http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg
I thought I should start this post with an image. This is Vedran Smailović, the titular cellist, playing at the ruins of the National Library. It seems to me that here, where books have died and art has died, Smailović creates new art and, in a sense, recreates a society and restores the multitudes of lives lost. We have talked in class about how denial is a second genocide. By playing the cello and remembering those lost, Smailović prevents them from dying again. Through art, he, in a sense, saves lives. He, therefore, plays for 22 days, a day to remember each person he saw killed. Smailović made an active choice to remember those lost through music, and this reason is what I find puts Galloway at fault for having written the novel. Smailović chose to tell his own story through music. To steal that story without consulting the man who lived it, though not illegal, is a disrespect to those who died. Smailović chose a humble remembrance for those who died but also one more powerful than words. In stealing Smailović's story, Galloway is sensationalizing and profiting from the deaths. Galloway is not a witness, he is a commercial success. Galloway, who has lived in Canada his whole life and has no connection to the events, writes a compelling and interesting story, but it is a stolen, mainly-true story to which he has plastered the name "novel". In his novel, he writes about how people in the black-market profit off the genocide. If the second genocide is the war of words afterwards, it seems to me he is profiting.
I know Galloway has no intention to do wrong and am enjoying his novel, but I feel guilt at reading a stolen tale and one that, to me, turns genocide into more of an action story for profit than an accurate depiction of suffering for remembrance.
In our class, we talked about the fact that Galloway's writing often sounds artificial and clichéed; although there's lots of action, his narration turns the plot line gray. However, there are touching moments that make the reader view an event from a new perspective (especially with the four characters' different viewpoints) that opens the reader's eyes to the fact that there are many ways of viewing situations. One of my classmates also commented that the largely bland narration clearly paints a picture of a city under siege. I agree with you in that Galloway's interpretation and representation of Sarajevo is flawed, but I'm glad that someone is at least reminding the world that the war happened.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Galloway is at all ignoble in his intentions. His writing, however, I agree is entirely bland. I had never thought that this might be a literary choice to impress upon readers the blandness of besieged life. I guess my issue with that is that I wonder how Galloway can presume to know what life is like under siege? I completely understand that one of the main roles of writers is to imagine things, but to be imagining a partially true story and expecting readers to accept what I consider, frankly, to be bad writing as a literary choice seems like a sort of pompousness on Galloway's part. Here, however, is the issue: Galloway has written one of the best books on the topic of the Siege of Sarajevo. Thus, it is incredibly important that we read and spread this novel so people can learn. I guess that what angers me is that this is all we have; that no survivors seem to be writing (or, at least, translating their books into English). This is why the book makes me so angry: it is not what the dead deserve, but it is all they have. They are being forgotten, and one of the few English-language literary testaments we have to their deaths is the harrowing account of the imagining of a Canadian about snipers with superpowers.
ReplyDeleteI think this image above is interesting for other reasons that you have stated though. I almost think the powerfulness of this photograph makes it almost another entire piece of art. The Chaos of the surroundings is such a stark contrast with the serenity of the cellist. It is almost shocking the comparison of the stones falling down and the collapsed roof, to have a man not just playing cello, but playing cello in a suit. It almost seems as if he has been cut out of another image and placed in this setting, i found it rather unnerving in a way. It is interesting to me though, that such an event as a man playing an instrument can become in a way three different pieces of art, the music he is playing to the citizens, a photograph, and eventually a book. All of these pieces are interpreted differently and I'm sure the cellist himself, the people of sarajevo, the photographer, and Galloway all had different emotions and reactions to the Cellists decision to play this instrument. I just found it quite amazing that such a a simple occurrence could create so many different forms of art.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I also found it interesting however, that one of the previous covers of The Cellist of Sarajevo is in fact the image that doob chose above.
http://thecommentary.ca/images/books/Galloway.jpg