Mediaboss Marketing

Montana State Rep. Zooey Zephyr is coming off a wild legislative session,one that ended with her being silenced. How does she feel now, after the session came to a close on May 2? Chin up, eyes forward to what comes next, she tellsTeen Vogue in a phone interview the following day.

On April 26, Montana conservatives made headlines for deciding to censure Zephyr. The reason given at the time was decorum.Teen Vogue spoke to Oklahoma Rep. Mauree Turner last week, who was censured nearly two months before Zephyr. (Zephyr and Turner are the first openly trans and openly nonbinary representatives in their states, respectively.) They are writing policy that will eradicate communities," Turner toldTeen Vogue. "That is what they are looking for: authoritarian rule and eradication of life. And you're worried about folks speaking up? That's not decorum for you?

View more

Following Zephyrs censure, 52 LGBTQ+ legislators from 19 states sent a letter of solidarity (coordinated by theState Innovation Exchange) to the State House leadership of both Montana and Oklahoma in support of both Zephyr and Turner. While it may be uncomfortable for some lawmakers to be confronted with public outcry and forthright debate, that is the purpose of the legislative process and the freedom your constituents and duly elected representatives inherently have in your state capitols and every state capitol in our nation, theletter reads, in part. As LGBTQ+ lawmakers, we refuse to be silenced.

Montana Rep. Zooey Zephyr.

A sense of decorum was certainly not what defined the coming days as Zephyr attempted to legislate from outside the chamber. She chose a bench to work from and on Monday morning,three older white women, who told the press they were related to Montana legislators (one of whomallegedly is the mother of the House speaker who targeted Zooey and is part of aconservative political dynasty in the state), occupied the bench, laughing, meaning Zephyr couldnt sit there. Anda New York Timesstory out today says the speaker, Matt Regier, after winning the title in a private caucus vote last fall, asked other women legislators if they were afraid to share a bathroom with Zephyr.

In response,Montanans worked together to protect the bench for Zephyr. Zephyr challenged the censure in court with the help of the ACLUand on May 2, a judge rejected Zephyrs attempt to return to the floor. The legislative session is over, but the impact of the last few weeks isnt. On Tuesday, both Zephyr and her girlfriend werethe victims of SWATting attempts (currentlyalso plaguing schools and colleges). The nation has not turned away from Montana, focusing a level of scrutiny that Zephyr couldnt possibly have prepared for.

Zephyr spoke toTeen Vogueabout Republican censorship and the support she's received.

This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Teen Vogue: The eyes of the nation have been on you. Youve experienced widespread support and also threats and harassment. How are you feeling?

Zooey Zephyr: We saw how willing folks on the right were to toss away democracy in order to achieve their goals [by censuring me] and I think when that happened the eyes of the world turned toward Montana and said,That is wrong. That is wrong likeit was wrong in Tennessee, its wrong likeit was wrong in Oklahoma. That is wrong and it is not the way our country should be run. That goes against everything our country stands for.

At that moment, it feels like there is an opening in the machinery of politics where change becomes possible. I feel a sense of community and drive that feels unprecedented, and I am excited and determined to make sure that I can be there to help folks as we try to stand together and make this a place we could be proud of, this place being Montana, and the country, as well.

TV: I want to ask about what looked like a really celebratory moment: When you returned to your constituents in Missoula andthey celebrated your strength and bravery in a show of solidarity, last Friday.

ZZ:On that Friday when I went back to Missoula, people saw what I've been saying: that I represent my community. Those are the people who sent me here and they were the ones demanding that their voices be heard in the Capitol. When I went home, I was rooting myself back in the community that I love and that I'm a part of.

I was overwhelmed with joy and love in a way I did not anticipate because as you move through something like the anti-democratic cruelties of this legislative body, you move so quickly and you rarely get time to sit back, reflect, and process your emotions and what's going on. That is doubly true for me more than doubly true in a moment where there's so much press and so much heightened awareness around Montana.

So I was going from, Okay, what am I going to do here? Okay, I show up and there are people on the benches, how am I going to respond to that? This action took place and that action took place. How am I going to make sure I'm talking to my legislative colleagues when they're in the room and I can't go in that room? How do I get my constituents' voices represented? You just are going and you do not have time to sit and reflect and process your emotions. When I showed up, as I walked out to my community, the moment I grabbed the microphone, theystarted chanting, Let her speak. And I started crying because I knew I was back home.

Someone posted that she could never have imagined the moment that a trans woman would walk onto a stage in broad daylight in public, in front of smatterings of community members, and receive that kind of welcome. I don't remember exactly what they said, but I think what that moment shows is what trans people have been saying again and again.

The laws that these legislators are passing do not reflect the general community's understanding or care for trans people. These laws do drum up fear around trans people and there are real threats of harm to our community by individuals who use phrases like groomer or pedophile, buy into that damaging rhetoric, and target us. But, by and large, trans people are just part of our communities: friends, neighbors, colleagues. What I have said from the beginning is you're never far from someone who is trans or someone who loves someone who is trans. And in Montana that is true, whether you are in a coffee shop, in an office space, or in the governor's mansion.

TV: Quite literally. (Editor's note:David Gianforte, the child of Montana governor Greg Gianforte,asked their father not to pass anti-LGBTQ+ legislationlast week. Gianforte is nonbinary.)

ZZ:When you're in a moment like this, all I'm trying to do is rise to the next moment, bear witness to what happens, stand by your values, hold those in power accountable when they harm people, and meet each moment as it comes. And when you do that, especially in a moment like this, the days and the weeks blur together.

TV: On the other end of things, youve really experienced multiple levels of cruelty and harassment, from the high school antics of your colleagues wives and possibly mothers filling your seat outside the chamber, to being swatted.

ZZ:We see again how far people will go to achieve their very cruel ideological goals. We see the speaker silence me on the floor and in doing so take away representation from my 11,000 constituents. We see the speaker try to remove me from the public space that I was allowed in. And then when I was able to stay in that public space, we see other people sitting there and filling the bench, as they are allowed to do, as is their prerogative, obviously.

When I walked around the corner and there were people on the benches, I carried on. I went to the next available open space because that does not bother me. I'm not concerned. I came there to do the work. That's on that side of things.

The swatting attempts are an extension of that. Extremists on the far right, both politically and as individuals, will go to extreme lengths to try to ensure that trans people who, again, are just trying to live our lives in peace and experience the joy that we get when we are allowed to transition in that pursuit of happiness, they will go to extremes to try to silence us or harm us. But we will not be deterred is what I said and what I will say a thousand times.

TV: Do you have any final thoughts for those across the country watching whats happening to you and your community?

ZZ:What you saw here in Montana and what you saw in Tennessee is that political leaders are rising up and saying these policies get our community killed. They're not letting themselves get crushed by the political machinery. They're standing up in defense of their communities, calling out real harm, and holding the powerful accountable. And what we also see is that's what peoplewantfrom their political leaders. They want people who will stand for democracy. They want people who will hold the powerful accountable.

People say that was courageous of you, that was so brave of you. It should be easy to stand and do the right thing when you're standing on the side of what is just and morally right, when you're standing on the right side of history. When people look at this moment here in Montana and across the country, they see a glimpse of what my state, what our country, could be if we collectively have the courage to stand up for democracy, stand up for what is right and just.

Going forward, I hope if they do feel that glimpse, that drive, and want to help, that they turn toward their communities, toward the places they call home, and say, What room is my voice needed in? What room can I make a difference in? And I hope they go there and I hope they're invited in. Otherwise, I hope they find a way into those rooms, make their voices heard, and together, we're going to change the world.

Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take.

Read more from the original source:
Montana Rep. Zooey Zephyr on Republican Censorship and Her Next Move - Teen Vogue

NEWBURYPORT Adam Laats, a professor of history and education at Binghamton University in New York, appears Thursday on The Morning Show.

Laats is the author of multiple books, including Creationism USA: Bridging the Impasse on Teaching Evolution (2020). He is an expert on cultural battles over education and school reform.

Earlier this year, the governor of Florida stirred up controversy when he blocked the first draft of an advanced placement African American studies course offered by the college board. A national discussion about political efforts to control the narrative of Black history has been ensuing ever since.

Laats will put this current discussion within the context of a lengthy American history of efforts to censor and control the teaching of Black history, starting immediately after the Civil War.

By making it unacceptable to teach the truth of Americas racial history, even when the facts are unambiguous, Laats said, the result is that students learn less, and often emerge feeling confused about the past.

The Morning Show airs Thursday at 9 a.m. on Channel 9 and WJOP FM 96.3, and livestreams on YouTube (at NCMHub.org). After broadcast, click Playlist on YouTube and scroll down.

View original post here:
Censorship of history featured on 'Morning Show' | News ... - The Daily News of Newburyport

Oklahomas Republican governor is on a crusade against "Clifford the Big Red Dog," the network that produces the animated children's show, and the local affiliate that airs it.

Last week, Gov. Kevin Stitt vetoed a bill that authorized funding the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority (OETA), which broadcasts PBS programming, through July 2026.

Republicans have targeted PBS funding for years, including Donald Trump during his presidency and Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate in 2012. Stitt appears to be seizing on a sordid political moment in the United States to advance that cause.

"I don't think Oklahomans want to use their tax dollars to indoctrinate kids," Stitt told reporters on Friday about his decision to veto the bill. "Some of the stuff that theyre showing just overly sexualizes our kids.

Here, Stitt seems to be winking at Republicans crusade against so-called groomers with his criticism of PBS, much like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is targeting Disney to push his anti-LGBTQ agenda.

Tulsa World on Friday laid out the Stitt administrations issues with PBS, and theyre just as bigoted as one might imagine.

To back up Stitts claims, a spokeswoman for the governor sent the Tulsa World information showing that OETA promoted LGBTQ-focused Pride Month programming in recent years. The spokeswoman also shared information indicating that two animated childrens cartoons 'Clifford the Big Red Dog' and 'Work It Out Wombats!' that air on PBS affiliates have included lesbian characters in some episodes. The spokeswoman also sent a Fox News article that criticizes a 'PBS Newshour' segment in which an Indiana couple talked about how gender-affirming care was beneficial for their daughter.

First of all, if you watch Clifford the Big Red Dog or Work It Out Wombats! and think, Gee, theres an awful lot of sexiness going on here, that sounds like a personal issue. But fundamentally, Stitts veto is nothing more than anti-LGBTQ government censorship.

And the governors cruelty is likely to impact Oklahomans in a major way. Just last year, Stitt vetoed more than $8 million in funding authorized for the OETA to improve its emergency alerting services, hampering the agencys effort to improve a tool it uses to notify residents including many in rural areas of local issues.

Stitt claimed he doesnt see a reason for public funding to go toward a broadcast network. And that stance has him at odds with some members of his own party in the state Legislature.

Multiple Oklahoma Republicans told Tulsa World they support OETA funding. That includes state Senate Pro Tem Greg Treat, who pointed to public broadcasting's key role in relaying emergency communications.

According to Tulsa World, the Legislature appears likely to override the veto, which would require a two-thirds majority in the Oklahoma House and state Senate.

Ja'han Jones is The ReidOut Blog writer.

See original here:
Oklahoma governor cutting PBS funds is anti-LGBTQ censorship - MSNBC

The big idea

From Lady Chatterleys Lover to novels about trans children, attempts to suppress works of literature tend to have the opposite effect

The 17th century rector of St Albans College in Valladolid, Spain, must have rolled his eyes at the size of the book he had to review for the library. The Jesuit seminary, known as the English College because it produced missionaries committed to the reconversion of England to Catholicism, had received a 900-page volume of Shakespeares plays.

William Sankey prepared his quill and began the long work of censoring ungodly, anti-Catholic and otherwise unsuitable material. Holy-day fools a jibe in the Tempest that seemed to impugn the Christian calendar struck out. Heavier soon by the weight of a man, as Margaret tells Hero on the eve of her wedding in Much Ado About Nothing filth blotted into unreadability with heavy ink. A play about a pretend friar and a novice nun: actually, at Measure for Measure Sankey admitted defeat, put down his pen and took a sharp blade to cut out the pages of the entire play.

Whats striking about this, however, is not the censorship. It is that these cheerfully secular, prominently anti-Catholic, ribald dramas were even considered for inclusion in this religious institution in the first place. Sankeys redactions were less about censorship and more about doctoring the text to enable it to circulate. He made it more possible, not less, for seminarians to read Shakespeare (except Measure for Measure).

That censorship might actually enable the circulation of books rather than restrict it seems counterintuitive, but its a pattern we see again and again. As an addendum to the better known Index of Forbidden Books, the Vatican published an Index Expurgatorius: a list of the bits that could be cut from otherwise offensive books to make them acceptable. Of course this became the book equivalent of Barbra Streisands attempt to restrict the online circulation of images of her Malibu beach home: a move that inadvertently drew attention to the very things it was intended to suppress. The Protestant librarian Thomas Barlow wrote gleefully that the Catholic church had done his work for him, by pointing to what he himself wanted to read. Similarly in 1960s Oklahoma, when the moral crusading group Mothers United for Decency set up a smutmobile filled with objectionable books, surely some locals used this as a handily curated wishlist?

The best sales pitch is the threat of censorship. It draws attention to books that might otherwise have gone under the radar. The academic Indologist Wendy Doniger observed that the lawsuit against her book The Hindus: An Alternative History had had the effect of making it an unexpected bestseller. The publishers, Penguin, originally defended her against charges of being defamatory about the Indian national movement and the pantheon of Hindu gods and goddesses, but then agreed to cease publication and pulp copies. There were none to be found, because theyd sold out. Probably relatively few readers in 1961 were agog for a cheap copy of Lady Chatterleys Lover, but the trial created an eager market. Had the prosecutors wanted to restrict access to DH Lawrences explicit novel, they might have done better simply to keep quiet about it.

We tend to believe that when books are censored, they are obliterated or withdrawn from view. But much more often they are edited to increase sales. Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451, a dystopic novel about book burning, was shocked to find that his US publishers had been censoring it to make it more acceptable in the American classroom. Seventy-five instances of damn and hell were stripped out to establish the book in the lucrative education market; Bradbury grudgingly acceded.

Censorship to allow material to circulate with younger readers is commonplace. Outrage about the updating of Roald Dahls fiction earlier this year suggested this was a regrettable modern phenomenon, but the template was set long before. Catcher in the Rye, JD Salingers coming-of-age novel that is often credited with inaugurating the contested genre of young adult fiction (books that young people enjoy and parents worry about), was subject to constant demands for censorship. The language was a perennial complaint, as one reader, galvanised by the National Organization for Decent Literature, enumerated bathetically: 237 goddams, 58 bastards, 31 Chrissakes, and 1 fart. Slightly redacted versions of the novel were produced to minimise classroom anxieties. These censored versions had more, not less, circulation than their uncensored predecessors.

Contemporary censorship is also fixated on the classroom and on young adult fiction, but now outraged readers are not going to the trouble of counting blasphemies (sometimes not even reading the texts they find so offensive). Previous censorship regimes attempted a compromise between the book and its more sensitive readers; these have now been overruled. Todays censorship is about the withdrawing, wholesale, of volumes deemed problematic.

Alex Ginos novel about a trans girl, Melissa, previously published as George, topped the American Library Associations list of most banned books for several years, but again, the act of suppressing the book drew more attention to it. When the American Family Association encouraged a letter-writing campaign to the publishers to have the book withdrawn, Gino organised a crowdfunding campaign to provide copies to school districts in Kansas. It reached its fundraising target within the hour. The free availability of digital versions of banned books, supported by major libraries including the New York Public Library, has also worked to stymy attempts to restrict their circulation. Again, it seems that censorships perverse outcome is increased awareness of, and access to, challenging books or at least lets hope so.

Emma Smith is the author of Portable Magic: A History of Books and their Readers (Penguin, 10.99), now available in paperback. To support the Guardian and Observer order a copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.

Burning the Books: A History of Knowledge Under Attack by Richard Ovenden (John Murray, 20)

Melissa by Alex Gino (Scholastic, 6.99)

Purity in Print: Book Censorship in America from the Gilded Age to the Computer Age by Paul S Boyer (University of Wisconsin, 20.50)

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

The rest is here:
The big idea: what if censoring books only makes them more popular? - The Guardian

I have come to realize that if I cant bear to speak the truth even to you then I am beyond all help, Eszter Encsy, the narrator of Magda Szabs 1959 novel, The Fawn, says. Eszter is an actress; she needs a script to speak. She has spent years fashioning a life out of silence. The novel is her belated, wandering attempt at finally unburdening herself. But silence isnt an easy habit to break. For most of what follows, the identity of the you to whom Eszter addresses the novel is withheld from the reader, as are the reasons for her reticence.

The Fawn is a chronicle of silence and all that roils beneath it. It depicts the tumultuous reunion of the bitter and brilliant Eszter with her former playmate, the cherubic Angla, after a decade apart. The narrative shuttles frenetically across this gap, from their provincial childhoods during the Second World War to their adult lives in Budapest in the early nineteen-fifties.

The notion of a time without speech, a gap severing past from present, was among the central preoccupations of Szabs career, which spanned seven decades before her death in 2007. The Fawn itself is the product of such a gap: Szab wrote it in secret, during a period of almost a decade when Hungarys postwar Stalinist regime prohibited her from publishing. My years of silence, Szab later called this time in her semi-autobiographical novel The Door. It was an experience that seeded her fascination with the cost of silence in all its formspolitically enforced, self-imposedas well as her other abiding fixations: the unspoken wounds of Hungarian history, the convulsions of reputation, the tension between a devotion to art and an attachment to other people.

Szab was a poet before she became a novelist. She moved to Budapest toward the end of the Second World War, in her late twenties, as the Russians were driving Hitlers forces out of Hungary. She fell in with a group of other young writers there, and, in 1947, published a collection of poetry, The Lamb, documenting the ravages of the war, followed by her second collection, Back to Man. In 1949, she received the Baumgarten Prize, Hungarys highest literary honor at the time. The prize was withdrawn the same day. The country had come under Soviet control, and the Stalinist regime of Mtys Rkosi, taking its cues from the Kremlin, began a brutal crackdown on all artists who wouldnt produce state propaganda. Szab was declared a class alien. She and her circle of fellow-writersthey called themselves the New Moon group (jhold)were banned from publishing.

The censors hounded her. They hoped to splinter the New Moon group, hungry for the cultural legitimacy the writers acquiescence might lend the regime. Szab claimed to have lost the will to write. She took a job teaching children. But, all the while, she was writing fiction, keeping it secret even from other New Moon writers. Her first novel, Fresco, is an obvious response to her predicamenta story of muzzling and defiance, about a painter who refuses to allow the Rkosi regime to dictate the subjects of her works. Rkosi was deposed after Stalins death, and the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 eventually ushered in the Hungarian Thaw, an era of somewhat greater tolerance. Fresco was published in 1958, to the astonishment of Szabs friends. The fact that they did not kill you might mean that we will also soon get the go-ahead, remarked the literary critic Balzs Lengyel.

Szab was a dissident, but never a straightforward one: under the classifications of the post-1956 censors, her novels were neither banned nor supported, but tolerated. But there remained a wound from her decade of censorship, and the memories of disgrace and return, bitterness and vindication, reappear throughout her writing. The Fawn, published in 1959, bears the marks of these years. Like Fresco, the book is about silence and censorship. But, instead of the familiar picture of the dissident artist defying the state, Szab wanted to show something differentthe way that silence could warp and disfigure a life. The novel is more politically didactic than Szabs later works, rendering pre-1956 Hungary as a bland, lobotomized bureaucracy, a public sphere blighted by euphemisms and smug hypocrisies: Blah, blah, blah. The true subject of the book, though, is not the silence of censorship, but those silences that fall between people, the failures of intimacy that cut friends and lovers adrift. Szab understood such silences as a sort of exile, and, in her fiction, she examined the effects of this exile, how estrangement from others could also make people strangers to themselves.

In The Fawn, this exile begins with a small moment of humiliation. Eszter first meets Angla when they are children. It is an ordinary day, before the war. Eszter is doing dishes in her familys dilapidated little kitchen. She is listening to her sickly father coughing and her mother teaching a piano lesson, and spills the dishwater, soaking her clothes. At that moment, Angla appears in the doorway for a music lesson, holding a ball in her left hand, a beautiful sky-blue ball with a gold ring around it, and in her right hand, in a snow-white glove, she held a lacquered music stand covered with red hide. She exudes innocence and gentility. Eszter hates her instantly. From that moment on, this hatred, emphatic and unrelenting beyond all proportion, becomes the novels undertow. I have loathed and hated Angla from the moment I first saw her, Eszter says. Even when I am dead, if there is any life after death, I shall hate her still.

But Eszter maintains a studied silence, never allowing this hatred to show, even after Angla takes up a one-sided friendship with her. She attached herself to me as sincerely as I hated her, Eszter says. Her hatred seems to spring from her resentment of the conspicuous wealth of Anglas parents. Eszters own family has undergone a long decline from their former social position. Eszters mother, born to aristocratic parents, has a triple-barrelled surname: Katalin Marton von Ercsik von Tp von Szentmarton. Her father, an eccentric lawyer who prefers to tend his garden of rare flowers rather than take on clients, turns the family into a public disgrace. A wealthy relation, seeing that Eszter goes barefoot, sends hand-me-down shoes for her; theyre too small and give her permanent calluses.

What Eszter hates most about Angla is her apparent goodness, the thoughtless benevolence and generosity her wealth allows her to shower on others. Eszter herself claims to have never believed as a child that goodness came naturally. I always suspected that beneath it lay some sort of payment for services past or still to come. When Angla receives the gift of a pet fawn, Eszter is seized by envy; witnessing the pleasure Angla takes in caring for it redoubles her resentment. One night, she breaks in and releases the fawn from its enclosure. She watches as it runs away and gets hit by a train.

When the war comes, Eszter exults in the grandeur of destruction: You thought the worst thing of all about the war was the bombing of the capital? For me that was the best. Whenever the radio announced another raid I became like a hunting dog. I shook with expectation. Angla, she happily imagines, will be very frightened. Even more satisfying is when Anglas Communist older brother, Emil, is arrested for some unnamed act of political agitation. Anglas family leaves town in shame; not long after, Emil is killed in a prisoners battalion.

Almost a decade later, when Eszter and Angla meet again, Eszter has become a successful actress in Budapest. But the upheavals of class and reputation under the new regime have made her an object of suspicion. Though she grew up penniless and once felt a wild happiness at the thought of a time when the poor would take everything from the rich, Eszters noble ancestry has become a political liability. She must constantly perform her loyalty for government censors, contorting the story of her aristocratic background to satisfy them. Angla, meanwhile, has become an ardent Communist, devoted to Party dogma. She runs an orphanage in memory of her brother, now lauded as a martyr. Eszter, her hatred still smoldering, calls her a charming, incompetent baby.

In Szabs 1963 novel, Izas Ballad, translated by George Szirtes, a judge named Vince Szcs finds himself blacklisted by Hungarys conservative prewar regime. Vinces daughter, Iza, is a talented, politically committed doctor, who joins the resistance against the Nazi occupation. She takes on the burden of her fathers humiliation as her own, standing beside him in dignified defiance of all the friends and neighbors who cut the family out of their lives. The tragedy of Izas Ballad is that her separation from the common life eventually becomes self-imposed, a habit of abnegation, and that by the time Iza realizes she must attempt to bridge the gap between herself and others, it is too lateher husband and lover have left her, her parents are both dead. The climax of the novel is an internal monologue by Izas ex-husband, as he reflects on the bloodlessness of her existence:

I loved you so much, in a way I never can and do not even want ever tolove again. But it was always I who was yours: you were never mine,you were distant from me even when you were in my arms. Sometimes atnight I wanted to wake you from your sleep and shout, say the word,the word that would allow you to be yourself, the word that would saveyou and tell me where to start looking for you so I might find you. .. . I have never met anyone as emotionally tight-fisted as you, sogrudging in your generosity, nor anyone more cowardly, not even whenyou carried grenades in your briefcase and said to the policeman whostopped you, Whats the matter, have you never seen a studentbefore?

The sentiment expressed in this final line recurs again and again in Szabs workwhat good is political courage if youre too much of a coward to speak freely of your love?

Szab particularly associated these failures of intimacy with artists, those who she thought perceived the world most clearly yet held themselves at a distance from it. Across her novels she symbolized this distance through various boundaries, gates, windowsor closed doors, as in The Door, where a locked door in an apartment is a literal manifestation of unspoken intimacy and distance between two women who care deeply for each other. How irrational, how unpredictable is the attraction between people, how fatal its current, remarks the writer who narrates that novel.

In The Fawn, Szabs symbol for this distance is the mask of the actress. It is only onstage that Eszter feels truly comfortable and connected to the world. She suspects that there is something irredeemable about herself. Since she was a child, she has hidden behind her hatred: all along, she has loved Angla. But she cannot fully admit it. Love is danger, a promise of loss. Her love is mysteriouswhether this is a romantic love or not remains obscure, perhaps to Eszter most of all. All that is clear is that Eszter admires and envies Anglas innocence and sincerity; unspoken, these feelings express themselves through resentment and violence, the killing of the fawn. Eszter takes a lover, eventually revealed to be the one to whom the novel is addressed. Hes a married man, a scholar and translator of Shakespeare. They met in Budapest after the war. Eszter longs to tell him every secret of her life, believing him to be the only person who actually understands her. It is he who finally speaks the truth: I know you love Angla, he tells Eszter one night in bed. He sees behind the mask. He is Anglas husband.

Link:
Magda Szab and the Cost of Censorship - The New Yorker