Post from 01/10/12 - Nobel vs. Goncourt, Literary Evil
Nobel vs. Goncourt, Literary Evil
01/10/2012
"People no longer read ... " "... They write" |
Every year the "Rentrée
Littéraire" (the autumn's new titles) in France has its dose of scandals
and polemics. This year was to be no exception, however, the controversy this
year, is not so much about literature as it is about politics.
The cause that has sparked off what is seen
in France, as an intellectual brawl, is a short (16-18 pages) pamphlet written
by Richard Millet titled "In Literary Praise of Anders Breivik" – the
Norwegian murderer who took the life of 77 innocents last Summer - in which the
author, who is not at his first political pamphlet or provocation, depicts
Breivik’s act as “formal perfection … in their literary dimension”.
The booklet, which many of his detractors
admit to not having read, contains the author fears, xenophobia and arrogance.
Fear, of what he calls the loss of
Christian European civilization and culture, is the sole cause a Breivik came
to be and will, undoubtedly, according to Millet, be followed by many others. He does state clearly on more than one
occasion his disapproval of the murders.
He bares his xenophobia when he blames all
the ills in Europe on multiculturalism, immigration, the dominance of foreign
customs, language and religion. According
to Millet, multiculturalism has been imported
from the US and is the worst thing for Europe, creating “mosaics of ghettos in
which the nation no longer exists”. Furthermore, he declares Sweden got what it
deserves as Breivik is an “exemplary product of western decadence, a child of
the ideologico-racial fracture” in Europe caused by the above factors. He knows-it-all, knows-it-better and places
himself as spokesperson of the assailed, white catholic civilization. “European nations are dissolving socially at
the same time as they are losing their Christian essence in favour of general relativism”.
In his arrogance seems proud of the
reactions he has provoked claiming on France Info “I am one of the most hated
French authors. It is an interesting position that makes me an exceptional
being”.
As could have been expected, the booklet
was not received very well in France. Since its publication, Millet has
been attacked on all fronts… almost all … Well, no, actually, mainly (only) by
fellow authors as the debate seem to not interest the masses so much, which has
its good and bad sides really; good if the masses do not care because they
cannot for their life identify with what he wrote, bad if, the masses don't
understand what he wrote or worse, silently agree with the text. The first
contenders have been the Gallimard writers, where Millet works as an editor.
The main critical voice has been that of
Annie Ernaux who wrote an impassioned answer to his pamphlet
and collected more than a hundred signatures of fellow authors, amongst whom
Tahar ben Jelloun who scandalized by the text said Millet had “lost his mind” and is living
through some sort of depression “he believes that
Christian civilization is falling, threatened by what he calls multiculturalism
and adds:" Multiculturalism is Islam. ". No less violent in his reaction is that of famous
Literary Nobel Price, J.M.G Le Clézio who asks “in the name of
what freedom of expression, for what purposes and for what benefit a mind in
full possession of his means (at least we presume it is) chooses to write so
repulsive a text? This question leads to another: in the name of what
philosophy or which position, driven by what greed, can an editor decide to
publish this pamphlet that glorifies one of the greatest criminals of the
beginning of the century while violating the feelings of the relatives of the
victims?”
Finally there is the editorial of one France’s
biggest literary magazine, by Joseph Macé-Scaron, author and editor-in-chief
"Le Magazine Littéraire" who depicts Millet’s search for hatred to “a
pig looking for truffles”.
France being the cradle of …"liberty,
equality, fraternity", the author has had endless opportunities to defend
himself and his opinion since the book came out and has been the prime guest of
countless TV and radio programmes, as well as guest editor and prime
interviewee of a myriad of newspapers and magazines. His defence comes down to one, quite poor and
pathetic line: I am being sacrificed! He
refutes all accusations pertaining to racism and insists his detractors, whom none
have read his book, want, but his head by refusing to even consider the
literary gesture behind the book. Millet
presents his book as about
“understanding the decline of Literature and the deep modifications in France,
and in the whole of Europe, operated by a massive and continued extra-European
immigration, accompanied by intimidating elements of the armed Salafists and
the ‘politically correct’ ethos at the heart of a globalized capitalism”. He hoped to open a debate with his booklet,
not to become a bait.
He is not alone in his defence and quite a
few fellow authors agree with the fact he has indeed been sacrificed and the “affair
has now eclipsed the text to focalize on its author”.
Pierre Assouline, a famous and proliferous
author, very familiar with Gallimard publishing house since, in 2010, he wrote
a biography of the founding father of the prestigious House, Gaston
Gallimard. According to Assouline, the
House is not foreign to political disagreement between its authors; they have
been inscribed in its “genetic codes” since its first
years of existence. The House’s motto
has always been to “host all voices”.
However, Millet is but an employee, a
recognized, admired and esteemed editor, as well as being part of the Lecture
Committee. Moreover, it must be noted
that his pamphlets were not published by Gallimard but by a small editing house
that is barely ever mentioned. So that the sanction is not really against the
writer but more against the editor, since Millet has since been forced to leave
his post at Gallimard. This will be a
first in the history of Gallimard, that a group of writers manage to get the
head of another writer and have him “quit” his post. This is the most dangerous phase of this
story.
Another voice is that of Jean-Marie
Laclavetine, who, even though is on opposing platform in the political arena
and has voiced his indignation over “such
cretinous and notorious statements” believes people and protestors should not
become “Thought Police”. “Everyone has
the right to think as he wishes and write what he wants. I think it would be very bad for Gallimard to
fire him. I too wish Richard did not
think what he thinks and wrote, but that is his right”.
Bruno Chaouat, Professor at the Minnesota
University, deplores the whole affair and writes that the true fear of Millet
are not the immigrants, be they African or Arab, “because any minimally
attentive reader will know Millet’s great admiration for the Arab culture”, but
the USA. According to Jenni, the second
“Goncourt” Millet edited, Millet is first and foremost interested and worried
about literature, “there is a French exception, a national passion for written
literature. It is our music. Millet is mainly preoccupied with the way the
existential conditions of this art are losing speed”.
For Patrick Kéchichian, journalist at Le
Monde, the attack against Millet is unacceptable and just as Breivik’s
acts ought to and have been judged by a tribunal, Millet’s book ought to be
judged for its literary value, reason and thought.
In the literary milieus, the booklet is no
longer called by its full title; its literary part has been obliterated.
The pamphlet is not Millet’s first try in
political essays, he has written a few prior to this one, the latest being
about Syria, which, has made much less noise than the Breivik one… yet another
sign that the conflict in Syria holds little interest for Europeans.
While Millet is known both for his work as
an author and his exploits as an editor for the prestigious Gallimard
Publishing House- he edited the Jonathan Little's "Kindly Ones",
Goncourt 2006 and Alexis Jenni’s "The French Art of War", Goncourt
2011 - he is also known for his provocative and difficult attitudes and this
political pamphlet is not his first in kind. In the meantime, little had
already distanced himself from Millet due to political differences. Jenni, as stated above, still supports his
editor and praises him while admitting they do not share the same political
opinions. Jenni's" French Art of
War" is definitely on the left side of the spectrum and stands as stark
condemnation of France's cruel history and actions in Algeria as well as France's
police and politics regarding foreigners today
The “Literary Praise” came as part of 3
books published by de Roux, the pamphlet on Breivik came in the form of an
essay at the end of book called “Ghost Language” about the pauperisation of
literature, a follow-up on a book for which the author won a Prize in 2008,
called “The Feeling of Language”. The
first book is about a trip to Amsterdam, and the third, called “Antiracism as
Literary Terror”. Last May he wrote yet another pamphlet called “Syrian Spring”
…
With this latest, it seems he has pushed
the envelope too far, provoking the angst and anger of one too many author and
intellectual, which has cost him not only his post as editor, from which he has
resigned beginning of September, but could also cost him his future as a
writer.
Artistic freedom seems to be at the
forefront of nearly every news outlet lately.
The culmination came in the form of the spectacular reactions to a
chincy, '404' movie, followed straight thereafter by a popular French
magazine's cartoon reaction to the 'movie-reaction, while in the background,
intellectuals debate freedom of speech and of thought on the canvas put forward
by a radical rightist writer who takes some pride in being forced to leave his
job as an editor and has public orgasms about being uniquely hated.
Had all these events not cost the life of
innocents, they might have been risible.
Sadly, they did kill, and are likely to continue killing in the near
future, in a changing world unable to adapt to the growing interaction of its
inhabitants where fear has taken the lead and actions have been usurped by
reactions. Had all these events not had such tragic outcomes, one would not
have had to stop and ponder for if but a moment, at the following questions:
Did Millet really enjoy the "literary
aspects of Breivik? Isn't it a bit like writing a "literary Praise"
of Mein Kampf? Can one forget the content of a literary work at the profit of
its literary value and qualities? Can,
or should the two be dissociated?
What is the responsibility of the
publisher?
The various artistic mediums, be they
literary, 7th art, cartoons or ad companies all beg the same questions: what is
art? What is freedom? How far can an artist go to expose his view of the world?
Who is responsible when reactions get out of hand? Who ought to be crucified,
the writer, who jots down his personal thoughts on a piece of paper, or the
publisher who accepts to print and publicize it? The "film-maker" who manages to
frame 3rd rate actors or the TV channel and extremists groups who make the
porn-like klutz available and viewable to thousands and thousands? Who is responsible? What is worse, having a
viewpoint or being the vehicle that spreads the viewpoint?
Because some of these works have had tragic
outcomes, it is primordial that we, the public, the end recipient, and the ones
who will act or react ponder these questions with as much independent thought
and vision, as possible, if we want to avoid becoming victims ourselves.
While some willingly feed from a very few
individuals' points of view, most of us are fed with them till we overdose on
them, which in an era where information
is so readily available and varied is completely absurd.
Of all those who have crucified Millet over
his pamphlet, very few have actually taken the pain of reading it. How many of
the protesters in Jakarta, Athens, Cairo, Benghazi and elsewhere have seen the
trailer?
We are told that it is all about the sacred
freedom of speech our forefathers, in some case, our neighbours, ourselves in
other cases fought/ are still fighting for.
Should an author be martyred because his
ideas do not please others? Should not those "others" reply in kind
with wit and intelligence, should those "others" not debunk the
martyred author's thesis with a clear and simple demonstration of how and why
is thesis is laughable, instead of pressing him to quit his job while at the
same time inviting him to every TV show and printing an endless number of
interview pages?
Should the public not start acting as
responsible adults if it believes it has the merits of being treated as
adults? Should the public not stop
acting like a herd of sheep that will follow and act upon what any self-called
illuminatus utters?
Evil is not created by authors and
movie-makers. Evil is, and has always been a source of fascination to human
kind. The search for the origins of evil, and the debates on whether evil is
inherent or not, have been going on for ever. Literary works, but also
paintings, sculptures, movies, are filled with evil. Mostly in order to better
understand its sources, sometimes to exorcize a pain.
The public needs to start better educate
itself instead of blowing the 'extremists', 'Islamists' 'rightist' 'leftists'
whistle every time some cretin decides
to vomit hate on a piece of paper or on a camera roll. There will always be someone who will use any
means they have at their disposal to spread hatred, bigotry and racism. It is up to the public to stand up and stop
behaving like sheep. One has so many
possibilities to inform oneself nowadays.
Shame lies not in the one or two
individuals who write fanatical, radical, extremist texts, but in the masses that
follow blindly because they choose to remain ignorant and venerate dogmatists
filled with nothing but fear, hate and self-pity.
Comments
Post a Comment