Peter Robertson, President of Interlitq, discusses with Robert Toperter, developments relating to Interlitq’s formal complaint to Arts Council England

London, Monday, November 28, 2011.

Peter Robertson: “To be frank, I am not surprised that a Contributing Editor for ‘3am’ has chosen to turn down Interlitq for Arts Council England funding in view of the fact that the self-styled ‘post-punk’ aesthetic that his review espouses in its quest to publish principally cult and transgressive fiction is widely divergent from the inclusive aesthetic of Interlitq”.

In this short interview Peter Robertson, the President of Interlitq (www.interlitq.org), discusses with Robert Toperter, a freelance journalist  based in London, recent developments relating to Interlitq’s formal complaint to Arts Council England in view of what Interlitq considers to be “a possible conflict of interest” with regard to ACE’s recent negative funding decision.

Robert Toperter:  Hello, Peter. It is some days since my article, “Interlitq to make a formal complaint to Arts Council England” (Thursday, November 24^th, 2011), appeared in “Beatties Book Blog”. Have there been any developments since then?

Peter Robertson:  Thank you, Robert.  Yes, on Friday, November 25^th we lodged a formal complaint with Arts Council England on the grounds of “a possible conflict of interest”, taking into account the fact that a few days previously the ACE Assessor in this case had been tweeting in his capacity of Contributing Editor for “3am”. I have been informed that it takes a maximum of 5 working days for Arts Council England to get back in touch, so we are waiting to hear its response, and this will determine the next step, if any, that we will take.

Robert Toperter: Why can’t you simply accept the decision of Arts Council England and regroup?

Peter Robertson:  I do not accept the claim made by ACE that Interlitq displays “weaknesses in relation to artistic clarity”. The remit of Interlitq is to publish the very best international literature, and in many different languages.  And we have been publishing such literature for more than four years, and Interlitq is by now a known quantity. And, in any case, why should Arts Council England be seen to be the final arbiter of the merits of Interlitq? To be frank, I am not surprised that a Contributing Editor for ‘3am’ has chosen to turn down Interlitq for Arts Council England funding in view of the fact that the self-styled ‘post-punk’ aesthetic that his review espouses in its quest to publish principally cult and transgressive fiction is widely divergent from the inclusive aesthetic of Interlitq.

Robert Toperter: So you are contending that there is somehow a clash of aesthetics underlying ACE’s decision?

Peter Robertson: I certainly consider that to be a distinct possibility. It is easy to bandy about terms such as “lack of clarity”. I have worked hard over the last four years and, in my capacity of President of Interlitq, I will defend the interests of the review against a few cavalier words, stated without a context. And, furthermore, I am aware that Interlitq counts on the participation, through their involvement as Vice-President and Consulting Editors for Interlitq, of major intellectual figures on the world stage—to mention only a few, Sari Nusseibeh, Reza Aslan, Gillian Beer,  Julia Kristeva, Azar Nafisi, Martha Nussbaum, and Marina Warner—and that consequently Interlitq could be perceived to be inimical in its outlook to a review such as “3am” that carries the slogan, “Whatever it is, we’re against it”.

Robert Toperter: But isn’t there a danger of getting sidetracked here from the central purpose of Interlitq, which is to publish the finest international literature?

Peter Robertson: You are right, we must not get sidetracked. Our overriding priority is to continue to be a showcase for the finest international literature, as you have put it. And so we are pressing ahead with publication of Issue 17, which is slightly delayed in view of funding and production issues. I certainly do not wish to waste time by getting embroiled in some futile polemical debate. And I am determined to take Interlitq to ever-greater heights. It would be easy for me to return to my own literary career, but I continue to believe in Interlitq’s ethos of inclusiveness, and would like to think that we would all be diminished without such an ethos.