
Agnieszka Wolny-Hamkało: When preparing to write "Anna In in the catacombs", did you research the original sources and the location?
Olga Tokarczuk: Writing this short book was a completely new experience. Firstly, I had a very clear outline of the novel. Of course there were holes in it, in some places it was unintelligible, but nevertheless it was there. I also had the feeling that my writer's ego would have to be kept on a tight rein, that I'd have to treat myself as an instrument to transmit this story to the present day. But on the other hand to transmit to the present day would be to transmit this ancient myth via my own sensitivity and temperament. There is no other way to do it. In a certain sense my role was to serve the story. I tried to make use of all my knowledge. So I did what for me was a fair amount of 'research', although this word is not quite right. It was rather searching, full of enthusiasm, for anything that had a link with Inanna, with the Sumerians, with mythology, with the psychology of myth in general. I funded a little research project of my own and even if only a small amount of it found itself on paper, I still really enjoyed this literary archaeology.
You started as a poet and you still pay very close attention to language. In "Anna In" the language is unusually metaphorical, substantial.
I still think, rather old-fashionedly, that language is always only a tool for opening boxes of images. My temperament is prosaic, I feel as if storytelling has its own energy, which can manage to soar by itself and is sometimes independent of the author. It's the whole pleasure of writing. I tried to ensure a rhythm was present, which again was part of doing justice to the language of the original text, which was undoubtedly intended to be recited and sung.
The men in your book are not portrayed very encouragingly: cowardly, weak, capricious. The women direct the fate of the world. Again people will conclude that Tokarczuk is a feminist.
We should remember, that this is one of the oldest myths we know of. One could suppose that it relates the transitional moment in the history of civilisation, when the matriarchal structure of society was replaced with the patriarchal. Of course it was a long process. So we have in the story of Inanna the remains of primeval beliefs, when the world was ruled by Goddesses – Magna Mater – and people lived on primitive agriculture. It is said that about 5,000 years before our era a great change took place, that the population grew so much that the environment was not able to sustain them. Shepherding appeared, people started to migrate to find pastures, and met with other peoples, with whom they fought over land. The world of the Goddesses became anachronistic, and couldn't find a place for itself in this new situation, their role being taken over by more aggressive, male deities. The female deities turned into demons, witches and monsters, and women deprived of divine protection started to fill subordinate functions, and this process has really continued to modern times. In Christianity for 1500 years it was considered that women didn't have souls. Souls were finally granted to us at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. The myth of Inanna relates the tensions of the former civilisation during a period of transition. And it's true – my interpretation is in a certain sense an attempt at a feminist restoration.
The book is a futuristic fantasy. Stanisław Lem would be enchanted!
Absolutely, it has aspects of fantasy, of cyberpunk. I associate it with a kind of literary graphic novel. The action is fast paced, the characters are vivid.
What did your imagination draw on to produce such an unusual book?
My inspiration came from the beautiful original Sumerian texts. It's great literature. My first way into it was originally the Epic of Gilgamesh, the moving story of a failed attempt to overturn the divine order, in which every living thing is condemned to death. Both of these stories, of Inanna and then later of Gilgamesh, show us people who lived thousands of years ago, but differ from us, fundamentally, very little.
