I.M.: I am not very familiar with this specific initiative. I think that these types of initiatives can be positive but I also feel that there is a lot of talk about “diversity” in these circles (and this country in general) and I am not sure that all this actually promotes real diversity of thinking, perspective and writing or reflects variety of ethic and aesthetic. Moreover, I sometimes think that the use of the term “diversity” can serve to further divide the Canadian Literary scene and create mainstream writers and so-called “ethnic” writers. This is very problematic (colonial in tone even, given that we are all “ethnic”) and perpetuates divisions between Canadians. It also seems to me that often the writers who are “chosen” to represent diversity (the different ethnic groups or other under-represented and marginalized social groups) by major publishers are “chosen” because they are seen as “authentic” voices, yet these “voices” sometimes just recreate clichéd images of the group they represent and in that process arrest true diversity of voice within each of the different groups—and the style (the aesthetic) preferred by these publishers continues to the Anglo-Saxon one. This can therefore perpetuate single narratives about the different groups and we may see certain writers be favoured solely on a narrow idea of what constitutes diversity of voice—or have publishers prefer certain types of narratives about given groups that they recognize as valid and not necessarily due to quality, innovation or as reflective of the complexity of that specific group. Another related problem is that we see a plethora of diversity initiatives or small publishers that revolve around a specific group and this also reinforces division, isolation, hierarchies and unfair competition—and also nepotism and preference for specific (single) stories, experiences and narratives. It sounds like division of labour to me, to use a capitalist metaphor! I recognize of course that these diversity initiatives and specialized publishers are often created with the intent to give voice to underrepresented groups in mainstream publishers. Yet, what would seem to be more productive would be to have less publishers or isolated diversity initiatives and create more robust and heterogeneous platforms (strong major publishers) where literature produced by all the groups can play on a (more) equal field, be judged with rigor and given the resources and publicity it needs to succeed on the market. But such platforms need cross-cultural and cross-sectional professionals (agents, editors, publishers, etc) that are properly equipped to look at the many groups they represent.
Furthermore, I think authors these days are expected to promote themselves on all kinds of fronts and that can lead to problems of its own since some will be more aggressive than others and will thus end up being recognized but that does not mean that there aren’t others who are equally good or more talented. So, if you are timid or not a real hustler and despise the self-promotion and self-aggrandizing ethos inherent to capitalist logic, well, good luck! Naturally those who are published by larger publishers with better resources are also at an advantage for they have access to publicity staff, editors, agents, and all kinds of other supports systems. This system under which larger publishers operate is in itself nepotistic, incestuous, self-protective and closed off to diversity of narratives. This is further tied to what I note above (and in my essay) to the platforms available to the different writers. For instance, most large publishers only accept manuscripts through agents and so one has to have connections to access an agent and then the agent would also have to be one that is well rounded in terms of appreciating literature from different angles and believe that there is indeed a market out there that appreciates literature outside of the Anglo-Saxon ethic and aesthetic. Since most agents are, I believe, still from the Anglo-Saxon pool all this becomes difficult and perpetuates a monoculture in writing. As for small publishers in Canada, which are funded by Arts Councils, in my experience they do very little promotion of authors they publish for reasons that I don’t fully understand but which may be related to lack of funds and staff, the fact that they are funded and don’t need to sell much, the fact that they may choose one author or two to champion because that author is demanding or any other reason…. I don’t know: that is still a mystery to me.
A.E.: Do you think more immigrant representation within national and regional arts councils’ arts administration and grant adjudication will be a useful idea?
I.M.: Yes—definitely—as noted above.
A.E.: You are prolific with a novel, a book of short stories, 3 poetry collections as well as scholarly books and essays. How do you balance of all these?
I.M.: I am sort of obsessed (it is a good obsession) around writing. I need to write to feel fulfilled as a human being, sort out life’s dilemmas and alleviate the struggle that living is or can be. As an academic, I also have to produce academic work and I enjoy that type of writing very much as well. Writing, of any kind, does a number of things for me: it clarifies the world, if clarifies myself to myself, myself to others and others to myself. I must always find time to write even when it is hard to do so and life calls me into many other directions, duties and responsibilities.
A.E.: Finally, I would like to thank you on behalf of MTLS for taking time off your frenetic schedule to talk to us.
I.M.: Thank you for your invitation, Amatoritsero—very much.
Works Cited:
Anderson, Hephzibah. “Why won’t English speakers read books in translation.” BBC. October 21 2014. Web. 2 June 2016. < http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140909-why-so-few-books-in-translation>
Couto, Mia. “Identidade.” Raíz de Orvalho e Outros Poemas. Lisboa: Editorial Caminho, 2000. 13. Print.
Irigaray, Luce. “The Fecundity of the Caress.” Feminist Interpretations of Emmanuel Levinas. Ed. Tina Chanter. University Park, PA.: Pennsylvania State UP, 2001. Print.
Lispector, Clarice. The Complete Stories. Trans. Katrina Dobson. New York: New Directions Publishing, 2016. Print.
Morrison, Toni. Beloved. New York: Alfred Knopf: 1987. Print.
2 Comments
Great comment on the unfortunate reductivism of academy language; as it is meant to be clear and communicative the academic word conflates the mysteries of creative thought into simple descriptions. Other scholars, and their students, then believe those simple descriptions to be the sum total of the experience… unaware these descriptions lack details and truly relevant facets, that are needed to understand creativity. The sad consequence, in fine arts at least, is that a flat description is believed equivalent to a major work of art, as there are no standards to base judgment on… The reality is different, as you point out speaking of language in a synesthetetic fashion, of sounds that sing in your self.
Yes Miklos, the complexity and innovation in language and style are, I think, fundamental aspects of literary writing. We are after all after something beyond what we have and know and so confusion is part of that. As the South African writer J. M. Coetzee may put it “we are trying to imagine the unimaginable”: capture things that we don’t know or understand and language is a medium that tries to do that. As Mike Marais comments in relation to Coetzee’s writing, language is the “secretary of the invisible”. To use literal, simple language that purports to know and give clear specific meaning to what it is attempting to communicate is problematic and shows an obsession with the “knowing”, the “rational” which are equivalent to “possessing” and “controlling”. And these are, I think, part of modern, capitalist societies and even the protestant ethic if I may say so.