Literature in Exile

by John Glad (Editor)

In December 1987 a group of published novelists, poets, and journalists met in Vienna to participate in the Wheatland Conference on Literature. The writers presented papers addressing their common experience—that of being exiled. Each explored different facets of the condition of exile, providing answers to questions such What do exiled writers have in common? What is the exile’s obligation to colleagues and readers in the country of origin? Is the effect of changing languages one of enrichment or impoverishment? How does the new society treat the emigre? Following each essay is a peer discussion of the topic addressed.
The volume includes writers whose origins lie in Central Europe, South Africa, Israel, Cuba, Chile, Somalia, and Turkey. Through their testimony of the creative process in exile, we gain insight into the forces which affect the creative process as a whole. Contributors. William Gass, Yury Miloslavsky, Jan Vladislav, Jiri Grusa, Guillermo Cabrera Infante, Horst Bienek, Edward Limonov, Nedim Gursel, Nuruddin Farah, Jaroslav Vejvoda, Anton Shammas, Joseph Brodsky, Wojciech Karpinski, Thomas Venclova, Yuri Druzhnikov

192 pages, Hardcover

First published March 28, 1990

Reviews

[Heba Malik · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have several thoughts... on the one hand, I do feel as though I gained a lot through his collection of essays. Unsurprisingly, I highly enjoyed Joseph Brodsky's essay "The Condition We Call Exile," and also unsurprisingly, I loved loved loved Nuruddin Farah's "In Praise of Exile." There's a lot of meat and substance here about what language loss and subsequent acquisition feels, and means, for exiled writers and artists. There's also a surprising amount of debate about what contemporary exile looks like, is defined by, etc. So gone are the days of Socrates and Dante, what can we make of self-imposed exile, or the exiled writer yet unknown?

I also really loved the chapters that discussed translation, what is lost and what is gained, and also the authenticity of language, identity, and communication. Anton Shammas, an Arab, said he prefers to write in Hebrew: "You are more accurate in another language, more cautious–and perhaps more effective." Another participant, a Russian, said he could only create original sentences in English or French by accident. Many discussed loss and longing: "My clothes make an Englishman of me, but my nakedness erases me." I found these bits both indicatory and illuminating.

My qualms are two-fold. There are no women. From the readings, I understand there is one "token woman" (not my words, but that of a participant), but she is not included in the book. And perhaps she did not want to be, I do not know, but I am allowed to be annoyed. It's also heavily European, and not just that, it's heavily skewed toward Russian exiled writers. Both these facts do not go unnoticed, or uncriticized, by participants, but they are never remedied or addressed in any particular way. I suppose I should be happy that these critiques made it to final publication at all, but I'm not. Moreover, I took fault with some of the opinions expressed by participants, which cannot, in fact, be a criticism of John Glad, but rather the folks whose ideas were recorded. For them, I feel exile has become an award, a privilege. They are both infamous and well paid. So what of those exiled artists who wash up in a country that does not ask for their voice? What of those with no voice? What of the anonymous refugee, what of the horde?

It is only for the occasional nuggets of wisdom, of punishing attempts to understand loss and one's world in exile, do I give this 3/3.5 stars.