“I was brought up to believe that the worst thing you could do was ‘call attention to yourself,’ or ‘think you were smart,’” Alice Munro, the new winner of the Nobel Prize for literature, once told the New Yorker. When Munro (1931) was growing up in Depression-era Canada, she learned not to believe she was special. Even after a scholarship gave her two years at university, after she married, moved to Vancouver, and started a family, she didn’t feel that a woman writer had the world’s approval. After all, a woman who would “do anything so weird as writing was unseemly and probably neglectful” of her husband and children.

Attention for the brilliance of Alice Munro has been building for some time. Her first book, “The Dance of the Happy Shades” (1968), won the Governor General’s Award, the Canadian national literary prize. She later won the prize two more times. When she won the Man Booker International Prize for her whole body of work in 2009, the American novelist Jane Smiley called her stories “practically perfect.” Reviewing her in 2004, Jonathan Franzen said she “has a strong claim to being the best fiction writer now working in North America.”

Yet as Margaret Atwood has pointed out, no matter how famous or admired Munro becomes, no matter how close to “literary sainthood,” her work still seems like a well-kept secret. “Readers don’t see her name in lights on every billboard. They come across her as if by accident or fate, and are drawn in, and then there is an outbreak of wonder and excitement, and incredulity – Where did Alice Munro come from? Why didn’t anybody tell me?”

Munro comes from rural Ontario, where her father had a fox fur farm that did not survive the Depression. Southwest Ontario has a reputation for both small-mindedness and oddity, according to Atwood, who described it in the Guardian as a place of “lush nature, repressed emotions, respectable fronts, hidden sexual excesses, outbreaks of violence, lurid crimes, long-held grudges, strange rumours.” Unsurprisingly, it has been a central source of Munro’s material. Her characters often manage to escape, but like Philip Roth’s children of Newark, they look back with equal parts affection and anger, relief at getting away and longing for what has been lost.

Her early stories often follow the outlines of Munro’s own life. A young girl grows up in a small town. She is poor, but so is everyone else around her. She has bitter conflicts with her mother. She belongs to the town but is also an outsider, constantly observing the people around her. Eventually she goes to college, marries, and moves to the West Coast. She has children, and wonders how to be a good mother while preserving her most important inner characteristic, her power of observation. She has doubts about her marriage.

In giving her the award, the Nobel Prize committee called her a “master of the contemporary short story.”This is one of the salient facts about Munro: she is one of the very rare writers—Chekhov, Raymond Carver—who have been recognized as great without ever writing a novel. Her one book billed as a novel, the 1971 “The Lives of Girls and Women,” is really a collection of linked stories.

Yet because her stories are so rich and full of life, they are as satisfying to those who love plot and character as they are to those who admire perfectly wrought prose. One of her most celebrated stories, “Miles City, Montana” (1985), compresses into a few pages a family on a summer vacation, a close call, and the memory of a long-ago drowning. Its themes are much like those of Franzen’s “Freedom”: a marriage in trouble, disappointed ambitions, parents’ fears for their children, the consequences for children of too much independence. (Franzen has as much as said that he took the idea for his latest novel from Munro’s work.) But Munro’s talent is such that she is able to compress all this into a literary diamond, a 20-page gem of understanding.

Her short story “The Bear Came over the Mountain,” made into the 2008 film “Away from Her,” is about a husband whose wife begins losing her memory. After he puts her in a nursing home, she falls in love with another patient, leading him to question their life together. Here too, she says in a few short pages a great deal about the entwined pleasure and pain of human relationships.

Women’s experience is central to her writing. She has called this the basis of feminism, too: the belief that what women do matters. She is seldom explicitly feminist in her work, unlike Atwood or her Nobel predecessor Doris Lessing. But women’s hopes and frustrations are ever-present in her fiction, and the Nobel Prize serves to confirm what Munro has known all along: that what might seem to be the trivia of women’s lives can become the subject of art that speaks to us all.

In a brief reaction read by her publisher, Munro said, “I’m amazed and very grateful.” She also said she hoped the Nobel would call attention to Canadian writing. She is the first Canadian to win the prize.

Retired from literature

Like her fellow writer Philip Roth, Alice Munro recently announced that she was retiring from literature. In an interview with the New York Times last July she said she no longer had the energy. Her decision had to do not only with her own health (she has had heart surgery in recent years and has been treated for cancer), but with the death in April of her second husband, Gerald Fremlin. They had been married since 1976, and lived together in his hometown of Clinton, Ontario, just a few miles from Munro’s birthplace.

Unless Munro comes out of retirement, her final book appeared in 2012: “Dear Life,” a collection of stories and autobiographical sketches. An earlier collection, “Too Much Happiness,” was published last month in Dutch translation. Among her best books are “The Progress of Love” (1986), “Hateship, Friendship, Courtship, Loveship, Marriage” (2001), and “Runaway” (2004).

 

Trouw, October 11, 2013.

Morrison Desdemona lg

For someone who can be so fierce in her fiction, Toni Morrison is remarkably easy to talk to. A conversation on the phone with her, at the house on the Hudson River where she’s lived for years, is warm, fun even—if you’re allowed to say that about a Nobel Prize-winning author. She tells stories. She heaps praise on her collaborators, theater director Peter Sellars and singer Rokia Traoré. And when you apologize for asking about a play that premiered two years ago, she tells you she never gets tired of talking about “Desdemona.”

“It’s one of the few things I’ve done for the stage that I regard as really powerful,” she continues. It’s easy to see why she feels so strongly. In some ways, the musical theater piece is for her a risky departure: an experiment with music theater; a collaborative work; a rare encounter with Africa for a writer whose gaze has been firmly focused on America. Yet it’s also a crowning achievement: through Shakespeare, Morrison seems to have arrived at a summing up of the themes that have characterized her own literary career.

“Desdemona” began as a challenge from Sellars. In a conversation with Morrison about Shakespeare’s tragedy “Othello,” he dismissed the play as “thin,” one of the Bard’s lesser works. Morrison disagreed. “Most of the performances I have seen were predictable: big black guy strangles little white girl, some version of that. But I thought the thinness that Peter was talking about was in the performances, not the play itself.”

African stories
Sellars urged Morrison to write her own version of the story. He also, she says, handed her the key. “Peter was interested in what he thinks was Shakespeare’s tentative relationship with Africa. He thought that there was a very strong African theme in ‘Othello,’ but one that was hidden.”

Hidden history happens to be one of Morrison’s own central preoccupations. Throughout her career, she has dedicated herself to exploring the untold lives of women and black Americans, including the deep traumas of slavery and racism. She took up Sellars’s challenge. The result is a performance with text by Morrison and music and lyrics by Traoré. “Desdemona” carries traces of the bitterness and violence that characterize both Shakespeare’s play and much of Morrison’s own work. Yet its tone is mainly one of acceptance, perhaps even reconciliation.

In Shakespeare’s play, Othello is a Moor, a North African, who works his way up to become a general in the army of Venice. After he wins the love of the senator’s daughter Desdemona, she marries him against the wishes of her powerful family. Then one of Othello’s junior officers, Iago, who has been passed up for promotion, decides to bring the general down. He tricks Othello into believing that Desdemona has been having an affair. Othello first murders Desdemona and, when he realizes the truth, kills himself.

When she began writing “Desdemona,” Morrison says, “I had one requirement immediately, which was to get rid of Iago. Because he talks too much, he’s everywhere; I mean, I can’t even think why Shakespeare called it “Othello,” because it’s all about Iago.”

Then Morrison explored Othello’s past, imagining that he once served as a child soldier in an African civil war. “You know, I was always wondering, why does Desdemona fall in love with Othello in the first place? She says that she listened to all his stories. Shakespeare mentions one, but I invent the others.”

She added a new character, too, one who is mentioned only in passing in Shakespeare’s text. The evening of her murder, Desdemona sings a sad song she learned from her mother’s maid just before she died of a broken heart. The singer was called “Barbary”: an old name for North Africa. Sellars suggested that she might have come from Africa, and that she might have raised Desdemona.

Being seen
All these changes gave Morrison a feeling of artistic liberty. “I thought, I don’t have to even try to be an echo of Shakespeare, but simply take it into a new place.” The new place is the afterlife, where the characters meet as equals on a bare stage. “They don’t have to be careful of what they say because Iago might think this or somebody else might think that. They can say what they believe is true, and even learn about each other, because they have timelessness, they have eternity.”

A recurring motif in “Othello,” and in Morrison’s fiction, is the outsider’s need to be seen, to be known. Othello’s own dying words, “Speak of me as I am,” could serve as an epigraph to Morrison’s work. So, in the afterlife, Desdemona greets her beloved nurse (played by Traoré). “And Rokia says, ‘Wait a minute. You don’t even know my name.’

“[Barbary says] ‘I’m black, you’re white, you can’t understand me.’ [Desdemona answers] “‘What do you mean? I married a black man.’ Yes, but, yes but.

“Then the big question: Desdemona says, ‘Did I ever hurt you?’ And [Barbary] says, ‘No.’

“And there’s the space, the sort of racial space, and class space, and geographic space, where all the things that keep people disliking one another, or resenting one another, or assuming things about one another disappear. And she can touch her face, as she does, and realize that they’re two people in difficulty, or who have had some difficulties.

“In that dialogue, in that exchange, is everything you know or sense about religious or racial conflict, or male and female conflict. All of this is about making other people strangers, or putting yourself in a position of authority. You see a person, you look at them, and you think you know all about them, because of the way they dress, the way they speak, and certainly color.” But in eternity, there might be time enough to understand.

Nor is understanding everything. Desdemona can’t get over what Othello did, Morrison explains. But that doesn’t mean she doesn’t love him. “Desdemona says, ‘Love is not a banquet, where you pick this little gesture and love it and throw this one away. You either love somebody or you don’t.’”

Forgiveness
A conversation with Morrison ranges widely. She talks about how little she knew of African music: before she met Traoré, she never knew there was more to it than drumming. “Here in the West, where you’re really limited anyway, that’s what you think of. You know, drums and dance.”

She speaks of the pleasures of collaboration. “I like that kind of work. Equality among equals. Nobody’s trying to outdo anybody else.”

There’s one subject, however, that makes Morrison wary. The question touches on another theme that runs strongly through “Desdemona,” the problem of cynicism versus forgiveness. Morrison has not seen it as her business to portray reconciliation between black and white—or otherwise let anyone off the hook. White readers, feeling guilty about the privileges their race confers, tend to look in Morrison’s work for gestures of absolution. So far they’ve searched in vain.

In “Desdemona,” there’s space and time enough for understanding to win out over mistrust. But the mention of the word “forgiveness” puts the writer on her guard. Coolly, she says, “Well, the better track of course is a little combination. There’s nothing wrong with forgiveness if it moves one to another place. It’s not, ‘Oh, O.K., let’s forget about it.’ It’s, ‘That’s an important thing you’ve said and done. Let’s find out what it means.’”

Praise, criticism for “Desdemona”
The musical theater piece “Desdemona” is a collaboration between writer Toni Morrison, director Peter Sellars, and Malian singer-songwriter Rokia Traoré. It is performed by actress Tina Benko (who takes most of the speaking parts) and Traoré, backed up by four musicians. Reviews for the play, which premiered in Vienna in 2011, have been mostly positive. The New York Times praised Traoré’s “lovely, intimate” music, but called Morrison’s text “an elegant lecture.” Libération noted Morrison’s “sins of didacticism.” But the Guardian’s reviewer judged the piece “bravely original,” while the Los Angeles Times called it “great, challenging, haunting and lasting.”

Trouw, June 11, 2013.

Clarissa Dalloway as flâneur: “My darling never be out late in the afternoon alone.”

There’s a pleasure in any place that comes purely from knowing it well. In the country, the feeling is often a private one: that tree, that field, that view seems to belong to you alone. In the city the same sentiment has a competitive, even arrogant edge. To claim a city’s heart—especially if you’re a writer—you have to insist that no one sees it more clearly or takes more joy in it than you.
Trouw Woolf Dalloway cover That’s why literature is so full of solitary walkers, sauntering anonymously through city crowds, observing the people’s faces, imagining their dreams. For Flaubert, Rilke, Baudelaire, Proust, Joyce, Nescio, this lonely city-dweller not only serves as the writer’s eye, he also serves to mark his urban claim. In literature, this character is known as the flâneur—the idler, the loafer, the connoisseur of street life. Like the writer, the flâneur is full of himself; he prides himself on knowing his way around while he rubs your nose in how happy he is, on a rainy morning in the Dapperstraat.
One of literature’s most arrogant and joyful flâneurs, the most determined of city-dwellers, is Clarissa Dalloway. In Virginia Woolf’s 1925 novel “Mrs. Dalloway” (recently reissued in an excellent new translation from Boukje Verheij), this female walker claims the city as the natural territory of the middle-aged woman. To read it now is to be impressed, not only by Woolf’s matchless style, but by how familiar Mrs. Dalloway seems: a confident woman planning a party to advance her husband’s career, going out to buy flowers, greeting old friends.
But it’s also to be aware of how different the city of 1925—dirty, lively, innocent—is from the city now. In the contemporary metropolis, where virtual encounters are as important as physical ones, what use do we still have for the flâneur? Does literature still have anything to tell us about the public life of cities?

“Such fools we are,” thinks Clarissa, crossing Victoria Street in London on a beautiful summer morning.

For Heaven only knows why one loves it so, how one sees it so, making it up, building it round one, tumbling it, creating it every moment afresh. […] In people’s eyes, in the swing, tramp and trudge; in the bellow and the uproar; the carriages, motor cars, omnibuses, vans, sandwich men shuffling and swinging; brass bands; barrel organs; in the triumph and the jingle and the strange high singing of some aeroplane overhead was what she loved; life; London; this moment of June.

“Mrs. Dalloway” begins, like Woody Allen’s film “Manhattan,” with a song of praise to the city’s chaotic inspiration. Woolf follows Clarissa from her elegant house in Westminster, through crowds and parks, into unexpected encounters and moments of revelation, tumbling, building, and inventing her city as she goes. As the characters—Clarissa, her old friend Peter Welsh, the war veteran Septimus Warren Smith—cross and recross each other’s paths, the novel becomes a map, a pattern of movements and associations, catching your eye, leaving you free to pursue them or not. Enter the book and you enter a crowd of people thinking, looking, taking turns telling the story.
Taking place over the course of one long midsummer day, “Mrs. Dalloway” is a portrait of a 51-year-old woman, an exploration of the nature of time, a critique of the pretentions of authority, a nostalgic look at friendship. We catch glimpses of a mother-daughter relationship, a man going mad, a lesbian romance.
And we see the city streets as the modernist writers saw them, as a place of new freedom. In the 1920s, a generation appalled by the slaughter of the First World War came to the city to get the past behind it. Cars and planes and short skirts and votes for women seemed to be rushing the world forward into a brighter, more rational future: the city as emancipation machine. In the dynamic, motorized London of the 1920s, where omnibuses storm like pirate ships up the avenues, a limousine with blind windows blocks traffic, and an airplane spells out an advertising message in the sky, nothing is what you think and anything could change.
When she began writing “Mrs. Dalloway,” Woolf was living in the suburbs, not by her own choice. She had had a nervous breakdown, and her doctors had warned her to avoid excitement. She wrote in her diary of her longing for London, where she could “go and hear a tune, or have a look at a picture, or find out something in the British Museum, or go adventuring among human beings.” When Woolf finished the novel, she had just defied medical advice by moving back to London. “Mrs. Dalloway” is full of an intellectual woman’s delight in the wealth of ideas generated by the city, the like minds, the new opportunities.
A woman walking in the city was a new thing, as Woolf was very aware. When the critic James Wood writes about the flâneur in “How Fiction Works,” his example of a writer who doesn’t observe the city is Jane Austen: “Her heroines never idly walk along, just thinking and looking.” Of course not: they couldn’t. In Austen’s day, to walk alone down a city street was enough to destroy a woman’s reputation, or worse. Even Woolf, in her twenties, was warned by an elderly aunt: “My darling never be out late in the afternoon alone.” Woolf understood that in writing a female flâneur, she was turning convention on its head.
Sometimes, though, the city for her is a place to be neither male nor female. In a 1930 essay on walking in London, “Street Haunting,” Woolf wrote that when we go outside we leave appearances behind. “The shell-like covering which our souls have excreted to house themselves, to make for themselves a shape distinct from others, is broken, and there is left of all these wrinkles and roughnesses a central oyster of perceptiveness, an enormous eye.” Woolf is famous for demanding a “Room of One’s Own” for women to write in. But Woolf doesn’t want to be in that room all the time. She likes the moments, as in that essay, when she goes out to buy a pencil and can be anonymous for half an hour.

A century later, the city has changed. Outside of a few UNESCO-listed, European open-air museums masquerading as urban centers, where does anyone still walk? Who admits to wasting hours thinking? The flâneur was always an outsider, but instead of being ahead of her time, now she’s trying to turn back the clock. Why isn’t she climbing the corporate ladder, taking courses in time management, squeezing minutes like blood from each day’s stone?
Who still looks at the world and not at a screen? Ali Smith’s short story “Being Quick,” from the recent collection “Naar de stad” (new short stories about city life, edited by Sanneke van Hassel and Annelies Verbeke), begins with a narrator who is and isn’t on her own: “I was on my way across King’s Cross station concourse dodging the crowds and talking to you on my mobile…” Anonymous in the city? Hardly. If Woolf went out to buy a pencil now, she’d probably make two phone calls and check her messages three times on the way.
If we were alone with our thoughts, we’d probably be nervous wrecks. The sketches by Lydia Davis in “Naar de stad” suggest that the modern, Western city is less emancipation machine than anxiety factory, a place that daunts its residents with so many possibilities and distractions that they have to take antidepressants to get by. And it only gets worse, according to the stories in “Naar de stad” that are set in Third World cities, or in the urban underground of illegality.
In a society individualized in ways Woolf couldn’t have imagined, Mrs. Dalloway’s freedom has been transformed into an endless series of choices like worms eating at our roots, cutting us away from our sense of place. The modern literary flâneur is more than anonymous, he or she is a displaced person: transnational, multiracial, post-colonial. He is the Nigerian-German-American narrator of Teju Cole’s “Open City,” the expat Dutchman of Joseph O’Neill’s “Netherland,” the “I” of the German-English writer W.G. Sebald.
She is the “I” of Mexican-Italian writer Valeria Luiselli’s novel “Papeles valsos” (“Sidewalks”), who quotes Walter Benjamin and Josef Brodsky while exploring Mexico City the postmodern way, by bicycle. “The flâneur on two wheels can maintain just the right distance to become […] both the city’s accomplice and its witness.” [translation JP] Luiselli even attempts a philosophy of airline travel, with its extra dimensions of takeoff and descent.
These writers mix genres as well as nationalities, combining fiction with a nonstop stream of dates, places, quotes, and historical facts, as if the life of cities, Woolf’s “bellow and uproar,” can best be understood by consulting Wikipedia. (Or maybe this is how the contemporary outsider expresses his loneliness and longing for connection: after all, what is the internet but a flânerie machine?) The internet dissolves the boundary between indoors and outdoors, experience and research, public encounter and private contemplation.
So in reading “Mrs. Dalloway,” with its forward-looking optimism, we find ourselves looking backwards, at a city that exists only in the imagination of the tourists and provincials who now throng city centers. Even in the most “livable” of cities, the actual inhabitants of the center are often being pushed out, their houses replaced by more profitable expat rentals and hotels, so that it’s the rare city-dweller who can still afford the privilege of walking to the store.
If you follow Clarissa Dalloway’s path on a sunny spring morning in 2013, what you encounter is the crowds thronging around her landmarks. At Big Ben, Russian couples pose for pictures. In Green Park, Italian schoolchildren crowd the paths to Buckingham Palace while a tour guide points to the empty flagstaff: the royal family are not at home.
The shop in Bond Street where Clarissa bought her flowers is now a branch of a designer clothing store. Up and down Europe’s most expensive street, the pedestrians wear jeans and sweatshirts, marking them, too, as tourists. (It’s around the corner on cheap Oxford Street that the crowds are dressed in short skirts, tights, saris, their Saturday shopping best.) We’re all flâneurs now, a mobile mass of international observers.
Yet with all our postmodern sophistication, we won’t find much to improve on the poetry of “Mrs. Dalloway”: the play with time and space, the creation of patterns out of the simplest elements of a bell ringing the hour or a tree outlined against the sky. Cole and Luiselli are masterful chroniclers of the contemporary city, but they’re subdued by the weight of history. Clarissa simply declares herself a citizen:

But she said, sitting on the bus going up Shaftesbury Avenue, she felt herself everywhere; not “here, here, here”; and she tapped the back of the seat; but everywhere. She waved her hand, going up Shaftesbury Avenue. She was all that. So that to know her, or any one, one must seek out the people who completed them; even the places.

At moments like this, Woolf herself seems to look ahead to the virtual city. In “Mrs. Dalloway,” it’s not the people who inhabit the city. It’s the city that lives, that comes to life, in the mind of its inhabitants. We remake it every morning, the moment we step out our front door, the moment we think to look.

Trouw, May 11, 2013. Mrs. Dalloway (1925); Mevrouw Dalloway, reissued in a new Dutch translation by Boukje Verheij (Amsterdam: Athenaeum, 2013).

This year’s Village Voice pick. I’d already written about the Le Guin collected stories and Chabon’s “Telegraph Avenue,” so I chose Jeanette Winterson’s memoir “Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal?” I heard her read the other day and was moved by her account of writing her way out of depression. Depression was like being in a haunted house, she said, “and what’s haunting you is you.”

She also said that art can help you understand the way the past and present live alongside each other in the psyche: “Art helps us to live in a more complete sense of

Read more at
https://www.villagevoice.com/2012/12/19/our-favorite-books-of-2012/

It’s been fifty years since Ursula K. Le Guin sold her first short story. Since then her books have been read, taught, quoted, thrust upon acquaintances, put at the top of Occupy reading lists. Over the course of a long, unpredictable, idiosyncratic career, she has written contemporary fiction, historical fiction, poetry, and essays. But she still has one unfulfilled ambition… read more

Among the Nobel favorites, those weather-beaten figures on the liar’s bench of literature, two names turn up every year side by side: the Canadian writers Alice Munro and Margaret Atwood. Munro (1931), the Vermeer of the short story, is known for her unparalleled prose. Atwood (1939), always more political, has moved from sharp-edged explorations of contemporary life to science fictional warnings about the depletion of the planet.

I came to Atwood in my late teens, just before she published the unforgettable “Handmaid’s Tale.” I picked up “Lady Oracle” for a long bus ride and spent the trip doubled up in silent laughter. Her humor is dry as a bone; her eye for how women impersonate the women they want to become—comically in “Lady Oracle,” more seriously in “The Robber Bride” and “Alias Grace”—is peerless.

Munro was a later discovery. I’m still astonished at how she uses deceptively simple rhythms to carry you deep beneath the surface of small-town life. She’s technically accomplished, surprisingly dark in outlook, a sophisticated talent. Her stories age better than Atwood’s and may last longer.

If I were handing out awards for pleasure, I would choose Atwood. But the Nobel-Phillips Prize 2012 goes to Munro, for great art.

Trouw, October 11, 2012. I was told I could only choose one writer; this was my way of including two anyway. The actual prize went to the Chinese writer Mo Yan, but I got my wish, or one-half of it, a year later. My two colleagues who contributed predictions cast their votes for Philip Roth, so they’re still waiting.

There’s a kind of traveler who arrives one day in a new place and knows that this is where he was meant to be. Some crave the rush of New York. Others discover their inner Italian. Still others, with more watery blood perhaps, take a tourist trip to Holland and find that they have come home.

When the writer Halil Gür first came to Amsterdam from Istanbul in 1974, he tells me, what he felt was “déjà vu. I recognized the streets, the canals, the church spires. To me the walls of the old houses are like the pages of a novel. With this city, you can carry on a conversation.”

I had never met Gür, but when he described his street in interviews—with an old church at one end, a new mosque at the other—I knew he was talking about my street. “All Amsterdam is my house,” he told a reporter. “My own apartment is only my living room.” I was curious. I wanted to know whether he and I, writers, neighbors, foreigners, had anything in common. Two nationalities, American and Turkish, often reduced to clichés. Two groups that seldom have much contact. If we both felt at home in our street, what did that say about our idea of home?

 

Gür (1951) made his literary debut in 1984 with “Gekke Mustafa en andere verhalen” (“Mad Mustafa and Other Stories”). In that book he wrote about migrants living an impermanent and precarious existence. The sketches were brief, underlining the fragmented quality of the characters’ day-to-day lives. Many of his migrants were in the country illegally—as Gür himself once was. He was acclaimed as a writer who could interpret the immigrant experience.

But as Gür’s residence in the Netherlands became official and permanent, his writing changed. The more assimilated he became, the more he departed from literary convention. Instead of giving his readers a realistic account of the migrant experience, he turned to spiritual metaphors for travel and displacement. Immigration is not a condition of a class of people, he seems to insist, but an individual, even eccentric experience.

“Gekke Mustafa” was “direct, earthy, physical, straightforward,” he tells me now. For his latest collection of stories, he has drawn inspiration from a mysticism he claims is part of his Turkish heritage, and has attempted a more spiritual exploration of place and identity. In “De babykamer” (“The Baby’s Bedroom”), “riddles and magic play a central role.” The book’s title story, for example, describes an Iranian refugee who was imprisoned and tortured in his own country, and who now lives in “internal exile…in the shadow of his memories.” In therapy, during a series of visions, he sees angels who help him to heal his psychic wounds.

In his house down the street from mine, speaking Dutch, our common language, Gür tells me that his passage between two countries “was not only physical or material. It was an internal journey, a plunge into my own interior world.” The title of his latest book comes from an idea he’s repeated often in interviews: “When you enter an unknown country, you enter it as a newborn baby. In the Netherlands, I was reborn as a writer.”

Gür is a small man with intense, guarded dark eyes. The long hair and mustache of the handsome hippie who first came to the Netherlands have made way for a bookish seriousness as well as warmth. He is friendly and talkative—in the beginning I can hardly get a word in edgewise—but also formal and reserved. He wants to charm, but isn’t sure we will understand each other.

 

On my first visit to his apartment, he serves rosemary tea and Turkish pastries called “amulets,” a specialty of his hometown of Gaziantep in southeastern Turkey. On my second visit, he serves tea and “Deventer cake,” a specialty of that city and a gift from its public library, where he has just done a reading. Although it is the middle of the day, candles burn on the small table, between stacks of papers and letters. Gür doesn’t use e-mail.

He lives alone, in a narrow top-floor apartment. Our neighborhood dates from the 17th century, but much of our street consists of social housing, small apartments for single city-dwellers, constructed in the 1980s on and around the site of the old Bols gin factory. In Gür’s shoebox of a living room, the walls are lined with books, most of them in Turkish, carted back in suitcases from frequent visits home. I can’t read the titles but I can make out the names of the authors: Dante, Stendhal, Tolstoy, Woolf, Sartre, Susan Sontag, Walt Whitman, Mark Twain. Pride of place is given to a two-volume Dutch-Turkish dictionary, a book that when he first came to this country didn’t exist. Gür says a good translation dictionary was only published about ten years ago. He writes in Turkish, but is published only in Dutch translation.

Above the dictionary, on top of a low bookshelf, stands a framed snapshot, taken recently in Amsterdam, of the author with a university classmate, Orhan Pamuk. They studied architecture together in Istanbul, Gür tells me, though they didn’t know each other well: Pamuk was from a well-off family in the capital, while Gür was one of nine children of a country doctor who often couldn’t pay the rent. Pamuk eventually switched to journalism school, while lack of money forced Gür to abandon his studies entirely.

Writing and traveling are similar vocations, and both are often the product of a restless, rootless childhood. Gür’s family moved “a thousand times” in and around Gaziantep. On summer nights, when the whole family slept on the roof to escape the heat, he used to gaze up at the stars and dream of other worlds. “I always wanted to be where I wasn’t. I felt lonely, like an extraterrestrial being. Longing and homesickness give meaning to life. Homesickness isn’t only a migrant problem—it’s a universal condition.”

In the 1960s, when Gür was a teenager, Western hippies discovered the Silk Road, with Gaziantep as one of its stops. Gür spent as much time with the European visitors as he could. “One time the neighbors told my mother that they’d seen me with two blonde girls. My mother was horrified. I had to explain to her that they weren’t girls, they were boys. The stories they told me made me long even more to see the rest of the world.” Later, after he left university, he worked as a guide on Sultan Ahmet Square in Istanbul, leading tourists around the famous Blue Mosque.

Though it’s Amsterdam’s architecture that he speaks of when he says he loves the city, he first came to Amsterdam for the people. He liked the Dutch tourists he’d met in Turkey: they had an openness and curiosity that appealed to him. As a guide he had picked up enough English to get by, and in his first few months here he hitchhiked all around the countryside to get to know his new home. “Everywhere I went I was welcomed as a guest,” he says. “People invited me into their houses, asked me to stay the night. They told me, ‘Halil, our country is small, but we have four big windows that are always open to the outside world.’”

If homesickness, that endemic state of the person between two cultures, is the fabric of Gür’s life, then coincidences and unexpected meetings are the pattern on that fabric. He tells a story: “When I first arrived in the Netherlands, a customs officer pulled me out of the line at Schiphol airport and started asking me all kinds of strange questions. I had only 50 guilders in my pocket, and he didn’t trust me.

But I recognized him. A week before, I had seen him walking around in the courtyard of the Blue Mosque. It was a warm day in April, and he was leaning against a pillar with his face turned up toward the sun. I went up to him and we had a friendly chat. When I reminded him, he recognized me and let me go through.”

In the middle of our conversation, the phone rings and Gür answers. On the line, out of the blue, is a woman who came to one of his readings 15 years ago in Alkmaar, and to whom he hadn’t spoken since. At the time he gave her some advice that proved useful, and now she had found his number and was calling to ask for his help. Apparently her new question is about loneliness: he advises her to go out and seek the answer among other people. He tells her he’s speaking to an interviewer from Trouw, and she says her nephew is an editor there. It must be a sign.

 

A few years ago, Gür had a revelation about his feelings for Amsterdam, an experience he describes in the last story in “De babykamer.” Plagued by nightmares and feeling lost, the narrator, through a series of chance meetings, encounters a fortune-teller. She reveals to him that in a past life he was a rich spice merchant, son of a founder of the Dutch East India Company, with a mansion on the stately Herengracht. To do penance for his previous life of colonial exploitation, it was his fate to return to Amsterdam as a dark-skinned migrant.

Gür still wants to be a guide, but no longer to historic architecture or the multicultural experience. He wants to help people discover the spiritual world. “I have become more aware of my own role in society,” he says, showing me a picture of Spinoza that hangs on the wall above Pamuk. “Spinoza was a bringer of light, and that’s how I see myself. As a writer and poet I’m like a lighthouse: I guide people, like ships, through bad weather to a safe haven.”

The whole wall is covered with a gallery of his heroes, some—Gandhi, Harry Mulisch—familiar to me and some unknown. Gür feels strongly connected to the Dutch literary world: “Thea Beckmann wrote a foreword for one of my books. I’ve met Jan Wolkers for coffee, sat next to Mulisch at a literary event.” [The columnist] Simon Carmiggelt is there, because Gür is sometimes referred to as the Turkish Carmiggelt.

Is that a postcard of Brigitte Bardot? No, it’s her Turkish counterpart, the actress Filiz Akın. Another shows artist Sylvia Willink in her studio: the day after Gür won the first E. du Perron Prize in 1986, she told him she wanted to sculpt a bust of him, “but you must grow old first.” The bust hasn’t yet been made, but the two are still friends.

A statuette: the Halewijn Literature Prize from the city of Roermond, awarded to Gür in 1991. A photo of Gür’s nephew, who was murdered on the street in Istanbul for his mobile phone—he inspired one of the stories in “De Babykamer.” And in a place of honor on the table in the center of the room, two framed pictures. One is of Rumi, the Persian-Turkish Sufi mystic who is associated with the Whirling Dervishes (“a dancing dervish, that’s what I am”). The other—“don’t you recognize her?”—is Maria, portrayed as Our Lady of All Nations.

Gür’s fans often feel a personal connection to the writer, and their letters and calls mean a great deal to him. Also on his wall is a hand-drawn card he received years ago. After he read from his poetry collection “Wakker het vuur niet aan” (“Don’t Fan the Flames”), a woman wrote to him to say, “Yet after all you have lit something in my heart.”

 

Halfway through our second conversation he stands to read one of his poems aloud. The act transforms him. His voice deepens and fills the room, imbuing the simple words with emotion, commanding attention. I can see why people come to talk to him after readings, send him letters, call him up years after they’ve met. He has a calm but magnetic presence.

For a long time, he says, he didn’t see himself as a storyteller. He was a writer, working on paper, often carrying his “office” with him in a leather satchel and working in cafés. Discovering oral storytelling traditions, both European and Eastern, he says, “opened up a whole new world for me.”

He began going to the Iranian teahouse and cultural center Mezrab, a few doors down from his house. The young storyteller Sahand Sahebdivani, whom Gür knew from literary events, had begun organizing storytelling nights there, at first in Dutch, later in English as well. Mezrab became a meeting place for a motley group of talkers and performers—and a second home for Gür.

One night, he tells me, he was walking home from the Leidseplein. “I had gone to Café Americain to work on a new story. But inspiration just wouldn’t come, and I decided to go home. It was late, almost midnight. When I walked past Mezrab I saw it was packed. I was wearing a cap, everyone thought I was a tourist, and they called to me to come inside. I didn’t see how I could fit, but I squeezed myself in.” A young man, blond-haired and blue-eyed, was already in the middle of a story about a writer he had met once as a boy and who had made a deep impression made on him. “And,” he finished, “that writer just came through the door.”

Gür’s writing has been difficult for him in recent years. He has departed from the “typical” immigrant experience, and his new, more spiritual stories haven’t reached the audience he would like. While he was working on “De babykamer,” he says, his confidence in his work nearly deserted him. “I would walk around thinking, ‘Does anyone hear me? Does what I am doing have any use?’”

After one of those lonely walks he came home to a message on his answering machine. A friend had called him from a wood near Nunspeet to tell him he had seen a plaque there, hanging in a tree, part of a project by the Dutch forest service. On it were two lines from a poem by Gür. His friend said, “Halil, your words are being heard.”

At the end of our talk, Halil and I stand together at the window, looking out at the little Turkish pizzeria that acts as the living room of our street. The owners are Gür’s friends; they keep an eye on his apartment while he’s away. He knows the nuns who share an apartment upstairs. The artist on the ground floor around the corner has a poster of Gür’s new book hanging in his front window.

I’m not a novelist; I’m not a mystic. As a European-American, I don’t generally have to struggle against prejudice or assumptions about what foreigners are supposed to write. We are very different people, Halil Gür and I. But looking out of his window at our street, our city, where we live by the grace of all our neighbors going back to the 17th century, I felt that we recognized each other, both of us homesick and yet at home.

 

Trouw, October 6, 2012.

“Telegraph Avenue” is unquestionably a Great American Novel, but at first glance you might not recognize it as such. Michael Chabon braids plot twists, extraneous details, and references to such low-culture manifestations as comic books and kung fu movies into his stories with an almost adolescent abandon. In America a new Chabon book is a major event, but outside the English-speaking world, his verbal extravagance and fond embrace of popular culture have tended to undermine his credibility. Compared to contemporaries like Jonathan Franzen, he doesn’t always look as important as he is.

The central character in “Telegraph Avenue” is described, on his first appearance, thus:

Moonfaced, mountainous, moderately stoned, Archy Stallings manned the front counter of Brokeland Records, holding a random baby, wearing a tan corduroy suit over a pumpkin-bright turtleneck that reinforced his noted but not disadvantageous resemblance to Gamera, the giant mutant flying tortoise of Japanese cinema. He had the kid tucked up under his left arm as, with his free right hand, he worked through the eighth of fifteen crates from the Benezra estate, the records in crate number 8 favoring, like Archy, the belly meat of jazz, salty and well marbled with funk.

Archy is one of Chabon’s typical men, well-meaning but indecisive and ill-prepared for life. He might seem like a cousin to Rob Fleming in “High Fidelity” if it weren’t for the orange turtleneck and the baby, which he has borrowed in an attempt to prepare for his own approaching fatherhood. (And by the way, he’s black.) Chabon’s adjectival tsunami places Archy in the midst of his life and at the same time shows how hard it is, in the contemporary flood of images and choices, for him to hold his own.

To Chabon, being passionate about jazz or Japanese cinema is just another way of being serious. “Telegraph Avenue” takes place on the continent’s geographic fringe, but it deals with themes at the heart of American culture: the legacy of the social changes of the 1970s, the possibility and fragility of black-white friendships, the importance of meaningful work, the modern and eternal question of fatherhood. On the famous street in Berkeley, California, with its countercultural past and its multicultural present, he’s searching for signs of America’s future.

The large cast of “Telegraph Avenue” includes Archy’s best friend and the other owner of Brokeland Records, white, Jewish, crabby Nat Jaffe, with his “relentless, nettlesome, ecstatic, inspiring” passion for music. There’s Nat’s fourteen-year-old son Julie, plunging recklessly into the adult world of heartbreak by falling in love with his new best friend, Titus Joyner. There’s Nat’s wife Aviva and Archy’s wife Gwen, two veteran midwives fighting the medical establishment for the right to go on doing home births. There’s Archy’s father, the down-and-out former blaxploitation star Luther Stallings. And there’s Gibson Goode, “the fifth richest black man in America,” whose Dogpile media merchandising empire is about to put Brokeland out of business.

Chabon inhabits all these characters, black and white, convincingly and sympathetically. At the center is Archy, struggling not only with the prospect of the new baby—and with the appearance of Titus, his earlier, unacknowledged son—but with the legacy of his own no-good progenitor. Fathers, in his experience, are useless; how can he, Archy, be any different? Fatherhood is a favorite theme for Chabon—of all his literary contemporaries he’s the most committed family man—but he’s never explored it as deeply as here.

Meanwhile, Archy’s wife Gwen is 36 weeks pregnant and going through her own series of crises. First she catches Archy with another woman; then she nearly loses a patient; then she entirely loses her most valuable possession, her self-control. She’s so sick of forgiving Archy for all his lapses of fidelity that her sigh of marital disappointment goes off like a jihadi bomb, packed with “shards of irony, nails of bitterness, jagged chips of bleak wonder.”

Apology and forgiveness are among the book’s themes, not only the daily offerings of remorse that hold marriages together, but the deeper contrition and exoneration that will be needed if America is ever to come to terms with its history of racial and economic injustice. Gwen in particular refuses to apologize, instead cherishing her anger, “feeding on it like a sun, using it to power her engines, to fund her stake in the American dream.” Yet when it comes right down to it, she balks at the thought of passing her rage on to the next generation.

Music isn’t the answer, but it offers a ground where the characters can come together, at least for a while. Archy thinks of Brokeland Records as an oasis where traders and tribes of all races mix, where they sit around telling stories, listening to each other’s sound, “spreading the collective wisdom back and forth.” The Internet, Chabon suggests, may form a new oasis, with Nat and Archy selling their records online to Japanese collectors while Titus and Julie reshuffle race and gender in the disembodied world of games.

Chabon isn’t for everyone: the rolls and twists of his prose give some readers motion sickness, and his tics and gimmicks (the cute Tarantino references, the single sentence that goes on for 12 pages) can be too much. But beneath the show-offishness lie a rare openness and compassion, and you can track Chabon’s crooked prose a long way into the wilderness of the human heart.

The Eccentricity Plot

Is the American ideal of self-realization a false promise? Along with other American writers just turning fifty—Jonathan Franzen (1959) in “Freedom,” Jennifer Egan (1962) in “A Visit from the Goon Squad,” Jeffrey Eugenides (1960) in “The Marriage Plot”—Michael Chabon (1963) takes as one of his central themes the risks and limits of Americans’ cherished individuality. Though “Telegraph Avenue” is an optimistic, even cheerful book, Chabon shares the view that to become fully oneself is no guarantee of happiness.

Like Egan and Franzen, Chabon writes in “Telegraph Avenue” about the moment in midlife when unsuspecting pursuers of happiness lose their way in a dark forest, or at any rate a nasty patch of weeds. For Franzen, the problem lies in too many options and too few limits. His characters free themselves from partners, family, friendships, place of origin, only to discover they can’t construct an identity out of nothing.

Novelists who were young in the early 1980s still seem to be sorting out that confusing time. Eugenides’s three students leave college in 1982 barely knowing themselves—in sharp contrast to the contemporary students in Chad Harbach’s “The Art of Fielding.” (Harbach’s kids have their sexual orientation and their career goals all figured out. They suffer from fear of failure, but not from not knowing what they want.) Egan’s characters look for identity in music until even that is co-opted by “the music industry.”

Chabon is an optimist, though not a naïve one. “Telegraph Avenue,” which is set in 2004, features a cameo appearance by Barack Obama. After watching Nat and Archy’s band play jazz covers at a political fundraiser, the future president (think “hope”) remarks that the important thing is to have work you love, even if it looks useless to someone else.

“Telegraph Avenue” calls his statement into question. Single-minded dedication to the work they love is part of what brings the book’s characters into conflict with each other: Gwen with Aviva, Archy with Nat, Nat with the world. Still, Chabon is more reluctant than Franzen to criticize the dream of individuality, and more wary of drawing conclusions about society as a whole. To Franzen, too much individuality makes people difficult, unhappy, and out of touch with reality. To Chabon there’s no going back. Individuals, in all our “useless” eccentricity, is who we are.
Trouw, Sept. 15, 2012. Michael Chabon, Telegraph Avenue (New York: Harper 2012; Amsterdam: Anthos, 2012).

Customers are lined up down the stairs and out the door of the American Book Center on the Spui in Amsterdam. A few of them are holding well-worn LPs. But most of them—especially the kids in their twenties—are carrying copies of “Just Kids,” the wildly successful, award-winning memoir by the punk singer Patti Smith. On both sides of the cash register, Smith’s books are piled high. It’s Patti Smith the writer, not Patti Smith the rock star, that the fans have come to see.

A sign on the door says she’ll sign only one item per person, limited to books and her new CD, “Banga.” But the older fans who make it to the second floor carrying their copies of “Easter” or “Horses” don’t go away disappointed. There she is behind a little table, in her usual look: a watch cap, her long hair in braids. “Sure, I’ll sign that. I’ll sign anything,” she volunteers. She looks tired, and her voice is hoarse, but her smile makes you feel like you’re the only person in the room. Around the corner, standing near the business books, Lenny Kaye offers to add his signature to hers, though not everyone recognizes the tall, stringy, gray-haired man as Smith’s longtime guitarist.

At 65, Smith is working hard: her dates in Paradiso and at Bospop in Weert are just part of a three-month tour of Europe to promote “Banga.” But her big success in recent years has been “Just Kids,” about her life in New York before she began performing and her love affair and collaboration with the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe.

In a brief interview the next day, in a tiny back room in Paradiso, she says she wrote “Just Kids” to fulfill a promise to Mapplethorpe, who died of AIDS in 1989. “I thought a small group of people might like it.” Though she was always a poet as well as a musician, she had no idea the book would find such an enthusiastic audience. “It’s wonderful. I mean, I can’t even believe it. People every day say something to me about this book.”

At the heart of “Just Kids” is the love and support that the two young artists gave each other. After Mapplethorpe realized he was gay they went on living together, their friendship and artistic partnership closer than many a love affair. Even after Smith moved out, they remained best friends. How did they achieve such a rare collaboration?

“The important thing was that because he was so confident at such a young age, confident in himself, he instilled that confidence in me. And because I believed in him so fully, it was probably comforting and inspiring to him. And we always fulfilled those roles for each other.

I don’t know if it is rare….It might be more common than not, but what may be uncommon is that Robert and I went through so many stages of relationship….We weathered many stages of the human experience together.”

The book is also about Smith’s life on the margins: no money, largely self-taught, living hand-to-mouth, devoted to books and poetry, hanging around with musicians, writers, and drag queens. In its portrait of the artist as outsider, with the poet Rimbaud as her hero, it’s as romantic as any story of turn-of-the-century Paris. For kids now who want to live, as Smith once sang, “outside of society,” does she think it’s any different? Is there more or less room in the margins?

“Well, of course, it’s four decades later. It’s a different world. I mean, the creative scene was smaller then. To be an artist, to be a homosexual, to be a poet…these things were marginalized already. Now we live in a more open society in terms of creativity….Anyone can make a record these days. Anyone can post their work on the internet. We have a black president in America. People are not as heavily marginalized because of their sexual persuasion.”

On the other hand, she believes, “It’s tougher than ever in terms of the amount of control governments and corporations have over us….You know, we evolve as human beings, and our culture evolves, not always for the best.”

Smith herself quit performing in 1980, married, and spent most of 15 years raising children. It’s a period she doesn’t mention in “Just Kids.” Still, she insists, having children “doesn’t mean one isn’t an artist or one isn’t a revolutionary, or one isn’t a poet. It just means that you’re responsible for another human being….We shift how we deal with the social element for the sake of our children. But if one is a poet, one is a poet. Your lifestyle might be different, but your consciousness is intact. I did some of my best work when I was raising my children, because I was obliged to be more disciplined. I couldn’t sit up all night dreaming, or daydreaming, working on a poem.”

Now that her children are in their twenties and she is alone again, she spends a lot of her time working. She says writing a “companion book” to “Just Kids,” about her life after her relationship with Robert. There’s also a detective novel she’s working on, among other projects.

Despite her openness to her fans, there’s much in Smith’s life that remains unsaid. Her years as a wife and mother. Her decision to stop performing for 15 years. Her spiritual side—in “Just Kids” she lets drop that she says her prayers before she goes to bed. “Yeah,” she says now. “I might say them when I’m walking down the street at night. You know, prayer takes on many forms. Sometimes it’s to God, sometimes it’s to nature, sometimes to my mother, sometimes just a general thank you for all the elements. It’s part of my life.”

If the waiting fans have any luck, all these sides of Patti Smith may become the subjects of her next literary success.

Trouw, July 11, 2012.