Hay Festival Suspends Its Event In Havana / 14ymedio, Yaiza Santos

Wendy Guerra was among Cubans excluded from the Havana Hay Festival as reported by artists in exile. (Casa de America)
Wendy Guerra was among Cubans excluded from the Havana Hay Festival as reported by artists in exile. (Casa de America)

14ymedio bigger14ymedio, Yaiza Santos, Mexico, 21 January 2016 – For now, Cuba will not celebrate the Hay Festival planned for this coming week in Havana, as confirmed by the event organizers. The Hay Festival originated in the Welsh town of Hay-on-Wye in 1988, and since 1996 has been celebrated in several foreign cities, among them Kells (Ireland), happening now, Segovia (Spain), Mexico City, Arequipa (Peru) and Cartagena de Indias (Colombia).

The news that the Cuban capital would host a Hay Festival event as a part of the Hay Festival in Cartagena was announce in the first week of December, along with the controversy that accompanied that announcement. According to complaints from artists in exile, the festival organizers had proposed names of Cuban authors, among them Wendy Guera, Ena Lucia Portela and Yoani Sanchez, but “the pressure on the organizers from the Ministry of Culture finally forced them to not be included in the program.” Another source said that the organization simply accepted “an official list” that was presented to them. continue reading

Asked about the issue, the Hay Festival organization flatly refused to accept any kind of censorship, saying that the program in Havana was not closed, and that although there was still no final guest list, conversations with the Cuban Book Institute went “very well.” Cristina Fuentes, director of the Hay Festival for Latin America said, “We have suggested foreign participants, talking with Cubans and the suggestions are all first-rate.” She emphasized, “There is no censorship nor problems right now.”

On 24 December the Cuban News Agency (ACN) reported that the Havana Hay Festival would take place on 25-26 January. Quoting Jesus David Curbelo, the director of the Dulce Maria Loynaz Cultural Center and “one of the organizers of the event for Cuba,” the ACN confirmed that it was, ”just an experiment” and that there would be “two key events: literary workshops in the morning and author talks in the afternoon.”

The international guest list included Daniel Mordzinski, Andrés Trapiello, Jon Lee Anderson, Guadalupe Nettel and Hanif Kureishi, while Cuban guests included Pedro Juan Gutiérrez, Antón Arrufat, Mirta Yáñez, Reynaldo González, Marilyn Bobes, Dazra Novak and Rafael Grillo. Conspicuous by their absence were authors living in Cuba who had participated in other versions of the Hay Festival, such as Wendy Guerra, Ena Lucia Portela and Yoani Sanchez.

In addition, the ACN mentioned that the Hay Festival was being promoted by Bogota 39, an initiative that in 2009 brought together 39 young Latin American writers under 40, “all with one or more works published and read in their countries, but unknown beyond their borders,” forgetting that one of these was Wendy Guerra.

An official cable echoed the Spanish agency EFE, and hence, the Mexican newspaper El Universal and the Colombian magazine Arcadia. However, the Hay Festival did not comment publicly and insisted to 14ymedio, “The program is not yet closed.” Their idea, they said, was “to start with something very small and grow,” adding, “We don’t have to include all the Cuban authors the first year.”

By that time the controversy had jumped to the social networks. The Twitter account @HayFestivalCuba, now cancelled, denounced the planned event, saying “No to censorship at the Havana Hay Festival.” Some tweets were directed to the guests themselves according to the list published by the official press, such as the journalist Jon Lee Anderson and the writer Hanif Kureishi. Also participating in the exchanges on Twitter were the Mexican musician Armando Vega Gil, and the Barcelona writer Lolita Bosch.

This Tuesday, Cristina Fuentes told 14ymedio that the Hay Festival has postponed the project in Havana. “It is complicated for a number of reasons and we are going to leave it for another year,” she said, without clarifications. In a more extensive message, she said: “The organization of an event like this can only be done if the conditions are right for its realization, which could not be guaranteed, so we are not going to go forward with the project. It is because of this that our organization is not announcing, right now, the scheduling of this series of events on the island.” Fuentes concluded, “We would love to work in Cuba and hope it will be possible in the future.”

Defined as a non-profit company, the Hay Festival aims, according to its website, for the “dissemination of literature at local and international levels to promote dialogue and cultural exchange, education and development”, but has not been without controversy. In February 2015, it canceled the event that had been held in Xalapa, Veracruz since 2011, after pressure from Mexican intellectuals who denounced the partisan use of the festival by the government of Veracruz, and noted that 11 journalists had been killed and four others had disappeared in that Mexican state.

Rafael Rojas: “The Cuban Regime Seeks A 2018 Generational Shift Without Democratization” / 14ymedio, Yaiza Santos

The historian Rafael Rojas. (Rodolfo Valtierra / courtesy)
The historian Rafael Rojas. (Rodolfo Valtierra / courtesy)

14ymedio bigger14ymedio, Yaiza Santos, Mexico, 11 September 2015 — Rafael Rojas (b. Santa Clara, 1965) has published Historia mínima de la revolución cubana (A Brief History of the Cuban Revolution) in Mexico, where he has lived for the last twenty years. In fewer than 200 pages, the historian covers the events on the island between 1952, when Fulgencio Batista’s dictatorship was established, and 1976, the date of the Constitution adopted by the National Assembly of Peoples Power, which institutionalized the process of change initiated in 1959, plus a brief introduction about Cuba since its declaration of independence.

Rojas spoke with 14ymedio, not only of Cuba’s past but also about the island’s present and possible future.

Yaiza Santos. This book serves to demystify certain episodes magnified by Revolutionary propaganda and to recover other episodes that were buried. What “demystified” moments would you highlight?

Rafael Rojas. I would start with the vision of the old regime, totally negative, which the official history has transmitted: that of a neocolonial nation that has no sovereignty, is poor, underdeveloped, backward, authoritarian… over a time covering almost half a century, without distinction of periods. continue reading

The first chapter of the book is a reconstruction of Cuba prior to the Revolution, which speaks of the high rates of economic growth; of high social indicators, including the high rate of literacy compared with other Latin American countries; the great development of per capita consumption; and also the level of cultural and political development. And, also, the Cuban State’s elements of sovereignty.

I think it is always important to emphasize the degree of autonomy it once had in international relations. For example, the Authentic Party government, subsequent to the Constitution of 1940, created an alliance with Latin American governments engaged in what is called “Revolutionary nationalism,” very much in the Mexican tradition. It was a foreign policy that was not subordinated to the politics of the United States.

This contradicts Cuba’s current foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez, when he said in Washington that “the United States and Cuban have never had normal relations.” He spoke there about the Platt Amendment, which he said was imposed by a military occupation, but that is not true: the Cuban Congress approved it in 1901. Nor did he mention, as Fidel Castro traditionally did in his speeches, that the amendment was repealed in 1934 as a consequence of a nationalist revolution in 1933 that created a democracy quite advanced for Latin America. I detail that: the 1940 Constitution, the 1943 Electoral Code, which is also very advanced, and the whole social policy of the Authentic Party government, including the first Batista government.

“The first chapter is a reconstruction of Cuba prior to the Revolution, which speaks of the high rates of economic and social growth”

Yaiza Santos. In addition to the plurality of parties and the press…

Rafael Rojas. That of the media is fundamental. The Batista dictatorship wouldn’t have fallen without the decisive intervention of the media and public opinion. The most widely read magazine in Cuba was Bohemia, which also circulated in Latin America. They magazine undertook a tremendous defense of Fidel Castro when he was imprisoned on the Isle of Pines and beyond.

Yaiza Santos. Another thing that has been forgotten: at the beginning of the Revolution there was still free opinion.

Rafael Rojas. I would say for the first two years. At the end of the 1960s the media was nationalized, although there are some that continued, such as EL Mundo or Revolución, until 1965, when Granma newspaper was created and the other newspapers were eliminated.

Yaiza Santos. Something very powerful in the Cuban case is how it managed to put itself at the center of the world.

Rafael Rojas. In the middle of the Cold War. A totally deliberate thing. The audacity of Cuba’s revolutionary leaders in placing an island of the Hispanic Caribbean a few miles from the United States in the middle of the Cold War through an alliance with the socialist camp… It was quite an operation! And it subjected Cuba to all the possible tensions of the Cold War, with all the disastrous consequences.

The audacity of Cuba’s revolutionary leaders in placing an island of the Hispanic Caribbean a few miles from the United States in the middle of the Cold War…”

Yaiza Santos. What would the whole continent have been had it not had that bastion there, which radiated and still radiates today?

Rafael Rojas. I think that the history of Cuba would have been quite different. It would have moved toward a regime with authoritarian elements, like every revolution, but it would have been very difficult to create a single party. Certainly a hegemonic party, PRI-like, but not unique, and there would have been greater public freedoms. Not to mention that Cuban economic development would have continued the course that began in the 1940s.

Yaiza Santos. You’re a big supporter of the resestablishment of relations between Cuba and the United States, and this has provoked opinions, especially in the exile in Miami. What do you think will happen now?

Rafael Rojas. To start, from a point of view strictly of relations with the United States, normalization does not imply, to my way of thinking, a reinforcement or uncritical legitimization–without tensions, without conflicts–of the Cuban regime. I believe that what it will imply is that the traditional policy of the United States toward Cuba changes directions, methods, without losing certain basic premises, such as the defense of democracy, the rejection of violations of human rights or the rejection of repression.

I don’t think that the United States will discard these premises of its foreign policy. That doesn’t mean that with the opening of embassies a transition to democracy will automatically be achieved. I think that is a slightly magnified view.

With regards to the economic question, the reestablishment of relations with the United States reinforces the elements of state capitalism that have been created in Cuba and will consolidate a new economic class which, as we know, is very interwoven with the military sectors. Of that I have no doubt: this military corporate caste is strengthened with the reestablishment of relations.

But there could also be an element that encourages the emergence of small and medium private business with national capital that is not totally subordinated to the military corporate caste. At the same time, I think that this reestablishment of relations and the integration of Cuba into the international community will greatly activate the civil society on the island.

That doesn’t mean that with the opening of embassies a transition to democracy will automatically be achieved. I think that is a slightly magnified view

Yaiza Santos. And on the part of the Government? Will there be people in the Communist Party who are already thinking about what will happen next?

Rafael Rojas. In fact the official political agenda already provides for the idea of a succession of powers in February 2018. Raul has said many times: he will leave the presidency then, and he has said that the succession would favor the new generations. That would mean a generational transfer of the Chief of State, without democratizing the political system. The regime will remain the same from the institutional point of view: a single party, control of the media, control of civil society, penalization of the opposition – it is this status of illegitimacy of the opposition that justifies, through the laws and the penal code, all the beatings, repudiations, abuses, short-term detentions… Everything we see on the weekends.

But that’s where other actors get involved: there is a real opposition in Cuba, there is a civil society that can gain autonomy and there is an international community that does not ignore the violation of human rights. Starting with the US State Department itself: in its latest global report on human rights the criticisms of Cuba are harsh, and in the diplomatic notes that have been exchanged between the two governments throughout the negotiation, they have almost always mentioned the cases of repression, from the beating of Antonio Rodiles to the harassment of the Ladies in White, and the situation of El Sexto. This isn’t going to go away; the State Department will be in better shape to negotiate with its allies a more effective policy on human rights in Cuba.

“There are sectors of the Government, the State and the Party who have been interacting with reformist intellectuals in recent years”

Yaiza Santos. Is there a figure within the Cuban government who can lead a transition to democracy?

Rafael Rojas. Right now, I don’t see one, but it’s clear that there are sectors of the government, the State and the Party that have had relationships with reformist intellectuals in recent years and who have shown sympathy for some of the reform projects. For example, one reform that leads to a new law of associations, that permits greater development of non-governmental organizations or of autonomous organizations, which I believe would favor the opposition. Or a new electoral law that eliminates the candidate fees and that would allow truly independent candidates, outside State institutions, to present themselves for election and achieve a place in the National Assembly.

Clearly, there are not figures who define themselves from an openly reformist position, because political reform continues to be largely taboo within the regime and it is something that we can say is deliberately delayed by Raul Castro’s government.

Now, I think we will see a diversification of the ruling political class, especially after 2018.

Yaiza Santos. How will the exile be integrated into this process of normalization?

Rafael Rojas. It is very difficult to respond to that question. There is a sector of the exile, that which has been more integrated with the associations and political institutions of the United States, which feels betrayed by the Obama administration. While there are other sectors who don’t follow this line. Very probably we will also see a diversification within the exile.

I think the stigmatization of the opposition permeates a part of the population

My main criticism is that in my judgment, unfortunately, a sector of the internal opposition is frequently subordinates itself to this agenda of resistance to the reestablishment of relations. And then I do think, unlike my colleagues in Miami, that the opposition is a minority.

The vast majority of the Cuban people in effect has elements of disenchantment with the official positions of the Cuban government, and for the most part looks forward to a greater connection to the world. The Bendixen poll is impressive in this regard: 97% of Cubans support reestablishment of relations and Barack Obama got a 80% approval rating compared to 47% for Raul and 44% for Fidel. But I would also say that the Cuban government’s smear campaign against the opposition has been successful. We see it in the lack of solidarity with Tania Bruguera, in the constant support for acts of repudiation, and in the beatings. I think the stigmatization of the opposition permeates a part of the population.

Juan Abreu: “Executions in Cuba Are an Untold Story” / 14ymedio, Yaiza Santos

Juan Abreu: ‘1959. Fall from Grace,’ fragment (oil on canvas, 38 x 46 cm)
Juan Abreu: ‘1959. Fall from Grace,’ fragment (oil on canvas, 38 x 46 cm)

14ymedio bigger14ymedio, Yaiza Santos, Mexico, 27 June 2015 – Painter and writer Juan Abreu (b. Havana, 1952) has taken on the inordinate task of painting, one by one, all those executed by the Castro regime. The work in progress is entitled 1959 but encompasses 2003, the year in which Lorenzo Capello, Barbaro Sevilla and Jorge Martinez were sentenced to death in a summary trial, accused of “acts of terrorism” after trying to reroute a passenger ferry to escape to the United States.They were the last executed by the Cuban government. “Let it be known,” says Abreu.

The project emerged, he says, recently, by chance: “I was doing some paintings that had to do with shootings in Cuba, because I was struck by the character, the loner that they are going to kill. I had seen some paintings by Marlene Dumas of Palestinians and then I approached the subject. When I started researching, suddenly the faces of all these people began to appear. I began to look at the faces and read, and suddenly I realized that I was going to have to paint this. Not only as a kind of pictorial adventure, which it is, because of the quantity of portraits and the complexity of the genre, but also because it seems to me that I have a certain moral responsibility.” continue reading

Juan Abreu: ‘1959. Carlos Baez’ (born in 1937, shot in 1965), fragment (oil on canvas, 27 x 35 cm)
Juan Abreu: ‘1959. Carlos Baez’ (born in 1937, shot in 1965), fragment (oil on canvas, 27 x 35 cm)

Of the executions in Cuba, he continues, “It is an untold story. Not only untold, but also they have tried to hide it, and when they have spoken of it, the effort has always been to discredit the protagonists, branded as outlaws or murderers. These accusations lack any kind of historical evidence. They were people who rebelled, the same as Fidel Castro against Batista, they against Fidel Castro.”

The death penalty, explains Abreu, was not contemplated in the 1940 Constitution which the Revolution originally claimed it would restore: “They [the Castro regime] imposed it. The trials completely lacked any kind of safeguard. Sometimes even the lawyer spoke worse of the condemned than the prosecutor did. They were Soviet-style trials: you already knew you were guilty as soon as they caught you; you knew that they were going to kill you or put you in jail for thirty years.”

In order to gather as much information as possible, he contacted some of the few people who have devoted themselves to the topic in the United States, like Maria Werlau, from the Cuba Archive, or Luis Gonzales Infante, a former political prisoner who sent Abreu his book Rostros/Faces, where he compiles names and photos of those dead by execution, from hunger strike or in combat during the El Escambray uprising, those seven years that historians like Rafael Rojas consider a civil war and that Fidel Castro called a “fight against bandits.”

Evilio-Abreu-Gonzalez-Oil-cmsJPG_CYMIMA20150625_0014_16

Other documents he has found easily on the Internet, like videos from the period and photographs from the free press that still existed in Cuba when the Revolution triumphed. Hence, the executions of Enrique Despaigne, doubled over by two shots at the edge of a ditch, or Cornelio Rojas, whose hat flew together with his brains against the execution wall. Abreu confesses that what impacted him most was “the gruesomeness and cruelty” of some of the cases.

Like that of Antonio Chao Flores, who at 16 years of age fought against Batista – the magazine Bohemia had him on its cover as a hero of the Revolution – and at 18 years of age he fought against Castro, and was required to drag himself from his cell in the La Cabana fortress to the execution wall without the leg he had lost in combat because the guard took his crutches from him. “It is from the savagery of the system’s punishment mechanism that one feels fury that all this that has happened has been forgotten. If I was Chilean or Argentinean, this would immediately demand attention.”

Abreu says that the project is becoming gigantic and that he cannot stop. For now, he has painted some twenty of the 6,000 total that he estimates were executed in Cuba in that almost half-century. Via a Youtube video [see below] he seeks photographs from all who may be aware of any victim.

No one has answered him from Cuba – “There, to have a relative who was a prisoner or who had been shot, was anathema, because of the amount of false propaganda against them” – but people have answered him from the United States. For example, one sent him the photograph of her neighbor in Cuba, whom she knew from childhood, who used to greet her kindly and whom she eventually learned was made a prisoner and executed. It was when media control was complete, and an absolute silence, when propaganda was not served, covered these kinds of cases.

“The death penalty in Cuba has always been used as a means of social threat. When they ask me, “But why has the regime lasted so long?” I answer: It has lasted for many reasons, but among them because it is a system that kills. You know that they will kill you. And there is no safeguard: There is no judge or lawyer who can defend you, and if they decide that you have to be killed, they will kill you. And if you do anything against the system, they will kill you. Death is a very effective deterrent.”

Juan Abreu: ‘1959. Man Alone,’ fragment (oil on canvas, 35 x 27 cm, collection of Carles Enrich)
Juan Abreu: ‘1959. Man Alone,’ fragment (oil on canvas, 35 x 27 cm, collection of Carles Enrich)

Forged by the generation of his friends Reinaldo Arenas and Rene Ariza, Abreu says that “kind of strange fury” that he feels about Cuba has not abandoned him since he left the Island with the Mariel Boatlift, and that after so many years, he has decided to stop fighting it. “Towards Reinaldo (Arenas), for example, it seemed to me a great betrayal. In our last conversation, two or three days before he killed himself, we were talking about that precisely, and he told me, ‘Up to the last minute. Our war with those people is to the last breath of life.’ It surprised me a little why he was saying that to me, but of course, he already had his plans. Maybe I like lost causes, but I will continue infuriated.”

By way of poetic revenge, he hopes that his project 1959 – which he calls “completely insane” – ends up one day in a museum. “Because a hundred years from now, when no one remembers who Fidel Castro was, these paintings will be here and people will say, ‘And what about these, so pretty?’ And that, truthfully, is very comforting.”

Translated by Mary Lou Keel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDmzdQFbBtE#t=101

“Literature Does Not Matter. Many Other Things In Cuba Matter More” / 14ymedio, Yaiza Santos

David Miklos, Ahmel Echevarría and Carlos Alberto Aguilera inthe meeting organized by CIDE in Mexico City. (14ymedio)
David Miklos, Ahmel Echevarría and Carlos Alberto Aguilera inthe meeting organized by CIDE in Mexico City. (14ymedio)

14ymedio bigger14ymedio, Yaiza Santos, Mexico, 22 June 2015 – The Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE) in Mexico City organized from 16 to 18 June, the meeting “Poetics of the Present: Narrating Cuba 1956 to 2015,” opened by critic Christopher Domínguez Michael and closed by the journalist Homero Campa. It was a meeting between young writers living on the island and intellectuals of the same generation living in exile.

The first group included the narrators Jorge Enrique Lage and Ahmel Echevarria, members of what has been called “Generation Zero” of Cuban literature; for the second there was Walfrido Dorta, a researcher of the City University of New York,Waldo Perez Cino, an editor living in Leiden (Netherlands), and the poet, novelist and essayist Carlos Alberto Aguilera, co-founder of the journal Diaspora(s), who is currently living in Prague.

At the end of the session, in which  the Mexican writer David Miklos and the Cuban historian living in Mexico Rafael Rojas also participated, 14ymedio spoke with five special guests. Their answers are a sample of the different approaches and fruitful dialogue that took place during those three days. continue reading

14ymedio, Yaiza Santos. In a society where the free market exists, the relationship between writers and readers can clearly be seen, for example, in how many books are sold. Those of you on the island, how do you observe your relationship with your readers?

Jorge Enrique Lage. I don’t observe. But it is because there is no physical media in Cuba, no space for criticism. There is no infrastructure that allows you to think in those terms: has my book sold, how successful has it been… I don’t expect criticism, and the feedback with readers comes when you talk to them. But reading reviews or knowing that all the books sold in a bookstore, I’m oblivious.

Nor do I care. Because the problem of lack of space is critical, but not for literature. Literature doesn’t matter. It is critical for everything else. Lacking space for journalism, truthful journalism, current commentaries on politics and economics. And when there is space for all that, it will at some point include space for literary criticism.

Ahmel Echevarria. I think this relationship is mostly displayed in the presentation of a book, and a literary activity or simply in a party with friends, because I don’t believe that at the level of the State – well, to call it the State is to say everything, because everything belongs to the State – there are devices that are analyzing that.

When the book fair is analyzed statistically, there are numbers that I’m not very sure reflect what actually happens: there are a number of people attending the book fair, but in reality, of those hundreds or thousands of people, how many people are consuming literature? So, like Jorge, I don’t expect this statistic for me. What interests me in thinking about literature, making literature, is having fun, talking with friends, and the rest, if it comes it comes.

Question. Has nothing changed with the digital landscape? I think, for example, that you, some on the island, some outside, as has been mentioned in this symposium, keep in touch via the Internet.

Carlos Alberto Aguilera. It is that one doesn’t write for the readers. Who are the readers? The readers don’t exist. I’m not saying that a reader doesn’t exist, that head that can connect with your literature and in some way is going to understand it or recycle it, or do something with it.

This happens in very determined micro-communities. But they are not the readers. There is no way to write for the readers: it is too large a mass, too heterogeneous. If my book can sell or not, it’s not a question for me: it’s a question for the publisher. It doesn’t interest me, and it has never been a constraint to the way I write.

“That what we call Cuban literature, the less Cuban it is, and the less literature as an institution is, the better.”

Waldo Pérez Cino. I agree totally with Aguilera, but invert the point of view: he says for an author, the readers don’t exist, but for the readers, the authors do exist. And from this point of view, the Internet has produced a kind of de-territorialization, of circulation of the book, of circulation of texts, and of the way the visibility of authors circulates. What Carlos said is true, but if you look at it in reverse, effectively there is a chance for the readers, for those potential readers, who even when they have not read a particular author, they can identify a name, a mark of style or an attachment. Thirty years ago, it would probably have been impossible to circulate references to as many authors as today.

Walfrido Dorta. Look, right now I’m reading the last column of Gilberto Padilla in On Cuba, which is just about online literature and the phenomena of literature produced starting only from what the reader asks for. A model totally opposite to that offered by Aguilera. Padilla speaks of those teenagers who write novelas in installments and continue with what their readers are asking for. With this, clearly, online literature is moving in diametrically opposed patterns.

Question. What specific thing would you like to happen tomorrow, for example, to improve the state of Cuban literature?

Carlos Alberto Aguilera. Which was totally destroyed. Seriously. I think that what we call Cuban literature, the less Cuban it is, and the less literature as an institution is, the better.

Walfrido Dorta. That there would be independent publishers. That the State not be the only source of any kind of initiative. That will greatly threaten the state of things. Beyond that, improving writing, and in terms of intellectual networks, this is the first thing that will have to fade into the past.

Jorge Enrique Lage. I would not ask for anything. Literature is one of the centers of my life, but in Cuba there are so many things lacking, that to ask something for literature would be irresponsible. Literature doesn’t matter. Many other things in Cuba matter now, and we are talking of thousands, millions of people, for whom literature in their lives means nothing and they need so many other things.

So I would separate Cuban literature in relation to the “Change” [in the Cuban political system]. I see it as two separate spheres: although at some point they connect, but literature has nothing to do with the Change. The Change is for other reasons, other needs.

In Cuba, many things other than literature matter now, there are millions of people for whom literature in their lives means nothing and they need so many other things.

Ahmel Echevarria. For me, if anything, that they fix the streets.

Waldo Pérez Cino. I think that for literature, neither for the Cuban nor the Icelander, you cannot do anything institutionally. Literature is what is, or it is not what it is not, period. It exists to the extent that it is written, and that it is produced. What could be done, perhaps, is for distribution (or circulation, although that’s used more for periodicals than books), but, well, that would not be for literature. And much less for literature marked with a national seal.

Question. For those who live outside Cuba, do you see yourselves returning to Cuba, living in Cuba, working in Cuba, at some point?

Walfrido Dorta. No, not right now. But to throw stones at yourself is irresponsible and uncertain, then I don’t know. One has very fresh in one’s mind the limitations, the traumas, and the impediments that are still there; they weigh heavily when it comes time to decide.

Waldo Pérez Cino. In my case, at least, a “final” return, to use a Cuban government adjective – “final” exit – no, I don’t see it at all. But I can perfectly imagine, not now, but indeed in the future, a kind of coming and going, of in some way being in Cuba, of spending seasons in Cuba and seasons outside.

Walfrido Dorta. When one hears the question, you think now about the “final,” which was my answer. Coming and going, yes, I see it, clearly. Because for example, if one chooses an academic career in the United States, the links with Cuban institutions are almost inevitable.

Carlos Alberto Aguilera. If you are talking about something final, it is not a question I ask myself, and it is not something final… I have never been back, and I have refused to be published inside Cuba, even in journals I admire, such as “La Noria,” as long as there is this regime. And it is a personal question. If I see myself returning to Cuba, coming and going, I think I would only go to Cuba if the worst happens – my mom lives in Cuba – otherwise, no.