(Scholar and Poet, Amatoritsero Ede, in conversation with Irene Marques , novelist, poet, short story writer, and Scholar) <\/em><\/p>\n Amatoritsero Ede:<\/strong> I am particularly gratified to be having this chat with someone who is, like me, a creative writer as well as a scholar. This should be very productive. I would first like you to please touch on the intersections or separations, if any, between your work as a writer and as a scholar.<\/p>\n Irene Marques:<\/strong> As a human being, generally speaking, I find it difficult to divide myself into neat separate chambers\u2014even if our society (and here I will add that this is more of a cultural trend of North American societies) constantly tells us not to mix apples and oranges. Naturally, like the ancient Greek shoemaker, I like to see my \u201cshoe\u201d as one that is weaved together by a single unified creative energy, my sole and my laces working in conjunction, moving in the same direction to allow for a more wholesome walk on this great wide universe of ours. My academic interests and research do intersect with my literary ones. In both areas, I tend to explore themes related to power relations in classed, racialized, colonial, hybrid and gendered societies\u2014and also existential questions of fulfilment and the dialectic between self, others and \u201cotherness\u201d (the transcendental, the non-human, the vast cosmic reality). My academic teaching and research area is primarily in the field of African Studies and Literatures and also on the intersections between African, Buddhist and Western philosophies and systems of thought. And in my creative writing, I often explore similar matters using a language that allows for more freedom and a better view, since academic language, in its stiffness and elusive but stubborn quest toward the rational (or rather, a certain type of unimaginative and short-sighted rational), can restrict access to a larger, more complete and endearing reality.<\/p>\n A.E.:<\/strong> What challenges or triumphs do you have writing in Portuguese in a Canada whose readers are largely English and some French.<\/p>\n I.M.: <\/strong>When I write in English my primary target audience is here in Canada and hopefully also those of other English speaking countries. My writing in Portuguese is published in Portugal so when I write in Portuguese my primary target audience is there and I hope I can also appeal to some audiences in other Portuguese speaking countries\u2014and also the Portuguese speaking community here in Canada though I am yet to appeal to that community in any substantial way. That may be related to the low readership in the community and the type of writing that I do, which tends to fall outside the typical linear realist genre, despite its high \u201cpoliticality\u201d. For example, my next novel in Portuguese which is coming out in Portugal in the Spring of 2017 is of high historical content and deals with the Colonial wars in Africa, the Fascist regime, rural poverty, immigration and migration, and is written in a style that may fall within the magic realist genre\u2014a magic realism with a heavy socio-political content. This may surprise some people but Portuguese is actually the 5th<\/sup> or 6th<\/sup> most spoken language in the world\u2014so there is another excellent reason to write in that beautiful language!<\/p>\n A.E.:<\/strong> Do you, as Ngugi Wa Thiong\u2019o did with Gikuyu language, write in Portuguese first and then translate your own works into English; or do you write different texts in each of both different languages? Put differently, what shapes your decision to creatively write about a subject either in English or Portuguese?<\/p>\n I.M.:<\/strong> I write different works in English and Portuguese and never do I write in one language and then translate to the other. So far\u2014that is. My decision to write in either language is really dictated by my mood and need at the moment of writing. There are times when I need to write in Portuguese as if am assaulted by a yearning for that language, the ethic and aesthetic that it can carry. It may be a deep need to connect with my past, to recreate and recapture a reality that I no longer directly have access to or live in, link myself with my youth in Portugal, my family, the historical important events of that country that marked me and my family the most such as the Fascist regime and the Colonial Wars in the Africa. But even when I write in English I may still explore some of these issues, so in that sense, writing, whether in English or Portuguese, is a way to revisit the past but in an informed fashion since I left Portugal at the age of 20 and did not have a full understanding of its history and complexity (not to mention that we often see<\/em> things better from afar…). Given that I live in Anglophone Canada, English is always (or mostly) the language \u201cthat I am in\u201d and so naturally I write a lot in English. I tend to write more poetry in English than in Portuguese because poetry (which comes very easily to me) functions very much as a way to deal with everyday existential issues, things that affect me on a daily basis and which I need to sort out using the poetic word (medium). I consider creative language a powerful mechanism for the discovery, rediscovery, understanding and expansion of the self. It is a powerful key to illumination, enlightenment, growth…<\/p>\n Sometimes the choice of writing is simply linked to the sounds of the language in my head, the way it sings in my Self. There may be a word or a string of phrases that come to me in one language or the other which are calling for more\u2014calling me to write them fully, that is, pull more meaning from them, explore them, let them speak fully until it feels that I have fully said what they needed to say, transmit to me… And so I write them out, exhaust their meaning… So often it is this auditory (internal) hearing of the language in the mind that decides\u2014pulling me into one particular language. This speaks to the power of the sound in language: the different sounds that each language creates, its unique musicality, the aesthetic and multifaceted effect of that. For instance, in Portuguese, when writing literarily, we often use the verbs in what we term the \u201cimperfect past\u201d\u2014a tense that aims at prolonging the action\/events being described. These verbs (such as \u201camava\u201d, \u201ccantava\u201d, \u201cchorava\u201d) have open vowels that seem to go on forever creating a very pleasant feeling of an endless time. I find that very soothing, poetic and existentially fulfilling. It induces a dwelling of sorts that makes me feel extended, travelling between timeframes or suspending the notion of present, past and future\u2014enter a holistic sphere that is timeless. Of course, that I would also say that writing in general (and especially literary writing) in either language induces this similar feeling of wholeness or dwelling. I will also say that one language feeds the other, makes it better: knowing and writing in Portuguese enhances my literary writing in English and vice-versa. This relates to the importance of how literatures and languages actually feed off each other and constitutes a very important reason why writers should try and read in different languages, if they can, and if they can\u2019t, they should at least read books in translation. Thus the need to do translations between languages! I.M.: <\/strong>As I note in that essay, I do think that Canadian literature favours for the most part an Anglo-Saxon ethic and aesthetic. Given that I define what that means in there I won\u2019t go into detail about it here. We are a country of others among others, who should constantly be striving to become Same. Here the term \u201cSame\u201d implies reaching a stage where peoples of different backgrounds see each other not in terms of being less or more than the other but rather as beings vis-\u00e0-vis other beings of equal merit and capacity and beings who remind them of themselves (of their own difference). It also implies entering a realm of trans-dialectical, trans-personal learning, where one group allows the other one in itself and learns to adjust to the other. This does not mean losing our difference and becoming all alike: it means inhabiting more fluid identities, getting in and out of selfhood, so to speak. Luce Irigaray puts it beautifully: \u201cApproaching and speaking to me with his hands. Bringing me back to life more intimately than any regenerative nourishment, the other\u2019s hands, these palms with which he [she] approaches without going through me, give me back the borders of my body and call me to the remembrance of the most profound intimacy. (121); A kind of house that shelters without enclosing me, untying and tying me to the other, as to one who helps me to build and inhabit.\u201d (142) Even though Irigaray is speaking here specifically about female\/male relations, I believe that her philosophy can be also applied to relations between all human beings.<\/p>\n Canadians do come from many places around the world where English is not the lingua franca and they come with the ethic and aesthetic of their languages and literatures. If we are to become diverse artistically, we need to allow the many ethics and aesthetics of the people who make up Canada to \u201cwrite themselves\u201d in Canada so that the country can reflect its real inhabitants. This means that even if the writing medium is English, that English will be injected with the \u201cotherness\u201d of all those people who live here, their ethic and aesthetic. That \u201cotherness\u201d will create innovative and powerful literature. We must remember that language and literature grow the best when in contact with other languages and literatures, other ethics and aesthetics, and not in isolation. But I must really emphasise the idea and importance of \u201caesthetics\u201d here: it is not sufficient to value writing that expresses different life experiences, the ethic, that is\u2014though that is essential of course\u2014and be satisfied with that type of diversity of voice. It is equally important to value the diversity of writing technique, the medium. In Canada it seems to me that often we value diversity in life experience (the ethic) and may allow that to come out in writing but not so much in the writing technique and so the writing aesthetic mostly valued continues to the Anglo-Saxon one. But think, for instance, about Toni Morrison\u2019s novel Beloved<\/em>. It is an astoundingly beautiful and powerful book that touches us to the core precisely because it matches the life experiences of Black American slaves with a unique aesthetic. Without Morrison\u2019s innovative style, one would not be able to feel<\/em> and enjoy<\/em> the novel as much as we do. Writing advice in Canada often goes more or less like this: show don\u2019t tell (as if we could separate one from the other: doesn\u2019t the \u201cshoe\u201d need all the parts to make itself beautiful and sturdy, to go back to my initial metaphor?), use minimal language, avoid the lyric and flowery, curb the irrational (what constitutes the irrational is of course dictated by a given cultural paradigm), the emotional, be clear so that your reader does not get confused (shouldn\u2019t a novel be a thing<\/em> that confuses the reader and makes her\/him suspend judgment, point to another way, another reality not yet imagined or known and allow one to arrive at gradual revelation and enlightenment, much of which may in fact come later when one has had enough time to digest and meditate upon the words read?), etc, etc. I am aware that I may have just written a very long and convoluted sentence here for some readers\u2026perhaps a sign that I am living, thinking and writing between cultural paradigms, going in and out, if you will. This advice is problematic on many counts. I also often see, especially in poetry, an exaggerated post-modern game going on where writing becomes a long list of disconnected words or (grand) expressions presenting itself as creative and innovative writing. This type of writing comes across as overly mechanical and without a clear poetic intention, feel, story and warmth. It becomes too cerebral without the holistic trait that I think is important in poetry. If Canada continues to apply parochial standards to what it means to write well and have incestuous circles of literary production, we will continue to generate the same type of literature: mono-cultural and myopic. I think one of the things that Canadian Arts Councils and other literary institutions really need to do is to have jury members and employees that reflect different literary aesthetics and ethics, people who may have been educated in other countries or at the very least people who have some serious training in international literatures\u2014people who have read abundantly outside of the English language cannon.<\/p>\n A.E.:<\/strong> You are trained as a critic of Comparative Literature. As we both know, that discipline needs literature written in other (world) languages for a \u2018comparison\u2019 to be possible. This requires active translation of Canadian literature in languages other than English or French (for example, Portuguese, Persian, Bengali), on the one hand, and even translations between French and English, on the other. Do you find that the Canadian academy (especially CanLit departments) and literary establishment encourage such translations; any examples of such translated works?<\/p>\n I.M.:<\/strong> My reply to the previous question partly answers this question. As a person trained in comparative literature and being able to read in four different languages, I do think that it is paramount that people read from outside the English canon and translation plays a crucial role in that as noted above. Comparative Literature programs are very important in that regard since they form students who read and write in several languages and study works in translation and many do end up doing translations. For example, in 2016, a volume with the complete stories of the Brazilian writer Clarice Lispector was published in English, skilfully translated by a comparative literature graduate from the University of Berkeley, Katrina Dobson. Clarice Lispector is a remarkable writer and that the English speaking world has barely paid attention to her is regrettable. I sometimes include some of her short fiction in my English courses and I find that the students have difficulty understanding her at first because she is so different and they have been reading mostly the same type of literature. And yet, I also find that they really like her and are very pleased to have discovered her.<\/p>\n I can\u2019t comment on the specifics of Canadian Literature departments and their involvement in promoting and pushing for translation as I don\u2019t have precise information on that. But according to statistics less than 4% of works written in languages other than English are translated into English, whereas works published in English are widely translated into many other words languages (see http:\/\/www.bbc.com\/culture\/story\/20140909-why-so-few-books-in-translation). This is problematic, as I elaborate in my noted essay, because it creates an imbalance: we end up with the Anglo-Saxon ethic and aesthetic infiltrating itself in the minds of the many people of the world. Yet the Anglo-American world reads mostly works produced within itself and so we have, if you will, an act of self-cannibalism. But we all need to \u201ceat\u201d the other in order to grow, empathise and expand our own selfhood. The Anglo-American world actually loses out quite a bit in this scenario because it becomes more and more isolated, imprisoned in a single prism of vision, understanding, cognition. This can have far-reaching consequences of intolerance too where we come to see ourselves and our culture as the centre, as the only one valid\u2014and this can lead to xenophobia, ethnocentrism, racism, etc. The British just decided to leave the E.U. and the U.S.A. voted for a President who seems to be the epitome of someone with an arrested, self-feeding ideology, who does not give much attention to the views of others. I wonder what they have been reading\u2014likely only books from \u201ctheir own library.\u201d However, deep down, I think most of us, if not all, whether we are conscious of it or not, yearn to exit our own (small) selfhood and connect with the other, become other… To read the \u201cother\u201d (and the \u201cotherness\u201d of the \u201cother\u201d) is to exit, suspend and expand the self and to expand the self is an act of kindness toward the self and the other. It is what we in fact desire ontologically. And here I would like to quote a poem titled \u201cIdentity\u201d by the Mozambican writer Mia Couto which illustrates this idea, quite handsomely, I think:<\/p>\n Identity<\/strong><\/p>\n I need to be another I am a grain of rock I am sand sustaining I exist where I become a stranger to myself In the world that I combat, I die A.E.:<\/strong> Vis-\u00e0-vis an Anglo-Saxon ethic and aesthetics, what is your view on the critical objectivity or lack thereof in the awarding of Canadian literary prizes. There was a storm of controversy about a 2008 Governor General\u2019s prize for poetry, for example. It was a first book of poems and some in the literary community felt that it was a premature win.<\/p>\n I.M.:<\/strong> I would say that there is an incestuous nexus that affects the Canadian literary circles in general and that would naturally affect the awarding of prizes. I expand on this in my noted essay. This is not to say that there aren\u2019t people out there who are not interested in promoting impartiality but the beast is complex and there are many interests at play. I also think that many writers are actually afraid to speak out because they are afraid to lose connections, alienate their publishers and funders, or to seem \u2018petty\u2019, etc. And let\u2019s be honest: there is that (annoying) Canadian tendency of being overly polite and non-confrontational which often means not telling what we really think or feel about a specific issue. That creates an appearance of cordial relations that does not correspond to the reality. It prevents genuine communication from taking place and consequently it arrests the development of a true, wholesome community. <\/p>\n <\/strong>A.E.:<\/strong> How would you suggest an immigrant writer navigate the Canadian literary field to be successful?<\/p>\n I.M.:<\/strong> I don\u2019t think I have the answer. But it also depends on what we mean by success. Personally, I believe that one ought to write from a true place, a place that feels true to ourselves and not let the Canadian mainstream literary scene dictate what and how we ought to write\u2014what constitutes good writing. My hope is that in due time the literary establishment will open itself to more voices that challenge the Anglo-Saxon ethic and aesthetic. I think my answer to the following question elaborates on these issues as well.<\/p>\n A.E.:<\/strong> What do you think of new initiatives of inclusion like FOLD \u2013 Festival of Literary Diversity in Toronto.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t 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\u2019t fully understand but which may be related to lack of funds and staff, the fact that they are funded and don\u2019t 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\u2019t know: that is still a mystery to me.<\/p>\n A.E.:<\/strong> Do you think more immigrant representation within national and regional arts councils\u2019 arts administration and grant adjudication will be a useful idea? <\/p>\n I.M.:<\/strong> Yes\u2014definitely\u2014as noted above.<\/p>\n A.E.:<\/strong> 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?<\/p>\n I.M.:<\/strong> 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n A.E.:<\/strong> Finally, I would like to thank you on behalf of MTLS for taking time off your frenetic schedule to talk to us.<\/p>\n
\n
\nA.E.:<\/strong> I will like to touch on what you have referred to, in your essay in MTLS issue #21, as a conservative \u201cAnglo-Saxon ethics and aesthetics\u201d that directly influences Canadian literary establishments\u2019 (non)promotion of Canadian literature. Are you saying that a one-sided Anglo-Saxon ethics and aesthetics impoverishes the literary arts in Canada, an immigrant country? What do you think can be done by the national and provincial art councils respectively to encourage more inclusion for a robust and culturally diverse Canadian literature?<\/p>\n
\nto be myself<\/p>\n
\nI am the wind that erodes it
\nI am the pollen without the insect<\/p>\n
\nThe sex of trees <\/p>\n
\nWaiting for my past
\nAnxious for the hope of the future<\/p>\n
\nIn the world that that I defend, I am born (13; my translation)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nI.M.:<\/strong> 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 \u201cdiversity\u201d 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 \u201cdiversity\u201d can serve to further divide the Canadian Literary scene and create mainstream writers and so-called \u201cethnic\u201d writers. This is very problematic (colonial in tone even, given that we are all \u201cethnic\u201d) and perpetuates divisions between Canadians. It also seems to me that often the writers who are \u201cchosen\u201d to represent diversity (the different ethnic groups or other under-represented and marginalized social groups) by major publishers are \u201cchosen\u201d because they are seen as \u201cauthentic\u201d voices, yet these \u201cvoices\u201d sometimes just recreate clich\u00e9d images of the group they represent and in that process arrest true diversity of voice within each of the different groups\u2014and 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\u2014or 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\u2014and 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.<\/p>\n