PEN World Voices: Faith and Reason

“Faith and Reason” is the theme of the PEN World Voices festival currently taking place in New York City. Here’s how faith and reason are making out so far:

Tuesday Evening: Orhan Pamuk is the big story, and New York City knows it. The Great Hall at Cooper Union is sold out, and when I poll a few of my fellow attendees I confirm that everybody’s here to see Pamuk. This is not because Margaret Atwood and Salman Rushdie are old news, but rather because we all seem to be discovering at the same time that Orhan Pamuk really is that good. I’m on my second Pamuk novel now, My Name is Red, a fabulous book, as lush and ornate as Snow is austere and modern. What the two books share in common is a crystal clear narrative flow and a wry sense of human comedy. It is a pleasure for me to close the book in mid-chapter on the 6 train, run upstairs, enter a hall and behold the talented author in real life.

He walks up to the podium — tall and gangly — and begins speaking with a calm, confident tone. Others have already chronicled Pamuk’s words, so I will just add that my affection for this writer is increased by his pleasant personal demeanor. I’m also impressed by his guest questioner Margaret Atwood, who I’ve never seen live before. I’ve heard that she has a penchant for falling asleep at literary events (and who can blame her?) but she is lively and funny tonight. Looking vaguely Elizabethean with her curly mop and subversive girlish voice, she does us the favor of skipping right over several obligatory boring questions about public policy, and instead jumps right to the personal stuff. Atwood knows how to work a crowd, too. Somebody get this woman a talk show.

Drinks, food and talk with several delightful litbloggers at the chic Bowery Bar complete the evening, and so we move on to …

Wednesday Afternoon: A 4 pm panel at New York University is about “Faith and Politics in America and Elsewhere”. Ron Chernow’s introductory speech heads straight for partisan territory as he points out that the Republican Party’s relatively recent alliance with Christian evangelism has been tremendously successful. Moderator Robert Silvers (currently co-editor of the New York Review of Books) picks up on this theme, laying out statistics about traditional Protestant churches that are losing members and evangelical organizations that are picking them up. He mentions the highly successful millenialist Left Behind book series, which Silvers says is “much read at the high circles”. He ponders whether or not these evangelistic trends are behind our decision-making in Iraq.

We’ve barely begun but it’s already clear that this is not going to be a feel-good panel. We’ve got stuff to talk about. Hans Magnus Enzensberger balances Silvers’ statistical seriousness with some speculative ponderings about the meaning of religion in the modern world. With a playful smile and modest tone of voice, he tells us that religion is not very strong in his native Germany, and recalls that in the days of his youth — the years when Soviet communism dominated international debate — it was generally believed that religion would gradually go away. Later, he declares that religion is what’s left behind after “the failure of all political utopias”.

Alma Guillermoprieto, a South American writer with a stylish Isadora Duncan haircut and a dead-serious demeanor is up next, and she makes several strong points about the religious undercurrents in the careers of Latin American revolutionaries like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Fidel Castro always exhorted “faith in the impossible”, she says, and this is essentially a mystical or religious concept. Guillermoprieto adds that in her opinion every politician in the world uses religion as a political tool in some way.

Elias Khoury ratchets up the intensity level in the room by announcing that he has withdrawn from a later event with David Grossman after discovering only at the last minute that the event has been co-sponsored by the Israeli consulate. Khoury then delivers some strong words at the expense of anybody who brings religion into politics, pointing out the obvious mess that has been made by pious militants like George Bush and Osama bin Laden.

Next, Suketu Mehta’s short bit lightens the mood a bit. He speaks of the odd balances between Hindu and Muslim communities in India, and points out that the term “Hinduism” does not exist among Hindus; they simply call it the dharma (the way) and would never think to limit it by giving it a name. Mehta ends his speech with a parting shot at George Bush: “I understand that your president found God at the bottom of a bottle. Maybe he should have another drink.”

The room’s temperature heats up again when Polish dissident Adam Michnik begins barking in his guttural native language. We had heard about Christian crusaders earlier, but Michnik remarks (via his translator) that he sees more of a crusader in Osama bin Laden than in George Bush (personally, I say we call it a tie and get rid of both of them). Michnik is the loudest speaker in the group, but he also seems to suffer from a stutter or speaking impediment of some sort. It’s fascinating to try to comprehend his throaty syllables, among which the phrase “presidenta busha” shows up regularly. Michnik struggles especially hard with one of his final phrases, which his translator then sums up neatly: “Most Poles find Bush hard on the stomach”

Wednesday Evening: my energy crash inevitably coming, I make it up to Town Hall for the Woodstock section of the PEN World Voices festival, a group reading with a ton of famous names. I will let somebody else spell out the details of this event (the daytime event was my assignment for today, and I’ll be covering some more events here on Friday and Saturday) but I’d like to mention one moment I liked best: a thin older man is rolled to center stage in a wheelchair and announces in an African accent that he is Chinua Achebe. I really never thought I’d hear Chinua Achebe read to me from Things Fall Apart. But apparently anything is possible.

A Vietnamese writer named Duong Thu Huong is also especially moving, and I was happy to see Zadie Smith, Martin Amis and E. L. Doctorow for the first time.

As I listened to several of the speakers, though, I began to feel disturbed by a certain sameness of stance, an emerging “me-too” world-view. These readings all project a strong anger and disgust at current Christian and Islamic fundamentalists (I guess Jewish and Hindu fundamentalists get a pass today), but what about the wider psychological and personal and artistic questions we should be discussing relating to faith and reason?

I don’t mind that there is a lot of politics at this festival, but I do wish the politics were less partisan. I particularly notice that several of the speakers — Salman Rushdie and Robert Silvers among them — speak to the audience in a way that suggests that we are all atheists or agnostics, more or less. Is this really true among the world’s writers? If so, this sure is a shock to me.

I’m also surprised there is no mention of the many faith-based texts that form some of the world’s greatest historical works of literature, from Tao Te Ching to the four Gospels. I leave Town Hall tonight feeling intrigued but far from satisfied. PEN’s picked a good topic for this festival, though I don’t think they’ve gotten all the way to the heart of it yet.

6 Responses

  1. Nice write up”…what about
    Nice write up

    “…what about the wider psychological and personal and artistic questions we should be discussing relating to faith and reason?”

    Yeah. I just read the write up at the Complete Review, and it seems like this event was a bit of a disappointment. Imagine all of those eggheads publicly wrangling over this fascinating question. I hope we get some of that action before long. I completely agree that:

    “PEN’s picked a good topic for this festival, though I don’t think they’ve gotten all the way to the heart of it yet.”

    Keep up the good work!

  2. Everybody’s doin’ ItGood
    Everybody’s doin’ It

    Good review.

    I agree with Guillermoprieto that every politician in the world uses religion as a political tool in some way. It’s so easy to use and so hard to challenge. “Believers” take comfort when their leader invokes a higher power; agnostics and atheists accept it as a necessary ploy to stay in power. I remember Jesse Ventura’s misdeal of the God card, when he said something to the effect that organized religion was for people with weak minds. Even some non-believers were taken aback when that proclamation landed face-up on the table. After all, some of their grandmothers took solace in loved ones going off to a better place.

    I once took an enjoyable college course called “The Bible As Literature.” I don’t know why the fundamentalist conservative Christians have such as hard time letting teachers present the Bible as literature alongside other religious texts. One of the evangelical tenets is the Bible verse “God’s word will not return void,” meaning that when one reads or hears Bible scripture, it has a beneficial effect on that person. If they really believe that, and if they really believe that the other texts are bogus, then they should be happy to let their kids sample them all and see what sticks. Anyway, I also studied education in college, and researchers have proven time after time that kids learn more from their parents’ actions than from things they are told in school, church, or even their parents’ own words.

    But back to politics: How can God possibly believe in any of the governments that blight His world?

  3. Talking HeadsThat was a great
    Talking Heads

    That was a great write-up Levi. Keep ’em coming, we all read them with appreciation. makes us feel like we were there.

    I love listening to all those talking heads going on and on and on… give me simplicity, logic and truth and call me happy.

    I agree with Bill, no God could be happy with any of these govt’s that are destroying the earth and mankind on it. I believe a day of reckoning is coming for all of them!

  4. Atheist? Prophecies?”Salman
    Atheist? Prophecies?

    “Salman Rushdie and Robert Silvers among them — speak to the audience in a way that suggests that we are all atheists or agnostics, more or less. Is this really true among the world’s writers? If so, this sure is a shock to me.”

    It is a semi-surprise for me as most people in general are not so interested about religion anymore.

    And this is even more true in Europe , I find.

    I had a period in my life when I found myself questioning beliefs… What am I believing? Why? Is this real or just the effect of emotion?

    I studied many religious texts from the different faiths, and I studied the Bible’s prophecies.

    So in response to Stevadore, the book of Daniel speaks about a statue representing the world’s power throughout the ages.

    I studied each part of the body representing an era coming to the feet that are our time now.

    The prophecies relating to each era are strikingly detailed.

    The Bible says that after the the era corresponding to the feet God will intervene and put in place a kingdom that would stand forever and would never be overthrown and there would be abundance of peace.

    This gave a new perspective to my life, and a sense of direction. It also gave me an incredible sense of peace of mind and deep internal joy.

    I would have loved to attend, and I would have loved to have seen Salman Rushdie for real. I made plans to be there but I had to work on more ‘bread and butter’projects. So thanks Levi for reporting for us 😉

  5. A Nihilist’s Row’s Hard to
    A Nihilist’s Row’s Hard to Hoe

    “I particularly notice that several of the speakers — Salman Rushdie and Robert Silvers among them — speak to the audience in a way that suggests that we are all atheists or agnostics…”

    In the film Sleepers, a thug sent over drinks to a pair of Republicans talking politics at the bar in a restaurant and requested the bartender to inform them to change the subject, and the bartender brought them their scotches and said, “These guys sent the drinks over. No discussing politics or religion, all right?”

    With Orhan Pamuk there and Rushdie the target of a fatwa and a sitting US President who’d be more comfortable teaching Sunday school than talking of the American underclass coping with globalism, the topic of religion would seem to come up. Why not direct the topic towards US illiteracy and its effect on the postmodern novel? If more Americans were reading Orhan Pamuk, no one would dare oppress him. Hollywood would be making his movies.

    As Nietzsche suggested about god being dead, the onus is then on us to give meaning to our lives. This is easier said than done, especially if all you’ve ever done is only turned on the TV and are afraid to admit that this world is all there is and there is no afterlife and the only transcendence possible is what the individual can produce is in their own head or through their own projects.

  6. Mila,I’m very familiar with
    I’m very familiar with that prophecy in Daniel and its fulfillment – the Anglo-American world power (and other gov’ts) being crushed by the rock that is God’s kingdom.

    When you get a chance, email me at:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What We're Up To ...

Litkicks will turn 30 years old in the summer of 2024! We can’t believe it ourselves. We don’t run as many blog posts about books and writers as we used to, but founder Marc Eliot Stein aka Levi Asher is busy running two podcasts. Please check out our latest work!