Literatura in cenzura - Društvo za primerjalno književnost - ZRC SAZU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Literature and Censorship: Who is Afraid of the Truth of Literature?286has remained immature on the whole and has not become as kind as hisreaders would like to see him. And they do not want to know that thisman seems to have been deeply seduced by Milošević, as others were,one generation before him, by Hitler. When you take pleasure in readingsomeone, wouldn’t you like the writer to be great and good, as great andgood as your pleasure was? Actually, if you agree to see what is in questionin the texts more lucidly, and if you agree to hear what the man is reallysaying beneath the elegance of his apparent discourse, you feel as thoughthe question is being returned to you, like a boomerang: what, in fact, isthis pleasure you took from him? This question is quite uncomfortable.However, it is also possibly fruitful, if you do not avoid it but rather workwith it.I hope you will forgive this relatively long introduction, but it was importantto sketch the landscape of my analysis. Actually, this reading I didof the entirety of Handke’s work was the starting point of a longer project,which is an interpretation of the war initiated by Belgrade in 1991. I concludedthis interpretation last spring by publishing propositions to build astrong and durable peace for the young generations in all the countries thathave emerged from the former Yugoslavia, under the title L’effet papillon. 1Now, let me focus on the affair. When you examine an object or asituation, you may develop thousands of discourses that may all be contradictory.All of these discourses developing different points of view willnot change the object or the situation, but perhaps one or two of thesediscourses may change the way you look at this object or situation. It dependson your own judgment, your own feelings, your own history, andyour own work. It also depends on your own aptitude to change yourmind, which is not so easy.In my mind, because of the work I did, this affair is deeply interestingprecisely because it is like a miniature showing exactly what has beenhappening in France during the war since 1991. In other words, this affairis a symptom of a larger debate that is very difficult to open in Europe.Obviously, if you did not follow the war closely and the declarations inFrance about what was happening in the Balkans, you cannot see thisaspect.I have not forgotten that we are talking about censorship; in fact, I amalready talking about it. This is because censorship, in the sense I am takingit now, is necessarily applied to a kind of truth that is disturbing. It maybe disturbing for the political powers, it may also be disturbing for yourown mind and the way you are used to thinking. In this respect, I wouldintroduce a distinction between censorship, self-censorship, or repressionon the one hand, and, on the other hand, legal prohibition concerning
Louise L. Lambrichs:Talking about Censorship Supposes Being Precisehistorical facts such as crimes against humanity and genocide. This distinctionseems to be crucial precisely because, for fifteen years – and especiallyin this war – we have been confronted with different variations of negationism,which render the debate very difficult.Thus, I will not take this affair as most of the media do, as a celebrityaffair, I will take it as seriously as the subject deserves to be taken.Moreover, I will give you some of my clues to open the door . . . if youdare to – I mean, if you are not too afraid of the truth of literature.I said that this affair was a symptom. I will remind you of the facts.On 18 March 2006, Slobodan Milošević was buried in Požarevac. PeterHandke went there and gave a speech at his tomb. He could have gonethere without saying anything. I can imagine somebody going there becausehe was very glad that Milošević, who was responsible for this dreadfulwar, was dead. However, as you probably know, those that were gladwere in Belgrade on the same day with yellow balloons and the inscription:“Spring came three days early.” At the same time, Peter Handke was closeto the Chetniks and publicly said the following:The world, the so-called world, knows all about Yugoslavia, Serbia. The world, theso-called world, knows all about Slobodan Milošević. The so-called world knowsthe truth. Because of this, the so-called world is today absent, not only today, notonly here. I know that I don’t know. I don’t know the truth. But I look. I listen. Ifeel. I remember. Because of that, I am here today, close to Yugoslavia, close toSerbia, close to Slobodan Milošević. (Le Nouvel Observateur, electronic archives) 2The German press related this speech and, a few days later, RuthValentini wrote three lines in Le Nouvel Observateur under the rubric sifflets,or ‘boos’. In those three lines, not all the facts were confirmed, somedetails were inaccurate – in particular the supposed kissing of the Serbianflag and the rose thrown onto the coffin – so in any case Peter Handkesnapped up the opportunity to argue that Ruth Valentini was lying, butthe main fact remains that Handke said what he said. When, after this,he declared he had wanted only to be there as a witness (as published inLibération on 4 May 2006), this was another example of Handke’s rhetoric.Speaking publicly, Handke was not only a witness but an actor, saying thathe did not know the truth about this war and Milošević’s responsibility.Having read these lines, Marcel Bozonnet, the administrator ofLa Comédie française, the most symbolic French theatre, decided to takeHandke’s play (which had already been scheduled) off the agenda. Thisremoval gave rise to the “affair”, starting with a petition published in theFrench newspaper Le Monde on 3 May 2006 and signed by the Nobel Prizewinner Elfriede Jelinek and other artists, denouncing the “censorship” of287
Page 1:
Literatura in cenzuraKdo se boji re
Page 5:
Marijan Dović:Literatura in cenzur
Page 9 and 10:
Marijan Dović:Literatura in cenzur
Page 11 and 12:
Totalitarna in post-totalitarnacenz
Page 13 and 14:
Marijan Dović:Totalitarna in post-
Page 16:
Literatura in cenzura: kdo se boji
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 27 and 28:
Stephan Packard:Model tekstualnega
Page 29:
Page 33:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38:
Page 43:
II.Kontroverze totalitarne cenzure
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 81 and 82:
Cenzura in dramske strategijev jugo
Page 83 and 84:
Aleksandra Jovićević: Cenzura in
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95:
III.Post-totalitarna cenzura
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 105 and 106:
Slačenje literarne zgodovine:cenzu
Page 107 and 108:
Andrej Zavrl:Slačenje literarne zg
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Obsojena pisatelja
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
O AVTORJIHSalah Salim Ali je študi
Page 158 and 159:
Breda Smolnikar, pisateljica in pre
Page 161 and 162:
Literature and Censorship, Truthand
Page 163 and 164:
Marijan Dović:Literature and Censo
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Totalitarian and Post-totalitarianC
Page 171 and 172:
Marijan Dović:Totalitarian and Pos
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175:
Page 178 and 179:
Literature and Censorship: Who is A
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
II. Controversies of TotalitarianCe
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239: Literature and Censorship: Who is A
Page 252 and 253: III.Post-totalitarian censorship
Page 273 and 274: Untimely Rewriting: Memoryand Self-
Page 275 and 276: Peter Dunwoodie:Untimely Rewriting:
Page 283: Peter Dunwoodie:Untimely Rewriting:
Page 297 and 298: Words in FreedomSimona ŠkrabecBarc
Page 299 and 300: Simona Škrabec:Words in Freedomnow
Page 301 and 302: Simona Škrabec:Words in Freedomof
Page 303 and 304: Simona Škrabec:Words in Freedoming
Page 305 and 306: Simona Škrabec:Words in FreedomRea
Page 307 and 308: Simona Škrabec:Words in Freedomrea
Page 309: Convicted Writers
Page 315 and 316: A Dream Napkin White as Snowon the
Page 317 and 318: Breda Smolnikar:A Dream Napkin Whit
Page 319 and 320: Louise L. Lambrichs is a French nov
show all

Literatura in cenzura - Društvo za primerjalno književnost - ZRC SAZU

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?