Posts in Category: 2011

Gender seminar – day 3

(Introduction: some of this is written on day 4, because my laptop died on me before I had a time to finish it, and so it will not, as later stated, be a short post.)

Yet another day packed with activities. Today, three of the nominees for the Montana literary prize were introduced to us – Harald Voetmann’s ‘Vågen’, Hans Otto Jørgensen’s ‘Sæt Asta fri’ and Majse Aymo-Boot’s ‘Ødelæggelserne 1-11’. Then Lilian Munk Rösing held a lecture on Antichrist titled “To free (oneself from) mother’s desire”. After dinner we went to listen to the panel discussion of the nominees and later this evening we are going to a reading and a concert. As my computer is dying due to lack of juice, and every socket in the room is leased on a more or less ongoing basis, this will be a short post.

Lilian Munk Rösing’s lecture was really interesting and a very different take on the movie so many have either had physical or/and emotional reactions of a very loud character. So many have criticized von Trier and seen a clear misogynistic message in the movie. Rösing proposes a different stanze which bases itself in the tension between the bestial/brutal and the beautiful/pleasing, rather than seeing the movie as an image of nature versus civilization. She reads the movie as a dream, an in-between place where tragedy lies between two deaths; the social and the physical. There is of course lacanian/freudian psychology all over the lecture, but since I am prone to this myself I don’t mind it one bit 🙂 One of the things she lays emphasis on, which I also felt was a strong point in the movie, was the (excuse the choice of wording) nature of the anti-romantic universe. We are beyond the understanding of nature as essentially good and welcoming to humans, and in its place is nature as indifferent. There is no meta-order, so everything is a possible sign. And von Trier’s movie is a continuous string of signs that can keep its viewer up and scheming for hours.

The presentation of the three nominees for Montana’s literary prize was informative, packed with laden sentences and well articulated views to say the least. So much that I had a cold sweat just thinking about standing up and asking a question in front of these übermenschens of cultural intelligentsia. You are really on your toes the whole time, and at the same time there is so much room here for different views and thoughts on the same subjects. It is so interesting to see how different people interpret something you have fixated on for a while.

Montana literary prize podium pre-presentation

In the evening there were readings by different authors – a pure joy to sit and listen to the rhythmic voices, I am a huge fan of readings. Among others we heard two of the nominees for the Montana literary prize. Harald Voetmann read from his latest ‘Vågen’ and Pia Juul from her ‘Radioteatret’. After this there was a concert with She’s a Show. I cannot really say anything that will adequately sum up the atmosphere, but it was good, highly recommendable, and an experience. It was rhythmical, an exploration of the voice, a tribute to the great Sappho, mixed with animalistic sounds, electronic beats, a summoning, chanting. At one point Mette Moestrup was like Little Black Riding Hood playing on an owl-inspired instrument singing ‘white milk from the evil breast’ (whoosh!). The green fairy and romantic grand piano play was mixed in with words summoning up images of liquids, drunkeness, volmit, and bush. It was really hard listening to this truly beautiful music, so melancholic, sweat and naive, against the brutal recognition of a drunken haze where your super-ego has left the building. Again, truly an experience.

She's a show

She's a show

And now it’s time to return to day 4 of my adventure into gender.

Gender seminar – day 2

Here I am: day two and experiences richer. The day started with breakfast and morning song – just how højskole is supposed to start, and I think I will introduce this into the morning ritual at home, it’s so refreshing 🙂 On today’s schedule were two lectures and one movie interspersed with meals and coffee breaks every hour (I am almost not kidding you – am starting to get a Hansel-paranoia over all the good food that is being offered).

Dag Heede - Lecture "Queer eyes on Danish literature"

The first lecture was by Dag Heede, ph.d. in comparative literature at SDU, who’s speciality is  Karen BlixenH.C. Andersen and Herman Bang. His lecture was very captivating and it was dangerously easy to let oneself fall into believing everything he put out. He started with a critique of the notion of sexuality, and very explicitly and smilingly advised us all to read  Foucault‘s History
of Sexuality Volume 1″ as otherwise we could not talk about sexuality with any real knowledge on the case. He used Foucault to explain just how modern the notion of sexuality is and how sexuality is constructed by history, posing that sexuality is a radical and historical incident that we must rid ourselves of. The construction of sexuality is misunderstood in our days – it is not an essence that is being repressed and needs to be set free, but an suppressive installation set up by governing power structures that we must rid ourselves of in order to go beyond being constructed sexualities! All very Foucaultian and theoretical. I have yet to read HoS in its whole, but if it is anything like Heede put before us, it is something I will look forward to dive into. After Foucault he introduced us to Judith Butler. Her theory is on how ascertaining is an act of speech, and it sets in motion an iterative action called ‘girling’ and ‘boying’ (the meaning pretty much lies in the words). Gender is always a process and we can never be perfect genders, because there is no original. So we are always copying the copy of a non-existing original. As we continue to quote this in repetitive motion it is true that we cannot not be gender. However some take it to extremes and “over-quote” or “mis-quote” their gender identity. He then went on queering both Karen Blixen’s “Seven Gothic Tales” and H.C. Andersen.

Sjón

Then came the lecture with Sjón, the Icelandic writer, who wrote the preface to the Danish translation of SCUM-manifesto by Valerie Solanas. He called himself ‘the retarded brother of Sara Stridsberg’ (as she knew more about VS, and in essence of him being male, hence inferior). It was very interesting seeing someone so passionate about this person most people have written off as being a crazed loner with a crazed text that offered a solution to harmony as the killing of all the male sex. He quoted Solanas: “Male is an incomplete female. A walking abortion.” And she posed that a structural problem in our patriarchal society was that men wanted to be women and thus created women in the image of how they imagined themselves to be if they were women – hence a perversion of female. He talked about his experience with Solanas’ text, which he told us, at first came at him with a screaming anger, but in the text he also found humor. Not the kind of slap-stick humor of comedy, but the humor that turns the world as we know it upside down, and shows its darkness. He talked a great deal about the notion of utopia and how many have described this place as an ultimately good place, but few have depicted the road to utopia as he means Solanas does. In the evening we saw ‘Antichrist’ by Lars von Trier as a prequel to the lecture tomorrow by Lilian Munk Rösing. I had seen it one time before, but this time I really had the time to read into it, and decode it. But more on this tomorrow.

Gender seminar – Day 1

9.30 a.m: Frantic re-packing, hauling sweaters and hairdryer out of one bag into decidedly larger bag. Have to be on train at 11. No sweat, I even managed to eat breakfast, pack a lunch, and throw in an extra pair of shoes and two packets of gum. I am multi-task genius.
11 a.m.: Train platform is overcrowded to the point that I am afraid people in mass numbers will fall on the tracks if someone sneezes. Board in wrong end of train which means I have to get out at later station and run frantically alongside train to no. 21-22, where I have to stand up for the remainder of my 3 hour trip.

So what’s the hubbub?
I am currently at Testrup Højskole attending a seminar on gender in literature. I decided to sign up around Christmas time and today the day has finally arrived. The schedule looks really promising and I feel the nostalgic vibe of ‘højskolestemning’ in the air. People are all here for one reason – to debate, discuss, listen and challenge each other.

Mads Eslund and Christian Dorph, the course leaders, started the debate with positioning themselves in two different directions. But they both had good points on feminism, the blurry lines of gender, biological versus social constructions in gender and how literature can display or talk about gender.

Lars Bukdahl

10 p.m. – Lars Bukdahl, critic, author, critic and editor, gives us a summoning up of the year 2010 in books. As well as being immensely passionate, very buzzy on stage and a in dire need of a second mouth to let out all his thoughts, he also possesses a certain infectious stance to literature. He spoke of his role as reviewer, or critic, and described situations of panic or restlessness when confronted with a work that in both ways pleased and puzzled. He talked about the furious women and weak men as tendencies in Danish literature 2010. But rather than just labeling men and women as such, his main focus lies with language – its being as poetic, unraveling, sensuous, hilarious, furious and weak – as means of defining the work of authors.

Tomorrow we will dive into some Michel Foucault and Judith Butler right after breakfast – what a way to digest your tea and buttered buns! 🙂

Good night from the theatre auditorium at Testrup.

Enhanced by Zemanta