Discurso de Amos Oz, en el momento que recibe el Premio Príncipe de Asturias de las Letras
26/10/2007

Si adquieres un billete y viajas a otro país, es posible que veas las montañas, los palacios y las plazas, los museos, los paisajes y los enclaves históricos. Si te sonríe la fortuna, quizá tengas la oportunidad de conversar con algunos habitantes del lugar. Luego volverás a casa cargado con un montón de fotografías y de postales.
Pero, si lees una novela, adquieres una entrada a los pasadizos más secretos de otro país y de otro pueblo. La lectura de una novela es una invitación a visitar las casas de otras personas y a conocer sus estancias más íntimas.
Si no eres más que un turista, quizá tengas ocasión de detenerte en una calle, observar una vieja casa del barrio antiguo de la ciudad y ver a una mujer asomada a la ventana. Luego te darás la vuelta y seguirás tu camino.
Pero como lector no sólo observas a la mujer que mira por la ventana, sino que estás con ella, dentro de su habitación, e incluso dentro de su cabeza.
Cuando lees una novela de otro país, se te invita a pasar al salón de otras personas, al cuarto de los niños, al despacho, e incluso al dormitorio. Se te invita a entrar en sus penas secretas, en sus alegrías familiares, en sus sueños.
Y por eso creo en la literatura como puente entre los pueblos. Creo que la curiosidad tiene, de hecho, una dimensión moral. Creo que la capacidad de imaginar al prójimo es un modo de inmunizarse contra el fanatismo.

La capacidad de imaginar al prójimo no sólo te convierte en un hombre de negocios más exitoso y en un mejor amante, sino también en una persona más humana.

Parte de la tragedia árabe-judía es la incapacidad de muchos de nosotros, judíos y árabes, de imaginarnos unos a otros. De imaginar realmente los amores, los miedos terribles, la ira, los instintos.
Demasiada hostilidad impera entre nosotros y demasiada poca curiosidad.
Los judíos y los árabes tienen algo en común: ambos han sufrido en el pasado bajo la pesada y violenta mano de Europa.

Los árabes han sido víctimas del imperialismo, del colonialismo, de la explotación y la humillación.

Los judíos han sido víctimas de persecuciones, discriminación, expulsión y, al final, el asesinato de un tercio del pueblo judío.
Cabría suponer que dos víctimas, y sobre todo dos víctimas de un mismo perseguidor, desarrollarían cierta solidaridad entre ellas.
Desgraciadamente las cosas no son así, ni en las novelas ni en la vida real. Por el contrario, algunos de los conflictos más terribles son aquellos que se producen entre dos víctimas de un mismo perseguidor.
Los dos hijos de un progenitor violento no tienen por qué amarse necesariamente. Con frecuencia ven reflejada el uno en el otro la imagen del cruel progenitor.
Exactamente así es la situación entre judíos y árabes en Oriente Medio: mientras los árabes ven en los israelíes a los nuevos cruzados, la nueva reencarnación de la Europa colonialista, muchos israelíes ven en los árabes la nueva personificación de nuestros perseguidores del pasado: los responsables de los pogroms y los nazis. Esta realidad impone a Europa una especial responsabilidad en la solución del conflicto árabe-israelí: en lugar de alzar un dedo acusador hacia una u otra de las partes, los europeos deberían mostrar afecto y comprensión y prestar ayuda a ambas partes. Ustedes no tienen por qué seguir eligiendo entre ser pro-israelíes o pro-palestinos.
Deben estar a favor de la paz.
La mujer de la ventana puede ser una mujer palestina de Nablus y puede ser una mujer israelí de Tel Aviv. Si desean ayudar a que haya paz entre las dos mujeres de las dos ventanas, les conviene leer más acerca de ellas. Lean novelas, queridos amigos, aprenderán mucho.
Las cosas irían mejor si también cada una de esas dos mujeres leyese acerca de la otra, para saber, al menos, qué hace que la mujer de la otra ventana tenga miedo o esté furiosa, y qué le infunde esperanza.
No he venido esta tarde a decirles que leer libros vaya a cambiar el mundo. Lo que he sugerido es que creo que leer libros es uno de los mejores modos de comprender que, en definitiva, todas las mujeres de todas las ventanas necesitan urgentemente la paz.
Quiero agradecer a los miembros del jurado del premio Príncipe de Asturias que me hayan otorgado este maravilloso Premio. Muchas gracias y mis mejores deseos a todos ustedes.

Shalom u-brajá.

Traducción del hebreo de Raquel García Lozano

Amos Oz es un extraordinario escritor israelí, luchador infatigable por la paz. Fue precandidato al Nobel de literatura y recibió el premio Príncipe de Asturias de las Letras. Este fue su discurso de agradecimiento.

Aceitunas

Ocurre a veces que el fuerte sabor de estas aceitunas,
aliñadas con dientes de ajo, aceite,
sal, limón, guindilla y hojas de laurel,
te trae a la memoria una brisa de un época antigua: grutas,
un rebaño, una sombra, la melodía de una flauta,
el sonido de una respiración de tiempos ancestrales en
un odre. El frío de una cueva, un emparrado escondido,
una choza en un melonar, una rebanada de pan centeno
y agua de pozo. Eres de allí. Te has extraviado.
Esto es el exilio. Vendrá tu muerte, en tu hombro pondrá
su sabia mano. Ven, nos vamos a casa.

El mismo mar, de Amos Oz, fue publicado por Siruela en 2006, dentro de su colección Nuevos Tiempos. La edición original, de 1999, fue traducida del hebreo al español por  Raquel García Lozano.  [Encontré este libro hace muchos años, lo poco que hojeé bastaron para buscarlo cada cierto tiempo en las librerías de viejo, aunque sabía que la empresa tendía al fracaso porque; desconozco si los derechos o la traducción de la obra costaron demasiado, pero en especial este libro y los demás del autor son bastante más caros que lo acostumbrado en Siruela, descontando a Sloterdijk, por supuesto. Finalmente, el dios de los judíos me condujo a Oz hace unas semanas. Lo encontré en el pasaje del Palacio de Minería, que los fines de semana sirve de tianguis de libros usados y pude negociar para que la vendedora me descontara otros 30 pesos de lo que pedía, me lo llevé a casa por 140. Gracias por el maná para el librero.]

El personaje es la infancia.

Siempre hubo niños, claro, pero ¿cuándo se inventa la infancia? Jim Yang afirma —porque yo se lo hago decir— que la idea de infancia se construye en la Inglaterra victoriana. Antes, durante todo el siglo XVIII, los niños no habían sido considerados otra cosa que adultos en miniatura, animales casi salvajes y pícaros, envases vacíos que debían llenarse con el líquido y la materia del conocimiento básico para que crecieran rápido y ocuparan pronto el sitio en la sociedad que les correspondía o que les había tocado en suerte.

La llegada de los románticos comienza a alterar esta obligación y, de pronto la infancia no es una página en blanco sino un pesado manuscrito en clave, lleno de extrañas ideas y portentosos pensamientos que esperan ser decodificados por adultos que no han crecido del todo. O que han crecido diferentes. Suelen ser solteros o no tener hijos. Suelen crear pequeños libros inmensos. A través de todos esos libros para niños escritos por escritores victorianos a los que los niños les producen una extraña y hasta entonces inédita simpatía. Lewis Carroll, Charles Kingsley, Edward Lear, Frances Hodgson Burnett, Kenneth Grahame, A. A. Milne. Espejos que atravesar, viento soplando en los sauces, ositos y topos, pequeños lords y pequeñas princesas y, lo más importante de todo: jardines secretos. Todos estos libros tienen algo en común: el territorio de un lugar escondido al que sólo se puede acceder si se hacen los méritos suficientes. Una transparente idea del Edén recuperado. De acuerdo, los padres fueron expulsados de allí por sus pecados; pero los niños pueden aventurarse a buscarlo, encontrar el camino de vuelta, regresar. Lo importante ese, de  pronto, crecer lo menos posible, ser pequeño para poder pasar por las pequeñas puertas mágicas.

Y creer.

Yo creo en Peter Pan porque una mañana —yo no puedo tener  más de cinco años, todavía leo letra a letra, palabra a palabra, oración a oración— voy caminando por los jardines de Neverland. Es el amanecer o la muerte de una de las largas fiestas de mis padres y el aire está lleno de despedidas, de motores que se encienden, de gente bajando muy despacio por escaleras cubriéndose los ojos para que la luz del sol no empeore todavía más esa jaqueca lunática.

La necesidad de alejarme de la casa. Tal vez para siempre. Recuerdo sentir eso. Y pensar que tal vez trepe a los árboles del bosque de Sad Songs para ya no bajar nunca. Camino con las manos en los bolsillos y llego hasta la glorieta que hay en el parque y en la que a veces ensayan The Victorians y entro allí y —misterio de misterios— en el suelo hay un libro y ese libro se titula Peter Pan.

Lo abro.
Entro.
Leo:
Todos los niños, menos uno, crecen.
Ya nunca saldré de ahí.

En Jardines de Kensington, Rodrigo Fresán intentó hacer una biografía no rigurosa del escritor inglés James Matthew Barrie, autor del clásico libro infantil mencionado. Valorado por diversos críticos como una pluma importante de la narrativa iberoamericana contemporánea, personalmente le debo varios descubrimientos musicales que hacen mejor mi colección: gracias a sus colaboraciones en el suplemento Radar, del diario argentino Página/12, conocí el trabajo de Jim White y The La’s. No he podido constatarlo, pero se dice que Mantra es su obra más interesante.

Además de la ilustración de una de las varias pruebas para detectar daltonismo y de la viñeta, de alguna forma inspirada en el canción The Teddy Bears Picnic, me pareció importante rescatar la foto que le realizó Terry Richardson a Macaulay Culkin, convertido en ojeroso y junkie Peter Pan. Casualidad aparte la relación del actor infantil con Michael Jackson, quien llamara Neverland a su hogar-parque de diversiones.

Amos Oz

The Guardian continues with its coverage of the Bad Sex Writing Awards today. Sarah Duncan takes us through the difficulties of writing good sex scenes and has excerpts of the bad sex scenes nominated this year. And what’s with all these old men writing about sex? It’s a young person’s game, fellas.

Writing about sex can be like a complicated game of Twister. You sit in front of your laptop, trying to work out where everything’s going. It’s worse than following the instructions for assembling flatpack furniture. Maybe there are some people who are turned on by DIY manuals, but for most of us they have the opposite effect. There are better ways for the writer to seduce the reader.

Clothes are tricky. They don’t magically dissolve but have to be removed, hopefully as part of mutual seduction. When Erica Jong invented “the zipless fuck” in Fear of Flying, who’s to say she wasn’t just a desperate author stuck with the practical details of getting socks shed, buckles undone and knickers off? Too much detail here and it’s back to those flatpack manuals again. No wonder bodices get ripped – so much easier than fiddling around with the laces.

Another problem is that what turns one person on is sure to be a turn off for someone else. For every reader who finds an action sexy, another is going “Yuck, he did what?” I loved the sex scene in Sebastian Faulks’s Birdsong, but I have several friends who thought it provided way too much information. There can also be national variations. True to stereotyping, I’ve been asked to add sex by my Dutch editor, and to clean it up by my American editor.

Some excerpts from this year’s nominees:

Philip Roth

The green cock plunged in and out of the abundant naked body sprawled beneath it, slow at first, then faster and harder, then harder still, and all of Tracy’s curves and hollows moved in unison with it. This was not soft porn

John Banville

She puts her hands flat against his chest and leans into him in a simulacrum of a swoon, making a mewling sound. Her hips are goosefleshed and he can feel all the tiny hairs erect on her forearms. When he kisses her hot, soft mouth, which is bruised a little at one corner, he knows at once that she has been with another man, and recently – faint as it is there is no mistaking that tang of fish-slime and sawdust – for he has no doubt that this is the mouth of a busy working girl.

Amos Oz

Attentive to the very faintest of signals, like some piece of sonar equipment that can detect sounds in the deep imperceptible to the human ear, he registers the flow of tiny moans that rise from inside her as he continues to excite her, receiving and unconsciously classifying the fine nuances that differentiate one moan from another, in his skin rather than in his ears he feels the minute variations in her breathing, he feels the ripples in her skin, as though he has been transformed into a delicate seismograph that intercepts and instantly deciphers her body’s reactions, translating what he has discovered into skilful, precise navigation, anticipating and cautiously avoiding every sandbank, steering clear of each underwater reef, smoothing any roughness except that slow roughness that comes and goes and comes and turns and goes and comes and strokes and goes and makes her whole body quiver.

Richard Milward

Then, Bobby starts scrabbling frantically across the carpet for Mr Condom, sending five or six multicolour Durexes flying through the air, and he struggles getting the packet open and Georgie has to roll Mr Condom down Mr Penis for him and she has to help insert him into Mrs Vagina.

You’ll have to click on the link below for some of the more outrageously bad stuff.

Update: The Telegraph also has a piece about how to write a good sex scene.

Never mind the bad sex award – where’s the good sex in fiction? | Books | guardian.co.uk
The bad sex factor: extracts from Bad Sex in fiction prize shortlist | Books | guardian.co.uk
Bad sex award | Books | guardian.co.uk
The art of writing a sex scene – Telegraph

With his last book, I’m officially not a fan of Philip Roth, but I’m not the only one. The official “Bad Sex Award” shortlist has been released and some real luminaries as they say are on there including Mr. Roth. Just to emphasize – the man to the left is writing about three-way strap-on sex in the process of “converting” a lesbian. We clear?

The story of the seduction of a lesbian by an ageing stage actor, which includes an eye-watering scene with a green dildo, has won Philip Roth the dubious honour of a place on the shortlist for the Literary Review’s bad sex in fiction award.

Roth can comfort himself with the fact that a roll call of literary fiction’s great and good, from Booker winner John Banville to acclaimed Israeli novelist Amos Oz, Goncourt winner Jonathan Littell and Whitbread winner Paul Theroux, have made it into the line-up for this year’s bad sex prize, set up by Auberon Waugh to “draw attention to the crude, tasteless, often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in the modern novel, and to discourage it”.

On a shortlist of 10, singer Nick Cave was picked for his second novel The Death of Bunny Munro, about a sex-obsessed door-to-door salesman. “Frankly we would have been offended if he wasn’t shortlisted,” said Anna Frame at his publisher Canongate.

Also, there’s this from the story:

The Pulitzer prize-winning Roth makes the line-up for The Humbling, in which the ageing actor Simon converts Pegeen, a lesbian, to heterosexuality.

Bad sex award shortlist pits Philip Roth against stiff competition | Books | guardian.co.uk

An aging actor converts a lesbian to heterosexuality in a finalist by the author of Portnoy’s Complaint

An “eye-watering” scene that involves a green dildo won Philip Roth a spot on the shortlist for the 2009 Bad Sex in fiction award, given by Great Britain’s Literary Review. The prize is intended to draw attention to and discourage “the crude, tasteless, often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description” in books other than pornography and erotica.

A Guardian story about the shortlist said:

“The Pulitzer prize-winning Roth makes the line-up for The Humbling, in which the ageing actor Simon converts Pegeen, a lesbian, to heterosexuality. The Literary Review singled out a scene in which Simon and Pegeen pick up a girl from a bar and convince her to take part in a threesome. Simon looks on as Pegeen uses her green dildo to great effect.”

The Guardian story has the names of all the finalists, who include Paul Theroux for A Dead Hand and Amos Oz for Rhyming Life and Death. Oz is an Israeli novelist who was widely seen as a frontrunner for the 2009 Nobel Prize. The judges spared the latest novel by Jonathan Lethem, the subject of an earlier post (“Is Jonathan Lethem Courting a 2009 Bad Sex Award With These Lines From Chronic City?“). The winner of the prize will be announced on Nov. 30 at London’s In & Out Club.

By Donald H. Harrison

LA JOLLA, California – One day, there will be a Palestinian Embassy in Israel and an Israeli Embassy in Palestine and Jerusalem residents will be able to walk from one to the other, novelist Amos Oz predicted Thursday evening, Nov. 12,  at the San Diego Jewish Book Fair.

Oz, author of some 20 books and winner of the Israel Prize for literature, surprised some in the packed house by not plugging any of his books that were offered for sale in the lobby and corridors of the Lawrence Family Jewish Community Center.  Officially, he was there to discuss his latest, Rhyming Life & Death, as well as the Amos Oz Reader.

Instead, Oz delivered a low-key, often humorous, talk that, but for the large size of the audience, might have been a graduate course in history and sociology at Ben Gurion University in Beersheva, where he teaches.  To some, who agreed with his soft-left positions, he may have sounded like a biblical prophet, in keeping with his first name. To those who thought his positions completely out of touch with hard political reality, he may have seemed a character from the land that shares his last name.

The Israeli author’s speech did not appear calculated to change many opinions. It began with a survey of how independently every Israeli—“a nation of seven million people … seven million prime ministers”—seems to approach the solution to any problem.

Oz said that when Israel was being established, some dreamed that it would become again the nation of David and Solomon;  others wanted on a larger scale the shtetl of Eastern Europe; some wanted central Europe with “red tile roofs, good manners and no work from 2 to 4”; some were Marxists who dreamed that Stalin himself would come to a kibbutz to learn how Communism really should be practiced; others were social anarchists with a love for nature; and still others were social Democrats who admired everything Scandinavian.

These dreams obviously were in conflict, producing endless debate and argument among Israelis –as it turned out, a very good thing, Oz said.

He said that for Israel’s own welfare, peace with Arab neighbors and ending the occupation of the West Bank should be prime objectives.  At least as it applies to the West Bank, he said, the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a question of one side being right, the other being wrong; rather it is “a clash between right and right and wrong and wrong.”

He showed less equanimity about Hamas-controlled Gaza with which, he said, there can be no compromise because Hamas does not recognize that Israel should be a state.  What is there to compromise, he asked rhetorically.  Should there be an “Israel only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays?” 

For Palestinians who live in the West Bank, the outlook is different in Oz’s estimate. There was once a time that Zionists had a slogan, “an empty land for a landless people”  That, and similar sentiments, according to Oz, ignored the reality that “Palestinians have been in Palestine 14 centuries” and that they do not feel part of any greater Pan-Arab polity.  They have been “mistreated by Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Kuwaitis … they are not going anywhere,” said Oz.

The same might also be said of the Jews, he added; Jews are not going anywhere else.  In all of history, Jews never had another homeland.

So, the New Jersey-sized nation that is Israel will have to be divided with two populations living side by side, Oz said.  “We can’t be one happy family—we’re not one, and we’re not family.”

What gives him hope, he said, is if you poll all the people who live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River—both Jews and Arabs—and ask them what is the most likely outcome of the Arab-Israel conflict, 80 percent answer that eventually there will be a two-state solution.  They may not like the idea of two states, but in their own minds, two states are inevitable; “they are unhappily ready for this,” Os said. 

He likened the eventual division of Israel into two separate lands to the “divorce that the Czechs and the Slovaks conducted” following the collapse of Communism throughout Eastern Europe.  “The difficulty about this divorce is no one is moving out.”

Speaking of the nation that will remain Jewish, Oz said, there is a vast difference between the Israel he knows and the “Israel of CNN.”

The latter looks like a “gloomy, violent place,” whereas the Israel he knows is in the midst of a “cultural and scientific golden age” with advances in “literature, cinema, theatre, visual arts, science, technology and high-tech” – developments that grow out of what he described as the “Jewish culture of doubt, argument and debate.”

In a question and answer session, Oz was asked if Americans should speak out about Israel.  “Why the hell not?” he concluded his answer. 

Given the warfare and rocketing following pullouts from Lebanon and Gaza, wouldn’t partition—especially of Jerusalem—bring about even more tsuris, asked another questioner.

Oz reminded the audience that Israel also withdrew from the Sinai Desert, and has a “stable peace, not a love affair” with Egypt.  Lebanon seems more stable now, Oz said, then added: “If Israel stays on the West Bank, it makes out of Israel a colonial monster.”

Asked what impression he had of the “Islamization of Europe,” he responded that the solution to the plight of the third world will not be solved by the third world moving north.  At the same time, he cautioned the audience against associating Muslims with fanaticism, saying in his experience there are many Muslim communities in Europe that are peace loving and, similar to immigrants everywhere, are struggling with ways to retain their identity.

The final questioner from the audience wanted to know what would happen to the Holy Places in Jerusalem under a partition plan.  “Let no flag wave over those Holy places,” he responded.  “Make arrangements for everyone.”

*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World.

Incheiere la “Misterioasa flacara a reginei Luana” – Umberto Eco

Ca sa stim cine sau ce suntem, trebuie sa ne raportam corect la perioada pre-adolescentina. Atunci se formeaza mare parte din “felul-nostru-de-a-fi.” Deprinderile capatate atunci, sapa adinc fagasul pe care intreaga noastra viata va curge. Fantasmele care ne populeaza imaginatia in acea perioada ne vor urmari pe tot parcursul existentei noastre. Atunci, fiecare dintre noi, isi capata propria sa “Misterioasa flacara a reginei Luana.” Mai mult sau mai putin constient, intregul nostru univers propriu, va gravita in jurul acelei fantasme : “O-flacara-nestinsa-a-unui-ideal.” Sint amintirile noastre corecte ? Ne putem noi privi obiectiv ca sa ne “povestim” cu acuratete ? Cit ii influentam noi pe altii si cit ne influenteaza altii pe noi ? Cit de mult preluam de la altii in aluatul din care este facut “Felul-nostru-de-a-fi?” Sint amintirile celorlalti despre noi,  exacte ? Ne pot ei privi cu obiectivitate ? “Ne povestesc” ei cu acuratete atunci cind cind ne redau capitole obscure din propriul nostru trecut ? Cit de mult ne transmit adultii copilariei noastre din propria lor “Misterioasa flacara a reginei (lor) Luana?” Cit din “Felul-lor-de-a-fi” s-a topit in “Felul-nostru-de-a-fi?” Sintem noi oare un vesnic palimpsest ? Umberto Eco pare sa spuna  ca DA! Asta suntem! Un palimpsest format din doua lumi. O lume interioara si o lume exterioara, lumi care uneori sint tangente, alteori sint secante, dar de cele mai multe ori sunt incongruente. Fiecare dintre noi isi traieste pina la urma, propria sa singuratate. Fiecare dintre noi isi locuieste propriul sau metoq. Fiecare dintre noi, este in cautarea Propriei Lila Saba. Ferice de cei care o gasesc de la bun inceput. Sau NU?

 ”Oamenii sunt amintirea noastra despre ei. Ce numim VIATA este, una peste alta, suprapunerea amintirilor celorlalti.” – spune Iosif Brodski.

 ’De indata ce se realizeaza, orice vis, prin definitie, suscita o anumita deceptie.” – spune Amos Oz.

 ”Sintem niste caraghiosi daca ne bizuim pe tovarasia cu semenii nostri. La fel de nevolnici ca si noi, ei nu ne vor ajuta; fiecare dintre noi va muri singur. Trebuie asadar sa ne purtam ca si cum am fi singuri.” – spune B. Pascal

 ”Imi edific amintiri. / Viata mi-o intind acestui miraj. / In fiece clipa ce trece, / in fiece moment /intorc usor o pagina /cu mina tremurinda. / Iar amintirea-i acea unda / ce increteste iute fata apei / si dispare.”  – Spune Umberto Eco

 Aceasta a fost relatarea si interpretarea mea – ambele partiale – la aceasta mirabila carte; din care fiecare intelege ce vrea.

 “Iar amintirea-i acea unda

ce increteste iute fata apei

si dispare.”                           

Juriul Nobel a explicat foarte clar preferinţa pentru Herta Müller aflată la concurenţă cu un gigant al literelor  ebraice, un “posedat” de verva spirituală precum  Amos Oz. Este amuzant că Nicolae Manolescu  lansează doar “Este, fara doar si poate, un tilu de mandrie pentru Romania, nu putem uita ca este romanca. Evident ca exista o legatura cu Romania in opera ei”*, fără să prindă motivul de pură critică literară al juriului : “concentraţia poeziei”.  Exact pentru acelaşi motiv  au fost nominalizaţi, –la vremea lor–, Nichita Stănescu şi Marin Sorescu. “Concentraţia poeziei” arată prezenţa tropilor, aici deja este arătată influenţa umanismului bizantin care nu a murit.  Termenul “bizantin” este denigrator, inventat de triada iluminiştilor Montesquieu-Voltaire-Gibbon, pentru a obtura din istorie termenul ROMANIA, cum se chema de fapt acel “bizantinism” cu nume pocit. Von Keyserling, în perioada interbelică, surprindea mai bine acest aspect de viaţă literară nouă pentru Romania. Dacă socotim că scrisul românesc liber începea de pe vremea domnitorului Vasile Lupu care venea de pe Via Egnatia, ei da, este vorba despre influenţa umanismului bizantin de pe Via Egnatia. Sîntem, poate, în ontologia lui Castoriadis, născut în cel mai important oraş de pe Via Egnatia. Să gândim în mentalitatea matricială, nu în mentalitatea siloz, cum ar fi dacă vom insista că Herta Müller  aparţine strict culturii germane.

*http://www.romanialibera.ro/a166966/scriitoarea-de-origine-romana-herta-muller-a-primit-premiul-nobel-pentru-literatura.html

Titus Filipas

Amos Oz lilla skrift Hur man botar en fanatiker delas i år ut till alla elever i år 2 på gymnasiet av Teskedsorden. En liten bok med stort innehåll. Viktigt innehåll som dessutom presenteras på ett ganska lättsamt och roligt sätt. Det här är det första jag läst av Amos Oz och den gav definitivt mersmak.

Hur uppstår fanatism?

Hur är egentligen en fanatiker?

Kan en sådan människa förändras?

Är vi fanatiker lite till mans?

Hur botar man i så fall sin egen fanatism?

Detta är frågor som Oz försöker besvara i boken. Möjligen kommer jag att avslöja lite väl mycket, så om du ska läsa den själv kanske du ska skumma resten.

Hur uppstår fanatism? Svaret är att den alltid funnits, “fanatism är äldre än islam, äldre än kristendom, äldre än judendomen, äldre än någon stat eller regering eller politiskt system, äldre än någon ideologi eller religion i världen. [...]Det handlar om den urgamla striden mellan fanatism och pragmatism. Mellan fanatism och pluralism. Mellan fanatism och tolerans.”

Fanatism är alltså motsatsen till pragmatism, pluralism och tolerans. Oz menar också att en fanatiker kan kännas igen genom sin brist på fantasi och humor. Det finns en väldigt talande historia i boken om taxichauffören som säger till Oz vän Sammy Michael  att den enda lösningen på konflikten i Israel/Palestina är att döda alla araber. Lite som när anhängare till SD menar att lösningen på alla problem i Sverige är att på något magiskt vis ta bort alla invandrare. Sammy väljer att bemöta chaufförens argument på ett insiktsfullt sätt. Han frågar:”Och vem hade du tänkt skulle döda alla araber?” Chauffören säger då att det är de israeliska judarna som måste göra det. Sammy undrar då igen vem som ska gära det, polisen, armén eller kanske ska de dela lika. Alla judar kan döda ett antal så att det blir rättvist.

“Okej anta att ni blir anvisad ett visst hyreshus i Haifa och ni knackar på hos den ene efter den andre eller ringer på dörren och frågar: ‘Förlåt, min herre eller förlåt, frun, råkar ni vara arab?’ och om de är det så skjuter du.”

Han fortsätter sedan att fråga chauffören om han skulle kunna tänka sig att även skjuta skrikande spädbarn om de råkar vara araber. Detta vill han självklart inte utan grymtar något om att Sammy är grym. Oz kontaterar i anslutning till historien att detta sätt att försöka ingjuta lite fantasi hos människor kanske kan bota fanatism. Han har inte stort hopp om det, men visst kan det vara en möjlighet.

Ett annat sätt att känna igen en fanatiker är att han eller hon bryr sig väldigt mycket om dig. Så mycket att han eller hon verkligen vill öppna dina ögon och få dig att förstå hur lite du förstår av världen. Hans eller hennes förenklade och fanatiska värld. Fanatiker drivs nämligen av önskan att skapa en bättre värld om än på ett väldigt konstigt sätt.

Förmågan att leva sig in i en annans människas liv att känna empati för andra är en förutsättning för att bota en fanatiker. Om du sett världen och träffat människor med andra erfarenheter är det svårare att vara fanatiker. Då minskar också rädslan för det okända och behovet av att klumpa ihop andra människor i grupper av “invandrare”, “muslimer” osv. Att leva sig in i andra människors situationer och faktiskt vara empatisk är något som alla inte kan, men som alla förhoppningsvis kan lära sig.

 Oz menar att det handlar om en strid mellan “dem som tror att rättvisa, vad de än menar med ordet rättvisa, är viktigare än  livet, och dem av oss som tror att själva livet går före många andra värden, övertygelser eller religioner.”

Är vi alla fanatiker lite till mans? Det tror jag definitivt och Majgull Axelsson skriver i det tänkvärda förordet: “De flesta av oss har väl någon period i vårt liv då vi är fanatiskt övertygade om det ena och det andra.[...] Då vet vi att vi har rätt och alla de som inte vet samma sak har fullständigt fel.” Det gäller dock att mogna och blanda det svarta och vita lite för att få fram gråskalorna.

Jag hoppas att alla gymnasielever i årskurs 2 verkligen får ta del av den här boken och jag hoppas också att lärare runt om i landet tar tillfället i akt att diskutera fenomenet fanatism. Det finns en lärarhandledning till boken och jag ska se till att få tag på den och skriva några rader i ett annat inlägg. 

Här kan du ladda ner Hur man botar en fanatiker inläst/uppläst av Jonas Karlsson.

Das Zitat hat mir meine Freundin zugesendet. Ich finde es passt sehr gut zu dem Konflikt!

“Israel und Palästina sind beides Flüchtlingslager. Und beide Flüchtlingslager prallen aufeinander. Israel und Palästina sind beide von Europa unterdrückt worden. Palästina durch den Imperialismus. Israel durch Massenmord. Nun denkt man ja, wenn zwei von einem unterdrückt werden, schließen sie sich zusammen. Aber das ist nicht immer so! Werden zwei Kinder von ihrem Vater grausam behandelt, heißt das noch lange nicht, dass sie sich zusammen gegen ihn wenden. Das ist nur bei Brecht so. Wo alle sich gemeinsam erheben und für ein gemeinsames Ziel kämpfen. Nein, beide Kinder sehen in dem Anderen den Unterdrücker. Das eine Kind sieht im Gesicht des Anderen das des Vaters und andersherum. So ist es auch mit Israel und Palästina. Die Palästinenser sehen in Israel die ihnen feindlich gesinnte westliche Welt. Die Israelis sehen in den Palästinensern das Abbild der antisemitischen Europäer, die sie auslöschen wollen.”

Perde la letteratura come noi la conosciamo, e come dovrebbe continuare ad essere se non vuole fare la fine dei panda.

Qualcosa che, oltre ad essere materia per gli specialisti che si accostano ai romanzi muniti di bisturi per la dissezione, procuri quei piaceri che gli scrittori davvero grandi non si sono mai vergognati di procurare ai loro lettori. Non deve essere per forza Philip Roth. Anche Joyce Carol Oates sta tra i meritevoli. Amos Oz, o magari Aharon Applefeld, sarebbero state ottime scelte. Ma i signori del Nobel o non leggono abbastanza o mancano di coraggio.

Annalena Benini, Il Foglio, 9 ottobre 2009

Remember yesterday when I said more Jewish people will kvetch about Amos Oz or Philip Roth not getting the Nobel Prize for Literature?  Tablet mentions the Tribe losing out, talks about Herta Mueller, and ties it all up with “Also intriguing: the Times notes that her father served in the SS during World War II.”

Lit.

• Ray Bradbury was a regular Bob Ross.

• The Forward talks about Elie Wiesel’s “meandering, sometimes, narcissistic ruminations” on medieval French commentator of the Talmud and Hebrew Bible, Rashi.

• Three Guys One Book totally love Totally Killer.

• The Millions says goodbye to Gourmet.

• Banned Book Week was celebrated in Greenpoint.

Music

• Woods put out what might be my favorite album of the year, and now they do Daytrotter.
  

• Flavorwire on the band that is about to become your new favorite, The Dutchess and The Duke.
  

• Harry Connick Jr. doesn’t like blackface.  Even if it’s done in Australia.

Politics

• Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and Twitter goes crazy.

• Cool, so now Rep. Joe Wilson can scream about the above mentioned prize, and maybe raise another $2.7 million.

Brooklyn

• The return of Brooklyn’s last seltzer delivery guy

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for more!

Segnatevi questo romanzo: “Il paese delle prugne verdi”. È stato pubblicato qualche anno fa da un piccolo editore di Rovereto, Keller. Se per caso riuscite a trovarlo, vi ritroverete nelle mani probabilmente (non lo posso assicurare, io non l’ho letto) un piccolo gioiello: una delle poche opere del nuovo Premio Nobel per la Letteratura. Questa mattina a Stoccolma è stato infatti annunciato che l’atteso riconoscimento per il 2009 è andato a Herta Mueller, scrittrice e poetessa tedesca, ma di origine romena, nata nel 1953 a Nitzkydorf nel Banato Svevo. La cronaca la colloca nel novero degli scrittori e poeti rumeni in opposizione culturale al regime di Ceausescu. E infatti quello che è il suo libro più celebre, tra quelli tradotti in italiano, è proprio “Il macello di Ceausescu”. Sempre dalle cronache scopriamo che ha pubblicato il suo primo libro nel 1982 a Bucarest (“Niederungen”) e gli altri dopo aver varcato il confine della Germania, nel 1987. Tra gli argomenti trattati spicca l’arretratezza dell’ambiente in cui è cresciuta e la situazione romena, con un accento particolare posto sulla condizione della donna in questa società. Come l’anno passato, e come in tante altre circostanze, i pronostici dei bookmaker sono andati a farsi benedire: niente da fare per i principali favoriti della vigilia, l’israeliano Amos Oz, l’algerina Assia Djebar, ma anche Luis Goytisola, Joyce Carol Oates, Philip Roth, Adonis e gli italiani Antonio Tabucchi e Claudio Magris. Quest’anno, in profonda rottura con il passato, a Stoccolma va di moda il rosa: dei dieci premiati con il Nobel (tre per la medicina, tre per la chimica, tre per la fisica, più quello per la letteratura) ci sono ben quattro donne.

Hoje sairá o ganhador do Nobel de Literatura que será revelado ao vivo de Estocolmo, via Youtube.

Segundo o jornal espanhol El País, os dois favoritos sao o americano Philip Roth e o israelense Amos Oz. Nao há na lista nenhum escritor de língua portuguesa.

Oj, jag ser att det är dags att tillkännage årets nobelpristagare i litteratur. Kollar just in lite förhandstips. Det enda namnet, är hopplöst okunnig på modern litteratur, jag känner igen är Amos Oz.

Så då håller jag på honom då; Amos Oz.

På litteraturvetenskapen hade vi en kurs som hette Den utomeuropeiska romanen. En mycket bra kurs. Vi läste bland annat Coetzee innan han fick sitt nobelpris. Det är inte varje år man kan slå sig för bröstet och säga; Jaha, han ja, honom har jag läst flera böcker av.

På den förut nämnda kursen läste vi Black Box, eller Svarta lådan på svenska. Den gick inte att få tag i på svenska, så jag köpte den som pocket på engelska. Det roligaste med det var att jag messade till en kurskamrat; Jag köpte den på originalspråket…. Vad jag då inte visste var att originalspråket var hebreiska, haha.

Jag gillade verkligen Black Box. Den ska jag läsa om snart. Och jag gillar verkligen Oz för hans tro på att judarna och palestinierna ska kunna leva ifred.

Läs också; En berättelse om kärlek och mörker. Ojoj, säger jag bara.

Läste på Andreas Ekströms blogg att han eventuellt snabbt drar iväg till årets pristagare var han nu kan befinna sig. Vilket kul jobb!

När jag var liten ville jag bli författare. Nobelpriset var målet. Jag drömde också om att bli arkeolog, skådespelare, polis och skitsnygg.
Nu kommer jag bli lite småförvånad om Peter Englund säger mitt namn när nobelpriset i litteratur ska tillkännages idag. Något generad och ganska förvirrad blir jag också eftersom jag, mig veterligen, aldrig har givit ut någon bok. Visserligen har jag dåligt minne men det tror jag att jag skulle komma ihåg (tittar jag mig i spegeln är jag inte skitsnygg heller så även där gick jag bet).
Säger han däremot Amos Oz blir jag inte särskilt förvirrad. Men glad.
Hoppas!

Update at 10:20 a.m. Oct. 8, 2009:  Herta Müller has won the Nobel Prize. Here’s a link to the AP story on the award from Stockholm.

First, the Nobel Prize in literature does not honor “the world’s best writer.” The guidelines say that the award must go to a writer whose work has an “idealistic tendency,” or fosters the good of humanity. The Swedish Academy has interpreted that mandate broadly: It has often honored writers, such as Toni Morrison, who have spoken out against injustice rather than those whose work is uncritically altruistic.

Within that framework, here are a few reasons why the prize might go tomorrow to Amoz Oz, Philip Roth or Herta Müller, all ranked among the five most popular with bettors by the odds-maker Ladbrokes:

1. Amos Oz and Philip Roth: Both novelists have been considered strong candidates for years. In 2008 the Swedish Academy gave out the Nobel Prize in literature on Yom Kippur, when observant Jews do not work. And the judges could have faced accusations of religious insensitivity if they had honored Oz, an Israeli, or Roth, an American Jew, then, because the award would have forced the winner to choose between observing the holiday and giving interviews to the media (or even accepting a work-related phone call from Stockholm). Another factor that could favor Roth: Some critics believe that the Swedish Academy screwed the late John Updike — at the time of his death, the best all-around writer in the United States — perhaps because of anti-Americanism. I would not put it that strongly, in part because the Nobel Prize has always had a strong if unofficial geographic-distribution policy, which compels the judges to spread the awards out around the world. But I still hold the view that I expressed on this site before Updike died: “If Updike lived in Greenland, he would have had the Nobel Prize decades ago.”

2. Herta Müller: Müller is a Romanian-born resident of Germany whose work takes a “brutally honest look at life in communist Romania,” M.A. Orthofer wrote over at the Complete Review. And in recent decades,  the Swedish Academy has seemed to favor such uncompromising stances. Orthofer lists other reasons why Müller could win (and why she might not), all of them plausible, at the blog the Literary Saloon. Don’t miss his comments if you’re interested in the politics of the prize or if a victory by Müller leaves you shaking your head.

The Nobel Prize in literature will be announced in a live Webcast from Stockholm at 6 a.m. Eastern Time (11 a.m. GMT and 1 p.m. CET) on Thursday, October 8.

Will the bookies have the last laugh on those of us would love to see an American poet like Richard Wilbur or Donald Hall win the 2009 Nobel Prize in literature? A few days ago, the London odds-making firm of Ladbrokes ranked Thomas Pynchon 12th among bettors’ favorites for the Nobel to be announced tomorrow in a live Webcast at 6 a.m. Eastern time. But Pynchon (7-1) has made last-minute surge into fifth place behind Amos Oz (3-1) of Israel; Herta Müller (3-1), a Romanian-born German, who has also moved up; and the Americans Joyce Carol Oates (5-1) and Philip Roth (5-1). Here’s a link to a list of the standings of all the candidates ranked by Ladbrokes as of 5 p.m. Eastern Time Wednesday. For more on the poets who may be in the running, see yesterday’s post “It Ain’t Me, Babe! Bob Dylan and Maya Angelou Lead Among American Poets in the Race for the 2009 Nobel Prize in Literature, London Bookies Say.”

The Nobel Prize in Literature

Here at BookPage, we are anxiously awaiting tomorrow’s announcement for the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Book blogs are buzzing with predictions and odds. There’s a detailed post at The Book Bench, The New Yorker’s blog, that includes a link to U.K. bookmaker Ladbrokes’ Nobel Prize odds-generator.

Word on the street is that Amos Oz (Israeli author and political activist); Herta Müller (Romanian-born German novelist); and Americans Joyce Carol Oates, Philip Roth and Thomas Pynchon are in top contention – although who knows? Maybe it will go to a wild card (like Bob Dylan, whose odds are supposedly 25/1).

While you’re waiting for the announcement, check out this amusing webpage that details where certain Nobel Prize winners were when they got “The Magic Call” informing them of the big news.

Here, you can find some interesting Nobel Prize facts. A sample: From 1901 to 2008, there have been 36 female Nobel Laureates… and 757 men. The oldest Nobel Laureate was 90 (Leonid Hurwicz, for economics) The youngest was 25 (Lawrence Bragg, for Physics). Two Nobel Laureates have declined the Prize, including Jean-Paul Sartre, who won in 1964 for Literature.

Tomorrow at 1 p.m. Central European Time (that’s 6 a.m. in Nashville) there will be a live web cast of the announcement on the Nobel Prize website.

Any Book Case readers care to make a prediction?