Tag: Robert Sharp

  • Holding Up a Funhouse Mirror: Lavie Tidhar in Conversation with Robert Sharp

    Holding Up a Funhouse Mirror: Lavie Tidhar in Conversation with Robert Sharp

    As part of our Digital Literary Salon, Lavie Tidhar speaks to Robert Sharp about speculative fiction, cultural appropriation, and what we can and should write.

    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.

    ROBERT SHARP: By Force Alone is a retelling of the Arthurian Legend – less about chivalry, more about power. Can you describe the genesis of the book for us?

    LAVIE TIDHAR: It really comes from studying it for the first time, and realising two things that never occurred to me. One is that it’s not only entirely made up, but made up by many different (European!) writers over a long period of time. And these stories they made up are still hugely important to our modern collective unconscious. If you take the Holy Grail, for example: it’s not in the original, and it actually evolves over three different versions – first a saucer of blood, then a fallen star stone, and finally the Holy Grail as we know it. And without that we wouldn’t have Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, or The Da Vinci Code. So I thought that was interesting, and I couldn’t resist, in the end, writing all three versions into the book.

    The other thing that got me is that the story itself isn’t at all about chivalry. No one’s good, really (apart maybe from Galahad, and I apologise in advance for what I did to him). I realised it’s the classic gangster narrative, the rise-and-fall. It’s The Godfather, it’s Goodfellas. And so I couldn’t understand why it’s always presented as a ‘good’ story. It’s an awful story. Uther rapes Igraine to birth Arthur. Arthur rises to power through nothing more than killing off everyone else who wants to be king. Then someone younger and hungrier, Mordred, rises and kills him. But no one was writing it like that, and I couldn’t understand why. So I sat down to write it myself. I was using new translations of the originals, of course, but I was also drawing on a Victorian children’s book – a children’s book!

    By Force Alone feels prima facie different in direction to the rest of your output so far. Do you see it that way, or does it seem a natural next step?

    It does feel different. There was only so much alternate-history-political-noir fiction (‘Tidharian’ fiction, as I’ve seen it called) I could do. The change actually starts with a book called The Escapement, which is coming out next year. It’s the only non-political book I’ve ever written. It’s about a father searching for a cure for his son’s illness across this very weird, surrealist world. And one of the things I realised is that I can use my strength, which is that I’m not really a novelist but a short story writer; I could write the books episodically. I stupidly pitched By Force Alone to my publishers with the vague notion it could be a quartet of books, and they were surprisingly keen, so I’m writing the second one right now. But after that I’ll probably go and do a big 20th Century crime novel.

    A fun aspect of By Force Alone is the way you appropriate liberally from the canon of English literature and modern pop-culture. I spotted snippets of William Shakespeare, the King James Bible, Charles Dickens and Walt Whitman, and there are probably dozens of others a wider-read person would recognise. These tributes are blended with brazen allusions to The Terminator, The Wire and The Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones) series. Can you talk about how this pilfering / remixing / borrowing / deployment arose, and how it serves the story?

    The critic John Clute calls it ‘equipoise’ fiction, and he argues it’s a condition of being a 21st Century writer. I will use what I can – whether it’s elements of crime fiction, or historical fiction, or slice-of-life, or science fiction. I’ll mix them up. Genres don’t matter to me, but they do fascinate me as sets of rules or formulas or expectations, and what you can do with that. What I also realised is that the people I feel closest to are not writers but comics, going to any length for the sake of a joke. So, for me, putting in these little references is funny. Without the humour you can’t see the darkness; the humour is the light. Even if, or especially if, I write about the Holocaust, as in A Man Lies Dreaming. Or about Israel and Palestine, like in Unholy Land, and throw in a detail where in this alternate reality there’s a porn magazine called Zaftig (curvy, or plump, in Yiddish). Or, indeed, what I do to the poor Green Knight in By Force Alone, which I’ve already seen some readers really hated.

    But references are also, I suppose, a remnant of Modernism. If you look at The Waste Land, it’s all quotes. It’s all references, and it’s a great poem. Postmodernism is a big influence as well – the mixing and matching, the metafiction. And if I’m going to go on like this, I have to say I’m inordinately influenced by the work of the Russian Formalists and their ideas about defamiliarisation. They’ve been out of fashion for decades, though.

    Many reviewers have seized on the fact that this is a post-Brexit novel with allusions to populism and xenophobia, and their hypocrisies. But the wider theme of power is crucial right now: we see it in the way Donald Trump and other authoritarian political leaders are sustained, and we see it examined in popular culture, too. The phrase ‘By Force Alone’ is a mantra, repeated by more than one character throughout the book. So can you talk about this aspect of the book? Was this through-line always at the core of your story?

    That seems fairly obvious, but it’s hardly very original, or interesting, in itself. What I actually found much more interesting is how pointless the whole thing is. They’re fighting over England? Who cares! I’m naturalised now and all, but I’m not fundamentally from here, and to me that was the funny bit, that it’s all so silly. You see it in the book repeatedly: you get glimpses of the wider world, and you see people like Merlin yearning to leave and get out, and being shackled to Story, as it were. I got to have a lot of fun with Lancelot coming in from the outside and having much the same point of view. That’s more interesting to me than, you know, whether Henry VIII is going to divorce his wife or not.

    The new book I’m working on is set after the Norman conquest. Christianity’s taken over, and that in itself is fascinating. The crusades, and the power plays between Henry II and Becket – I go into that for a bit. But, again, it’s more to highlight the absurdity of the whole thing. I take a great delight in, for example, all the ‘genuine’ Holy Foreskins that were floating around Christendom at that time. You know, I try never to make anything up because reality is always weirder.

    Can you talk about what ‘cultural appropriation’ means to you? Are there limits on what authors can write about? Should some writers ‘stay in their lane’?

    This is such an exasperating topic. Because the only people who ever complain about how they can’t write about stuff anymore are over-privileged writers – your sort of white generics, suddenly being called up on their crap. No one is telling you what to write, but this really is about power and privilege. Can you write about a culture you don’t know and understand? Sure. Can you pull it off? Well, probably not. And the most important question really is, should you? Because why? Why do you feel the need to tell the story of marginalised people? Why do you co-opt someone else’s story?

    The problem isn’t really with writers; it’s with the whole publishing industry, which would prefer a white writer’s narrative to a black writer’s. We’ve all had rejections or heard the rejection that says we don’t publish stories about (for example) Nigeria. Or we don’t publish stories set in Mexico. And yet those same publishers will reject a good Mexican novel in favour of a white American writer writing – badly – about Mexico. You keep hearing the line it doesn’t sell. Well, nothing sells if you don’t sell it. So, you know, can you write anything you want? Sure. Should you? No, and if you do, then take the criticism and don’t whine about it. Really what we need is a more diverse publishing ecosystem, and we need to recognise the bias that publishers and writers hold.

    For me, I absolutely can write whatever I want, because frankly no one thinks my books sell anything anyway. I’m a writer – not a Jewish writer, or an Israeli writer, or a genre writer, or whatever other niche you want to stick someone into. But I ask myself, repeatedly: Do I have the right to do this book? I’m perfectly happy to write these British books because, frankly, the British are fair game, and making fun of them is fair game. But if I wanted to write, say, about South-east Asia, where I did live for a time – well, sure I can do it, but I’ll only ever be a tourist there. Why don’t I instead help promote genuine writers from South-east Asia, who have their own stories to tell? This is part of what I’ve been trying to do with the World SF anthologies and related projects (World SF Blog, travel fund, and book bundles) over the past twelve years. Let other people’s voices be heard.

    I am sick to death of this privileged nonsense about how everything is censorship and now white people can’t just take what they want when they want to and get paid a lot to do it badly. Isn’t it telling that they usually complain about it when they headline some international literary festival? Of course, I have to recognise my own privilege: that I’m male; that I’m white (or, you know, being Jewish, white enough); that I write in English, albeit as a second language; that, frankly, I’m sort of establishment at this point. But the nice thing is, I’m pretty obscure, so at least if I say something stupid it’s not a headline in the Guardian and seven opinion pieces. I just wish some writers tried harder not to say something stupid.

    There are some aspects of your work that might very well cause offence: Adolf Hitler as a London detective; Osama Bin Laden’s atrocities reimagined as entertainment; and, in Unholy Land, you seem to assert – please correct me if I’m wrong – that establishing a Jewish homeland necessitates abuse of pre-established peoples. I wonder whether you’ve experienced any concerted pushback? Has anyone ever said of your work, ‘This should not have been written’?

    It’s a source of grave disappointment to me that no one is ever really offended much by my work. One guy wrote a long piece for a literary magazine about how terrible I was, which was very flattering. But other than that, not really. I hope that’s because I don’t reduce ideas to caricatures – that they have some depth to them. Osama is really a book about loss, I guess, but the point it’s making about terrorist attacks is that they are performative: made to be seen, to be news.

    Adolf Hitler as a private eye, on the idea level, is terrible. I’d be mortally offended if someone else did that. The trick is to make it work, somehow. Partly, it allows me to talk about the Holocaust using the tools I have, and it also allows me, even if as a sideshow, to critique the genre that Chandler made. It has sexism and racism built in by Chandler in the same way Lovecraft baked them into cosmic horror. So, I’m talking to Chandler, but I’m also talking to Primo Levi, I’m talking to Ka-Tsetnik and Celan, I’m talking to my grandparents who survived, to my mother who was born in a refugee camp. These books come from anger, a lot of anger, I think. And then I put in some cheap jokes.

    With Unholy Land, incidentally, I don’t think a Jewish homeland necessitates abuse, as you put it. But I don’t write about some fairytale make-believe world (well, I do, but); I’m writing about Israel and Palestine. I just put a sort of distorting funhouse mirror before it. You know, one thing I would have loved to see is more than one Jewish state in the world. That would have been very interesting. Just like there are a lot of Christian or Buddhist or Muslim states, I would have loved to see a few more Jewish ones. It abounds with alternate-history possibilities too.

    I’m writing about the real world, just using fantastical elements to generate a sense of defamiliarisation – which I hope would have made that old Formalist Viktor Shklovsky happy, at least. He argued that defamiliarisation is at the root of good art. And like most writers who used genre tools, you can get away with a lot more, because as soon as you slap ‘genre’ on it as a label, nobody takes it very seriously anyway.


    Lavie Tidhar’s most recent novels are By Force Alone (Head of Zeus) and The Escapement (Tachyon), both out in 2020. He is the author of the World Fantasy Award winning Osama (2011), the Jerwood Fiction Uncovered Prize winning A Man Lies Dreaming (2014), the Campbell and Neukom awards winning Central Station (2016), and many others. His first children’s book, Fantastic Book Award nominee Candy, appeared in 2018, and first comic,  Adler, a 5-issue mini-series, is published in 2020. As editor, he published the ground-breaking Apex Book of World SF series of international speculative fiction, and he is currently a book columnist for The Washington Post

    Robert Sharp is an author and free speech activist, and was the Head of Campaigns at English PEN for 10 years. His novella The Good Shabti was nominated for the Shirley Jackson Award. He is currently reading and blogging about The Arabian Nights at A Thousand And One Recaps.

    This series features voices from the 2020 programme of the English PEN Literary Salon at the London Book Fair (LBF). LBF is the global marketplace for rights negotiation and the sale and distribution of content across print, audio, TV, film and digital channels. Taking place every spring in the world’s premier publishing and cultural capital, it is a unique opportunity to explore, understand and capitalise on the innovations shaping the publishing world of the future. LBF brings you direct access to customers, content and emerging markets. LBF 2021, the 50th Fair, will take place from 9-11 March 2021, Olympia London. LBF’s London Book and Screen Week will run for the fourth year, with the book fair as the pivotal three-day event within a seven-day programme. For further information, please visit: www.londonbookfair.co.uk

  • The past and the present side by side: a conversation with Peter Kimani

    Kenyan writer Peter Kimani talks to us about how he tackled the past in his latest novel, representing otherness, and freedom of speech in Kenya.


    Dance of the Jakaranda is a complex book of interwoven stories that spans generations. How did it come into being?

    In 2007 I went to a writing programme in Iowa. Writers from different parts of the world spend a semester writing, giving readings and community engagement activities. I lived in an Iowan hotel for three months, and that was the genesis of the idea, of a hotel being the setting for a story.

    I returned to Kenya at the end of that year just as there was another disputed election. There was violence, people were killed. That challenged our presumptions as Kenyans: Who are we collectively? Who are we individually? And why are we still wrestling with those simple questions? This gave impetus to the direction of my story. I had sought to write something simple, but it inadvertently evolved into something complex.

    I found that writing about Indians living in Kenya was a useful group to write about when exploring the Kenyan identity. They were imported into the country by the British as part of the indentured labour, and have now inhabited that place for over five generations.

    The structure of the story was also something that evolved gradually. The book imitates the railroad: with two parallel stories, the past of the 1890s and the present of the 1960s, side by side. I was examining those two perspectives – not just black and white, but the brown in between.

    I also incorporated African oral storytelling tropes into the book. These tend to dance around a topic, with repetition and cyclical motions to the narrative, all deliberately so. You even have specific echoes of African storytelling, like when somebody says hadithi hadithi and there is a call and response hadithin jo, and I occasionally tease out such a device.

    And both timelines have unreliable narrators…

    The character of Nyundo the drummer powerfully reclaimed a place for himself in the story. Traditional communities used to communicate through drums, and he is the folk historian who witnesses history as it happens. Meanwhile, the colonial administrator who records the same events has another version of the history. So through Nyundo, I contest the validity of history as we know it, because what is recorded officially is never told from the perspective of the victim, it is always from the perspective of the victor. In other words I am teasing out the absurdity of a continent whose story has been told through the outside view and hardly their own. In the earlier drafts, Nyundo was dead for many years, but then he insisted on living in the text! To me, this symbolises the resurrection of African memory. He shifts the reader’s perspective because he is saying, ‘I saw it happen, I am the witness who experienced it, this is my story I am telling’ … and so challenging presumptions about Africa’s own story.

    The main characters in this story are Indian, not from an indigenous East African group. How did you approach writing them, and ensure that you did justice to the characters and not slip into ’cultural appropriation’?

    Actually I am currently teaching a course called ‘representing otherness’, examining how Africa’s colonial past has been exploited by white writers, and how black writers in the same space are writing about white characters. With regards to the Indians in Dance of the Jakaranda, people ask, ‘Why are you writing about what is not your story?’ My simple response is that Indians are part of the collective of what makes Kenya. So they are as Kenyan as I am and their story is my story to that extent.

    When trying to give voice to another person, one is challenged to do it with integrity and faithfulness. My fidelity to my characters is to have no set notions of what their story is, because I am writing partly to discover. In my current book, I am exploring the life of a deaf and a mute person, and that will be a revelation. If it helps examine that community and the challenges they navigate through, I would have empowered somebody who doesn’t have the skills to state it as I do. So I will state that story and let others respond to it.

    Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o now writes in his mother tongue of Giyuku. What do you think of that and would you consider writing novels in your own mother tongue?

    I started my writing in Swahili as a journalist for Taifa Leo (the sister publication to English-language Daily Nation). I did that for a year and a half and I’m very proud of my contributions to that publication. So I do sympathise with Ngũgĩ’s cause and the concern that we should not keep all this knowledge in ‘foreign granaries’, where it can only be accessed by those who speak those languages. What does it mean for those populations that cannot access the material in those languages, coded in a foreign tongue?

    I partly addressed this in Dance of the Jakaranda. I deliberately deployed literary ‘indigenisation’. The book signals that it is being told in a colonial language. English is delivering the story, but the characters were originally speaking something different.

    Kenya needs to invest in an infrastructure that can promote development of its own languages. Tanzania adopted Swahili as its official language in 1961 and there is now a thriving publishing scene there that we do not have in Kenya. The government should be doing more. Look at Hebrew – it is spoken by around 5 million people, about the same as the number of Gikuyu speakers. But look at the number of texts that are in Hebrew, because of the investment in the language.

    How difficult is it to make these criticisms of Kenya? As a former journalist, what is your view on the state of freedom of expression?

    I should say expressly that I think the current state of affairs in Kenya as far as press freedom is concerned is probably one of the worst in 25 years.

    They propose to be a ‘digital’ government – meaning young and modern and sophisticated. But they are more repressive than the stone age politicians like Moi, who did not deal with the internet. The absurdity of this is that when one tries to muzzle voices in the age of the internet, then your mentality must be from the stone age, because you cannot stop me and other writers from expressing ourselves! They have displayed a twentieth century mentality of information.

    What we are seeing now in Kenya is the systematic shutdown of different voices, journalists being sacked at the Daily Nation and the Standard. Daniel Arap Moi, by virtue of his longevity, was more relaxed towards the final years of his rule, especially when he witnessed the inevitable shift of global politics, which has implications on the conduct of politics in Kenya. But the younger people have more energies and are very thin skinned, more so than the older generation, which is an irony.

    Literature to me seems to be the only free thing left in the world. Journalism has been complicated by the shift in technology, both the way we consume and disperse information, and the growing anxieties funding for a lot of media ventures. Literature to me seems to be the only free thing left.


    Peter Kimani is an award-winning Kenyan novelist and journalist. In 2011 he received the Jomo Kenyatta Prize for literature, Kenya’s highest literary honour, for his children’s book Upside Down. Kimani was one of three international poets to compose and present a poem for Barack Obama’s inauguration in January 2009. A prominent journalist on Kenya’s national news circuit, Kimani’s work has also appeared in the GuardianNew African and Sky News. His latest novel, Dance of the Jakaranda, was published by Telegram.

    Interview by Robert Sharp.

  • PEN Atlas Q&A: Anjan Sundaram

    Journalist Anjan Sundaram talks to English PEN’s Robert Sharp about his latest book, Bad News: Last Journalists in a Dictatorship, which describes the erosion of press freedoms in Rwanda, and how the absence of free speech leads to oppression and the ‘transmission of trauma’.

    You can listen to this exclusive English PEN podcast via the embedded audio player below. An edited transcript of part of the discussion is presented here.

    [soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/250744312″ params=”color=00aabb&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=false&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]


    The Rwanda you describe in your book is very Orwellian: the government seems able to do things that no-one believes have actually happened.

    This book was in many ways an education for myself. To understand what becomes possible in a country when people and society are silenced.  It is terrifying, the extent to which people will go, out of fear of disobeying the government.

    A Rwandan journalist told me that the government was conducting some sort of programme that was doing harm to people, and it wasn’t being reported. We went together to the countryside, far away from urban centres, and it was like walking through a war zone.

    We walked through villages where the thatched roofs were down on the ground. The circular mud huts were open to the sky. It was the rainy season, so the mud walls were disintegrating. The people outside were sick with malaria and pneumonia; some of them were dying. In the few concrete houses people were crammed into rooms with goats and pigs. The surreal thing was that the grass roofs could have been put back up on the houses! I was shocked to see hundreds of people in this situation.

    I asked them, ‘Who did this to you? Was it the army? Was it the police? Who tore down your roofs?’ And they said, ‘We did.’

    What had happened was that the President [Paul Kagame] had said called these grass roofs ‘primitive’. And the local representatives in government were so terrified of the President that they went out to the villages and told the people, ‘The President has said these roofs are primitive, they need to come down.’

    The people were so afraid – who were they going to speak up to? There were no journalists, there was no way to get the word out. So they had no choice but to comply. They went up onto their houses and they tore down their roofs. When they came down, the officials said: ‘We will let you know when the replacement houses are built.’ And so until then these people had to live in the open.

    Here was a case of people doing harm to themselves on government orders, because there was no voice in society saying, ‘This is wrong, don’t tear down your own roofs until the government has built a replacement house, it’s common sense.’ There was a pastor in the East who did speak up, and he was promptly arrested for ‘threatening national security’.

    This was when I realised the extent to which the government could control society. The echoes, the parallels with the genocide in Rwanda were impossible to ignore. In 1994, Rwandan society went out en masse to kill Tutsis and about 800,000 people were killed in three months. Society was doing itself harm on government instructions, because any voices that spoke up against the genocide, or spoke up against the tearing down of grass roofs, were silenced. People felt the only option for them was to comply.

    Speaking of the genocide, there is another passage in the book where you meet some genocidaires. They come across as the most content people in the book!

    These are people described in Rwanda as the incarnation of evil. During the genocide they killed many people in extremely gruesome ways. They had been in prison and now they were performing community service as punishment for what they had done.

    When you actually go and speak to them, they come across as really having thought through what they have done. I think they are among the few people in Rwandan society who have had a chance to reflect and understand what made them kill.

    I asked them what should have been done in Rwanda to prevent the genocide and they said, ‘We should have been taught human rights.’

    And I thought that this was too practised an answer, so I ignored it. Then later one of the genocidaires came back to me and said, ‘You did not understand what I meant by “human rights”. What I mean is that we don’t understand where we begin as people and where the state ends.’ He put his hand over his head to show how the state came over them and consumed them. ‘If I don’t understand where I begin, if I don’t understand that I have rights, how am I supposed to understand that someone else has rights? If the state orders me to kill them I will kill them, because I don’t see them as whole people, and I don’t see myself as a person.’

    Then you begin to realise the power of the state. You don’t find many people in Rwanda who have had a chance to think through their actions in this way, and to understand that they are people, and they have rights! You really have to begin with people understanding that they too have rights, and then they will naturally protect the rights of others. It is this dynamic that we have in free countries, where people understand that defending other people’s rights is part of defending their own rights.

    And these genocidaires had come to this conclusion on their own, in prison. It was remarkable to talk to them!

    You describe in the book how the President uses the genocide for political ends. How does he do that?

    The genocide was an incredibly traumatic event that is still alive in Rwanda today.

    To people in power that trauma can be useful. It becomes an easy way to control people. At some of the genocide memorial events, I would find children present, who hadn’t been born during the genocide.  They were crying, wailing, bawling, as though they felt the pain of the genocide. I met school teachers who complained that during the week of the genocide memorial the children become uncontrollable, because the government shows so many images of killing. Why would they do that?

    At the national stadium, once a year, the President shows images of the genocide, and works people up into an emotionally vulnerable state. Then he walks into the stadium and he reminds everyone that he is their saviour, and that they are safe because of him. It is a very emotional and powerful way of controlling people.

    Nothing is sacred when you are trying to hold onto and consolidate power. If an opportunity presents itself where people are vulnerable, power will use it. The Rwandan government does it with the genocide. They use that trauma to control people. The genocide memorials become centres where trauma can be transmitted.

    anjan-sundaram-48427Anjan Sundaram is an award-winning journalist who has reported from Africa for the New York Times and the Associated Press. His writing on various countries in the continent has also appeared in Granta, the Observer, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fortune and the Washington Post. He graduated from Yale and received a Reuters journalism award in 2006 for his reporting on Pygmy tribes in Congo’s rain forest. His first book, Stringer: A Reporter’s Journey in the Congo, was published to great critical acclaim in 2014. In 2015 he won a Frontline Club Award for print journalism for his piece ‘A Place on Earth: Scenes from a War’.

    anjansundaram.com | @anjansun

    Robert Sharp is English PEN’s Communications Manager.

    robertsharp.co.uk | @robertsharp59

    Banner photo by Graham Holliday.