L. 45: Trois jours chez ma mère - François Weyergans

Grasset, 20005

Un libro che ha vinto il Goncourt in Francia e che ho trovato di là, senza ricordare chi l'avesse comprato. Letto con curiosità ma, mano a mano che andavo avanti, un dubbio mi è sorto: o i giurati del Goncourt sono degli intellettuali sopraffini a cui noi non arriveremo nemmeno dopo morti perchè geneticamente troppo lontani, oppure qualcosa non quadra.
Se uno lo legge senza conoscere la fama dell'autore e le pippe mentali che i francesi amano farsi, non arriverebbe mai alla fine. Non è un gran libro onestamente e forse la spiegazione del perchè gli abbiano dato il premio nel 2005 è che il superfavorito, Houellebecq, stava proprio sulle palle a tutti. Riprendo i commmenti fatti dal critico di Famiglia Cristiana che sottoscrivo in pieno.


Un romanzo sull’impossibilità di scrivere un romanzo. Una storia continuamente interrotta. Annunciato da anni a ogni rentrée, e sempre rinviato, era ormai l’araba fenice delle lettere francesi, un oggetto misterioso, di cui l’autore distillava le anticipazioni, creando attorno al suo difficile parto un’atmosfera di attesa che suscitava l’interesse dei critici e metteva in imbarazzo l’editore. Ora, invece, quando tutti cominciavano a dubitare della sua esistenza, il romanzo è arrivato nelle librerie. E, a sorpresa, ha vinto anche il prestigioso Premio Goncourt, battendo sul filo l’ultrafavorito Michel Houellebecq.

Trois jours chez ma mère di François Weyergans (Grasset, pagg. 264, euro 17,50) non è un capolavoro. E non è neppure il libro migliore dell’autore. È un pastiche di generi diversi, un racconto autobiografico tra il comico e il tragico, in cui troviamo tutte le ossessioni dello scrittore, dalla psicanalisi all’educazione cattolica mal digerita e ripudiata, dai giochi di parole all’erotismo spinto. Ma Weyergans è una specie di Woody Allen prima maniera, a cui tutto si perdona. Goffo, maldestro, ansioso, malato – sembra incredibile – di agorafobia e di claustrofobia nello stesso tempo, seduttore inveterato, capace di proporre micidiali calembours, ha il dono di suscitare simpatia, mescolando come pochi intelligenza e umorismo, sublimi considerazioni metafisiche e trivialità.

Nel libro precedente (Franz et François, Grasset, 1997), aveva fatto i conti con il fantasma ingombrante del padre, intellettuale cattolico di fama, critico cinematografico, autore – negli anni ’60 – di saggi sul valore della fedeltà nella vita di coppia e sulla santità del matrimonio cristiano. Ora, in Trois jours chez ma mère, Weyergans figlio mette al centro dell’intrigo una visita sempre rinviata alla madre novantenne che vive da sola in Provenza. Di digressione in digressione, l’autore si sdoppia, cambia identità e il tema del libro diventa il dramma della pagina bianca, la crisi di ispirazione, l’impossibilità di terminare un romanzo o qualsiasi altra cosa. Ma il gioco questa volta sembra più futile e vacuo del solito: un esercizio di stile che strappa qualche risata, ma che non emoziona. Ed è probabile che i giurati del Goncourt abbiano voluto premiare non tanto il libro quanto l’autore. Sbarazzandosi del sulfureo e sopravvalutato Houellebecq.

First Post

The Group: Joining forces to force mountains to move

Carissimi,

You all know where this idea comes from but as a short story-line I prefer to keep a record for the future.

Having been “engaged” since the first days on my (our) working time in FAO, searching for allies, trying to clarify the basic values, principles we were defending... little by little we all have won more experiences, some of us more in the field whilst others more on the higher level on our institutions.

We are now experienced (old) enough to have to decide what we want to do in the remaining years we will have to spend her. My decision is simple: although we cannot predict the future, there is only one possibility: to continue the fight for our shared values BUT through the needed principle of JOINING FORCES.

Nobody of us, alone, independently, will be able to force Mountains to move in any direction. Even together we are not sure of it, but at least we will have tried.

Two initial elements are already highlighted here: the first is MODESTY and the second is LEGACY. Modesty stands for the recognition of the fact that we need each other, within and outside our organizations, if we want to reach a critical mass for implementing actions. Legacy means that, as for any human enterprise, we accept the risk of failure, being aware of the importance of leaving a message for those who will come after us.

Why stimulating the creation of The Group? Well, my personal diagnosis is that conservative forces are acting in more and more subtle ways to promote a development model which is exactly the contrary of our beliefs: large plantations (for both agricultural and non agricultural commodities) based on industrial inputs (with a particular role for chemical industry), concentration of land into fewer hands with a collateral expulsion of millions of smallholders, IPs and other communities; reduce biodiversity as well as food products into more controllable value chain systems; stronger control over markets and an overall vertical concentration of power. This result in destroying landscape, reducing biodiversity, increasing unemployment, increasing food dependence and also increasing what the French call “la malbouffe”.

We know all of that and we have (we are) tried to do something through our individual networks, within and/or outside. My diagnosis is that individually we are too weak for such an undertaking. Joining forces is needed and the moment is there, taking advantage of the Reform process (in FAO), the recent CFS openings, the increased role gained by peasant/indigenous organizations as well as the (still incipient) organizations of supporting groups (like the Cordoba one).

What is the basic idea?

Peasant/Indigenous organizations alone, without a link with internal (possible) drivers, risk not to have a critical mass to promote changes in the international agenda as well as in the way how our Organizations operate, particularly when assisting countries.

Lobbying groups like the Cordoba one, suffer of the same problem: very positive initiative but because they are not anchored with the organizations, they risk to remain a cry in the desert.

In certain way this is the same risk for some highly visible positions, like the one of the Special Rapporteur to the Right to Food.

Last, but not least, as already said, we (internal officers), individually we do not go anywhere.

JOINING FORCES is therefore a must.

Towards what?

Globally speaking, the persons we are approaching already share the basic diagnostic of this world food and peasant crisis, so the point is NOT to join in order to discuss the origins of the crisis, but WHAT CAN BE DONE, through our common action(s) in order to have an incidence on that.

So the proposal is to join in order to start thinking in terms of action(s). The themes are there: Family Farming, Food security/sovereignty, Land, Biodiversity, Gender, just to name them.

From this (still generic) initial agenda, the first step is to promote a meeting with the Special Rapporteur, representatives of the Cordoba group, including representative of peasant organizations and eventually some other relevant person (I’m thinking about people like Marcel Mazoyer, Miguel Altieri...). The scope of this meeting would be: first to confirm that we agree on those basic principles (like those in red in this text) and others to be identified; second to start brainstorming about the philosophical way through of the group (in my opinion this means thinking in terms of asymmetries of power and the need to occupy spaces, positions when and where they become available in the organisations, in order to enhance our positions and capacity to interfere with the global agenda); third, preliminary working arrangements (including group membership, relationships with others ...).

The first appointment would be for us to have a coffee together the second half of November. This draft is just to kick off the discussion and to invite all of us to think who else could be interested on this.