This week, our Editors-at-Large bring us news of a crucial conference using collective artistic expression for justice, drama surrounding a literary prize, and an innovative effort to honor a beloved author. From activist poets to an experimental anthology, read on to find out more!
Carol Khoury, Editor-at-Large, reporting from Palestine
The International Coordinating Committee of the World Poetry Movement (WPM) has issued an urgent call to action concerning the escalating crisis in Palestine. In a recent statement, the committee emphasized, “The world and Palestine are in great danger. We must intervene, speak out, and act.” To address this, back in April, WPM issued an open letter by 1026 poets, artists, and intellectuals from hundred and forty countries to eighteen presidents and prime ministers of the world, on a an appeal to act for immediate ceasefire and humanitarian assistance in Gaza. More recently, WPM hosted a virtual World Conference for Palestine, which took place on the 15th and the 16th of June.
WPM, renowned for its steadfast support of Palestine through poetry and activism, seeks to leverage this conference to mobilize international solidarity and propose solutions. Reflecting the sentiment of poet Mahmoud Darwish, “Our poems have no melody, no color, no flavor, no voice if they do not hold the torch from home to home, from house to house,” the WPM aims to illuminate the path to justice through collective artistic expression.
The World Conference for Palestine, hosted virtually by Venezuela’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, represented a critical effort to galvanize international support. The conference gathered poets, writers, artists, intellectuals, and political leaders to discuss protective measures for Palestinians. The two-day event featured expert analyses and discussions to push for an end to the war and the occupation. Prominent attendees included Miguel Diaz-Canel, Nicolas Maduro, Gustavo Petro, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, Mahmoud Abbas, Michael D. Higgins, Cyril Ramaphosa, Fortune Charumbira, and Juan David Correa. Recordings of live streaming of poetry readings can be watched here.
Sofija Popovska, Editor-at-Large, reporting from North Macedonia
Earlier this month, a heteroglot, multimedia anthology, rooted in both tradition and innovation, was added to the bookshelf of Macedonian literary history. Kniga za Petre (A Book for Petre), is a collection of stories by nineteen authors, celebrating ninety years since the birth of one of the best known, most versatile Macedonian authors—Petre M. Andreevski.
Kniga za Petre is a lush literary vivarium with an impressive span, “intent on both honoring and building upon the Macedonian literary tradition,” as the editor of the anthology, Olivera Kjorvezirovska, writes in the preface. Its span is also multigenerational: the contributions of the nineteen authors are arranged by the year of their birth, beginning with Vlada Urošević and ending with Hana Korneti—two authors born sixty years apart. As mentioned earlier, it is also a multimedia work: the cover and illustrations were made by prominent artist Segrej Andreevski, Petre M. Andreevski’s son. The most interesting aspect of this anthology, however, is its playful and diverse approach to homage.
Kjorvezirovska identifies four main ‘groups’ of stories according to their relationship to the source material. The first group’s authors, in Borgesian fashion, blend anecdote and pseudo-anecdote, casting Andreevski himself as a character in allegedly autobiographical episodes. The second group borrows Andreevski’s style for their narratives. Of this group, Blaze Minevski takes this concept the farthest, by creating a cento—a story composed entirely of quotations from Andreevski’s work. In doing so, he innovates both within the genre — by using one author as a source for his cento, which is unusual for the genre — and the Macedonian literary tradition — by adding a form that is almost non-existent among Macedonian works. In the third group, characters are borrowed from Adreevski’s work, or references are made by characters to Adreevski’s books. Finally, the fourth group contains no direct references to Andreevski at all, aiming rather to reproduce the unique atmosphere of his writing. Beyond its contribution to the reading experience, the variety presented in Kniga za Petre is important because it pushes the boundaries of intertextuality and explores the multimodal nature of the author figure: as reader, as fictional character, and as an absent or atmospheric presence.
Andriana Hamas, Editor-at-Large, Reporting from Bulgaria
The endowment fund 13 Centuries Bulgaria’s national award for best novel of the year has always been known to elicit diverse reactions among those who closely follow prizes. This year’s edition, however, was even more widely discussed than usual as the initial winner, writer Elena Alexieva, chose to return the prize after literary critic Amelia Licheva highlighted, through a post on her Facebook profile, a potential conflict of interest—the jury members included Boris Minkov, who also happens to be the editor of Вулкан (“Volcano”), Alexieva’s book.
Again through Facebook, Alexieva explained she had not been previously been aware of the conflict and that she “could not find any moral ground to accept a decision made in this way, therefore I refuse the award.” At the same time, however, she defended her editor, expressing her confidence in his personal qualities and high moral standards.
The cultural platform Ploshtad Slaveikov published Minkov’s thoughts on the controversial matter. In an elaborate text, he detailed the complicated nature of the connections and interdependencies of the Bulgarian literary world, stressing that “I find it difficult to imagine on the basis of what experience a perfectly unaffiliated juror could do—honestly, objectively, impartially, as is expected—their job. Perhaps it would be best, in the future, to have jury members fill out declarations that they have never (so far) read any books (books are binding—give them up now!).” As a conclusion, Minkov also called attention to the often overlooked fact that it is precisely these same (“honest or dishonest“) literary critics, members of all sorts of jury panels across the years, who, at least in part, bear the responsibility for each author’s “potential immortality.”
*****
Read more on the Asymptote blog: