Saskia Vogel’s article, dated 3 October
2013, noted that Romanian literature was on a roll, with Mircea Cărtărescu and
Norman Manea achieving a significant profile at the Gothenburg Book Fair that
year, but she saw a split between how Romanian literature was perceived at home
and abroad. The following astonishing
exchange suggests an attitudinal problem on the part of those who should be
putting their weight behind the promotion of their authors (though the constant
references to Manea and Müller in articles dealing with Romanian literature is
to my mind problematic as both have lived abroad for many years):
‘In one feature that
tried to give an overview using Herta Müller and Cartarescu as touchstones,
Gothenburg Post journalist Sinziana Ravini had a curious encounter with the
head of the Romanian Cultural Institute in Paris. He described a boycott by
Romanian authors as a ‘fart in Romania’s history.*’ He dismissed the supposed
greatness of Cartarescu with the statement that writers don’t want to represent
their countries, only themselves. After she asks him to name a few authors
worthy of the epithet ‘great’ he recommends three books that she can’t then
find at the cultural institute’s library.’
A panel at Gothenburg on what was unique
about Romanian literature produced waffle, with Cărtărescu stating it is unique
because “Being a marginal language is unique,” which is meaningless in any
language, and the panellists were reduced to quoting poetry. To be fair, it is not a question a writer
should be expected to answer. Vogel
considered ‘they conveyed a sense of a simmering avant-garde’. It certainly appears the writers had more
faith in the idea of Romanian literature than the supposed guardian of the
national culture in Paris had.
Vogel interviewed Daniela Crăsnaru, who
was on the panel. Crăsnaru suggested
that literary productions were now personal expressions of the author’s values rather
than the collective values of past generations: the solidarity engendered by
the courage required to write under communism no longer exists. Perhaps this individualism was something the
head of the Parisian RCI found distasteful?
This was at a time when there was
increasing interest in Romanian literature in other European countries
(particularly Sweden), with it being the focus at several book fairs, enhanced
by Müller’s Nobel win in 2009 drawing attention to Romanian literature. Promotions at book fairs and the efforts of
the Swedish RCI had been instrumental in increasing numbers of books by
Romanian authors being translated in a variety of languages.
The head of the organisation in
Stockholm was upbeat about the prospects for Romanian literature: ‘We believe culture to be Romania’s big
chance to conquer the world, with literature playing a major role in the
process.’ Full marks for ambition, and a
more positive attitude than his counterpart in Paris!
Source: Publishing Perspectives
*Vogel does not say what the boycott was
all about but the Sarah in Romania
blog of 20-22 March 2013 had a full account of what happened. The RCI’s president, Andrei Marga had been
embroiled in a number of scandals and his autocratic style had not gone down
well with those he was supposed to represent.
A reorganisation the previous summer had already provoked an outcry
among creative individuals, causing a number to sever ties with the Institute.
Marga, having previously served as
foreign minister, was a political appointment, and there was disquiet at the
perceived politicisation of culture he represented, and the change in the goal
of the ICR to ‘preserve national identity’, rather than support independent
artists as it had been doing, caused further protests. This was a sensitive issue as it was read as
a throwback to the communist era, with grumbles of a personality cult
developing around Marga.
The result was a decision by a number of
high-profile figures, including Cărtărescu, to boycott the 33rd Salon du Livre in
Paris in March 2013. When the Salon
opened, a group of Paris-based artists (not only Romanian), under the banner
’ICR OFF!’, held pictures of absent authors over their own faces in order to
support them and protest peacefully at the way the ICR was being run.
There were unpleasant scenes as the
protesters were roughly removed by overzealous security guards minutes before
President Hollande arrived at the Romanian section. Despite these problems the event was a
success, notwithstanding the absence of some of Romania’s best-known writers,
and a fine showcase for Romanian literature which proved popular with visitors,
featuring interesting talks by those authors who did attend, and long queues
forming to purchase books.
As for Marga, a report on the Romania Insider website carries the news
that he resigned in June 2013 after only nine months in the job. He may have jumped before he was pushed. In the self-serving official release he highlighted
positive contributions he felt he had made to the life of the ICR, but referred
to attacks made on him from the moment he was appointed, as well as to
budgetary constraints and bureaucratic difficulties.
He shrugged off his critics by claiming:
‘I was talking to them about the infinite and they kept reminding me about the
length of my trousers’, which sounds odd for an administrator to say about
authors. One would expect it to be the
other way round.
