Endnu et år – endnu en læseudfordring på Goodreads jeg dumpede. Men det handler selvfølgelig ikke om hvor meget man når at læse, det handler om hvad man tager med fra læsningen og den tid man tager sig med bogen. Så jeg er ikke så ked af at det blev til 20 bøger, for det var i særdeleshed litteratur som har sat sig – i hvert fald hovedparten af bøgerne. Så her er første del af min gennemgang af læseåret 2017.
2017 blev året hvor jeg endelig kom i gang med at læse igen efter to års latterlige læseår. Jeg mener what the actual laver jeg i 2015 og 2016, når jeg kun når at læse fem bøger pr. år? Og jeg var også bevidst om det, for det var lidt som om en del af mig – af min personlighed – manglede i hverdagen blandt barsel, dagpengestrid, tidsbegrænsede stillinger og alt, alt, alt for meget netflix! Skuden skulle vendes og det gjorde den i januar med en smuk bog om en falkoner, der talte til både hjerne og hjerte på én og samme tid. Og når det samtidig bliver anbefalet af min gode veninde, som altid rammer plet, når det kommer til anbefalinger, så var jeg ikke i tvivl, da jeg åbnede op på første side (metaforisk: Jeg læste den på en iPad). 2017 blev også året, hvor jeg, dels baseret på min pressede økomomi, dels fordi jeg elsker konceptet: 1) kom mere på biblioteket og 2) satte mere lid til e-bøgerne. Sidstnævnte for de er sgu smarte at have med i sengen, når læselampen i realiteten fungerer mere som en projektør end diskret lyskegle, og vækker alt og alle i huset så man bliver gryntet af som om man var i gang med at torturere sengepartneren via lys… Anywho, jeg kom væk fra emnet:
H is for Hawk af Helen Macdonald er en smuk bog om sorg og at bearbejde tab. Sproget er ligetil og fokuseret på detaljer ved falkoneri, så den grænser til en ikke-faglig fagbog (sorry, det sidste er en forfærdelig beskrivelse, men bær over med mig). Der er en filosofisk rød tråd om eksistens og væren gennem hele værket, og giver du dig selv tid til det, kan den sætte gang i nogle ret heftige tanker. Romanen tager sit udspring i Helen Macdonalds fars død, som efterlader hende i dyb, depressiv sorg. Som erfaren falkoner er det mest naturlige at vende sig mod arbejdet som så mange andre, men i stedet for at vende tilbage til de velkendte falke, kaster Helen sig over den flygtige rovfugl, duehøgen, i et forsøg at finde tilbage til faren og deres bånd. I denne omfattende sorg, som gør at hun lukker sig af fra andre mennesker, fordyber sig og fokuserer på duehøgen, forsøger hun at kaste al menneskelighed af sig, at blive en iagttager, og fordybe sig i fuglens væsen på et plan, der tilsidesætter det menneskelige, det emotionelle – i bund og grund forsøger ikke at være i sorgen.
I’d flown scores of hawks, and every step of their training was familiar to me. But while the steps were familiar, the person taking them was not. I was in ruins. Some deep part of me was trying to rebuild itself, and its model was right there on my fist. The hawk was everything I wanted to be: solitary, self-possessed, free from grief, and numb to the hurts of human life.
I had put myself in the hawk’s wild mind to tame her, and as the days passed in the darkened room my humanity was burning away.
Jeg slugte bogen på ingen tid og følte Macdonalds dybe sorg og hendes målrettede, snublende forsøg at komme ud på den anden side af sorgen for hvert skridt. Det er en dybt empatisk bog, som vækker genklang på mange planer, og man skal ikke være falkoner for at finde stor nydelse i de mange beskrivelser af den majestætiske duehøg. Jeg var så fascineret af denne verden, at det var oplagt at tage en tur til Ørnereservatet ved Skagen, da vi tog på familietur – og det var en oplevelse på så mange niveauer.
Planen af Morten Pape – Her skulle jeg sætte mig ind i et helt andet og meget menneskeligt univers, men stadig inden for det selvbiografiske spor. Vi kommer tæt på en dagligdag, jeg ikke kan påstå at have noget som helst kendskab til andet end på overfladen, men er blevet meget mere bevidst om efter de skiftende regeringers fokus på udlændingestramninger, øget social kontrol, reformer og generel assholery. Planen foregår i ghettoen, og er en skildring af en dreng-til-mands udvikling inden for samfundets dømmende rammer og kamp imod social arv. Det er en old school dannelsesroman med et moderne twist. Som sådan ikke særlig mange overraskelser givet genren, og litterært ikke en banebrydende fortælling. Men jeg er ikke desto mindre fanget og fascineret af historien grundet min absolutte uvidenhed om de indre funktioner i en ghetto og for familier på laveste rangstige i Danmark. Der er (maskulin) råhed for fuld skrue, mobning, multikultur og anti-kultur og er det det man søger i en fortælling, så vil jeg gerne anbefale denne bog.
Beetle Boy af M.G. Leonard – OK, full disclosure, dette er en arbejdsbog, i den forstand at jeg har oversat den til færøsk. Men ikke desto mindre er det en bog jeg også fandt underholdende og sjov at læse. Den er helt klart til et yngre publikum eller voksne som nyder at læse børnebøger på mellemniveau. Jeg forestiller mig, at den bliver en darling i skolen. Billedrengen (DK titel) er første del af en triologi om en moderløs dreng, Darkus, hvis far – forsker og leder på afdelingen for billesamlingen på det naturhistoriske museum – lige pludselig forsvinder under mystiske omstændigheder og uden spor. Darkus må flytte ind hos sin onkel, en verdensomrejst arkæolog med seriøse Indiana Jones vibes (hvis Indiana Jones var britisk), og møder i denne sammenhæng to nye venner – kække Virginia og nørdede Bertolt – i en ny skole, bliver mobbet af bøller og reddet af en kæmpestor bille med et kæmpe udstående horn. Darkus er opsat på at finde ud af hvad der er sket med faren, for han kan ikke bare være rejst. Og snart render han og vennerne sig ind i et spind af mystiske spor om genmanipulation, en splitterravende gal billedame og eventyr, som ethvert barn ville dø af misundelse for at få en flig af. Anbefales til skolebørn og ungdommelige sjæle. Og til en vis del til folk som er nysgerrige på biller, men hellere vil have info pakket ind i litteratur end opslagslingo.
Óendaliga Vera af Marjun Syderbø Kjelnæs – Dette var et af årets bedste læsninger. Jeg lyver ikke, når jeg siger, at jeg sad og kæmpede med tårerne hen imod afslutningen. Havde det ikke været fordi jeg sad i en flyver på vej hjem fra en studietur i Budapest omgivet af 10. klasse elever, så havde jeg givet fuldt los og ladet de små, våde sataner flyde. Jeg måtte pænt vente, ånde dybt ind og lade oplevelsen synke. Vera (finurlig detalje fra overskriften – henviser både til væsen, at være og navnet på hovedkarakteren) sidder på alderdomshjem (eller sygehus?) i livets sidste strækning, ude af stand til at tale, men med mere tyngde bag de tænkte ord end hvad fleste talende mønstrer. leon er en tro besøger, Veras eneste kontakt til den fysiske omverden foruden plejepersonalet. Vi følger Vera op gennem hendes sorg- og passionsfyldte liv, og parallelt med dette følger vi leon, som står ved en skillevej, en slags midtvejskrise. De personer Kjelnæs introducerer i løbet af fortællingen, som har (haft) betydning for Vera, får akkurat så meget plads og fokus i romanen, at de fremstår klare; og med dem får vi indblik i Veras liv (og leons). Fortællingen spiller på hjertestrengene, og sproget fanger en empati, som skinner igennem fra forfatter over karaktererne i bogen til læseren. Jeg kan ikke anbefale denne bog nok til folk, som er i stand til at læse færøsk – det er en absolut must read. Og danske læsere kan være heldige i at Forlaget Torgard udgiver romanen på dansk, forventeligt inden sommer 2018. Jeg håber så meget for denne bog (og potentielle læsere) at den kommer længere ud i verden.
Stoner af John Williams – så var vi ved den amerikanske portion af litteraturhistorien. Kunne ikke andet end at fnise umodent, da jeg første gang så titlen, for jeg kan ikke være den eneste, der ser et langhåret, sandaliklædt nirvanavrag med en bong på en sofa for mit indre… eller? #momjoke aside, det er i hvert fald ikke det romanen handler om. Som så mange andre 300+ siders amerikanske romaner, så sigter denne efter titlen som the Great American Novel – eller, akademisk roman, som jeg lige har lært (fordi den handler om en underviser på et uni? I dunno, men det er åbenbart en genredefinition nu…) – delvis udviklingsroman, delvis udskejelser udi filosofiske betragtninger, delvis stik til den etablerede samfundsstruktur mod den utilpassede, den rugged (mands)person som forsøger at klatre op rangstigen og hans store forkærlighed for litteraturen. William Stoner er af landmandsfamilie og det ligger ikke umiddelbart i kortene at han skal være noget andet end en forlængelse af den stolte landbrugstradition. Akademia tiltaler ham dog så meget at han søger om og får tildelt en plads ved landbrugsfakultetet på et universitet. Meningen er, at han skal erhverve viden om landbrug for at sikre familiens gård ind i det nye århundrede, men her finder han ud af, at landbrug ikke tiltaler ham nær så meget som litteraturens kringlede verden. So far so good, og her føler jeg lidt et stik af genkendelse – ikke at jeg var presset til at overtage gården (ja, jeg er landmandsdatter), men det er alligevel en 300+ års (maskulin) familietradition jeg vendte ryggen til fordel for storby og litteratur, så ja. Stoner føler sig dog ikke veltilpas i elfenbenstårnet qua hans anderledes baggrund, økonomiske status og livsperspektiv. Og efter en fejde med en konkurrerende underviser, bliver grænserne trukket op og venner er måske ikke så tro, som man kunne ønske sig. Blandet ind i fortællingen om det akademiske miljø, kommer vi ind i historiens vingesus med en oversøisk krig, som sætter de patriotiske over for de mindre patriotiske, et mærkeligt ægteskab jeg ikke kan greje og finder mig selv at root for the other side, affære(r?) med kvinden som forstod han på planer hans kone ikke gør (please!). Jeg er sikker på, at der er mange som ville finde denne roman absolut fascinerende, både hvad angår personudviklingen og det akademiske miljø, men andet end plotlinjen, er ikke meget hængt ved hos mig, som jeg ikke allerede har læst i andre udviklingsromaner.
Astragal af Albertine Sarrazin er indbegrebet af franskhed i min stereotype verden. Insinuerende flirt, passion, fyldte læber, sexet vold (what?), oo-la-la, voulez vous og pø a pø. Jeg har et utrolig anstrengt forhold til fransk(mænd), som mange i min omgangskreds har erfaret et par gange, bundet i en (freudiansk?) barndomsoplevelse i Paris koblet til min ikke-undskyldende semi-vanillalivsstil uden nogen intention om at ændre mit syn på dem. Sorry, you guys, men I kan sagtens leve uden min billigelse, nay, det er min påstand at de lever AF min misbilligelse. (SIDESPOR) Hvad der kunne lyde som om jeg hadede romanen er et kneb, en finte, for jeg absolut elskede hvert ord, hver sætning og hver side af denne bog. For mig ukendt og valgt alene fordi Patti Smith står for forordet, så sneg denne roman sig ind under huden og efterlod et varigt indtryk. Smukt sprog (jeg må gå ud fra at det var smukt på fransk, og oversætteren har gjort et kanonflot arbejde, kudos). Anne flygter fra et kvindefængsel og brækker forfodsknoglen (astragalen) i forsøget. Hun bliver samlet op af en forbikørende mand, Julien, som bliver hendes elsker, og som gemmer hende væk fra autoriteterne i familiens hjem. Romanen er et langt og passioneret road trip gennem Frankrigs småbyer op til glitrende Paris og langs vejen og i storbyen kommer læseren ind på livet af Anne, en barsk kvinde med en dyster grundindstilling, som lever efter mottoet at intet her i livet er givet eller kommer uden aktiv handling, men det oplevede skal sandelig opleves på godt og ondt. Det blev til tider lidt for meget for denne kølige nordbo, men samtidig nød jeg at udfordre hvorfor visse aspekter af denne type kvinde/livsstil gør mig semi ilde til mode. Hvis man er til Patti Smith’s Just Kids, moderne franske romaner, stærke kvindelige forfattere, cigaretrygende femme fatales, sårbarhed pakket ind i råhed, ja hele spektret af fransk stereotypi, så er man solgt til denne bog.
Og sådan blev det af Maren Uthaug – Jeg “mødte” prisvindende forfatter bag striben Ting, jeg gjorde, som har grebet hele Politiken-segmentet og videre by the balls, ved et tilfælde på mit lokale biblioteks reol. Når jeg kommer på biblioteket, lader jeg ofte tilfældighederne råde (inden for rimelighedens grænser) og ofte ender der nogle ret overraskende titler i mit skød. Mit yndlingssted på biblioteket (det er et ret skrabet bibliotek, mind you, intet som Gentofte Hovedbibliotek, som jeg ville have sex med, hvis jeg var til den slags) er den lille roterende 14-dages lån reol, for her får jeg muligheden for at møde nye, ukendte forfattere samt utrolig eftertragtede titler. I Uthaugs tilfælde tror jeg næsten, at det var en kombination af hendes efternavn og min forkærlighed for stædige midt-i-luften titler, der tiltrak mig. Siden er jeg kommet at kende hendes finurlige striber om hverdagen, og har fulgt hende på Instagram, hvor hun pt er gået i gang med del to af fortælling om Johan og Aagot. Og jeg kan på det allervarmeste anbefale, at du tager et smut forbi, hvis du ikke allerede er hooked på #teamagot. Og sådan blev det er Uthaugs debutroman; en fortælling om Knut, der tager op til Nordnorge og forelsker sig i samekvinden Rhitta, med hvem han får datteren Risten. Knut er ikke den mormorens kop the, langt fra, men til gengæld er der masser af hengivenhed til barnebarnet, som i tryghed og symbiose med den traditionelle bedstemor, tegner og får fortalt historier om fordums sagaer. Det er en historie om stærke rødder og nye tider, og der er råt for usødede karakterbeskrivelser blandet med en vis trang til humor fra forfatterens side. Da Knut falder for danske Grethe, forlanger Rhitta at han tager Risten med til Danmark, da hun frygter at Risten er i fare for at blive kidnappet af søsteren, som er forsvundet/forvist op i fjeldene. Hvad Risten i begyndelsen tror er en sommerferietur til Danmark, viser sig at blive et længere ophold, et ophørt forhold til moren, og en opvækst i parcelhusdanmark med en stedmor som huser bådflygtninge i kælderen, en bleeding-heart figur, der dog ikke er så altruistisk, at hun ikke er bleg for at mistænke tidligere nævnte for at stjæle fra sig. Kan varmt anbefales alle kølige nordboer, som ved at der gemmer sig mere blandt linjerne end først opfanget og elsker litteratur, der anerkender den dybde.
På Bornholm må man græde overalt af Martha Flyvholm Tode – endnu en debut, endnu et 14-dages lån på biblioteket. Valgt ene og alene fordi det er en god titel og den gav associationer til familie på Bornholm (ikke at de står og flæber i Hammershus eller ned i sildekarret, det var mere Bornholmdelen, jøsses). Men så lidt skal der åbenbart til for at jeg udvælger en bog. Jeg troede i første omgang, at det var lyrik, før jeg åbnede op på første side (… indrømmede litteraten, der forsøger at være bare en lille smule professionel), men her er vi ude i noget så smart som en kortroman. Ikke en novelle, ikke en roman = kortroman. Jeg må indrømme, at jeg ikke husker den – der var noget med sorg (duh), så meget kan jeg huske. Men i stedet for at google mig frem til handlingen, må dette faktum bevidne, at fortællingen ikke fæstnede sig. Måske læste jeg den for hurtigt, måske ville det gavne at genlæse den, måske var jeg ikke i det rigtige humør. Jeg ved ikke. Jeg ved bare, at jeg kan hverken anbefale eller fraråde en læsning.
De urolige af Linn Ullmann – Jeg var ret ung første gang jeg læste noget af Ullmann, og det gjorde så heftigt indtryk på mig, at jeg valgte at skrive en længere opgave i gymnasiet om Før du sover (hermed anbefalet) og den står tåget, men samtidig klart, som en af hjørnestenene for min lyst at gå litteraturens veje. Vi er ude i noget helt andet (og dog) i De urolige. Romanen blev nomineret til Nordisk Råds Litteraturpris i 2016, men kunne dog ikke slå svenske Katarina Frostensons digtsamling, Sånger och formler, af pinden. Forfattere fra Norge har en god plads i mit hjerte, men det er først i år (2018) at jeg er blevet rigtig bevidst om det. Der er noget ved skriften, ved det underspillede og rå sprog, som på samme tid er så sprængfyldt med usagte følelser og sårbar fejlbarhed, der gør at karaktererne i norsk litteratur fremstår som dybt empatiske og giver mig håb om at menneskeheden ikke er tabt. Warts and all. De urolige er en tidstypisk roman – den selvbiografiske roman – i mamma, pappa, barn stil. Giver det mening? Nej, vel? Ok, vi prøver igen. Baseret i dokumenteret materiale, båndoptagelser lavet med faren og fragmenter fra hukommelsen, opbygger Linn en familiehistorie om hendes barndom med stor overvægt på en fraværende (karriere)mor og en karismatisk (fraværende) far, der fremtræder som en overstrålende kraft, om hvilken alle andre (forventes at) cirkulerer. Det er farens idé, at de to skal lave et erindringsværk sammen, men på det tidspunkt er han allerede stærkt ældet, og det falder på Linn at afslutte det. Progressionen er ikke nøglen i denne roman – det cirkulære er; erindringen, (gen)bearbejdningen af følelserne bag forhold, familie og kærlighed. For selv om der er stærke ambivalente følelser på spil, så er den ikke blottet for kærlighed, tværtimod. Anbefales til alle Bergmann-fans og -hadere, dem der søger poesi i erindringen, familiebåndsaficionadoer, eksistentialister og (wannabe)kølige nordboer.
Afd. for grublerier af Jenny Offill – Åh, min fornavnesøster, denne her var svær at læse. Både fordi jeg var lidt presset på den personlige front, da jeg læste den, og fordi den krævede så meget af mig; et overskud, et intellekt og tid jeg ikke besad. Den handler kort sagt om et ægteskab fra romance til krise og børn blandet ind i cocktailen, men mere af alt handler den om en person – en identiet – i krise. Ægteskabet bliver en ramme, hvori krisen får frit løb. Jeg tror delvis at den var hård at læse, fordi jeg følte at hovedkarakterens position talte lidt for direkte til min egen livskrise, eller rettere sagt, fordi jeg lagde min egen livskrise ind i hovedpersonens tanker, handlinger og fortælling. Det farvede læsningen og forstærkede min egen uvilje mod at sætte ord på en masse grublerier, jeg selv gik med. Og af selvsamme årsag mener jeg ikke, at jeg yder den retfærdighed, hvis ikke jeg giver mig selv muligheden for at genlæse den og lave en komparativ anmeldelse af den. Der er derfor intet punktum ved denne gennemgang, ingen krølle på halen.
Men kom tilbage senere og få et skud litteraturoplevelse i del 2, hvor jeg dykker ned i anden halvdel af læseåret 2017. Der er både meh- og OH.MY.GOD.-oplevelser og glæde, så meget glæde ved litteraturen
Og hvis du vil se hvad jeg læser i 2018, skal du være så velkommen at følge mig på Goodreads
In late August, the beautiful, serene museum north of Copenhagen in Humlebæk hosted its annual literature festival. The events from Louisiana Literature 2012 are over and done with, the reviews have been made, photos snapped, books autographed, and the long queues have dispersed outside the Concert Hall and in the café. Mingling, but skillfully distancing themselves in this tiny space for such magnitude, are all the old wealthy and new wealthy, the bookworms, the I’m-sorry-I-can’t-come-to-work-I’m-sick-cough-cough, the elderly, the hip hipsters, bohemians, squares, the noobs and snobs, the well-rounded, the unshaved-in-that-hip-way, the messy-haired-in-that-hip-way, the Patti Smith fans and David Vann groupies, the Aira connoisseurs, the gender theoreticians and literary scholars.
Friday, Friday
Getting down on Friday
It’s a world of fascination and owes much of it force to its settings. Out there, in the quiet of the architectural woods next to architectural buildings overlooking the Sound, is an outdoor stage. And on that stage sits Patti Smith – the stage is in her honor. She is entertaining an audience of hundreds that are semi-circle placed around her stage. Inside the buildings there are long lines of ant(s)y people waiting to get in, to get out, to move forward or just move! goddammit. The outside is mellow, lots of open space, no queues, laughing. Inside is Eugenides, Matar, Moestrup, Lee, Fruelund, Sonnevi and Vann. A(nother) Smith, Matar-Vann-Hollinghurst, Desai, Aidt, Ullmann and Aira. And queues and laughing. Not quite mellow per se, it’s a bit hot and personal boundaries are challenged when it proves hard to uphold the Scandinavian ‘this is my dance space’-ethos. But the anticipation is hard to corrupt. And there is life and liveliness all around.
My trusty camera woman and I arrive as Patti Smith makes her first appearance on the Park Stage. Her voice is drifting through the vegetation towards the museum and floating to sea all at the same time. It’s mellow. But we, that is I, have no such time for mellow right now, onwards my trusty camera woman! We must find the Meese stage. There is plenty of time for mellow Patti’s voice. So, naturally, we head in the totally wrong direction, that is, by my lead, even though camera woman says ‘hold on! I think it’s that way (pointing in opposite direction)’. After minor adjustments of inner compass and turning of map in direction that befits said inner compass, we again head to the Meese stage.
Hisham Matar, I read, and then recount to camera woman, ‘comes from a strong background’. His father was kidnapped and has as of yet not turned up – a situation that weighs heavy on his authorship. Matar reads from his debut novel ‘In the country of men’ a section about a son and his mother. Tonny Vorm, the interviewer, enthusiastically lays the scene with the ‘need to know’ about the link between his/story and story and the process of writing. But Matar holds that the connection between life and work is mysterious to writers, and that it is good to not know but in stead be driven by a desire to figure out that vague notion of what the end result will be for one’s self. In fact, there is no point in knowing already or too much, but in stead what experience feels like or what it turns out to be. Matar writes in a second language; it makes him braver, write more obsessive, he says. Language hints and points toward something, but it never says. And it is this unutterable aspect that fascinates him. He reads a passage from his latest book, ‘Anatomy of a disappearance’, and this time it is recollecting an episode with a drowning man in Geneva. He reads very well, mellow. You can see that what he has to say, and how he says it, resonates well with the audience. And Tonny Vorm.
Patti Smith is so anticipated that the notion of her precedes her actual presence on stage at 4 o’clock. She herself is a cool punk cucumber indeed as she from the second she goes on stage captivates and loosens up the Scandinavian coolsters: ‘Are we at the same place as before?’, she asks a mere 2 1/2 hours after her last appearance at the same stage. And when she can’t find the passage she wants to read, she gets her guitar player Lenny to flip through the pages, while she takes a question from the audience. This time there is no interviewer. Just her. And Lenny. She reads and recalls her time spent with Robert Mapplethorpe in the Summer of Love. There is a mood shot: Vanilla Fudge and LSD, sitting together and drawing. Later Motown and dancing. She recounts the scene that gives her memoir ‘Just Kids’ its name: an elderly woman seeing Patti and Robert on the street nudges her husband to take their picture, because ‘they must be artists’, whereto the husband replies ‘ah go on, they’re just kids’. She has a fascinating voice, it’s husky and soft at the same time, rhythmic with a distinct Jersey accent. She captures past moods for the audience to enjoy in the Chelsea Hotel, Sam Shepard, and before she speaks/sings ‘Kimberly’, she reads a passage about her meeting with Ginsberg – which I recorded for you to enjoy.
After Patti Smith we went in again to the Meese stage, because there was a triple reading with Hisham Matar, David Vann, and Alan Hollinghurst. The three are very different in narration – Matar melancholic and calm, Vann bubbly and extrovert, and lastly Hollinghurst, well, British with a capital upper class, country house B.
Matar is first up, and he reads a passage that the audience who attended the previous talk would recognize; a scene with a mother and his son on a trip to Norwegian Nordland – a place Matar has only been to in his imagination helped by a photo, but so skillfully recounted that apparently he even fooled his Norwegian translator. David Vann takes the stage after Matar and he reads from Legend of a Suicide, and in spite of the seriousness of the theme and the knowledge that it is semi-autobiographical, the passages he reads are humorous. It shines through when his memory turns on his reading and he laughingly pauses the story to recount scenes from his childhood, shooting squirrels and fishing anecdotes in Ketchikan, Alaska. Characters like Daphne, Cecil, George, and Mother populate Hollinghurst’s The Stranger’s Child from 2011 – I couldn’t from the short passage he read, figure out if he was on a level of seriousness or pastiche: I for one understood it a pastiche of the whole country house 19.-20.th century stiff-upper-lip British culture that generation after generation loves to dwell on – the once Greatest Nation in the world looked upon with nostalgia as the Kingdom is unwilling to face the reality of the 21. century. But I could be over-interpreting – he might just like the antiquated narrative style of ‘rather dreaded’, ‘blasted’, ‘dratted cigar’. It was nonetheless completely a different sadness from the previous two – but all three were dealing with some type of sadness and memory.
The next event was rather blasted to say it in Hollinghurstian, to my great annoyance as it was one of the authors I really was looking forward to get to know: Argentianian César Aira was interviewed by Rigmor Kappel Schmidt at the Giacometti. The fact that the interview was in Spanish evaded my attention as I hurried my camera woman along, but my lack of knowledge in Spanish was not the issue, as it was recounted in Danish along the way. But I cannot say much about him or his works as there was a terrible mess with the sound and every other minute the damn microphones started in on that oh so beautiful chalk-on-board, teeth clenching howl. Patient and polite as I am (read: I was in the second row and the place was packed – so I decided not to make a statement just then…) I stayed put through the whole séance and it was brutal! It was a bad cocktail of warmth that develops when you stuff 70 people in a room with 50 chairs, hissy and passive-agressive intellectuals behind me criticizing the interviewer in a voice just loud enough for everyone around them to hear that you have firsthand experience with the incompetency of the interviewer, and that incessant microphone howling and screeching. I could also sense that I had stretched my camera woman’s tolerance and goodwill to the limit, and offered her to call the day over and done with. So we had our traditional cake and coffee, listened to the very first minutes of Patti’s last performance of the day, and skipped off just in time to see ampoule and her co-conspirator Ida running, nay bolting like the devil was on their tracks up the street to make it to the evening concert.
SATURDAY 25.08.12
So, it’s Saturday and I am up early and eager. Going solo to see Jonathan Safran Foer and Jeffrey Eugenides in the Concert Hall. My camera woman has politely declined to spend another day in Humlebæk with me. But when I get there – and I kid you not, this is over an hour before the doors to the Concert Hall open – there is a queue going from one end of the museum to the other. No way even half of the people in line are getting in! So I trot down to the Giacometti and overcrowded as it also is, I sit down on the floor with my back to the wall and a giant statue blocking my view to the front where Mette Moestrup (DK) interviews Mara Lee (SE). But the circumstances of my seating arrangement are quickly forgotten when Moestrup and Lee start in on issues concerning gender, sex, culture, body and power. Both are concerned with the project of uncovering various aspects of woman and power through literary/language/artistic projects. I remember the first time I saw Moestrup performing at Testrup with She’s a Show last year – loved it! Haven’t had the chance to read anything of Lee’s yet – maybe because ‘Ladies’ has wrongfully been classified as chiclit, a genre I try not to dabble to much into. They really covered all the bases in the talk: disciplining the body (Foucault), biopolitics and -power, the female ideal, fusing Lee’s Korean background with the Swedish that sounded like it bordered on language poetry; how the letters l and r are alike in Korean, linking words like ‘våld (violence) and ‘vård’ (caring) and dealing with what that means, how Lee made a transition from experimental poetry to literary market prose, how desire/lust plays out in a young girl who is not portrayed as a victim or airbrushed to anonymity. They also spent a great deal of the time discussing what feminism is, and how we have to acknowledge that women are competitive and are capable of displaying wrong or bad feelings/actions without being finite, and how not acknowledging this leads to totalitarianism. As I said; covering all the bases.
After a break, Judith Schalansky (DE) and interviewer Marc-Cristoph Wagner sat down in the Giacometti room. This time I had ninjaed my way to a chair in the second row. Wagner introduces Schalansky and her upcoming novel ‘Der Hals der Giraffe’. Prior to this, Schalansky has worked with fusing literature with the scientific approaches of typography and cartography. Her body of works mark out an author who approaches meaning in more ways than merely creating words that go onto a page – so that her books carry statements on more levels than content alone. ‘Ich mache Bücher’, she replies. And with a degree in Art History and Communications Design it is safe to presume that all components of the novel have been planned and thought through to a T. In ‘Der Hals der Giraffe’, she, in her own words, has turned the concept of the Bildungsroman upside down. The main character, Inge, is an elderly woman, a biology teacher fed up with the state of her pupils’ (mental) capacities. In the last throes of a closing school and a community where the young leave for Berlin and the old stay behind, Inge teaches, or rather preaches, biology, adaptation, evolution and change; conditions she herself is not prepared to live by. Running on logic and fully content with the conservative Truth of Nature, Inge is a fascination to Schalansky, who wants to make this ‘cliché’ possible, readable. “Sie (Inge) hasst ja Kultur”, says Schalansky, referring to the coupling of the term both within culture as most know it and the agricultural meaning of the word – pointing to the contradictory and stagnating nature of Inge herself. ‘Veränderung gibts nicht für sie,’ although she is constantly on the verge of situations of possibility.
Danish actor Charlotte Munk reads very vividly in between part of the interview – linked below.
After the interview I take my copy and get in line to get the book signed.
Schalansky has taken fountain calligraphy pens and an impressive collection of stamps with her covering various butterflies, seashells, leafs and other shapes and symbols. I stammer ‘Schmetterling, bitte’ and she signs the book, and I leave.
Leave for a new queue outside the Concert Hall to experience a reading of Anne Carson’s retake of Sophocles’ Antigone in the illustrated ‘Antigonick’ by a row of the authors presented throughout the festival and Carson herself. The room is packed, anticipation is high. Carson does the intro and then the authors one and two, sometimes three and four come up to the microphone to perform the ancient new tragedy. I particularly like Nielsen reading as king Creon. I do however have some issues with the overtly monotonous readings throughout a large part of the event – it was a bit too distancing and highbrow for my taste – maybe it was a symbolic retort to the centuries of describing Antigone and the female on a scholarly level that described and pictured her from every angle as Object and objectified. I just know I kept going back to the time I read Antigone one of the first semester at uni and recalling the mental images I conjured up to supplement what I was witnessing in front of me.
Going home I decided that I had experienced enough at Louisiana Literature 2012 and a third day of queueing and elbowing was not for me.
To conclude, although no regrets, I wish I had seen Cia Rinne’s sounds for soloists, Lilian Munk Rösing interview Nielsen, the Foer/Eugenides talk and gone on walk with authors Tomas Espedal and Morten Søndergaard. But then again, with the packed weekend it would not be LouiLit if I didn’t have to make a compromise or two during the festival.
My ticket for this year’s Louisiana Literature has arrived.
I am psyched and ready to dig my festival heels into the tarmac, up close and personal, first row baby, at the annual show of authors and audience galore.
Hoping that my smile and winks will get the attention of those heavenly, holy, saintly, divine, godly, godlike, ethereal, otherworldly; immortal, angelic, seraphic, cherubic beings, perhaps a quote, or at least a good snap with the hipster filter.
If you have any interest in names such as Patti Smith, Kerstin Ekman, Jonathan Safran Foer (you would), Cia Rinne (you should), Judith Schalansky – I could go on… so I will – Linn Ullmann, César Aira, Anne Carson and Tomas Espedal et cetera, and no interest in going to Louisiana to ogle (or you just plain and simple can’t), but still would know what it was like; stick around kid. This might get interesting.
Refresh your memory of LouiLit last by checking this post out, or looking through the pictures here.
For a feature I made for Litteratursiden on the event in 2011 look here. (NB: it’s in Danish)
Also, I am on Twitter – if you want to follow the hopefully steady live-tweets.
Last week me and my mother (in town after attending Frankfurter Buchmesse, I’m so jealous) went to the exhibition at Bakkehusmuseet on reading by poet Morten Søndergaard called “Bakkehusalfabetet”.
The exhibit is set in and around the permanent exhibition in the house of Kamma and Knud Lyne Rahbek – two leading figures in 18th century society life in Denmark – now transformed into a museum and writer’s domicile. 28 installations, one for every letter in the Danish alphabet, are scattered around the house, in between cases containing items such as Oehlenschläger’s robe and paintings of Ludvig Holberg. The exhibition tries to convey different takes on how and why one reads, and importantly also what the process of reading does to someone. Accompanying every letter is a text that you can read in the booklet you loan at the entry. Like ‘R’ for “Ro; ro, rod, ord, bord” (in English, and unfortunately, but inevitably, not so similar, “quiet or row, mess, word, table”). The physical setting of the installation is an old wooden and lacquered desk like the one you might picture a clerk sitting at, upon which an iPad lays showing an array of pictures of Søndergaard’s many “desks”/writing places over the last 20 or so years. Combined with this is the mental process of, as explained in the text, the array of words he has chosen to describe his feelings of the settings of writing a text that will be read.
By the letter ‘I’, Søndergaard has taken a famous poem by Lewis Carroll in “Through the looking-glass, and what Alice found there”, namely the “Jabberwocky” and stuck it up on the bathroom wall. Jabberwocky is what some might call nonsense-poetry, however I would prefer to avoid the connotations of that word, simply because it does not do justice to the type of entry allowed the reader, just because it isn’t normative. The installation does however play on the same murkiness and seemingly impenetrable nature of the poem with which it presents itself on paper by being set backwards up on the wall, so that the easiest way you can read it is if you look at it through the mirror, or, ta-dah, looking-glass. The question soon arises; does reading the “Jabberwocky” become clearer if I read it through the looking-glass, or does reading like this feel displaced or diverted? Is reading this already-hard-to-comprehend poem impeded twice over, or am I all of a sudden aware of the poem’s crazy route?
Although it could be said that some of the installations took its subjects a bit to literally (like the two examples here) it doesn’t fail in examining reading at different point of views, perhaps in different life stages or reading as seen by different people. There is one of the installations where Søndergaard has taken a row of photos of book pages (a statement in itself that could lead to a long analysis), framed them with an archive card underneath explaining the books’ origin, page count, publishing date and remarks on the annotation or scribbled marks that fall out of the books default setting on that particular page. The images of the book-in-frame, with all of its implied and explicit meanings, becomes a fragment of a whole, and in the framed picture it is merely a corner of a books’ page, letting it stand as a documented piece, not of itself, but how it is received and implicates the reader. On one amusing photo someone has taken it upon him- or herself to correct a the grammar, crossing out the black, printed word “med” (with) and replacing it in blue ink with “af” (of). If you look at the photo and read the fragmented, but nonetheless adequate, sentence you will understand the duplicity in the action and the meaning.
The installations are on display until January 8th, and in case I did not make it clear: yes, I think they are worth a visit.
P.S. Did I mention I got a cool poster too?
Literary festivals, what are they good for? Once you’ve seen one, you’ve seen ’em all, you might say. Sure, a lot of the questions revolve around the same things; ‘how do you write a novel?’, ‘how should readers read you novel?’, ‘what is literature to you?’ – questions, whose answers I pretty much know by heart now. And there is not really any grand surprise when authors say ‘well, I get up at 9, have some breakfast, sit by the computer all day, and hope to have written at least 2 solid pages by the end of the day’. If you want to experience something different though, you have to get in between the creases and observe reactions, the digressions that evolve in the interviews outside the standard questionnaire, like observing audience interaction, author reactions to questions, readings and the expressions and tonality of the readings. So the following introductions are some of the impressions I had of this years Louisiana Literature.
Kjell Askildsen/Helle Helle
Yes, yes, yes, I am getting to the festival itself: there was enough to feast your eyes on. Like for instance a p***** off Kjell Askildsen who closed the ball off with giving us comparative literature students, researchers and all of the critics who label him and others as minimalist writers a flogging during the Kjell Askildsen/Helle Helle interview. Man, he really did not like that label at all! Throughout the interview he was laid back until the point where the interviewer called him and Helle Helle minimalists and then he just let it rip (in that 80-something-years old, half-blind intellectual crazy fashion). I can’t say I blame him in a way; labels can be incredibly restricting and especially if you don’t see why this or that label is tagged to you. But on the other hand; I don’t see literary minimalism as a dirty word, not even an intellectualization of some people’s styles. If you can choose to say a lot with a small amount of words, that’s fine. If you want to use 4 pages to explain the color of your grandmother’s living room carpet, that’s fine too – to me, it’s all in the strength and confidence with which writers write.
Juli Zeh
If you are into dystopia novels you might have found Marc-Cristoph Wagner’s interview with Juli Zeh interesting. The German, Berlin-based author talked about her latest novel, ‘Corpus delicti’ and the obsessive development we see in modern times in any area relating to health issues. And although I didn’t really get a sense of how her novel is different or bringing anything new to the genre of the dystopia novels such as ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ or ‘Brave New World’ (maybe it’s not supposed to) I bought a copy that in this moment is just sitting in wait for me. I especially thought of someone close to me, who has her own theories about the possible detrimental effects of the fanatic attitude people have with health these days – and she might very well be right. She was also very passionate about the topic, so I have a feeling that might just translate onto the novel.
Carsten Jensen/Ilija Trojanov
If you are a traveling literary soul with a weak spot for having a critical eye to globalization then the Jensen/Trojanov combo is your bet. Trojanov is the author of ‘Collector of Worlds’ and Jensen is most widely known for his ‘We, the drowned’. They both put great emphasis on the experience of traveling – something that evolved from an exiting sensation to something Trojanov explained as painful if you stayed to long and realized you never did fit naturally in with the locals. They both agreed that a journey was endless and goalless. Jensen amusingly said that the two most favorite places a Dane could be was in departures and arrivals of Kastrup Airport, because if Danes didn’t travel they would get claustrophobic. But Jensen is nonetheless a Dane and heavily involved and invested in Danish issues, such as the Danish involvement in the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, and in debates on culture and academia. Trojanov’s travelling life story on the other hand is that of someone who chose his country rather than being rooted in one, or as he said “a forced travel”. His parents fled Bulgaria and ended up in Kenya and Trojanov now resides in Germany and writes in German.
Kirsten Hammann
What happens when you stick a lodger, an author lacking inspiration in an apartment with a landlady, a woman waiting for her boyfriend to come home from India, and who also incidentally believes her body’s sole purpose is to produce babies? And what happens when the lodger gets the crazy idea that his next novel should be a detective novel – and what better way of gaining material than to put someone under surveillance? Aka. the landlady who is just sitting alone in her room. Well, Kirsten Hammann’s latest novel ‘Kig på mig’ (Look at me) is what happens. Interviewer Marie Tetzlaff was anxious to know just why successful female authors such as Helle Helle and Hammann chose to let their female characters appear strong on the outside and all kinds of messed up on the inside, I’m guessing to poke at the degree of self-portrayal from a hidden angle, but the question was just left hanging in the air.
Lars Saabye Christensen
One of my favorite interviews was the one Anette Dina Sørensen did with Norwegian author Lars Saabye Christensen. He was there to speak about his latest novel ‘Bernhard Hvals fortalelser’ (Bernhard Hval’s Freudian slips). Bernhard Hval is totally inappropriate – your average anti-hero – completely useless in social settings. An outsider, who teams up with another outsider, a race walker named Notto Fipp with a fondness for a diet consisting of milk and bananas that is quite out of the ordinary (who, incidentally is an actual person). Christensen read a scene from the novel, where Hval and his wife are on their honeymoon in Nice and on one of their outings none other that Knut Hamsun falls down with a heart attack next to them. Naturally, Hval a doctor who prefers the dead, must help in resuscitating Hamsun, although he would much rather let him be. The reading was hilarious and the audience responded well to the narrative. Christensen then spoke of his affinity for Oslo, his home town, and ended the interview by reading ’22 7 2011′ commemorating the victims of the Oslo/Utøya attack. It was so hard to listen to that I had to strain myself so as not to cry. (A reading by Aksel Hennie can be seen here.)
All in all, there was an incredible amount of experiences and impressions at the four-day festival – so much so that I would be writing for many days about it if I didn’t limit myself, so I will stop here. This was not the last literature festival I will be going to.