|
|
Books from Finland's Editor-in-chief designate Kristina
Carlson's novel Maan ääreen
('To the end of the earth') tells the story of a young man who seeks
to escape himself by travelling to the most distant corner of 19th-century
Russia. Interview by Hildi Hawkins and Soila Lehtonen
BfF We'd like to begin by asking you about the setting of
your novel. Most people think of 19th-century Siberia as the place
to which the undesirables of the Russian empire were deported
one imagines it full of petty criminals, violent brigands and political
dissidents. It comes as quite a surprise to find your Nahodka peopled
by civilised Europeans busily engaged in building their futures,
with impressive houses, women in pretty lace dresses, social occasions
with champagne, orchestras and whist drives.
Could you say something about what
led you to choose this setting for your novel, and the real historical
circumstances on which it's based?
KC From my own point of view, Maan ääreen
is not so much a historical novel as a novel set in a historical
context. The difference, I believe, lies in the fact that the latter
attempts in a sense like scholarship to cast light
on the past from a new perspective. In my book, Siberia is above
all the mental landscape of the main character, although it is also
of course a real and existing place.
The roots of Lennart's story lie in
the destiny of a distant relative of mine. He travelled to Siberia
as a civil servant, like Lennart. That was why I began to explore
that period. Russia wanted to secure its power at its borders; there
were civil servants, soldiers and merchants. It was known that there
were natural resources in the area: minerals, fur-bearing animals,
coal. The coast was also important for trade with the east, even
if the climatic conditions were difficult. (By the way, at present
electronics are imported to Nahodka from the Far East and transported
via Finland back to Russia!) Because the state promised privileges
to pioneers and civil servants who moved to Siberia, it was advertised
as a 'land of plenty', particularly the Amur region.
A restless mind, Lennart's and my
own, seeks a home for its dreams far away, wishes to discard the
familiar and the secure. What was fascinating about Siberia was
that it was not possible, in the then Russian empire, to travel
farther. The associations of Siberia are remoteness, cold, poverty,
primitiveness; and of course the fact that it was the place to which
criminals and wrongdoers were exiled. In fact, Siberia is a gigantically
large area with different areas.
The Russian civil servants, officers
and merchants formed the same kind of upper class as the English
or other colonial lords in the former colonies. They took their
way of life into their new conditions. And it is precisely here
that the paradox which interested me lies. These people travel a
long way, to exotic conditions, and in this remote place they build
a society which to a large extent recalls the former and the familiar
in Lennart's case, in fact, everything that he set out to
escape. How far does a person have to go to escape his own self
or to find himself. This is Lennart's question, Siberia its
stage.
BfF The novel takes the form of a kind of thriller, the search
for the solution to a crime. The main, and palpably unreliable,
narrator also the victim of the crime is the main
character, Lennart Falk. He is attacked by an unknown assassin,
but recovers, telling the reader his story. Falk's story is framed
by a narrative by his friend and doctor, Theodor Gantz. At the end
of the book, yet another narrator reveals a letter which shows that
Gantz is telling less than the truth. As this writer says, in a
crime novel the truth about Falk's death would be unacceptable.
Whom are we to believe?
KC It is up to the reader, of course, to decide whether to
believe all the narrators or not. For me, as the writer,
the different characters are different manifestations and tenses
of the same person, all of them pondering the sense of their lives
in relation to their environment, social and private, their own
self.
Gantz does not tell the whole truth
about Lennart because he, an aging man, wishes retrospectively to
give Lennart the meaning and importance that he was seeking in the
last months of his life, and thought he had achieved. Since there
are still years to come, perhaps Gantz wishes, through Lennart,
to give meaning to his own life. This is, of course, self-deception.
The third narrator (essentially myself)
understands Gantz's self-deception and reveals it. At the same time
she nevertheless understands that she herself is reverting to escape
and self-deception, just like Lennart in his search for his life
elsewhere and far away.
BfF No one, in other words, holds all the pieces of the jigsaw
there is no omniscient narrator, and everyone must try to
make sense of the picture as best they can. The final piece of the
puzzle, offered by the third narrator, makes sense of the story,
but at the same time consigns it to the sidelines of a quite different
drama. You worked as a reporter for the weekly current affairs magazine
Suomen Kuvalehti for 22 years what bearing did your writing
about the real world have on the way you approached your novel?
KC The book took its initial impulse from a true story, but
is entirely fictional. What do the novel and reality in general
have to do with one another.... Of course it was necessary for me
to study the period etcetera, but for me writing was a journey into
the mind, thoughts and feelings. My work as a reporter and my fiction
do not, I think, have very much in common, except that both involve
writing. The starting-points, the freedoms as well as the limitations,
are completely different.
BfF You have been actively involved in literary debate in
Finland and internationally for some time, as chairman of the Eino
Leino Society and through your participation in the Lahti International
Writers' Reunion. Maan ääreen has been translated
into German, and now you have been appointed editor-in-chief of
Books from Finland, beginning next year. Do you feel closer
to the work of other Finnish writers, or to foreign writers
or do you see that as a useful distinction? And what do you see
as the limitations and possibilities of writing from a small country
in the international context?
KC Finnish writers are undoubtedly always Finnish writers, wherever
and however they write, as long as they continue to write in the
Finnish language. Naturally writers from such a small country and
such a small language area are in a different position from those
writing in a majority language. At the moment I am in residence
in an artists' castle which also contains composers and visual artists.
Their work is, in principle, immediately understandable to everyone.
Like me, Finnish writers certainly
feel themselves to belong to the European tradition and contemporary
writing. Nevertheless, we are bound to the Finnish language, and
our culture in that language. I do not know whether there are any
advantages to existence on the linguistic periphery. Perhaps there
are, if the writer can, because of this, give something original
which is of interest in other languages and in other countries.
That is not easy in the current markets, which increasingly concentrate
on the so-called big names and big print-runs.
A German publisher's editor told me
that the publishing of poetry in Germany is unprofitable, even though
the population base is large. In Finland, the situation is good
in the sense that poetry is written and published, even though the
sales figures are not exactly dizzying. I believe that poetry
is, in a way, the measure of the vitality of literature as a whole.
Ins Land
am Ender der Welt was translated by Stefan Moster and published
by Alexander Fest Verlag of Berlin in 2000
Top of page
|