Arnon Grunberg

Company

Theorists

On different sorts of emptiness - Anshel Pfeffer in Haaretz:

‘Veterans in the Israeli publishing industry were surprised by Irish novelist Sally Rooney’s decision not to allow her latest book to be translated in to Hebrew by an Israeli publisher. Not just because she had raised no objections to the translation of her previous two novels, but because such a case is so rare.
It’s not that Israeli publishers are unaware of the boycott movement. On the contrary, they are one of the very few sectors in Israel who find themselves having to deal with it regularly, from inviting authors from abroad to literary festivals. But having a best-selling Western author actually refusing the translation of their books is extremely rare (anti-normalization Arab authors, who rarely allow Israeli firms to buy translation rights, are another matter).
The only vaguely similar cases anyone seems to remember are with the antisemitic American conspiracy theorist and poet Alice Walker, who refused point-blank, and Canadian activist, writer Naomi Klein who insisted that the only Israeli publisher kosher enough for her "The Shock Doctrine" was a now defunct company which specialized in translating Arabic literature.’

(…)

‘If the BDS movement’s aims, to which Rooney professes to adhere, is to put pressure on Israel to fundamentally change its character, then why would nixing access by Israelis to the work of one of its high-profile pro-Palestinian supporters help? Assuming Rooney hopes that her readers will, through her books, become better and more conscientious people, wouldn’t that be her preferred outcome for Israelis as well? Who knows, maybe they'd even realize the error of their ways.
Sam Leith, literary editor of The Spectator, put it very well in an essay on the UnHerd site: "[T]here’s no soft-power blow that withdrawing her book strikes to the prestige of the Israeli regime… they couldn’t give a toss which of their citizens get to read about the tangled love-lives and troubled consciences of Rooney’s protagonists."’

(…)

‘What’s really telling about this episode is that increasingly the discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t about actual issues anymore, it’s about words. It’s become a discourse about the discourse. What’s happening on the ground and what, if anything, can be done to change the situation, has become secondary to the words we use to describe it.’

(…)

‘Words of course have immense power, but just like any weapon, they can also become obsolete very quickly. Witness the breathtaking self-importance found in how two NGOs, B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch, issued announcements in recent months that Israel now qualified as an apartheid state.
The reports came out and absolutely nothing changed. Some people were calling Israel an apartheid state long ago. Other people still won’t call it apartheid, and that’s it. It has about as much relevance to people’s lives as whether the rather ugly building operated by the United States government in south Jerusalem is called an "embassy" or a "consulate."’

(…)

‘Ten years ago, the Netanyahu government waged a war against the word "Nakba," passing a law allowing the finance minister to cut funding from any institution commemorating Israel's independence day as a day of mourning.
Of course, it didn’t work and today the concept of the Nakba, of Israel’s founding being a disaster for the Palestinians, is much more present in Israeli discourse. But the Israeli right wing shouldn’t have been concerned. The change in discourse hasn’t changed Israelis’ political views. If anything, it’s hardened them, the same way the Israeli right fought for decades against the word "occupation," another battle they lost. But they won anyway, because the occupation is still here to stay.
And lest I’m accused of the new sin of "bothsiderism," let’s make it clear that it’s not only the extremists and radicals on both sides who are wasting everyone’s timing by abusing words.
The centrists in this debate who pathetically continue to pay homage to the empty motto of the "two-state solution" are just as guilty. Not that the two-states concept is a bad one, but to think that where things stand right now a "solution" is at all conceivable is no more than a self-deceiving cop-out. There’s no solution. Just hollow words.’

(…)

‘Words are very important. I make my living through writing words. But words are there to serve a purpose. They’re not a purpose unto themselves. Something Sally Rooney, who is so in love with her words that she thinks denying them will make a change, seems to not realize.’

Read the article here.

As far as I know, Anshel Pfeffer is not a novelist, a novelist could say that the purpose of the novel are the words that can be found in the novel. This might be a very strict interpretation of l’art pour l’art, it might point to what’s called the experimental novel, which is now less in vogue than it ever was.

On the other hand, if the novelist’s aim is too clear, the novel itself will probably suffer from a dire lack of ambiguity. A novel is not a sermon nor an op-ed piece. (‘Bomb Iran.’ ‘Boycott Israel.’ ‘End capitalism.’ ‘Vote for John Doe.’ ‘Buy my book.’)

It’s Rooney’s right not to be published in Israel, whether this makes her a hypocrite by not singling out let’s say the Russian or Chinese languages is besides the point. To her, the most pressing question is the fate the of Palestinian people. Fair enough.

As Pfeffer points out as well, her decision is not going to help the Palestinian people, nor will be the Israeli regime feel any pain of discomfort because of Rooney’s activism.

It’s easy to label Rooney’s feel-good-activist. The activist feels good because of the activism. If anything has been changed is merely an afterthought.

Main thing is that you proved to be pure. (Yes, she might lose some money, but given her sales elsewhere, nothing to lose sleep over.)

But even this feel-good-activism is something we should not be too cynical about. If an activist becomes a happier and more fulfilled human being because of his or her activism we should be happy for the activist. Of course, as long as it remains a matter of words. Violence, terrorism, et cetera changes the equation.

The emptiness of words is also a blessing. Most of us don’t go to prison for our words, most of us are not getting killed, the worst thing might be some slightly offensive remarks on social media.

How many of today’s novelists would be willing to pay with their lives for their art? I’m not saying that they should be willing to die for a probably a mediocre piece of literature, but the frivolous side of the endeavor cannot be discarded with serious faces, arty answers to silly questions and social engagement as the fastest way to a good and prosperous life.

And Pfeffer doesn’t answer the question what could be done to change the situation. For one, in a democracy, that means different voter behavior.

Which brings us to the question: can we cancel democracy in order to have a policy that is more reasonable and to our liking? I’m afraid the answer will be no.

Arendt suggests that in order to change something you must get politically organized. But the lack of progress is not only because the Palestinians have not been capable of building a better political organization.

And I have repeatedly said that a so-called untenable status quo can last for decades. On the other hand, think of the Soviet-Union, the implosion can still come as a surprise.

In the meantime, we are condemned to different shades of emptiness.

discuss on facebook