Fact, Fiction and Testimonio

You need to know this first: We have a Finnish poet, a giant, a person who brought in modernism in the 50´s, and without whose name Finnish poetry cannot be mentioned. We also have a Finnish poetess, important and influential. Anyway, if the layout offers scarce space for any text about Finnish literature his name stays and hers will be omitted from it.

He is Paavo Haavikko. She is Eeva Kilpi.

- By the way, the Finnish language has long ago dropped out the genre differences of the type ´poet-poetess´, ´actor-actress´. Both Haavikko and Kilpi are referred to as ´runoilija´. If I used just their last names and the epithet ´runoilija´you would have no idea about the sex difference. Language does not make it, it is made somehow else.

Eeva Kilpi has a poem in which she refers to the difficulty of writing poetry. She defines her problem shortly and clearly: "Haavikko sanoi sen jo." "Haavikko has already said it."

Maybe you have sometimes faced a similar type of problem. Everyhting has already been said, done or invented.

The other day I dropped in into the city library. Once more, the librarians had chosen books to display at the end of the long shelves. One of them was Tunnustus and todistus (ISBN: 978-952-495-005-3), Confession and Testimony in English. Reading an article about Roberta Menchú invited my mind to visit my dear friend Lorena in Venezuela. Lorena is a specialist in realismo mágico.

The article I was reading referred to two texts. One is the original text Nimeni on Rigoberta (My name is Rigoberta, Burgos, Elizabeth (ed.), Spanish original 1983). The other one is an article Rigoberta Menchú and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans by David Stoll (1999).

In the book 23-year-old Rigoberta tells about her own life as it has been - and not only about her own life, but about the life of all poor people in Guatemala as it is. Stoll says that Rigoberta´s story cannot be the story of all poor Guatemalans. He also says that her story is not a story about the people fighting for their freedom and against centuries-old oppression. Instead her story is a story of the leftist groups fighting against the conservatives. It´s a political text.

Why would this be important and worth telling? Rigoberta offers us her story as an authentic description of what has taken place, what is true, what is normal among the poor in the country. However, Stoll points out that all she is telling has not taken place exactly in the way it is told. It could have taken place like that, but in fact it did not.

This brings into consideration, political, literary and philosophical viewpoints. The political discussion is centered on the controversy between the left and the right. The literary considerations refer to the difference between fact and fiction. As to the philosophical perspective Stoll says that the text is not true in the sense we in the west normally think of the truth. The fourth point is connected to this. And it is serious. Stoll namely points out is that Rigoberta´s story, her special testimonio, became a Kodak and a Xerox of the concept of testimonio. Rigoberta´s story happened to become the original story in accordance to which we have defined the whole concept of testimonio. In other words it started xeroxing testimonios.

If this took place in business life, it would mean the greatest possible marketing success. If your product name would be used as a generic name for all similar type of products, you would dance for joy. But now it happened in the field of research. It was scandalous. If you start doing research that should give true and objective results, the premises ought to be true and objective as well. Every one of us has learnt that at school. It is a rule.

The rule of the truth cannot be changed. So you have to change something else.

Maybe you have read texts similar to Rigoberta´s story. You have read novels and you have read anthropological case studies. The relationship between the reader, writer and the protagonist is different depending on whether you are reading a novel, an anthropological case study or a testimonio. The article written by Heikki Kujansivu claims that testimonio does not support the existing literary institute. It works outside it and against it. This must have some consequences. Maybe Lorena knows more about them...

Kujansivu says in his article that testimonio gained popularity, because North Americans had gradually got tired of the realismo mágico. If something becomes popular enough it cannot be pushed aside just like that. In the 60´s - 70´s Kuba decided to form a new category of literary prizes. Alongside fact and fiction they took the third category of testimonio.

A testimonio is a story of the size of a novel. The story is told by a protagonist who has been an eye-witness to some specific events or to a specific way of life. The story is told by the protagonist but it may be written down by somebody else, a researcher or a professional writer. The protagonist herself may be illiterate. This means that a testimonio as a literary form gives a voice to people who never had it before. When reading a testimony we are listening to somebody whose identity "contains" parts of the identity of some marginalized group. This means that we learn about normal life in some specific circumstances.

Maybe we should now ask where all - I really mean all - new things come from. As far as I know, they always come from somewhere outside, from the margin. Here, too, I mean always.

The interesting thing here is that normal in some specific circumstances equals margin in some other circumstances. All in all this is something we could be happy about, because no matter how much and how well Haavikko has said something, he never said it all. There is always something left for Eeva Kilpi and Rigoberta as well. If there is a centre, there is also something that can be defined as a margin. And that is where the New will come from.