Literatura in cenzura - Društvo za primerjalno književnost - ZRC SAZU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Literature and Censorship: Who is Afraid of the Truth of Literature?290If you analyze the arguments, those that defended Handke and spokeof censorship in the name of free expression are often the same as thosethat defended Milošević and Karadžić, and they paid attention neitherto the historical facts nor to the way Handke was still speaking in 2006,after years of war and crimes against humanity. When you read what theywrote, you can see that they speak of “opinion”, or “freedom of opinion”.In their minds, the evidence that has been collected for years, theevidence we have now concerning the camps, the sterilizations, the systematicrapes, the mass murders, and so on, does not count. For them, itis still a matter of “opinion”. For them, there is no truth of history. Thefacts do not exist in themselves, as a matter of thinking. Truth and liesare placed at the same level. The reality principle does not function intheir minds as a reference point to think through and try to understandhistory, and especially the mechanism of genocide and the repetition ofgenocide. Moreover, because this dreadful reality is denied or reduced asa matter of “opinion” – as the negationists always do, for instance theFrench historian Faurisson, who dares consider that the gas chambersdid not exist and whom, as you know, in the name of free expression,Noam Chomsky defended when he was attacked in France for denyingthe Holocaust, which seems at least paradoxical – because this reality isdenied, it is very difficult to speak with these people. The denial of realityfunctions like a gap, an abyss, in their minds but also in the dialogue. Thequestion is: what is liberty? What is free expression? Are we free to denywhat happened? In the name of liberty, are we free to deny mass murders,systematic extermination, or even genocide? Does our liberty have a limit?What is the frame of our liberty? If you remember Spinoza, you know thatthere is no liberty without necessity. What is the necessity of your way ofspeaking and writing, what is the secret frame of your discourse? This is avery deep question for each of us.To conclude by trying to answer the question posed by this short contribution,I shall say that France is a truly democratic country where freeexpression is possible for everyone that works, even if it is not easy becauseof the ignorance and strong prejudices shared by many people, even in themedia, as in all democratic countries. Those that deplore the strong criticismconcerning Handke’s discourse actually do not tolerate the contradictionbetween their own love for the work and the way they should look atthe man if they admit the secret meaning of his discourse and behaviour.To save their blind love, to save their own pleasure in seeing themselvesin the mirror of Handke’s writings, they suspend their own judgment anddeny the aching truth hidden in the text, this audible truth that could breakthe mirror, or even the mirror of their own language. Moreover, because
Louise L. Lambrichs:Talking about Censorship Supposes Being Precisethey cannot see the true meaning of the historical reality they have witnessedwithout understanding, they cannot hear any strong criticism concerningtheir idol, Peter Handke. I remind you that, for having cancelledthe play, Marcel Bozonnet was fired one month later – officially for otherreasons, of course. Furthermore, I remind you that our minister of culturereceived Peter Handke, which was not necessary in this context and couldbe seen as an ambiguous message to the French public.I also remind you that Peter Handke’s books are in all the bookshopsthat wish to sell them in France and that all theatres that wish to put onhis plays are free to do so. All these facts show that qualifying Bozonnet’sdecision as a matter of censorship depends on a kind of language abuse– a kind of language abuse and manipulation that is rather common bothamong the extreme left and the extreme right, both among former communistsand strong nationalists. In this respect, Bozonnet’s decision was apolitical signal and a courageous act. After all, he lost his job whereas PeterHandke remains free and continues to be loved, which shows that historyis both ironic and immoral. Well, I am glad Peter Handke is free; it is thehonour of a democracy to protect the freedom of all its artists and writers.However, I think that it is also our responsibility to fight a famous writerwhen he uses his notoriety to support an indefensible cause.As a parenthesis, I would like to remind you of an interesting detail thatshows the paradoxical way Peter Handke thinks and speaks. During theaffair, a paper signed by Jacques Blanc, director of the National Theatre inBrest (Britain), was published by Libération on 4 May 2006 under the title“The Dishonour of the European Theatre”. In the text, Blanc specifies themeaning of the title by qualifying Handke himself as “the dishonour of theEuropean Theatre”. A few weeks later, Günter Grass confessed he hadjoined the Waffen-SS when he was seventeen years old. As you know, thissurprising declaration gave rise to several reactions in Germany, France,and also the United States. All his life, Grass has fought for responsibility– and we may suppose that this adult concern and engagement waspartially determined by this tragic error when he was teenager. Withoutentering into this other debate, which is – following my point of view– radically different, I only want to share with you my surprise and, truthbe told, laughter when I read about Handke’s reaction to Grass’s declaration.This reaction was published by an Austrian weekly called NEWSmagazin in September 2006, and was quoted by René Solis in Libération on20 September. According to Solis, Handke declared that Grass’s confessionwas “a shame for the whole community of writers”, and he also saidthat the “the worst thing is to justify [this engagement in the Waffen-SS]by saying that at seventeen one does not know anything”. If I have cor-291
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:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?