|
| Lidija
Dimkovska
|
| National
Literatures at the end of the Millennium
Does a pure national literature at the end of the millennium really
exist when in each country several writers of other nationalities
live and create? Whether the language in which the author writes
should be the only criterion to decide which literature he or she
belongs to, or should this criterion be extended, taking into consideration
the space in which the author creates. We should not forget that
social context and space have an important role in post-modern poetry.
What is the position of a writer - ?foreigner?, and what this position
should be like in a ?global? Europe: should he or she be marginalized
or equal regarding the ?natives??
Is the category of ?national literature? positive or negative? Shouldn?t
the term ?national literature? (i.e. Macedonian literature, French
literature) be replaced with the term denoting geographical place
(e.g. Literature from Macedonia, Literature from France), so that
there will be place for all authors that create in Macedonia or
France?
These are the questions I come to when I think about the ?institution?
- literature at the end of the century, questions that do not concern
only me, questions that can be answered from many points of view
and there is a possibility that the answers may contradict each
other. For sure, these questions would not have been born in my
consciousness and they would not have tortured me if I had not enrolled
in post-graduate studies in Romanian literature at the University
of Bucharest and had not started to work as a lecturer of Macedonian
language and literature at the same University. This ?migration?
abroad was not harmful to my status as a poet (due to physical absence
and spiritual presence with new poetics in literary magazines and
in the public life in Macedonia, my status of a poet has even strengthened).
However, in Romania especially, during the first four years, I have
encountered all the difficulties and injustice that can happen to
a poet - ?foreigner?. In my opinion this experience can happen,
not only in Romania but also in many other countries all over the
world: difficulties with translations, distrust of literary magazines,
self-interest of the ?natives? (?if you translate me, I will translate
you?); impossibility to enter literary circles. I felt I returned
to the very beginning of my career; I had to make my debut once
more, to prove myself, which was to me, as a creator, a waste of
time, discontinuity of the status as a creator. I lost my identity
as a poet when I moved to Romania. After four years I succeeded
in publishing my poems in several literary magazines in Romania
and at the moment I have a book in print in one of Romanian publishing
houses. Is it really necessary to pass such a long period of time
to become what I was before - a poet?
Pure national literatures will exist in Europe as long as the institution
of ?national literature? leads the politics of non-recognition of
the identity of the writer who is a ?guest?, ?co-habitant? or one
who has moved forever to the homeland of that literature. In this
way my poems can be found on the pages (usually the last!) dedicated
to foreign literature under the titles such as mapamond, meridians,
universal literature etc., which means that I cannot publish my
poems in the same literary magazines twice because other foreign
writers are waiting to be published. Some time ago a Romanian literary
critic told me that if I had published my book earlier, he would
have included me in an anthology of Romanian poetry. I could have
only laughed: I would like to be included in an anthology of poetry
from Romania, but I wouldn?t like to be included in an anthology
of Romanian poetry because in this way, the critic does not recognise
my national identity - the fact that I am Macedonian (those who
know what problems Macedonia has with the recognition of its name,
language or nationality, will understand me). Generally, the authors
of other nationalities are not included in anthologies of national
literatures and in case they are included their national identity
is lost, getting included in an anthology under the title of national
literature. So, in the anthology of Macedonian poetry ?The End of
The Century? (1999) there are some poets of Albanian and Turkish
nationality included with the translations of their poems. This
is a good step made by the author of the anthology. However, when
one hears the world ?Macedonian poetry?, one thinks first about
poetry written in Macedonian and does not think about the poetry
written on Macedonian territory. I think the best title for the
above mentioned anthology would be ?An Anthology of Poetry from
Macedonia?. In my opinion, language should not be the criterion
to decide which literature does a writer belong to, but rather the
territory in which the poet lives and creates (even if temporary).
In this way a geographical form of literature (for instance literature
from Macedonia, literature from Romania, literature from France
etc.) would be more democratic, more open to others, more resistant
to disappearance. For instance, if all the Macedonian poets disappear,
one poet of Albanian nationality may still exist and he will be
the one who will represent the literature from Macedonia.
The regulation of the status of the ?writer-foreigner? in a literature
is one of the most important tasks of democratic, globalised Europe.
We cannot talk about an open society until the ?writer-guest,? emigrant
or representative of minorities, has equal rights as the ?natives?
have. Literature as an institution in society has to find a way
to integrate (not assimilate!) a writer who writes in another language.
That means that literary magazines should be open to the ?new? authors;
translations should be stimulated and once a ?new? author has proved
himself he should not be ?saved? in literary memory as ?a good,
but not our writer?. A writer - ?foreigner? should have equal rights
to those writers which write in the language of majority have. Minority
writers should represent the country in which they live and create
at International festivals, meetings etc. A minority writer must
be offered a chance to win a literary award if he is a good writer,
of course. The value, not nationality of an author should be the
only criterion to decide whether a writer belongs to a literature
or not. However, there may be some negligence made by critics based
upon nationality. Literary criticism will turn a blind eye to an
average or even bad writer belonging to majority, it will try to
find him a place in the history of national literature, but to an
average or bad ?foreigner?, never. An average or bad majority writer
will always be offered a chance to prove himself in front of readers
and critics from his ?national literature?. In the same literature
?writer-foreigner? (if he does not leave the country as an unrealised
author and goes back to the homeland) is not offered a second chance
to prove himself. Especially if he does not become bilingual, and
continues to translate himself or looks for translators. That means
that only ?the best of the best? writers will become ?European?
or ?universal? writers, such as Ismail Kadare in France, and not
those who are only ?successful?. In this way in the universal literature
( or European if we like) many important writers can be lost because
of their undetermined ?pedigree?. Do you know how much time, effort
and sacrifice I put in communication with cultural politics of Romania,
to prove my identity of a poet in Romania. Identity crisis is the
worst thing that can happen to a creator. A closed society, spiritual
borders and self-satisfaction of a national literature are doing
harm to a man - creator. I once met a Romanian writer and told him
that I was a poet first and a translator second, a mediator between
Macedonian and Romanian culture, post-graduate student and lecturer.
He gave me the following answer: ?For the time being you should
occupy yourself with approaching Macedonian culture to Romanian
and vice versa, you should translate us, read us and, by the time
you leave this country, you will have the possibility to co-operate
with our literary magazines and present yourself as a poet?. He
was not even interested in my writing (but he expected me to be
interested in his). This can happen in all the countries, nations
and cultures which are closed on themselves. If ?each European nation
form has got an almost autarchic ego, allergic to alter? in the
words of Romanian poet and intellectual Stefan Aug. Doinas, then
it is normal that one culture is allergic to the other, and one
literature to the other if one of the literatures wants to lend
or share with another one of its representatives. I can say that
only now after five and a half years of cohabitation with Romanians,
I can feel myself as a poet who can realise herself in Romania.
A blessing or a curse in disguise is the fact that during the last
five and a half years of fighting for identity, my poetics have
changed completely. Maybe this crisis of mine is a metaphor for
the crises of identity in Romania, Macedonia, Finland or Switzerland
or any other small ?provincial culture? (?provincial culture is
not a culture inferior in relation to the culture in the centre,
but another type of culture. All these cultures are fighting between
indifference of majority and schizophrenia of the elite. It seems
that they have something in common even if they do not know each
other, their curse being the same: relating to distant and despising
centres?1 We should not forget minority cultures, cultures of ethnical
groups or forgotten nations in the world. It is known the statement
of Saul Bellow -When the Zulus produce one Tolstoi, I will read
them- this is the greatest prejudice of a contemporary man, speaking
about the relation centre-province, which means that the centre
could be any culture which gave one ?Tolstoi?. But what if the province
has not given a ?Tostoi? yet, isn?t the chance to give another Tolstoi
in the province nipped in the bud? How can we know that Macedonia
has not got its Tolstoi in the world? If Konstantin Miladinov, Blaze
Koneski, Slavko Janevski had not have been writers of ?a small language,
a small culture? which has difficulties in communicating with the
world, would they have not won the Nobel prize or some other European
prize? I think that the writers of the 21st century will have fewer
difficulties with presenting themselves all over the world, they
will become European writers. If they want to appear on the Internet,
they will have to be translated to English and in this way will
gain the possibility to be read by all people, and not only by their
fellow countrymen. One of the main tasks of European society is
to make from the subject an individual - the centre of our reflection
and action. The subject should be the ?articulation of personal
identity and its own culture as a participant in a rationalised
world and an affirmation of its own freedom and responsibility.?2
I do not think that small languages will disappear, and that individual
creators who will not remain in the frames of the culture will become
?European writers? par excellence. For certainly English will become
a parallel language, an instrument for translation, communication
and circulation of cultural values. As Solomon Marcus says: ?The
graduates of the next decade will not be able to understand how
this hesitation was possible for more than a hundred years?. Liberated
from historical, social and national restrictions, we will be able
to circulate freely in the space and time. Alain Tourain?s claim
that ?we are all in a way post-modern? is not only a witty definition
of communication between personal experience and the present, not
the past. As an editor of poetry at literary magazine ?Shine? (www.blesok.com.mk),
I am aware that everything that is published in Macedonian (in Cyrillic!)
and English language, promotes my language in the world and if nothing
else it arises interest for my language. Romanian students who study
Macedonian language are the best proof that small languages will
not disappear because there will always be some people who will
be interested in learning small languages and cultures, which can
give not only one Tolstoi, but even more of them. Or, as Paul Michael
Lutzeler defines European identity: E for Eca de Queiroz, U for
Unamuno, R for Rushdie, O for Orwell, P for Proust or Potosku, A
for Aitmatov or Aeschylos?: in Europe there will be room also for
non-Europeans, for all people, only if we can learn to live together
? all different, all equal?.
1 Alexandrescu, Sorin, Europele provinciale in Secolul 20, nr.10-12,
1999, 1-3, 2000, p. 39.
2 Touraine, Alain, Vom putea oare trai impreuna?, ibid., p. 459.
|