again, I am very grateful for Elfriede Jelinek – for either putting her finger on the wound or, in an ingenious double stroke, for throwing salt into the wound.

    Jelinek and you are of a certain generation of politically engaged writers. For me that begs the question of what comes next – in my generation, for example.

    Don’t take this the wrong way, but that is irrelevant. In the end, we have to judge the artistic and aesthetic quality of a work – and its implications, no matter what the author thought. I always like to remember what the Hungarian philosopher Georg Lukács said: that a work of art is only a work of art if it is smarter than the author.

    Let’s talk about the nation state. If the nation state really dies, and this is the ideological goal, then many hurdles must be overcome that have to do with the indoctrination of the people. What must happen for that to happen? I am thinking above all of the media, sport, etc., all of which are in tune with the fact that the nation state is important.

    One thing must be said in advance, you cannot abolish the nation state. You can’t sit down and dismantle it. It is a process that operates, just like all historical processes, with many small steps. At the moment when the nation state can no longer do what we expect it to do, it will also stop functioning as a source of identity. Because it’s not simply down to the idea that I need a national identity, because otherwise I wouldn’t know who I am. We expect the nation state to fulfil certain tasks. There will indeed be desperate attempts to equip it radically with everything we expect from it – a brief flourishing of nationalism. But it is clear that it will die in the long run because it can no longer solve many problems: finance, the internet, ecological problems, they are transnational. What we need instead is an upgraded, functional European parliament.

    We must also bear in mind how young the idea of the nation is. My grandparents lived in a state and society that had no national idea, but that worked on the basis of a common market, a common currency, a common bureaucracy: the Habsburg Empire. It was destroyed by nationalism. Nationalism as an idea has blood on its hands.

     


    Robert Menasse was born in Vienna in 1954 and studied there before moving to Brazil, where he lived for six years as a professor of literature at the University of São Paulo. He is the author of several novels translated into English, including Wings of Stone and Reverse Thrust, and of a work of non-fiction, Enraged Citizens, European Peace and Democratic Deficits: Or Why the Democracy Given to Us Must Become One We Fight for (2016). In 2017 he was awarded the German Book Prize for Die Hauptstadt (The Capital), which is out in English now, translated by Jamie Bulloch.

    Interview conducted and translated by Theodora Danek. With thanks to Corinna Zifko for participating in the conversation.

  • No time for arrogance: a conversation with Ece Temelkuran

    No time for arrogance: a conversation with Ece Temelkuran

    Ece Temelkuran is an award-winning Turkish writer now based in Zagreb. We caught up with her during her book tour to talk about politics, the marketplace of ideas, and how writers in exile are victimised.

     

    You’ve written about how problematic the notion of ‘writer in exile’ is for you. Can you tell me more?

    A woman, coming from the third world, throwing herself into the arms of civilised Europe, lady in distress and so on – that’s victimisation! When you’re described as an exiled writer, you’re supposed to tell that story and only that story. But I’m not telling the story of Turkey right now. With my new book, How To Lose A Country, I’m telling the story of the rest of the world. I’m trying to tell Europe and the US their story.

    So you’re holding up a mirror to the West.

    Yes. It’s already hard, being a woman from Turkey, to be taken seriously. There is that orientalist thing – you can speak about my country, but I can’t speak about your country. And I’ve experienced that, from an audience in the UK, I’ve been told that I can’t speak about Great Britain because I can’t understand Britain.

    Why not? Because you’re a woman or because you’re foreign?

    Well, I was telling a friend of mine about the reaction I’ve been getting while launching the book: the challenges, the resistance. She told me, You’re a woman and you have ideas. Nobody likes that. When you have feelings, they love it. When you have ideas – not so much.

    I’ve been thinking about the brilliant essay you wrote a few years ago about being seen as a victim. There’s an odd tension about Westerners who want to ‘help’.

    A few years ago, when I launched another book, a woman in the audience folded her hands and said, What can we do for you? I felt like I was a panda, being adopted by a website. What was interesting was that at that time, Brexit was happening. It was so amazing to see that the British were still convinced that they’re in a position to help other people. You know those clichés, those roles, they don’t work anymore.

    I guess the UK hasn’t done its reckoning with its past yet and still sees itself in a certain role.

    It’s doing that right now, but in a very tense way. It’s messy. This is what populism does to a country: it makes debate impossible. All of a sudden you realise you’ve lost the basic consensus of how we communicate, the basics of rationality. I can see what will happen in the UK because it’s the same pattern everywhere.

    So what do you think will happen?

    It’s not going to get better on its own unless the side that promotes rationality and sense has some more political power. Everybody, not only in Britain, has to realise that this is about politics, it’s about morality, and it’s not going to get better on its own. Everybody has to do something.

    I guess that brings us to the question of personal responsibility.

    It wasn’t always like it is now. It wasn’t like this before the 1980s in the UK, but then this woman with her handbag arrived, and then suddenly people became political objects. They weren’t subjects anymore. This didn’t just happen in England. It has become the motto of our age to say, ‘Oh I hate politics’ – without realising that that is the most political statement you can come up with.

    It’s the height of cynicism and privilege.

    It’s a very political statement because you’re giving up on being a subject. And it makes you very open to authoritarianism.

    So what is our personal responsibility in the current political state? Is it being an active voter, is it activism?

    Before that, before any of that, what I see happening in Europe is this: they’re getting caught up in an excess of emotion. It doesn’t solve anything. Expressing your emotion is an ideological pattern. After neoliberalism took over, it made us think that antagonism is not good, confrontation is not good. But they are good. Get rid of the emotions and start using your mind. This is how I escaped from my own anguish regarding the political situation in Turkey and my position in it. It is not personal. Unfortunately our generation has to suffer the last crisis of neoliberalism and therefore a crisis of democracy. Unfortunately we have to deal with this.

    If we need to take emotions out of politics, what do you think about the idea of left wing populism as an answer to right wing populism?

    I think that the remedy for right wing populism is going to come from the new generation. The right wing populism we’re seeing now is a 21st century problem, and we’re trying to deal with it with 20th century tools, with political parties and so on. I’m expecting a lot from climate strikers. Sooner or later they are going to come up against the hard surface of neoliberal greed, and they will soon understand that they have to fight against big capital and so on. They’re going to invent ways of doing so. Since it’s not invented, we just don’t know yet. It’ll be like Tahrir Square all over again. 

    You touch on Hannah Arendt in your new book. Tell me why you think she’s still relevant.

    We have to remember that that generation was a defeated generation. There’s a bit of a defeatist layer there; broken people remaking themselves. I do think that what has changed since then is this social and moral transformation that made me reverse her term from banality of evil to evil of banality. Now evil is not as obvious. It comes in the form of banality. Trump is a great example of this. Banality, when it builds up and becomes a political identity, qualitatively turns into evil . Whereas before, evil was very obvious, it wore uniforms. It is different now, it comes across as something that we consider not that dangerous: Oh, it’s another idea in the free market of ideas, oh, it’s just another opinion, another faith. But all these small political choices add up to create their own form of identity.

    What do you think of the concept of the marketplace of ideas?

    It’s still relevant. Otherwise the British media wouldn’t still be obsessed with giving space to this or that idea, would not be giving space to Nigel Farage.

    Do you think everyone has the same access to the marketplace of ideas, especially when it comes to questions of freedom of speech?

    That is the most bullshit illusion that has ever been created. I’m not even going to discuss this.

    Coming back to the idea of victimising Turkish writers that we spoke about earlier: what is the best way to counter these notions?

    You know, we don’t have time for arrogance at the moment. Every country has its material to feel superior over others. In Turkey, we had the Arab world. We used to think, Oh all those crazy things happening in Arab countries. Now people think exactly the same thing about Turkey. But it is in fact happening to you, in Europe, and you’re so absorbed that you don’t even see that it is happening. Global solidarity is crucial at this time because right wing populism cannot be defeated in just one country. They’re already cooperating, so get your act together!

     


    Ece Temelkuran is an award-winning Turkish novelist and political commentator, whose journalism has appeared in many major newspapers. She won the Edinburgh International Book Festival First Book award for her novel Women Who Blow on Knots (translated by Alex Dawe and winner of a PEN Translates grant), and the Ambassador of New Europe Award. Her new book, How To Lose A Country: The 7 Steps from Democracy to Dictatorship, is out now.

    Ece was in conversation with Theodora Danek.

     

  • Editorial: revolution

    Editorial: revolution

    April 2019. What a time to be alive! As the UK makes its way through the interminable Brexit process, it’s time for an issue on the radical political and personal changes that we see going on around us, and within us.

    In this issue of PEN Transmissions, we’re featuring a pair of conversations with writers whose work acts as a response to the current political crisis: Austrian writer Robert Menasse and Turkish writer Ece Temelkuran. They complement and contradict each other: one optimistic, one pessimistic about the political future.

    Robert Menasse’s The Capital (translated by Jamie Bulloch) is sometimes referred to as ‘the first EU’ novel; in his essays, he engages with politics and, especially, the transnational project of the European Union. In our conversation he reflected on the state of politics and political writing, especially the depoliticisation of writers and the future of the nation state.

    Ece Temelkuran (who won a PEN Translates award for her novel Women Who Blow on Knots) has recently written a work of political non-fiction that acts as a call to arms for the EU and the US, a warning about what can happen if people and countries stop being vigilant. In our conversation, she stressed the insidious nature of fascism: ‘[Evil] is different now, it comes across as something that we consider not that dangerous: Oh, it’s another idea in the free market of ideas, oh, it’s just another opinion, another faith. But all these small political choices add up to create their own form of identity.’

    Jan Carson provides a different perspective on political upheaval and its consequences. As a Northern Irish writer, Brexit has led her to question her own identity and that of the state she grew up in: ‘Recently, when it comes to British identity, I’ve felt like the kid who’s initially delighted to be invited to a classmate’s part only to discover the birthday girl’s mother has forced her to invite everybody in the class, even the children they don’t like.’

    Finally, Theodora Sarah Abigail (Ebi) writes about another kind of personal revolution: becoming a mother at the age of 18, and learning to live with this new identity while holding on to previous identities. While Jan’s questioning of identity revolves around a new passport, Ebi’s centres on a small human.

    I hope you enjoy this issue of Transmissions. It’s a good time to think of Mitterand: ‘Le nationalisme, c’est la guerre!’ See you next month. Hopefully.

    – Theodora Danek, editor, PEN Transmissions

  • Yazarın paradoksu

    Ahmet Altan was imprisoned in Turkey with his brother Mehmet in September 2016. Despite being denied access to receiving and sending written communications, he wrote The Writer’s Paradox for publication on the eve of his trial, which starts on 19 September. We have been campaigning to raise awareness of Ahmet’s plight as part of our Speak Out campaign.
    English translation.

    Zenon çok tartışılan ünlü sözünde “Hareket eden bir cisim ne bulunduğu yerdedir ne bulunmadığı yerde” der.

    Bu sözün fizikten ziyade edebiyata, daha doğrusu yazarlara ait bir söz olduğunu düşünürüm gençliğimden beri.

    Bu satırları bir hapishane hücresinden yazıyorum.

    “Bu satırları bir hapishane hücresinden yazıyorum” cümlesini hangi anlatıma katarsanız o anlatıma gergin bir dirilik, karanlık ve gizemli bir âlemden gelen ürkütücü bir ses, dirençli bir mazlumun yiğit duruşu ve pek de gizli olmayan bir merhamet çağrısı eklenir.

    İnsanların duygularını sömürmek için kullanılabilecek tehlikeli bir cümledir.

    Ve yazarlar insanların duygularına dokunmak söz konusu olduğunda cümleleri kendi amaçlarına alet etmekten kaçınmayabilirler.

    Sadece bu amacın anlaşılması bile o cümleyi yazana bir merhamet duyulmasına yeter.

    Ama durun; benim için merhamet trampetlerini çalmadan önce size anlatacaklarımı dinleyin.

    Evet, bir ıssızlığın ortasındaki yüksek güvenlikli bir hapishanede tutuluyorum.

    Evet, kapısı demir şakırtılarıyla açılıp demir şakırtılarıyla kapanan bir hücrede kalıyorum.

    Evet, yemeklerimi kapının ortasındaki bir delikten veriyorlar.

    Evet, volta attığım küçük taş avlunun üstü bile çelik kafeslerle kaplı.

    Evet, çocuklarımla avukatlarımdan başkası ile görüşmeme izin yok.

    Evet, sevdiklerime iki satırlık bir mektup göndermem bile yasak.

    Evet, hastaneye gitmek zorunda kalırsam bir demir salkımından çekip aldıkları kelepçeleri takıyorlar bileklerime.

    Evet, beni hücremden her çıkarttıklarında “kollarını kaldır, ayakkabılarını çıkar” komutları çarpıyor yüzüme.

    Bunların hepsi gerçek ama tüm gerçek bu kadar değil.

    Güneşin ilk ışıklarının çıplak parmaklıklardan geçip parlak mızraklar gibi yastığıma saplandığı yaz sabahları, avludaki saçağın altında yuva yapmış göçmen kuşların oynak ötüşlerini, diğer avlulardaki mahkûmların boşalmış su şişelerini ezerken çıkarttıkları tuhaf çıtırtıları duyuyorum.

    Çocukluğumu geçirdiğim geniş bahçeli köşkte ya da nedense – bunun nedenini gerçekten bilmiyorum – Sokak Kızı İrma filmindeki cıvıltılı Fransız sokaklarındaki otellerden birinde olduğum duygusuyla yaşıyorum.

    Kuzey rüzgârlarının öfkesiyle parmaklıklara vuran sonbahar yağmurlarıyla uyandığımda, Tuna Nehri’nin kenarındaki, geceleri önünde meşaleler yanan bir otelde, kışın parmaklıklarda biriken karın fısıltısıyla uyandığımda Doktor Jivago’nun saklandığı önü camlı kışlık daçada başlıyorum güne.

    Bugüne dek daha bir kez bile hapishanede uyanmadım.

    Geceleri maceralarım daha da hareketlenir. Tayland’ın adalarında, Londra otellerinde, Amsterdam sokaklarında, Paris’in gizli labirentlerinde, İstanbul’un sahil lokantalarında, New York’un sokakları arasında saklanmış küçük parklarda, Norveç’in fiyordlarında, Alaska’nın yolları kardan kapanmış küçük kasabalarında gezerim.

    Amazon nehirlerinde, Meksika kıyılarında, Afrika savanlarında bana rastlayabilirsiniz.

    Gün boyu kimsenin görmediği, duymadığı, var olmayan, ben onlardan söz edene kadar da var olmayacak insanlarla konuşurum.

    Onların kendi aralarındaki konuşmaları dinlerim.

    Aşklarını, serüvenlerini, ümitlerini, endişelerini, kederlerini, sevinçlerini onlarla birlikte yaşarım.

    Avluda yürürken bazen kendi kendime gülerim. Çok eğlenceli bazı konuşmalarına tanıklık ederim çünkü.

    Hapishanede onları bir kâğıda geçirmek istemediğimden bunların hepsini hafızamın koyu mürekkebi ile zihnimin kuytularına kazırım.

    O insanlar zihnimde yaşadığı sürece bir şizofren, cümleler hâlinde kitap sayfalarına döküldüğünde bir yazar olduğumu bilirim.

    Şizofreniyle yazarlık arasında kolan vurarak eğlenirim.

    Aklımda var olan insanlarla birlikte bir duman gibi süzülür çıkarım hapishaneden.

    Beni hapsetmeye güçleri yeter ama beni hapiste tutmaya kimsenin gücü yetmez.

    Ben bir yazarım.

    Ne bulunduğum yerdeyim, ne bulunmadığım yerde.

    Beni nereye kapatırsanız kapatın ben zihnimin sınırsızlığında kanatlanır, bütün dünyayı dolaşırım.

    Ayrıca benim dünyanın dört bir yanında dolaşmama yardımcı olan, çoğunluğunu hiç tanımadığım dostlarım vardır.

    Benim yazdığım satırları okuyan her göz, benim adımı tekrarlayan her ses, küçük bir bulut gibi benim elimden tutup ovaların, pınarların, ormanların, denizlerin, şehirlerin, sokakların üzerinden uçurur. Evlere, salonlara, odalara usulca konuk eder.

    Bir hapishane hücresinde bütün dünyayı gezerim.

    Sizin de rahatça tahmin edebileceğiniz gibi binlerce yıldır kuşaktan kuşağa geçerek gelen ve genellikle pek itiraf edilmeyen, yazarlara mahsus tanrısal bir kibre, edebiyatın sağlam kabukları içinde büyüyen bir inciyi andıran bir güvene, kitaplarımdan yapılmış çelik bir zırhla korunan bir dokunulmazlığa sahibim.

    Bunları bir hapishane hücresinde yazıyorum.

    Ama hapiste değilim.

    Ben bir yazarım.

    Ne bulunduğum yerdeyim, ne bulunmadığım yerde.

    Beni hapse koyabilirsiniz ama beni hapiste tutamazsınız.

    Bütün yazarlar gibi ben de duvarları rahatça geçecek bir sihrin sahibiyim çünkü.

    Ahmet Altan Türkiye’nin tanınmış romancı, denemeci ve gazetecilerindendir. Altan, 30 yılı aşkın yazarlık kariyerinde birçok dile çevrilen ve dünyanın çeşitli yerlerinde ‘’bestseller’’ olan on roman yayımladı. Aynı zamanda, Hürriyet, Milliyet, Radikal gibi Türkiye’nin önemli gazetelerinde yazı yazdı. Kasım 2007’den Aralık 2012’ye kadar liberal eğilimli Taraf gazetesinin genel yayın yönetmenliğini yaptı.

     

    Ahmet Altan Türkiye’de 2016’nın Temmuz ayında gerçekleşen darbe teşebbüsü ardından hapse atılan çok sayıda gazeteci ve yazar arasında yer alıyor. Ahmet, kardeşi tanınmış iktisatçı ve gazeteci Mehmet Altan’la birlikte 2016’nın Eylül ayında bir şafak baskınında gözaltına alındı. Basına yansıyan suçlamalar arasında, başarısız darbe girişiminden bir gece önce ‘’televizyonda darbe yanlısı subliminal mesajlar vermek’’ de vardı. Daha fazla bilgi için burayı tıklayınız.