Winterson, Roy, Nafisi
I saw something that made me laugh at Normblog this morning – I mean, I saw something at Normblog that made me laugh. I would never laugh at Normblog, or any other blog. I’m not that kind of person. Yes I am, but I pretend not to be. I am however the kind of person who would laugh at woolly novelists – would and does.
It’s a funny thing about novelists, at least some of them. The ones that have a certain kind of success, and get a certain kind of, what to call it, of cultural standing and credibility as a result. When I say ‘certain kind’ I don’t mean I know exactly what that kind is. Some combination of respectable critical acclaim (winning the Booker certainly doesn’t hurt) and notoriety and popularity. That will be our working definition of ‘certain kind’. Novelists in that category become omniscient. They become wise, and full of insight, and informed on all subjects, and equipped to set everyone straight. Because – ? They have a way with words and a talent for telling stories? I don’t see the connection, myself. It may be the case that some novelists really are well-informed and full of insight, but in the case of this category those qualities seem to be assumed in an odd way – that’s the part that I think is a funny thing.
And Norm’s comment is about a case in point.
But I have to say that even upon this terrain you can come across something so bloody funny that an uncontrollable belly laugh is impossible to avoid. Such is the following item from Jeanette Winterson, author:
I’ll never forgive them about the war. It’s not a women’s issue, it’s a world issue. I am buying a place in Paris because I no longer want to be in the UK full-time. I want to be European, not a piece of the USA.
The war is about her, do you see? ‘They’ have let her down, and she’s jolly well ‘buying a place in Paris’. Byeeee!
That is pretty funny. ‘I’ll show them – I’ll buy a place in Paris! So there!’
And it reminded me of something I meant to comment on several weeks ago, and never got around to. It was about seeing, on two concurrent evenings, Arundhati Roy and Azar Nafisi on C-Span, and what different impressions the two of them made on me, and what if anything that difference is about. Probably nothing really, probably just a matter of personality on their parts and perception on mine. And yet…
The first one was a session of a conference of US sociologists, which for some fairly unfathomable reason was devoted to listening to Arundhati Roy give her opinions on stuff. I didn’t see the beginning (was merely channel-surfing as opposed to deliberately watching), but I saw quite enough of sycophantic admiration on the audience side and smug self-satisfaction on Roy’s. The whole thing was just very ‘I am buying a place in Paris.’
Nafisi was different. Mind you, I’m biased going in – I think Nafisi has something worthwhile to say, and I think what Roy has to say is more mixed (at best). But all the same, Nafisi wasn’t preening, she didn’t keep gazing around in a queenly way as Roy did. She was intense, urgent, impassioned – what she was saying was not about her, it was about what she was saying. Self-forgetful. Not a performance but an attempt at communication. The contrast was interesting.
Update: Martin Amis. He’s another one. I meant to mention him and forgot. Though he neglected to win the Booker – but maybe the early success is the equivalent and has the same effect. At any rate, he has that novelist’s omniscience, such that he feels it necessary to tell us that Stalin was bad, because we didn’t know that until he told us. And he’s a great preener. In fact his memoir has more preening in it than any other book of comparable size I can think of.
Actors, too. We need them to lecture us on the political wrongness of whatever. Alec Baldwin threatened to move to Canada if Bush won the 2000 election. Thank God he didn’t, for then we would have been deprived of…I’m not sure what, but we certainly would have been deprived.
Yup, actors too, and of course athletes and rock stars. But there’s an extra level of insidiousness with novelists, I think, because they’re thought of as both artists and intellectuals when in fact all too often they’re neither. I mean, they’re not required to be either, but then it would be nice if people didn’t assume they were wise or reflective or knowledgeable simply because they write fiction.
I’ve never read Roy’s literary work, nor followed much of her political work. But I did run across some of her writing on state power in India in Z Magazine recently, and it was well-documented and interesting. Maybe she does some good work? Just because she’s not credentialed and doesn’t give talks like a conference scholar (and that’s not a model I commend for emulation, by the by) doesn’t mean she can’t be right about important stuff that she’s spent time studying.
Oh, that’s right, be fair, of all things.
snicker!
No, of course, it may be that she does some good work. But she’s bought into some of the anti-science anti-technology stuff, which I’m not a fan of.
fyi, many Western-educated, career-focussed women here in Iran, who preferred to stay here and “serve their country”, despite the “unimaginable” hardship of putting on the hijab, (and despite having the opportunity to run to the West and blab about how nasty the mullahs are to women)and despise Ms. Nafisi, and those like her, who took the soft option. fyi also, I am an English Literature graduate from Tehran University, and I can assure you the main premise of “Reading Lolita…” is pure nonsense- nobody has to “go underground” to read Lolita- now if it were a Sunnite version of the Qoran, it would be a different matter.
People like Nafisi belitte the *real* oppression of people in Iran- the real stifling lack of democracy- and its got nothing to do with a fancy prententious coward of an Eng Lit professor yakking to Westerm media about how she was forced English novels in secrecy… I am degenerating into hysterical screaming now and so I shall stop.
IMHO the meeja have a lot to do with this phenomenon. It is the weekend supplements and colour mags which appear to suddenly decide that certain people are all-purpose gurus and before you know it you can’t open a paper or switch on a TV without seeing them pontificating.
I’m old enough to remember Malcolm Muggeridge as an early example of the breed. An interesting man with some strengths in certain fields gradually dragged into giving his twopenny-worth on anything and everything. The end result being that nobody took him seriously at all. Sad really.
Most of Roy’s criticism by the Indian people I’ve met stems from her apparent ‘hijacking’ of issues as part of her own personal crusade, rather than working with collective, sustained, organised party-based – or otherwise – protest. Indian politics succumb to personality cults or single issue politics all too readily, and Roy, it is alleged, gives the important issues that she champions a much shorter life and much less clout in the political long-run, because her frequent public appearances are as much about Roy as her adopted ‘issues’.
Sound familiar anyone ?
Oh I forgot to ask – would that be the same Paris which made several hundred Algerian dissidents disappear overnight in the sixties, never to be seen again ? (An act of military secret services severity which made Bloody Sunday and the IRA internment policy in Ulster look wishy washy). Is that the same Paris which upheld a military coup in 1993 to prevent the freely elected Muslim Algerian majority party take power, thus ensuring Algeria’s continued position as ‘highly dangerous’ for foreign visitors, and an Al Quaida Gold-status partner ? The Paris that sold Saddam shed-loads more military capability along with Moscow, than Washinton and London, in the eighties ? The same Paris that ordered and carried out illegal, unilateral nuclear testing in the Pacific in 1996, breaking several score UN resolutions ? Just curious really, because these are strikingly similar to the allegations we constantly hear against those Hegemonic Fascist Pigs in Washington, and their lapdog, Blair. Small world.
And while I’m at it, just because France’s nastiness on foreign policy compared to the US is scaled down (hey, but so is France!), does it really mean they are more principled ? Or are we confusing deeds with dogma here ?
Evie, What you say is interesting. Tell us more if you want to.
Still – people leave Iran for reasons other than cowardice don’t they? For instance because the alternative is prison or worse? Three of our contributors – Maryam Namazie, Homa Arjomand, and Azam Kamguian – left Iran because they pretty much had to.
A meeja thing – definitely. Chris have you read Michael Frayn’s early novel (very early, he must have been about six when he wrote it) Toward the End of the Morning? Has a hilarious version of that instant guru thing. Newspaper editor has Jamaican neighbors, so goes on Beeb to drone about race, then is phoned whenever there is another show to drone about race.
France. Yeah. I kind of admired their defiance of Bush and Co – until I read a little about their role in Rwanda, and realized things were not so simple. Realized, in short, that I’m pig-ignorant and should never form an opinion on anything.
Of course, Iran has the rare distinction of producing genuine asylum-seekers close to thirty years on after regime change- in fact I’ve heard it said that it is the only country with this outstanding quality.
As for immigration, every one has their own, “valid” reasons for deciding to leave their country- and this is not an easy decision. I’ve heard from Ms. Nafisi’s students- who were later my classmates during postgrad- that she left because she didn’t get on with the university admin. (like which professor does?), and also because she disliked the hijab. Well, excuse me, every single woman I know here dislikes the hijab, unless they are actively, genuinely religious of course, and hate wrapping their head up every single morning that they get up and go out. To me, and many of my fellow female colleagues and relatives who work, disliking the hijab, (or the admin of your workplace, for that matter) isn’t simply a good enough reason to leave, or at least, it is a purely private reason to leave- not one to make a song and dance about, and even worse, it is no reason to badmouth your country…Get your priorities right, Ms. Nafisi! Stop buying fame for yourself! There are people here- students, university professors, booksellers, newspapar editors- who are *suffering*- who are *missing*- and NOT because they read Lolita! AND YOU KNOW IT!
Nothing against France per se; there are many great things I admire about the French. What gets me mad is the lazy assumption on the part of some of our colleagues of the anti-war ilk that France have a moral superiority over the US or UK and veto or sanction international action on the basis of high(er) principle. They don’t. Generally they veto or sanction action on the basis expediency and vested interest, same as every other bugger on this planet, so I get sick when chattering liberals hold the country up as some paragon of international relations enlightenment. They have a great culture and social democracy in many other respects, and I wouldn’t mind living there myself, for those very reasons. By the way, the last thing I get from this site is pig-ignorance. Indeed, after browsing it, I often have to go sit in the corner to think about what I’ve done.
And ok, maybe I shouldn’t judge anybody’s actions on the basis of gossip. (I am referring to Ms. Nafisi’s decision to leave Iran and Iranian university life.) It just sickens me (and other Iranian women who live in Iran who talk about such things to each other)to see her held up as a paragon of bravery and victim of mullah-violence against poor little Iranian women, when she is not- and she hasn’t done anything to be so!
And maybe we’re just jealous of her success- maybe she would say so.
Nick, absolutely. I just meant I need to correct my own tendency to francophilia and to forget in a soft-headed way that French foreign policy is not particularly right on and that their opposition to Bush and Co was not as high-minded as it may have looked to other opponents of Bush and Co. I’m glad you don’t get pig-ignorance from the site!
Evie, thanks for saying more. I can see why the fuss about Nafisi might be irritating. But…
“isn’t simply a good enough reason to leave, or at least, it is a purely private reason to leave- not one to make a song and dance about, and even worse, it is no reason to badmouth your country.”
I don’t really agree with that. Why not make a song and dance about it? If you dislike the compulsory hijab (and you say you do) then why not make a song and dance about it? Isn’t making a song and dance one way of trying to change bad practices and customs?
Maybe because she left? Once one leaves one shouldn’t criticize? I know what you mean (if that is what you mean), in a way. I sometimes feel more hesitant about being rude about the US when I’m away than I do when I’m here. But…I’m not sure that’s an altogether defensible reaction. Bad customs ought to be open to criticism, from anyone, anywhere, surely.
Evie’s posts remind me of how Russian dissidents felt about Solzhenitsyn’s criticisms of the Soviet Union, years after he’d left the place and become a Big Deal in the West. They thought he was out of touch. They probably also envied and resented all the attention he got. (Not to say that some of Solzhenitsyn’s criticisms weren’t a bit rightwingy and mystagogical, nor to imply that Nafisi’s criticisms aren’t sound.)
Yeah. Just so. One can see how that would work, and yet – Nafisi makes good points (it seems to me, as an outsider).
I don’t know how easy it is to ‘run away’ from the Islamic Republic if you end up in the US or the rest of the EU, but I have met quite a few Iranian refugees seeking asylum here in the UK. They do not have an easy time, nor do they find it easy to get legal residence.
I just thought I ought to mention that. I’m sure the case is different for one or two academic stars: but just because some people have it easy, is that a reason to resent them? Surely it’s a reason to work to try and give everyone else the same opportunities.
OB: Absolutely. I didn’t mean to suggest that Nafisi shared Solzhenitsyn’s more dubious religio-political views. I can’t find fault with a single thing Nafisi has said.
I know, Connie, I was just…trying to see Evie’s point at the same time. Since I am an outsider, I come over all tentative. Most unusual.
The whole nafisi/hijab/women’s-right-in-Iran thing makes me so chokingly emotional (woolly?) and het up that I find it difficut to say what I mean clearly, coolly.
The thing about Nafisi which irritates me and my co-thinkers most (I don’t pretend to be speaking for every educated woman in Iran) is her implied criticism of those who choose to stay (and, inter alia, serve their country blah-blah), *despite* the presuures to leave. It’s like she’s saying: if I did the right thing by leaving, by singing-and-dancing about the hijab, then you are doing the wrong thing.
OB, the hijab is a question of priority. What is your priority: to not wear the hijab, or to work in your country? How far do you find the hijab unbearable? Is there something wrong with all the female university professors in Iran (not a few) who wake up every morning, don the dam thing, and go to work? And risk getting reprimanded for showing their wrists to male students when they lift their arms to write on the blackboard and the long sleeves of their covering slips down a bit? Should they run off to the U.S.and blab, or stay and because they love their work, love the students, love Iran, believ that Iran should have a viable academic system DESPITE the mullahs, whatever, just cope with it?
And what of the students /editors /professors who ARE BEING TORTURED RIGHT NOW- AND NOBODY SAYS ANYTHING-How DARE Nafisi complain of reading Lolita underground (a lie, btw) and publicise it, when students are STILL MISSING from the 1999 student protests?
OK- I know I’m not being logical- but dod you see what I mean about priorities? It’s like she’s making a fuss about the wrong thing- although of course they are inter-linked in way.
Thanks, Evie. I don’t think getting emotional is the same thing as being woolly, especially when one is aware that one is getting emotional. And I can certainly see why you would get emotional about all this!
Now, I wouldn’t have thought Nafisi was implying that everyone should leave rather than wear the hijab. Actually, I take her to be rebuking herself for previous woolliness, rather than implying that everyone should be like her. But her writing is literary rather than (or in addition to) argumentative, so no doubt there is room for interpretation.
Anyway, sure, I take your point about priority. Absolutely. Of course, there can be compelling reasons to wear the damn thing and do your work. That’s pretty much always the case, I should think. One has to put up with some things one disagrees with (even profoundly, and about important matters) in order to do anything at all. I’m not arguing for demented purism, I don’t think.
Thanx OB. You calmed me down.
Evie would be a good person to ask about this. Several months ago, a number of weblogs, some purporting to be Iranian, were carrying stories about anti-government riots in a couple of northern Iranian cities. They showed vague photos of dozens of agitated-looking people in the streets of some Middle Eastern city standing or running around some bonfires. There was nothing about it in the mainstream press in North America. A English-language Iranian newspaper claimed that these photos were from some annual “fire festival” and were being used by unscrupulous people as disinformation propaganda.
Do you know anything about this, Evie? Was it a genuine anti-gov riot or was it a hoax/propaganda?
I don’t know. The media (Iranian and non-Iranian) is forbidden to show images of anti-gov. demonstrations/riots/etc, or even relay news about them. If there were demos in the provinces, we would be the last people to know about it.
I can tell you that in the first week of March, we do have a lot of fires and bonfires in street- everybody comesout and there are “celebrations”, of a tradition, historic sort. The State pretends that nothing is happening- except airing gruesome ads showing people burned up in bonfires.
Thanks, Evie.