Miodrag Majić, writer and judge of the Court of Appeal in Belgrade, before his visit to the Bansko dvor, in an interview for Mondo, talked about the new book, the readers’ reactions so far, but also the criminalization of defamation – a current topic in the Republika Srpska.
On Saturday (March 18 at 7 p.m.) Majić will promote his own at the Banski dvor in Banja Luka the third novel “Rudnik”.
His previous novels “Deca zla” and “Pelican Island” were hugely successful and are among the best-selling titles in Serbia, as well as in the Republic of Srpska.
Majić does not hesitate to publicly express his views, which does not help him to hide from sometimes unwanted political and media attention. Britak in his works, but also in his language, does not leave readers indifferent. He transferred his knowledge acquired during his career in the field of law into stories that maintain suspense from the first page to the last.
– The novel “Rudnik” is very different from your previous works. The very beginning and the end leave a lot of room for how the reader will understand the story. Unlike the characters from the previous novels, we first feel antipathy towards the main character, and through the further action we take his side. Are readers responding the way you envisioned when you wrote it? Did anything surprise you in their perception?
When I write, I have no expectations when it comes to the reader’s perception. The only thing I always wish for is an engaged, dedicated reader who will approach the reading unencumbered by prejudices. “Rudnik” is an unusual, controversial novel and tackles a topic that can be uncomfortable for many societies. I am happy that the reactions so far have been mostly positive.
Most readers seem to have understood and accepted the message the novel is sending, even though the title of the novel may have misled them at first. Of course, there are also those who expected something else and who like the unexpected twist in the story less. But it is completely understandable and legitimate. As in life, in literature we don’t all like the same things and we react differently to stimuli. Once it is published, the text ceases to be the property of the author and becomes fully the property of the readers and their view of the offered story. That’s why I listen to both positive and negative reviews with equal excitement. These are all different readings and versions of my work.
– When you get readers used to high expectations, as was the case with the previous two novels that were among the best-selling titles, do you feel pressure when you write a new book?
I try not to think about it at all. One question I always ask myself is whether the story I’m telling is worth telling. I try to offer the reader a story every time that will make him think, maybe even to a different view of things than the one he had until then. I do all this while making sure that I respect his time as much as possible. Someone who takes my novel is ready to spend several days on it. This is a big investment, especially today. I always set myself the task of using that time together in the best possible way.
– When creating a new story, do the old characters live in your thoughts and can you recognize some characteristics of Nikola Bobić (“Children of Evil”) or Pavel Dedijer (“Pelican Island”) in Bogdan Banjac (“The Mine”)?
Maybe readers recognize them, but for me they are completely different personalities who live separate and different lives. What perhaps connects them is that hunger for justice. All of them at some point in their lives were forced to fight for their own piece of truth and freedom. That’s what unites them. But on the other hand, they lead this struggle in their own appropriate ways, which are quite different.
– Nikola Bobić, the hero of your first novel fights against the corrupt judiciary, while, for example, Bogdan from the last one, against a conglomerate supported by the money of the powerful. Through novels and as a writer, do you try to create the same situation as in the career of a judge, where you fight for reforms in the judiciary? Are they the way you want to try to make society aware, warn them and cause change?
My novels are engaging and I don’t shy away from that. Through the stories I tell, I try to wake up the reader, to confront him with the image of society that he may have covered up a long time ago, and at the same time to offer him hope that the freedom he lightly gave up is possible. Literature is an extremely powerful weapon when it comes to pointing out social anomalies. A writer’s word reaches a large number of people and if properly directed can move them. First on the level of thought, and later on the level of action. I see that every day in meetings with readers.
I understand writers who stay away from burning, current topics and who write about social problems from a sufficient historical distance. However, I am not one of them. All that I see around me and all that I experience forces me to adapt my own writing to reality. To do otherwise would be unnatural for me.
– In Srpska, the focus of interest is currently the return of defamation to the criminal code. At one time, the Minister of Justice of Republika Srpska, explaining his reasons, made a parallel, explaining that the same law exists in Serbia. However, defamation was decriminalized in Serbia in 2012. As a writer and a lawyer, how do you view defamation? Should it be listed in the criminal code?
Unfortunately, I did not manage to sufficiently monitor the events in the Republika Srpska on this occasion. In Serbia, defamation was decriminalized as a result too frequent and unjustified use of this criminal act, in the first place in proceedings against journalists. Not infrequently, this work was abused in order to stifle the freedom of the press. Journalists were exhausted by countless procedures in which they would prove the accuracy of their own claims, and all of this consequently had a significant impact on the otherwise fragile independence of the media in these areas. In this sense, it seems that, even though the situation in terms of freedom of movement is still extremely bad, decriminalization has made things somewhat easier in our country.
On the other hand, the fact is that our public speech has been degraded and corrupted to such an extent that, in the absence of this type of reaction, it is necessary to find other mechanisms to protect individuals from the unpunished spread of falsehoods about them by irresponsible and uneducated people. In areas with a more pronounced democratic tradition, corrective measures such as public condemnation or political responsibility come into play here, but, unfortunately, all of this is missing here. I am of the opinion that, therefore, in the coming period, adequate ways should be found so that responsibility for knowingly untruthful words, after the abolition of the criminal law reaction, would still not be completely absent.
(WORLD)