It seems the first draft of the Gömda review I attempted to write in bad Swedish was too ambivalent. Kerstin asked me to clarify why exactly I thought the book was racist and to support my argument with something more than a petulant "I think it's racist." This led to a three page Swedish rambling rant, here, and a shorter, less ranty version, below:
The parallels between the debate over Frey's A Million Little Pieces and the Gömda debate on the Swedish blogosphere is one that has been made on the Swedish blogosphere. Quite a bit. Both are so-called true stories that turned out to be less true than advertised, but with both books, many readers have argued that the subject matter is of more importance than the subtitle - that novels can often tell as important a truth about real life as true stories.
In her article, Ulrika Knutsson compares Marklund's work to another bestselling book, as she points out that Gömda as a story about a dangerous Arab man who attempts to kidnap his child from her mother, has many parallels with Not Without My Daughter, which also turned out to be less true than at first advertised. Gömda, Knutsson argues, takes part in a literary tradition that "stretches back to the 1700's, where western readers are presented with brutal, dark-eyed men" playing the part of the antagonist.
Gömda would not be the same story if the "dark-eyed man" had been an ethnic Swede. This is made more glaringly obvious when the person who represents all goodness in the book - the blue-eyed Anders - turns out to be, in reality, an immigrant himself. Many readers have asked why Mia and Marklund choose to leave this detail out and turn the Chilean Luis into the Swedish Anders. Others have argued that Marklund's position on domestic violence and violence against women is one which is not without double standards, since the writer's literary agent has himself been found guilty of abuse of his ex-partner, and Marklund has stood on his side, to argue that the woman had made the whole story up.
Marklund has explained that she turned Luis into Anders because "he reminded me of the men I grew up around, decent, reticent and soft-spoken," but with Osama "it was impossible to leave out the fact that he was an immigrant, because " the company he kept and their society was so special." She points out that she had to protect Mia's identity. She apologizes if people understood the subtitle to mean every last fact was correct to the last detail, but argues that the story is not a fact book, it is a documentary novel.
Gömda is an important book, which deals with an important theme. It has led to more attention being paid to cases such as Mia's, and it has had some effect on the passing of laws to help empower and protect battered women. In this context, the debate about whether or not the book is racist, and who is right and who is wrong, is not what is most important. Regardless of the fact alterations in the book, Gömda tells of an experience which thousands of women suffer in all countries. As Åsa Linderborg writes in Aftonbladet (2009-01-13): "for them it makes no difference whether Mia is real or not. For those battered women in hiding today the discussion of fact or fiction is only a grotesque, idle question." However, men's violence towards women is a question primarily of gender, not ethnicity. The debate on this global problem is distorted when it is involved in uncomplicated stereotypes. Changing Luis's ethnicity, in my opinion, exhibits the same unsubtle racism (and sexism) involved in stories of blue-eyed heroes rescuing damsels from oppressive swarthy men.
Marklund says she wrote the book to show how and what a battered woman's life can look like. There are those who argue Marklund is not racist at all, she only very cleverly wrote what would sell. Its clear there are many people (most of them women) who are interested in true stories about women fleeing the persecution of irrationally violent dark-eyed men. But a question I think its important to consider is: why is there so much deep dissappointment when such readers find out that perhaps the horrific true story they read was not all true?
Liza Marklund, now that she has moved from calling the book a true story to one based on a true strory, has argued that this is a deeply subjective tale. Everybody wants to find "the truth", but when it comes to memories, experiences or subjective stories, its difficult to define that truth - there is always more than one side. The question is, when does reality become fantasy? Where do we draw the line between fact and fiction?
Benyam Mohamed, who has been in Guantanamo for nearly seven years, is due to be released on Monday. The Ethiopian citizen and former British resident has been in US costudy since September 2004. He was first held and interrogated in Pakistan, then for 18 months in Morocco, before being sent to the Guantanamo. Terrorism charges against him were dropped last year.
Obama has been praised for his decision to close Guantanamo, which has become a symbol for the failures of the Bush Administration. However, some have argued that closing the camp would only be taking away the public aspect of these policies - less obvious and therefore less discussed are the secret detention facilities which were involved in the extraordinary rendition programs.
Perhaps what is most worrying however, is that while the infamous camp in Cuba is closing, the camp in Bagram is growing - doubling in size.
The line between fact and fiction, between what is real and what is made up, is quite often blurred.
The Swedish National Bibliography recently crossed it, reclassifying a book subtitled “A True Story” from factual to fictional, due to questions raised by an ongoing controversy.
Liza Marklund's book Gömda which was first published in 1995, became an instant hit when it was re-released in 2000, becoming the focal point of a wide-ranging debate on issues of abuse and domestic violence, racism and orientalism, genre and the thin line between fact and fiction.
That debate is now back, with the publication of Monica Atonsson's book Mia - Sanningen om Gömda (Mia, the Truth About Buried Alive), which the writer describes as a journalistic expose of Marklund's book, presenting evidence that some facts in Marklund’s book are in fact fiction.
Liza Marklund's Book:
Gömda, according to Marklund, was born when a woman called her one day from a telephone booth and told her she had been in hiding for two years. Both Gömda, and Asyl - den sanna fortsättningen på Gömda (Asylum – the True Continuation of Gömda) tell the story of this woman, who is given the psuedonym Mia, documenting her struggle to escape from the abuse, threats and irrational violence of her ex-fiance and the father of her firstborn child Emma.
The ex-fiance becomes even more violent when Mia meets Anders, a man from Norrland whom she later marries, and the books end with her and her family going into hiding, and finally being forced to leave Sweden. The ex-fiance, referred to in both books only as “the man with the dark eyes”, is a Lebanese immigrant.
“Mia Erikson” has herself written a series of books on her story: Mia's Hemlighet (Mia's Secret), Mias Systrar (Mia's Sisters), and Emma Mias dotter (Emma, Mias Daughter). The books have touched many readers, and have drawn attention to cases of domestic violence and violence against women in Sweden. Gömda in particular is an intense and sometimes uncomfortable read, the reader’s identification with Mia strengthened by the many trials she undergoes.
Monica Antonsson's Book:
Given Gömda’s popularity, Antonsson’s book, which was published in December 2008, was bound to receive a lot of attention. Antonsson writes that many of the facts presented by Marklund and Mia are in fact fictional, that some facts have been drastically altered, and that other facts are missing - no mention is made, for example, of Mia’s real firstborn child Michael, who was left behind with his father Levy when Mia, Emma and Anders fled Sweden.
In Antonsson book, “the man with the dark eyes” is named as Osama Awad. Awad is not represented as innocent - as Antonsson points out, he was found guilty of minor assault, at least three times. In Gömda, however, the abuse depicted takes on political overtones - in one incident, “the man with dark eyes” rapes Mia while telling her about murders and rapes he had commited in Sabra and Shatila, as a way to convince her that he can destroy her entire family. This leads to some confusion on Mia's part as to his religion, when her friend informs her that the militia sent into the camps were Chrisitan. Interestingly this question is left hanging and what precisely his religion is is never quite resolved. Although of course when they first meet, Mia looks surprised to see an Arab man drinking and "the man with dark eyes" asks her jokingly if he looks like a fanatical Muslim. Later, he tries to make her convert to Islam, asks her not to wear a bikini, and breaks down the door to her flat to clear her kitchen of pork.
Another character in the book is Helena, who has a child with another Arab man called Mohammad, and who in one scene in Marklund's book is sitting with Mia in a public place when both Mohammad and “the man with the dark eyes” appear and start beating them and trying to take Emma away. This is only one of countless incidents in which “the man with the dark eyes” and his gang threaten, stalk, beat up or harass Mia and her family.
At one point, Mia discusses why her ex-fiance could be the way he is with her friend and they have an intelligent conversation about culture clash and an over-represented number of Muslim women in battered women shelters because Muslim men feel at odds with the new society they find themselves in. Samir, Ali, Mohammad and the rest are all portrayed as equally psychotic - in one scene, Mohammad comes to her door to tell her she'd better not press charges, she points to the bruises round her neck and manages to whisper that he'd tried to stangle her and Mohammad answers "coldly": "You're not dead yet."
Lena Larsen, the real Helena, says she was angry when the book was first published, but now only wants that Mia's three children (Michael, Emma and Robin) should be told the full truth, rather than a highly sensationalized version of it.
Popular Orientalism:
In 2006 Anne Heith wrote in "Gömda. En sann historia – romantik, spänning, melodram, och populärorientalism about the sensationalist aspect behind the story’s popularity, and about the use of cultural clichés and orientalist stereotypes in the book. These charges of racism have been reinforced by the fact that Anders, the blond, blue-eyed Swede who represents goodness, stability and security in the book is in reality a Chilean immigrant named Luis.
In one section of her book, Antonsson writes that Luis served a year in prison for trying to run over Awad with his car, and that the family actually fled Mia’s hometown after he was released. This incident is missing in the book.
In response to Antonsson's charges, Marklund has argued that the books are documentary-novels, rather than reportage or fact books. However, Åsa Linderborg in Aftonbladet sees this shift in the writer's position regarding the book's factual status (from true story to documentary-novel) as telling, describing the modification of facts to change Luis into Anders and turn Awad into the "man with the dark eyes" as manipulation based on commercialism.
Marklund's Reaction to Criticism:
Liza Marklund recently apologized to those who took the subtitle “A True Story” to mean the books are factual and correct down to the smallest detail, and said that the books should have been described rather as “based on a true story.” However, she has also pointed out that she had to alter the story to protect the identity of her source.
In Expressen, she meets the criticism directed against her books by arguing that she has told Mia’s story and no one else, that the books present what is essentially a subjective account of the terrible experience Mia underwent, and that her reason for writing the books was to allow a woman who had been abused, threatened and raped to tell her story and to draw attention to similar cases.
An interview with Liza Marklund on the criticism against her book: (In Swedish)
The Real Mia:
Until recently, the woman at the center of the controversy has chosen not to step into the spotlight, but Mia, who lives with her new husband in the US under a new identity, has now come forward to support the books and stand behind Liza Marklund. She has also filed a complaint against Antonnson for having violated her right to anonymity as a source.
In answer to a question on whether the book is fact or based on fact, Mia argues that this is not what is relevant: “What difference does it make if the books had been subtitled “based on a true story” , does that mean the writer can lie? There is proof that I was threatened and abused. I was granted asylum. The argument is there.”
The point seems to be to take away our passion for a subject and replace it with a coded language (analysis I think its called), dissecting texts into tiny pieces and then putting them together again according to the latest theory.
And literature, it vanishes, and the enthusiasm also.
Last month the opposition Egyptian newspaper, Alosbooa (‘The Week’), revealed in one of its reports a controversial story that was not refuted by the authorities, about the Egyptian company ‘International Union of Food Industries’ which was providing the Israeli army with large quantities of homegrown Egyptian vegetables during the aggression on Gaza, since the very first day of the aggression.
The report revealed that the Egyptian trucks were loaded with tons of frozen local grown vegetables from the company stores in the city of Sadat to the Israeli company “Food Channel,” through Al Awja crossing between Egypt and Israel. One of the drivers said that he has made these deliveries many times to Israel but he was hiding this fact from his relatives and neighbours in Albadry neighbourhood at Assalam city, and that he used to tell them that he was delivering goods to other Arab countries, or the delivery is heading towards far ports like Savaja because he was embarrassed to tell them the truth. Other drivers said they no more feel embarrassed or ashamed of doing so because their government itself has normalized relations with Israel years ago.
The workers in the company said that the food was repackaged with Hebrew writing, showing the expiry date and the contents, and that the food has been prepared according to Jewish religious rules. Thus indicating that it complied with the traditional religious Jewish parameters, and that’s why the company imposed a cordon around the place, keeping stored bags, boxes, posters and empty cartons away from the sight of intruders, not allowing any of the workers or the staff to approach the packaging area, and searching every worker at the end of his shift before leaving.
Den senaste tiden har det varit en enorm mediestorm kring Lisa Marklunds bok ”Gömda – en sann historia”. Gömda , som publicerades 1995 och igen 2000, är en av Sveriges mest lästa böcker och marknadsförd som en sann historia. Liza Marklund har också skrivit ”Asyl - den sanna fortsättningen på Gömda.”
Båda böckerna berrättar historien om den misshandlade Mia. Mia är en kvinna som möter ”mannen med de svarta ögonen” förlovar sig med honom och föder deras dotter Emma. Mannen hotar, slår och våldtar henne. Han blir alltmer våldsam och Mia lämnar honom, träffar Anders och gifter sig med honom. Till slut blir familjen tvungen att lämna Sverige. Huvudpersonen, som kallas Mia Eriksson i boken, har själv skrivit tre böcker ( Mias Hemlighet, Mias Systrar och Emma, Mias Dotter) om sin skräck och flykt undan Osama Awad, som utmålas som ”mannen med de svarta ögonen” i Gömda.
Debatten utbröt när Monica Antonssons bok Mia – sanningen om Gömda kom ut i december. I den ifrågasätter författaren sanningshalten i Marklunds böcker. Författaren menar att Gömda inte kan beskrivas som en sann historia eftersom det finns mycket i den som inte är sant – t.ex. Mias son Michael, som hon lämnade med sin första man Levi, är utelämnad ur historien, Mia har aldrig jobbat på bank, och inget är sagt om att "Anders" frikändes för mordförsök på Osama Awad. Det är svart att hitta sanningen in den har debbatten eftersom varken Marklund eller Antonsson har själva upplevt handlingarna. Båda använder sig av källor, och tolkar dem från sina perspektiv. Men eftersom Gomdas popularitet har ståt i ett inbördes förhållande till att det är en sann historia, och eftersom det har varit så mycket fokus på den har aspekten av boken, har debatten nu fokuserat pa sanningens plats i litteratur.
Alltsedan romanens barndom, har det alltid funnits en konvention att bedyra att historien som ska berättas har verkligen hänt, men man kan kanske säga att det finns nufortiden en riktig kräva for "real" underhållning – att vad vi laser eller tittar på skulle vara aktuell, hämtad direkt ur "verkligheten", t.ex som dokusåpor. Ulrika Knutsson (DN 2009-01-18) menar att “ibland känns det som att den enda riktiga fiktionslitteratur som finns i våra postmoderna tider är den som utger sig för att vara äkta journalistik.”
Debatten om hur mycket måste vara sant för att en berättelse ska kunna kallas för sann är inte ny. Inte så långe sen var det mycket debat i USA om James Freys A Million Little Pieces, en bok om att ta sig ur drogmissbruk, som saluförs som sann och visat sig vara delvis fiktiv. Det finns de som klassar boken som kommersiella litteratur, mellan andra anser att läsupplevelsen är viktigaste och att en roman kan ofta säga så mycket, eller mer, om livet som en "sann historia". I Gömda-debatten har en av de allvarligaste anklagelserna varit att boken har kallades för rasistisk. 2006 skrev Anne Heith om populär orientalism om boken i sin artikel Gömda, en sann historia – romantik, spänning, melodram och populärorientalism,” där hon analyserar Gömda i sammband med litterär traditionen som Edward Said i Orientalism och Kultur och imperialism kallade orientalism.
I sin artikel påpekar Ulrika Knutsson att "Gömda" som “en berättelse om farliga, arabiska män och våldsamma barnarov” är mycket lik 1980-taletsbästsäljare "Inte utan min dotter", som senare visade sig vara mer än delvis osann. Liksom Heith, anser Knutsson att Gömda deltar i en tradition där “Ända sedan 1700-talet...västerländska läsare [har] kunnat stifta bekantskap med brutala, mörkögda män.” (DN 2009-01-18)
"Gömda" skulle inte vara samma berättelse om ”mannen med de svarta ögonen” hade varit en etnisk svensk man. Det blir anmärkningsvärt när personen som framställer den gode i boken - den blåögde svenske Anders - var egentligen en mörkhyad och mörkögd invandrare själv. Många har frågat varför Mia och Marklund utelämnad den detaljen och valde att göra den chilenska Luis till "Anders". Andra anklagar författaren för att ha dubbelmoral i synen på kvinnofridskränkningar, eftersom hennes litterära agent har blivit dömd för misshandel av sin före detta sambo och Marklund har drivit en kampanj med syfte att anklaga den misshandlade kvinnan för att ha ljugit ihop historien.
Marklund förklarar att hon ändrade Luis till Anders ”för att han påminde mig om männen jag växte upp med, hyggliga och tystlåtna män”, men med Osama var det ”omöjligt att utelämna att han var flykting” eftersom ”de män han umgicks med, deras sammanhållning och utanförskap var så speciell.” Författaren påpekar att hon var tvungen att ändra fakta för att skydda Mias identitet, och så att de inblandade inte skulle kunna identifieras. Hon säger att hon är ledsen om människor genom undertiteln "En sann historia" har uppfattat att allt är korrekt ner i minsta detalj, men förklarar att boken är en docuroman, inte en fackbok.
Nar Mia gick ut i Aftonbladet för att berätta sin version, visade hon dokument som ska styrka hennes berättelse, bland annat beslutet från amerikanska immigrationsdomstolen som gav henne asyl i USA. Hon argumenterar att frågan om boken är en sann historia eller baserad på en sann historia är inte det som är viktigt: ”Vad är det för skillnad om man skriver "baserad på en sann historia", får man ljuga hur mycket man vill då eller? Det finns ju bevis: Jag har blivit misshandlad, jag har blivit hotad, jag har fått asyl.”
Gömda är en påhittig bok som handlar om ett mycket viktigt ämne. Den har gjort att mer uppmärksamhet har riktats mot debatten om kvinnomisshandel och den har ändrat lagar och förstärkt kvinnors rättigheter. Debbatten om antingen boken är rasist eller inte, och vem som har rätt och vem som har fel är inte det viktigaste i det sammanhanget. Oavsett faktaändringarna i boken, talar Gömda om en erfarenhet som tusentals kvinnor har, i alla länder och alla kulturer. Som Åsa Linderborg skriver I Aftonbladet (2009-01-13): “för dem spelar det ingen roll om ”Mia” finns på riktigt. För verklighetens slagna och gömda är diskussionen om fakta och fiktion ett groteskt lyxproblem.”
Emellertid är mäns våld mot kvinnor först och främst en fråga om kön, inte om etnicitet. Debatten om kvinnomishandel, en komplex och global problem, blir plottrig när den blir inblandad i okomplicerade sterotyper.
Ändring av Luis etnicite i Gömda visar samma osubtila rasism (och sexism) som återkommer gång på gång i böcker där blåögd hjältar räddar kvinnor fran beväpnade svartmuskiga män som slår och förtycker dem.
Det finns också något som förvirrar mej med historien: ”mannen med de svarta ögonen” är framställd som muslim och i ett avsnitt skurar han kylskåpet rent från ”grisbakterier”, men i ett annat avsnitt avslöjar han att han "gjorde en jävla karriär i milisarmén” och var i Sabra och Shatila. Problemet är att milisen som mördade civila palestiner i Sabra och Shatila var kristna maroniter.
Marklunds budskap med Gömda är att hon vill visa hur en misshandlad kvinnas liv kan se ut. Det verkar som många konsumenter (mest kvinnor) vill köpa historier om hjärtskärande kvinnor. Men en fråga jag tycker är viktig att tanka på är varför många är besvikna när de får veta att kanske inte all ting i en sån historia är sann?
Lisa Marklund har erkänt att hon inte skulle ha kallat Gömda för en sann historia, men menar att ”Gömda är Mias berättelse, hennes väldigt subjektiva berättelse... Hon har beskrivit sin sanning och jag har gestaltat och dramatiserat den.”
Alla vill "hitta sanningen", men sanningen är inte alltid svart och vit. När det gäller hågkomsten, ens egen historia, eller som Lisa Marklund säger “subjektiva berättelse” finns det alltid en annan sida - inte bara en enda sanning. Frågan är : när blir verkligheten fiktion och var ska vi sätta linjen mellan fakt och fiktion?
I recently discovered that I have no original thoughts. That there's nothing new under the sun. That everything and its parody has already been done. Twice.
In other words, the essay I've been trying to write has already been written, and much better than I could ever write it. Almost all of the points, parallels and connections have been pointed out, paralleled and connected. Basically, it is going to be another "as-blah-notes" essay.
This is mildly depressing. And also disheartening. Is it plagiarism when you write something that copies something before you read the something that it inadvertently copies?
When a story begins, ''Once upon a time, in a kingdom between the sea and the mountains,'' or ''There was once a little tailor, a good and unremarkable man, who happened to be journeying through a forest,'' we settle back and ready ourselves for a journey we have taken before. We know the patterns and motifs: the quest, the wise guide, the helpful animals, the triumph of the youngest princess, the anonymity of the middle sibling, the failure of the eldest.
Very soon, though, we discover that we are not in the world of the Brothers Grimm. These are true Wundermarchen, as the German Romantics used that term; they are unfettered tales of the marvelous. When Byatt superimposes the fairy-tale style on contemporary material, events in the stories do not hark back to an earlier time. Instead, the magic of the earlier time is brought into our own. Like the tellers of wonder tales before her, Byatt blurs the distinction between science and the miraculous. ....Byatt's stories have nothing in common with politically correct retellings or with the ''fractured'' fairy tales that make us laugh at the conventional formulas by turning them upside down. The fairy tale allows her to explore a concern central to much of her writing: the lives of characters imprisoned by the plot in which they find themselves.
....In the title story, Byatt offers us a wonder indeed: she dramatizes both the theoretical aspects of the fairy tale and the living truth of it in the story itself. Dr. Gillian Perholt is a scholar and a decoder of stories, a ''narratologist'' who has arrived in Turkey to deliver a paper at a conference on ''Stories of Women's Lives.'' The scholar, who sees herself as ''a creature of the mind, not the body,'' believes that characters in fairy tales ''are subject to Fate . . . which is perhaps simply the fact that they are mortal and return to dust.'' But when her aging body reminds her that their fate is also hers, she is overwhelmed by a sense of her own impending death.
Salvation comes in the person of a charming genie who gives her three wishes. After she has wished, first, for her body ''to be as it was when I last really liked it,'' and second, for the genie to love her, she finds that fate has shifted her to a more pleasing plot than the one she had imagined for herself. This discovery links her to the other characters in Byatt's fiction who want to escape their stories, and with it the roles by which they define themselves.
...there can be no comparison between those deliberate killings and what were even in the least justifiable cases the genuinely regretted Israeli killings of Palestinians. There can be no moral equivalence between deaths acheived through premeditated targetting of civilians, where success is measured by the size of the death toll, and deaths that unhappily stem from efforts to protect those civilians...
This is a quote, from Still Life with Bombers, Israel in the Age of Terrorism, by David Horovitz. The sentencing of these two sentences interested me. Especially the word "those" - because "efforts to protect those civilians" logically, can only refer to the Israeli civilians, the ones who are said to be targeted in the previous clause. I found that a little ironic.
The logic of it, the logic that is by now so familiar it is accepted as self-evident, is that it is morally defensible to undertake policies you know are going to kill civilians on a massive scale, if once the killing is done you "genuinely regret" it. It's the same logic of the shock and awe campaign which began the US invasion of Iraq. Mass-murder is fine, as long as you regret it. Kill civilians, but do it with good intentions.
A.S Byatt’s novella The Djinn in the Nightingale’s Eye has been described, in Patricia Craig’s words, as a “cerebral extravaganza.” As in much of her work, Byatt juxtaposes lyrical detailed description with contemporary life, telling the story of Dr. Gillian Perholt, a middle-aged woman and “a narratologist, a being of secondary order” who travels the world attending conferences and living in hotel rooms.
As the story begins, she is on her way to a conference in Ankara, a conference on 'Stories of Women's Lives' - "a pantechnicon title to make space for everyone, from every country, from every genre, from every time." Gillian notes that “the conference, like most conferences, resembles a bazaar.” Later, in the “market-maze” of Istabul, she picks up a souvenir, a dusty glass bottle, where the djinn of the title resides. Once the djinn is released, the plot focuses on the traditional three wishes.
However, as in Possessions, in this tale the background and the description are almost as important as the plot. The novella is made up of lyrical descriptions which give it a vivid, almost mythical tone, as the story slowly unfolds through scenes in conference rooms, hotels and museums.
The main character’s professional concern with storytelling (her “business is storytelling”) provides a natural frame story and self-reflexively links her to the archetypical narrator/heroine Shahrazad.
Dr. Gillian Perholt’s husband has left her for a younger woman, she does not like the way she looks any more, and she finds herself aware of a growing fear of death. In one of her papers, she speaks about “fate and death and desire”. In another, she analyzes the story of Patient Griselda – because “the stories of women’s lives in fiction are the stories of stopped energies” – while her Turkish friend Orhan Rifat speaks about “Powers and powerlessness: djinns and women in the Arabian Nights.”
Interweaving present-day academia, women’s stories and inter-texual references to the Arabian Nights and the Canterbury Tales, the novella is set for the most part in Turkey, the literal and symbolic meeting-place of East and West.
Notes from a class book review which turned into a presentation which turned into a full-blown argument involving South Ossetia, stateless Kurds, honor killings, and me as a Hamas representative, apparently - South Ossetia girl nodded to me in recognition of Hamas recognizing South Ossetia.
Gaza, A Love Story is written by Catrin Ormestad, a Swedish journalist who has lived in Tel Aviv for the past couple of years, one of the few western journalist to enter Gaza since the conflict intensified. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is scarcely new material for a journalist. But this book's title, at least, is unusual - attention grabbing. The author calls this a story about her love for Gaza, a book which includes interludes which describe her own personal life, but which is also about the lives and dreams of ordinary people in Gaza. The book came out last year, but it already out of date, with what has happened over the last month.
1300 people dead, over 400 of them children, and over 5000 seriously injured. On the Israeli side, 13 people dead, 10 of them soldiers.
Watching the news, it often seems as though Gaza has always been a bloody and chaotic place. Its often said for example that its one of the most densely populated places in the world. But its not often the why is spelled out. In this book, the author deals with this in the following way:
"Where do you come from?" is a question every child in Gaza can answer, but instead of Rafah or any of the other camps in the strip, they speak of Beit Daras, Jiya or Hamama, villages that exist only in their grandparent's memories, and on old maps before 1948. Where they once where there is noe Beit Ezra, Mavqiim, Ashdod and Nitzanim.
This is a "reportage book", thus full of facts, but first and foremost written from the journalists point of view. And sometimes, she uses words that are more than a little patronizing. She describes a few Palestinians as childish. She wonders if they know anything outside Gaza. And she reflects that it is easy to leave Gaza and go home to Tel Aviv.
But the honesty involved in making no attempt to say “this is objective and neutral” makes her a sympathetic storyteller. She presents Gaza through people's stories, history told by those who live through it. Palestinians come forward out of the anonymous mass with a face and a name - and that is what makes the book worth reading.
Gaza, en kärlekshistoria är skriven av Catrin Ormestad, en svensk journalist som sedan ett par år tillbaka är bosatt i Tel Aviv. Hon är en av de få västerländska journalister som sedan konflikten intensiferades har sett Gaza inifrån. Konflikten mellan Israel och Palestina är knappt nytt material, men bokens ovanliga titel väcker intresse och förväntan. Bokens syfte framgår av undertiteln ”en kärlekshistoria”, eftersom författeren berättar om sin kärlek till Gaza, och beskriver inte bara konflikten utan också vanliga människors liv och framtidsdrömmar Boken kom ut förra året, men man kan säga att den redan är inaktuell. Under den sista månaden har över 1300 människor dödats, över 400 av dem barn, och 5000 har skadats allvarligt. På den israeliska sidan har 13 människor dödats, varav 10 soldater.
När man tittar på nyheterna känns det som om Gaza alltid har varit en blodig och kaotisk plats. Det sägs ofta t.ex att Gaza är en av det mest tätbefolkade platserna i världen, men inte varför. I den här boken förklarar författaren det på följande sätt: ”Var kommer du ifran? är en fråga som varje barn i Gaza kan svara på, men i stället for Rafah eller något annat av remsans åtta flyktinglägren säger det Beit Daras...Jiya eller Hamama, byar som bara existerar i deras farföräldrars minnen, och på gamla kartor från tiden fore 1948. Där de låg finns nu istallet Beit Ezra, Mavqiim, Ashdod och Nitzanim.”
Som en reportagebok finns det många fakta i boken men den är först och främst skriven utifrån författarens åsikt. Jag tycker att författaren använder ibland ord som låter lite nedlåtande. Hon beskriver t.ex några palestiner som barnsliga, och undrar om det vet något om världen utanfor Gaza. Hon reflekterar över att det är en lättnad att lämna Gaza och komma "hem" till Tel Aviv.
Men jag tycker att Ormestad är en sympatisk berättare därför att hon är medveten om att hon inte är neutral, utan försöker forklara hur hon ser på situationen. Författaren presenterar Gaza genom människors personliga berättelser - historien berättas av de som lever i den. Palestinska människor kommer fram ur den anonyma folkmassan och får ansikte och namn. Det är det som gör boken läsvärd.
Much has been said about Tayib Erdogan in Davos. In fact, sometimes I think a little too much. The hero-worship has gotten to the stage where its a little embarrassing, frankly.
Of course, in contrast to Amr Mousa's shameful slinking return to his seat upon Ban Ki Moon's pointing his finger, it was a resoundingly powerful symbolic gesture. A gesture highlighted by Mousa's cringeworthy actions. From tahyyes:
شوفوا يا شباب ان عمرو موسى في اخر الفيديو كان ح يطلع مع رجب طيب اردوغان بس بان كي مون شاور له يقعد فقعد! هي حصلت النينجا ترتل ده كمان يدينا اوامر؟ هو بان كي مون ده راخر ايه لازمته في الدنيا عشان الامين العام يسمع كلامه؟ ده انا متهيالي ولا مراته شايفة له لازمة
Erdogan's stalking off the stage was cartainly dramatic. And satisfying, on the purely emotional level. Given that, it seems a pity the points he made prior to stalking off were more incoherent than hard-hitting.
His most concise stating of the obvious was: "You kill people." The newsflash is, I don't think that is a newsflash.
As Angry Arab put it: "It would have been more impressive if the close political, military, and intelligence relations between Turkey and Israel are suspended. Short of that, the scene is a gimmick. Of course, you may say but it is better than the performance of Arab governments. That is true: but a monkey dancing while wearing a dress is a better performance than Arab governments.
