Tag: Spain

  • A Cake Full of Knives: An Interview with Elisa Victoria

    A Cake Full of Knives: An Interview with Elisa Victoria

    Elisa Victoria on child narrators, comics, and post-Franco Spain. Translated by Charlotte Whittle.

    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.

    Elisa – thank you for talking to me. In your novel Oldladyvoice, we follow Marina, an anxious but hilariously discerning 9-year-old girl spending the summer with her grandma while silently battling life’s miscellany of demons: her mother is sick with an unspecified illness; she’s having to endure the humiliation of a late baptism; and her debilitating shyness prevents her from making friends, or kissing them. I’d like to start by asking how the character of Marina came to you.

    I wanted to portray a responsible girl, who does what she ought to but also has a strong will, who’s fun and a little bit naughty but also touching, who is in a complicated situation but finds balance through things she can rely on – comics, dolls, her relationship with her grandmother. I wanted her to have a particular idea of religion in which the Christian God served as a mediator for her worship of her mother as a higher deity; I wanted to show how communication problems occur from such a young age – how she relates to her grandmother, for example, and how she falls out with some of the children around her because she can’t grasp their social codes. My idea was to create a composite character – like a cake full of knives, or a knife stained with a red liquid that turns out to be strawberry jam – and work with these mixed feelings that exist simultaneously, because, to me, childhood is a period of extremes, with many contradictory, coexistent layers.

    Marina has such a unique voice; it is both hilarious and incredibly moving in its profundity. How did you and your translator, Charlotte Whittle, work together to capture this voice in English?

    Charlotte was very respectful, asking me about historical context and local expressions – she gave me total confidence, and I was fascinated by what her questions were. She also showed me a draft of the first chapter, to see if I thought the tone was right, and I loved it right from the beginning. I thought it was a fantastic translation, where non-literal equivalencies made for a shared effect.

    Oldladyvoice is your first book translated into English. You’ve spoken elsewhere about the satisfaction this brings you, but specifically that ‘it feels . . . as though the words have more value now that they’ve been translated by Charlotte than they did when I wrote them.’ Could I ask you to speak about this, and what you feel happened to your words in the process of translation?

    I think that has to do with it being the first time I saw myself translated, and also with prejudices around the English language. I was so used to my own words that they had lost their meaning; seeing them transformed gave them back their value. There’s also the concrete value of English, a language I’ve known since I was a child and that, for different cultural reasons, I’ve deeply respected and even idealised. It’s silly, but seeing myself translated by Charlotte made me feel like a “real writer” for the first time. My main source for finding the book’s style was the writing of John Fante, something I had discussed with Charlotte and that she had taken into account, and it was fascinating to see myself in his language.

    The story takes place over a summer in 1993, at what feels like a pivotal moment in Spain’s history: Franco’s brutal dictatorship is still a recent memory for many, but there’s a sense of hope for the future. As Marina remarks, ‘the nineties are all that stands between us and what’s next.’ You were also a child of the 1990s. In what way did coming of age in this decade influence you and your writing? And what impact does it have on Marina?

    I was interested in several aspects of the nineties, and I drew confidence from knowing first-hand and in depth what they were like, what it was like to be there. It is true that numbers have the power to influence us, and the millennium had an air of conclusion about it – an ending before the beginning of something else. In Spain in particular, there was a certain mood of triumph in the air after all the suffering the civil war and the long dictatorship brought, with the Seville Expo ’92 and the Barcelona Olympics happening around the same time. It was superficial, but it made a huge impression on children, who are so sensitive to advertising campaigns and who truly hoped for a bright future thanks to that vibe. I chose 1993 because it coincided with the hangover of these big events, which left the atmosphere of a burst bubble behind them, and a terrible drought that summer, which seemed an appropriate accompaniment to the protagonist’s psychology. And because of the re-election of Felipe González, a president beloved by many women at the time, which offered the counterpoint of a social phenomenon with a dose of humour.

    Marina is obsessed with El Víbora, a subversive cult comic for adults published in Spain between 1979 and 2004, subtitled ‘Comix for Survivors’ (in reference to those who lived through Spain’s 40-year dictatorship). There are several concurrent stories of survival in the novel: Marina’s attempt to survive childhood; her mother’s battle to survive illness; and the survival of national trauma throughout the twentieth century. In what way are these stories of survival linked?

    The characters in Marina’s comics are all transgressive in some way: they’re sex workers, addicts and troublemakers, but, to Marina, they’re ‘a formidable army backing her up’ who ‘fill her with hope’ and show her the ‘path to salvation’. Why is it that Marina is drawn to these characters and their creators? Do you yourself find comfort and courage in the outsiders of literature?

    These characters shed light on forbidden topics that tend to awaken a magnetic curiosity in children precisely because they’re issues swathed in mystery and secrecy. They’re marginal characters who face a lot of obstacles, and so Marina identifies with their difficulties, seeing them as heroic figures who can handle major (and often unfair) pressures. She also finds inspiration in the comics because of the quality of the stories and the style in which their authors present them: the idea that such a job exists – of telling complicated, beautiful, raw stories that are entertaining and spine-chilling, full of contrasts – gives her hope. It’s an artistic job to which she can aspire; it means that there are people earning a living from this work underground, earning money from telling those stories. That’s the path to salvation I ended up taking myself, the one walked by outsider creators in all disciplines, because when I could no longer stick to academic study, that path was there for me and for anyone who needed it; comics taught me a way to tell stories that I was at ease with, and taught me that there were alternatives to official career paths. Showing both the distress and enlightenment they brought to that generation was an affectionate tribute.

    I think people are often dismissive of child narrators in the same way they’re dismissive of children in real life, assuming they lack perspective on the world, a notion that Marina subverts with endearing effect. Was this a consideration for you when writing the book, and why did you choose to write from this perspective?

    The perspectives of children and young people have always interested me because they give voice to an excruciating tenderness that makes you laugh and bleed at the same time. Childhood and youth are periods so rich in nuance that I never tire of stories about these stages of life. There’s also a certain vindication of the complexity of those experiences and psychological phases, an urge to demand respect and dignity for people going through them and not being taken very seriously. I realised I was obsessed with these issues, and that I tended to write stories about younger people, so I decided to delve into that as much as I could in the novel form, where I could fully embrace the voice of a child, get it out of my system and put it into words, in case I forgot what it had been like to be a child. I wanted to take advantage of that information and leave myself a kind of handbook for the future, to prevent myself from turning into one of those adults who seem not to remember anything of youth.

    In a similar way, I think some readers may be shocked to read about a 9-year-old girl who is so compelled by sex and violence, often conflating the two in her mind and making herself the protagonist in her fantasies. I found this aspect of the book so interesting, and I feel more and more writers are exploring the complexities of children’s interior lives. Did you have any apprehension when tackling this aspect of the novel? Did the freedom required to write this story come to you easily?

    I was convinced that thoughts like these take place in the minds of many children, but I knew those passages would be somewhat troubling. I had published a couple of experimental books where I’d written with ferocious freedom, and so I had practice and confidence in addressing those themes that made it come easily. But, at times, I tried not to go so far in this book, toning things down slightly in some parts so they wouldn’t be as brutal. Even so, I know some readers find them shocking. My Spanish publisher asked me if I was sure about the passages, but I was certain that I had already toned it down quite a bit. I’m not the first to have portrayed this kind of complexity and I won’t be the last, and I’m happy to belong to that tribe.

    It feels like what Marina wants most is to be seen and understood – by her peers, but also by the adults in her life. Is there something we can learn from the novel about how we relate to and treat children?

    Well, I suppose a nice conclusion would be that it’s possible to communicate deeply with children if they’re treated considerately and spoken to naturally and with interest, taking into account their points of view, their circumstances, and the fact that they’re human beings with enormous ability for perception and reflection. We can take people seriously without being tactless.

    Marina is an impossible character to forget. Has she stayed with you since you finished writing the book, and has she changed you in any way?

    When I was writing the book, I had a huge catalogue of scenes with her at different points in her development: looking at the cutlery drawer from above and below, sitting and watching TV with her grandmother, tossing and turning in bed unable to sleep – endless reels of images that I visualised. With time, one of these has remained with particular force, and when I think of Marina, I always picture her sitting alone on the kerb, eating an ice-cream, with the slightly strained expression of someone pondering difficult matters but at the same time concentrating on enjoying the ice-cream’s flavour and refreshment. Now that you ask, I think the way she’s changed me has to do with her giving me the chance to let go of all the information I gathered from working in such depth on her character. I spent years taking notes on childhood, my own and that of others, and I stored up that information against the clock, fearing that it might get blurry as time went by. Publishing this book, and the fact that it worked as a kind of essay on childhood, has lightened my load – she has lightened my load.

    Finally, speak to me about your friend, the author Andrea Abreu. While different in tone, Abreu’s debut novel Dogs of Summer can be read as an interesting companion piece to Oldladyvoice. Do you see your and Abreu’s novels as belonging to a new literary tradition?

    I don’t know if it’s new, since we both have sources in the past that have shown us the way, many of them shared. But I do think there’s a shared spirit when it comes to our interest in exploring the raw and the beautiful, the broken and the tender in all their richness. I do feel that our works communicate in some way, and not just because they tackle similar periods in terms of the protagonists’ ages. Andrea told me, at some point, that Oldladyvoice was an inspiration to her. And for me, reading Dogs of Summer gave me back the purity of creative energy that at the time I felt had slipped through my hands. It filled me with courage and set me on the path to my next book.


    Elisa Victoria was born in Seville in 1985. She has published two books of short stories, Porn & Pains in 2013, and La sombra de los pinos in 2018, and has contributed to several anthologies. Her debut novel, Oldladyvoice, was published in Spanish in 2019 to great critical acclaim and was selected as Book of the Week by El País. It hs been translated into English, Italian and Portuguese. Her latest works are the novel El Evangelio, and El quicio, an illustrated book in collaboration with the artist Mireia Pérez, both published in 2021.

    Charlotte Whittle’s work has appeared in The Literary ReviewLos Angeles TimesGuernica, BOMB, the Paris Review, and elsewhere. Her translations include novels by Jorge Comensal, Elisa Victoria, and Norah Lange; her most recent translation is Papyrus, the international bestseller by Irene Vallejo. She lives in England and New York.

    Interview by Zoe Sadler, English PEN.

    Photo credit: Joaquín León.

  • the fact of experiencing something or being affected by it because of being in a particular situation or place

    the fact of experiencing something or being affected by it because of being in a particular situation or place

    Livia Franchini is stuck between two countries and languages, ‘back and forth between two distinct, self-sufficient identities of home’.

     

    I have a problem with control and after many years of more or less quietly coping with it, I have recently sought therapy to improve my condition. In the first session, wanting to amuse my new therapist, somewhat needing her to be ‘on my side’, rather than on the other side of the couch, I suppose (though this is cognitive-behavioural therapy, these are blue NHS plastic chairs), I joke: ‘I have a problem with needing things to be perfect. The catch is I work as a writer, and I write in a language that I can’t fully master.’ I reveal that English isn’t the language I spoke for the first twenty years of my life; like most, her reaction is one of incredulity. I blend in, having almost fully lost my Italian accent.

    ‘Well, you’re not alone,’ she tells me. ‘What else?’

    I tell her that my need for control is usually triggered by interactions with others.

    How did my irrational need for watertight control of any given situation become bound to a desire to query the world in a language that isn’t my own? I still don’t have an answer to the riddle, despite having been stuck as a pendulum between Italy and the United Kingdom for the last eleven years: back and forth between two distinct, self-sufficient identities of home.

    I travel to Spain to teach a class of Spanish children about writing and translation. When I offer students the option between my first and my second language, they request I speak in Italian. They ask me to talk about my novel, of which they have read an extract. The original manuscript is in English, but I have translated a section of it into Italian myself, which was then translated into Spanish. The final product of this three-fold process is what the students have read. It makes my head spin to think about it. My Italian to Spanish translator has come along to the event and agrees to act as an interpreter, though I sense she is unsettled at the prospect of having to translate orally, imprecisely.

    I begin in Italian, taking care to speak slowly to facilitate translation. But I stumble, slow down, interrupt myself when I realise that I lack the appropriate specialist vocabulary to describe the novel I, myself, have written. It’s a book in English, I only ever think about it in English. A girl raises her hand and asks, in Spanish: ‘What’s your book even about? I don’t get it.’ I answer, professionally: ‘You don’t have to get it, or even like it. That’s allowed.’ I smile. A boy speaks next, to me, directly, in good English, ‘How could you move to England at nineteen without considering the consequences?’ Suddenly, I am made visible. I have no answer to give him.

    ‘The thing is, she didn’t think about them,’ my Spanish translator laughs, jumping in to rescue me.

    One important consequence of conceiving the private self as an idiom is that it can no more be equated with an interior than an external self. Your idiom is somehow both openly visible and strangely imperceptible. Walking, smiling, speaking, writing, joking, drawing, eating, weeping, listening – in all these modes of being and doing, you’re revealed as at once the most self-evident fact and the most impenetrable secret. Your private self is diffused in all the ways you express yourself, and so it isn’t reducible to any of them. It’s concealed, you could say, less behind than in the face you show the world. You are a secret that hides in plain sight. [1]

     

    I tire myself out, I say to my therapist, because I cannot avoid engaging with any one line of questioning that is presented to me. It’s like playing Devil’s advocate, but there’s no fun in it. It can get really bad, and when it is bad I have the impression that six or so fleshy tendrils are stemming out of my brain, extending in different directions. When it is really bad it feels like six very developed private conversations are happening at the same time in different quarters of my brain. It has become second nature for me to operate in this way.

    My therapist asks me to make annotations on a paper diagram, a working model known as the ‘hot cross bun’. I fill in each section and stare down at my own words, taking in the familiar vertigo of cognitive dissonance. Written down in English, my fears feel more manageable; at the same time, I’m not sure what I’m reading is about me at all, though I recognize the familiar handwriting. Did I really write this? How is this supposed to make me feel better?

    The private self speaks its own tragic idiom: a language of one, with no referent. If the true self makes itself visible through the weave of experience, existing across two languages means that the tapestry is woven with thread of two different colours. You develop the habit of sticking two fingers into the fissures in the texture and wiggling them. Sometimes this habit leads to analytical overgrooming. Six separate arguments shooting off into six different directions: your sense of self is tethered to each equally and the strain to retain control over it all makes you feel like you might be about to explode.

    The private self, stretched thin in such a way, on some days seems barely sufficient to cover up the worst of two cultures – two countries, bubbling under the upper level of your consciousness. How is it possible to keep a hold over it? On some days, the lid just comes loose.

    For instance, there is your momentary annoyance when the Spanish children asked you to speak in Italian, because it would’ve been easier to speak of your work in English; the momentary assumption that everybody will understand you, wherever you travel. Did you really pick up on one of the worst traits of the British? How did you lose a grip on your own, Italian thought process? Your private self is other: you don’t have the intellectual capacity to keep track of it all. Some days you give away more about yourself than you had intended to: you’re untidy, indecently exposed. Sometimes others seem to know more about you than you do.

    There is an Italian acquaintance who introduces himself afresh in Italian, after first introducing himself in English: ‘Sorry, I had to. You’re a completely different person when you speak in each of your languages.’ A university professor, to whom you confess you are struggling with research, tells you you’re no longer entitled ‘playing the language card.’ But this isn’t a game: your mother understands your English the worst out of all of your English-speaking friends. Your two selves, the Italian and the English, are equally, privately familiar to you, but never publicly so to anyone you to talk to.

    Others can only engage with one self or the other at one time, but they see that half of you with more clarity than you do yourself, pick up on all the details. By which I mean, as I write this, I have no full control over what you learn about me by reading it, and that terrifies me.

    I recently learned from a friend that there is a Spanish word for feeling shame and embarrassment on behalf of someone else; the closest equivalent I can think of in English is ‘cringe’, but this is a poor translation, conveying nothing of shame’s ability to flood the thresholds of selves. In poetry, the confessional is served up with this feeling so often that they might be considered composite, two parts of the same whole. [2]

    Back in Spain, I’m about to give a reading at a place called Vergüenza Ajena, and despite the ominous moniker, something good happens to me there. The place is a small, welcoming bar – warm (it is winter). I am sleep-deprived, highly-strung, quite unhinged. Reading as a foreigner in a combination of English and Italian, in front of an audience whose language I don’t speak, I am unshackled from the expectation of being understood. I read confidently, very well. It is an intimate performance. Afterwards, a Venezuelan woman comes over to hug me. ‘I didn’t know what you were saying, but it made sense to me,’ she says, in Spanish, or this is what I understand, and it is enough for a private understanding between us, a small triumph of poetry weaving together the strands of languages and selves.

    … writing might be defined as the use to which we put our homesickness. [3]

     

    ‘This is the working model we’ll be using. We’ll call it a “hot-cross bun”, because, well, it looks like one, doesn’t it? In this section, write about a situation that made you feel bad. Try to remember all of the details.’

    There is no Easter equivalent of a hot-cross bun in Italy. We do, however, have Easter eggs.

     

    [1] Josh Cohen, The Private Life (London: Granta, 2013)

    [2] Daisy LaFarge, ‘Wildly Unmothered’

    [3] Joyce Carol Oates, quoted in Eva Hoffman, ‘The Uses of the Past’, in Writing Worlds 1, The Norwich Exchanges, ed. Vesna Goldsworthy.


    Livia Franchini is a writer and translator from Tuscany, Italy. Selected publications include The Quietus, 3:AM, The White Review, LESTE, Hotel, PEN Transmissions and the anthologies On Bodies (3 of Cups) and Wretched Strangers (Boiler House Press). She has translated Natalia Ginzburg, James Tiptree Jr. and Michael Donaghy among many others. Livia is one of the inaugural writers-in-residence of the Connecting Emerging Literary Artist project, funded by the European Union, which will see her work translated into 6 languages. She has performed from her work internationally, most notably at Faber Social, Standon Calling, Lowlands and Hay Festival. Livia is currently at work on her first novel, as part of a funded PhD in experimental women’s writing at Goldsmiths.

    Photo credit: Robin Silas Christian

  • The past is a dimension of the present: a conversation with Javier Cercas

    In his novels and non-fiction work, Javier Cercas relentlessly dissects the Spanish past. Most recently, The Impostor (translated by Frank Wynne) was longlisted for the Man Booker International Prize. 


     

    Which writers have influenced your writing and your thinking on the past?

    That’s difficult to answer. I would say that a writer has two traditions: the universal tradition, from which he chooses whatever he wants, and the tradition of his own language. This you have to use, to grasp, these two traditions, as if it were a chariot, you have to balance these two. For me Flaubert was extremely important when I was young. Kafka was essential. And from the tradition of my own language I must say I don’t feel like I’m a Spanish writer. I feel like I write in Spanish, which is very different. That means that the Latin American tradition was very important to me, and that my tradition has been enriched by writers such as Borges.

    So you see yourself as an international writer?

    Of course. We writers live in a global environment. All writers, all real writers, have been influenced by writers from other languages, other countries, other traditions, and that’s what makes us rich. That has always been true. It has always been a mixture of traditions, of influences.

    In your most recent novels El Monarca de Las Sombras (English translation forthcoming) and The Impostor, you continue developing your idea of how the past impacts the present. How does the past live on?

    At a certain point of my books something changed. Two things appeared: the past as a dimension of the present, first of all. And also, the collective as a dimension of the individual. I mean, when some people say that my books are historical novels I get a bit mad, because I’m not interested in history itself. I’m interested in the past that has not passed. There’s a leitmotif in The Impostor by Faulkner: ‘The past is not dead, it’s not even past.’ That’s the past that really interests me, the one that is still a dimension of the present, without which the present is mutilated, without which the present can’t be grasped.
    We all have two inheritances: one good and one bad. Of course we know our best inheritance, because our family tells us about it. But not the bad one. Why? Because people who have lived through terrible things – war, dictatorships – don’t talk about it. A sort of fog covers this bad inheritance. What I tried to do in my last book, El Monarca de Las Sombras, was to look at this inheritance. I wanted to learn about my family, about the supposed hero of my family. He was a young boy, 17, when the war began in Spain, and he became an enthusiastic fascist. He went to the war and was killed in combat in the worst battle of the Spanish Civil War. This guy was the symbol of our worst inheritance: civil war, fascism, Francoism. My entire family was on Franco’s side. What to do with this inheritance? It lives in me. Do I just reject it? Or know it? Or learn about it, to understand it?

    That is also a major theme in The Impostor.

    Enric Marco, the main character in The Impostor, decides to invent a past for himself. That’s what humans tend to do when we deal with our worst past, both individual and collective, we tend to invent it, to lie about it. What I tried to do is exactly the opposite: let’s look at it, let’s see why it happened. Why is this important to me? First of all, because if you know and understand your inheritance you can use it, digest it, learn what to do with it. If you don’t know it then it’s your inheritance that uses you, that takes control of you. And that’s one conviction that lies in my books, the fact that we should understand, that to understand is not to justify. That’s a very important part of The Impostor. Understanding is exactly the contrary to justifying. To understand is the only way to prevent evil from happening again. That’s what literature, real literature, real thinking does. Of course this is dangerous, but there’s no literature without danger. Real literature is always dangerous. That’s why I think I’m a post-post-modern writer, because I think literature is extremely useful – as long as it doesn’t want to be useful. If it wants to be useful it becomes propaganda, pedagogy, and then stops being useful. If we formulate complex questions in the most complex possible way, we can begin to have instruments so that nothing like it will happen again. If we decide not to understand anything, to simply reject it, we will for sure repeat the same mistakes.

    That sounds like a good manifesto.

    Well, yes! When I was young I was educated to think that literature was just a game, that it’s just a play. But now I think it’s very serious. Of course I love humour and irony, but humour is the most serious thing in the world!

    With The Impostor you have written a novel of truth. Do you think, when it gets translated into a language and a cultural context in which that truth isn’t known, that it somehow turns into fiction? Because to recognise truth you must kind of know the context.

    No I don’t think so. A reader who doesn’t know anything about Chinese history who reads a book about that history, would he think that it’s fiction? The whole point of The Impostor is that it’s a non-fiction novel. It is constructed as a novel – a special novel, made up of different genres, because novels can do that as a hybrid genre. But at the end of the day it still tells a factual truth. It uses imagination, but historians do that too. The most important decision I made when writing this book was to stick to the truth. At one point I realised that Enric Marco had invented his whole life. He was a walking fiction. So at a point I decided it was ridiculous to write more fiction. I organised a battle between fiction and fact, the lies that he told and the truths he told. Of course you can still read it as a fiction, and I know people have done so.

    I suppose that has happened here, seeing as it was nominated for the Man Booker International Prize.

    Yes – that is strange to me, strange but good!


    Javier Cercas is a novelist, short-story writer and columnist, whose books include Soldiers of Salamis, The Tenant and The Motive, The Speed of Light and The Anatomy of a Moment. His most recent novel, The Impostor, was longlisted for the Man Booker International Prize and won a PEN Translates award. His books have been translated into more than twenty languages. He lives in Barcelona.

    Interview by Theodora Danek.

    Photograph of Javier Cercas © Sonia Balcells

  • Literatura animal

    Translated from the Spanish by John Rutherford.

    It was always cold in church. Even in summer. Dampness creeping up your body from the flags spread a sensation of moss and lichen over your skin, and turned your insides to stone. Only the occasional furtive cough, a mouth excavating the air, broke the monotony. In this part of the world the people of God lived in an amphibious land. Perhaps this is why they came to life and the church grew as animated as a cinema whenever the parish priest read out the part of Genesis that tells the story of the universal flood and Noah’s ark.

    The priest’s cavernous voice placed a hydrographic emphasis on the catastrophe, which sounded very familiar to the parishioners because here, too, from time to time, ‘the fountains of the great deep’ broke up and ‘the windows of heaven’ were opened. Then the priest would open his arms and proclaim: ‘And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights’.

    People glanced at each other out of the corners of their eyes, knowingly.

    ‘That’s nothing! A shower!’ my mother commented as she left church. In this part of the world it could rain from the fifteenth of September until the fifteenth of May. No problem.

    My mother was very religious, but in her own way. One day she told us a story from her childhood, about a lad called André. He was what in rural Galicia people called a toliZo, a loony. He had a nickname: O Inocente. Most people treated him kindly, doors were opened to him, and he was given food and a glass of wine. André was a cheerful lad. Even when some bully hit him, he laughed. The more they hit him the more he laughed.

    One day in church the priest explained the mystery of the Holy Trinity. ‘The central mystery of faith, those were his words,’ my mother said, with a sad echo in her voice. Three different persons and only one true God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And when the priest came to the third person, the Holy Spirit, André jumped to his feet and waved his arms as if they were wings:

    ‘That’s me! That’s me!’

    There were murmurs and a few laughs that were soon suppressed when the priest’s voice thundered down from the pulpit:

    ‘Silence! No, André, you are not the Holy Spirit! Sit down, keep quiet and keep still.’

    The following Sunday, the priest resumed the interrupted business of the Holy Trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit…

    ‘That’s me! That’s me!’

    André was flapping his arms, with elevation in mind. People were watching him, with hopes that he might take off. The priest called the sexton and ordered him to eject the mad boy.

    ‘And he never returned,’ said my mother. ‘Whenever the priest mentioned the Holy Spirit, all looks would be directed towards the empty space where O Inocente once sat.’

    I still shudder when I remember another story that my mother used to tell us when we were children. The event that the story recounts disturbs and astonishes me to this day. I listen to it in my memory as a kind of early training, a secret lesson, to release us from the rack that is the history of Spain.

    The parish priest lived in a parsonage with a large garden and some arable land. A niece of his called DoZa Isabel lived there, too. A beautiful unmarried woman who rejected all suitors. One of them, a rich ship-owner whose business was based in the port of Corunna, gave her an eye-catching parrot, with blue-green wings and a long purple tail, and educated in Latin. It would repeat: ‘Ora pro nobis, ora pro nobis.’ This was during the Republic, which had toppled the Spanish monarchy in 1931; and DoZa Isabel, a die-hard conservative, decided to call the parrot Pius IX. It was summer, and the parrot took possession of the parsonage’s great balcony. From it the voices of people on the road could be heard. One morning a group of lads from Altamira passed by. They were going to the hills to collect firewood and pine cones for kindling, which they sold in town. They stopped to listen to the parrot. They said funny things to it, and it always replied: ‘Ora pro nobis.’ The next day they came back. And the day after that. Until one morning one of the lads yelled:

    ‘Long live the Republic!’

    There was an intense silence. Then the parrot said: ‘Long live the Republic!’

    My mother said: ‘We never saw Pius IX again.’

    To return to the history of the Flood, the priest explained that Noah first freed a raven and then a dove, to see if the waters had abated. The dove returned with some information, like a good journalist: an olive branch. And the raven? The priest said nothing about the raven. What had happened to it?

    It was up there, in the turbulent sky, when they left church. It hadn’t gone back to the ark. Flying, in tatters, like a wandering poet, towards the unknown.

    Find out more about Manuel Rivas here.

    Read more about Manuel Rivas’s PEN-supported titles, The Low Voices and All Is Silence, on the World Bookshelf.