Rethinking Trümmerliteratur: the Aesthetics of Destruction Ruins, Ruination, and Ruined Language in the Works of Böll Grass, and Celan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 2007-03-21 Rethinking Trümmerliteratur: The Aesthetics of Destruction Ruins, Ruination, and Ruined Language in the Works of Böll Grass, and Celan Kurt R. Buhanan Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the German Language and Literature Commons, and the Slavic Languages and Societies Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Buhanan, Kurt R., "Rethinking Trümmerliteratur: The Aesthetics of Destruction Ruins, Ruination, and Ruined Language in the Works of Böll Grass, and Celan" (2007). Theses and Dissertations. 830. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/830 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Rethinking Trümmerliteratur : The Aesthetics of Destruction Ruins, Ruination, and Ruined Language in the Works of Böll, Grass, and Celan by Kurt R. Buhanan Submitted to Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of German Brigham Young University April 2007 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by Kurt R. Buhanan This thesis has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory. ________________________ ___________________________________ Date James K. Lyon, Chair ________________________ ___________________________________ Date Alan F. Keele, Graduate Coordinator ________________________ ___________________________________ Date Daryl P. Lee, Committee Member ii BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY As chair of the candidate’s graduate committee, I have read the thesis of Kurt R. Buhanan in its final form and have found that (1) its format, citations, and bibliographical style are consistent and acceptable and fulfill university and department style requirements, (2) its illustrative materials including figures, tables and charts are in place; and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to the graduate committee and is ready for submission to the university library. ________________________ ___________________________________ Date James K. Lyon Chair, Graduate Committee Accepted for the Department ___________________________________ Alan F. Keele Graduate Coordinator Accepted for the College ___________________________________ Gregory Clark Associate Dean, College of Humanitites iii ABSTRACT RETHINKING TRÜMMERLITERATUR: THE AESTHETICS OF DESTRUCTION RUINS, RUINATION, AND RUINED LANGUAGE IN THE WORKS OF BÖLL, GRASS, AND CELAN Kurt R. Buhanan Department of German and Slavic Master of Arts Trümmerliteratur – literally “rubble-literature” – is a brand of literature that became important after the Second World War, led by Heinrich Böll, whom I term the apologist of German Trümmerliteratur . Typically included under this classification are the writers who began to produce in the years immediately following the war, and in whose work the rubble and ruins of the landscape figure prominently. Böll provided the programmatic framework for the movement in his “Bekenntnis zur Trümmerliteratur,” but his relationship to another type of ruin writing presents a point of friction when he appears to be working in a romantic mode to describe his experience of Irish ruins. This problem was the point of departure for a new thinking of ruins. Discovering the strains of rubble literature in Grass and Celan presents the second part of this study, which dramatically recasts these writers, demanding that the presence and prevalence of ruin images and themes receive consideration. Grass’s hermeneutical ruins, a reading of narrative gaps, presents the first level of ruin, separating the reader from the text’s reliability and authorial immediacy. The next type of ruins that Grass iv presents is the violent ruinating involved in the the act of writing itself, whether chiseled into gravestones or flecking virginal paper. Similarly, Celan’s images of ruins are produced in a form consciously resembling berubbled structures, with dashes and slashes often left jutting dangerously into the space of a wide margin, like the rusty reinforcing steel bars of modern construction. Considering these writers in these terms leads to the question of language and how they attempt to overcome the problem of a language manipulated into complicity in the crimes of totalitarianism. Finally, there is the transparency offered in the porous structure of the ruin. These houses prove incapable of providing the shelter or protection. The inhabitants are exposed, exhibited to the observer with all of the intimate contents of quotidian existence, the low objects of the everyday. Entrance into this interiority is a powerful part of what makes the ruins an interesting object for observation. In this literature of ruins and rubble the reader is offered this transparency, an offer of entrance into society’s interiority. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee for the encouragement and support I have received from them while I was working on this project. I have benefited particularly from the association I have enjoyed with my committee chair, James K. Lyon, who made himself extraordinarily available to me and has been my Gegenüber in the dialogue that produced this thesis. I could never have wrapped up this project without his guidance, interest, and personal concern. I would also like to thank Daryl Lee, whose special expertise on the topic of ruins and ruination enabled him to direct me to important theoretical sources. Thanks also to Alan Keele, who directed a reading course for me, which is where many of my ideas about Trümmerliteratur were first conceived. I also owe thanks to the rest of the faculty of the German Department at Brigham Young University who contributed to this project, either directly or indirectly. Finally, I have to acknowledge the incredible support of my wife and daughter, who never failed to offer me smiles and waves through the window after a day in the dungeon of the library. It is to you that I dedicate this work. vi Contents Chapter 1 Introduction: Presenting the Problem of Aesthetic Decay and a Brief Textual History of Ruins 1 Chapter 2 The Apologist of German Trümmerliteratur : Böll’s X-Ray Eye and the Ruining Gaze 22 Chapter 3 Aesthetic Destruction: Performing Ruin and the Thematic Centrality of Rubble Objects in Grass’s Early Work 38 Chapter 4 Celan’s Destructive Poetics: Porous Houses, Rimbaud’s Ruin Remastered, and the Demolition of Word Matter 61 Chapter 5 Heidegger’s Haus des Seins and Postwar Homelessness: Language’s Crystal Clarity, Simplicity, and Unpretending Authenticity 79 Chapter 6 Throwing Rocks in Glass Houses: Ruins and Transparency, Exposition via Destruction, and Temporal Explorations of Heterotopic Space 104 Chapter 7 Conclusion: A Way Forward in the Thinking of Ruins 119 Selected Bibliography 125 vii Chapter 1 Introduction: Presenting the Problem of Aesthetic Decay and a Brief Textual History of Ruins I. Examined objectively, nothing about man’s aesthetic interest in ruins is self-evident, nothing about it is natural. Jagged stone and jutting angles, crumbling and incomplete structural symmetries, and the hollow wound of the caved structure injure the eye; restless creaking and groaning and occasional clashes of impact startlingly announce the inexorable progress, or regress rather, of decay’s “naturalizing” effects; also less than beautiful are the invasive septic stink, the odor of moldering decay, the gritty dust of the air, frequent rodent (gnawing) infestations, dangerous instabilities, and occasionally even the skeletal remains of previous inhabitants. There is nothing intrinsically beautiful about the object of a destroyed structure, a fallen building, a ruin, and certainly nothing beautiful about the metaphoric extension of this image to mortality and human “ruins.” Of course, this claim rejecting ruins as an aesthetic object must be qualified by some comment on Kantian and Burkean conceptualizations of the beautiful and the sublime, as the dyadic constituents of aesthetic experience. In his third and final work defining critical rationality, Kant asserts, “Es kann keine objective Geschmacksregel, welche durch Begriffe bestimmte, was schön sei, geben. Denn alles Urtheil aus dieser Quelle ist ästhetisch; d. i. das Gefühl des Subjects und kein Begriff eines Objects ist sein Bestimmungsgrund” ( Kritik der Urteilskraft 93). Having stated this, however, Kant immediately reconsiders the absolute 1 character of his assertion and suggests the inevitable development of general agreement on ideals of beauty that are not entirely objective but certainly soften the sense of subjectivity’s absolute primacy in aesthetic judgment. It may be mere tautology, then, to say that ruins have nothing intrinsically beautiful about them, as beauty is judged against subjective and culturally determined ideals. Nevertheless, the specific aesthetic assertion of the beauty of decay seems a paradox, the first of four considerable problems in beginning an investigation into the aesthetics of ruins of Postwar German literature. The other three are time, subject, and a requirement that (human) life withdraw from the site of ruin. Exploring these fundamental concerns will lead into closer questions about the possibility