I Transforming Suicides: Literary Heritage, Intertextuality, and Self-Annihilation in GDR Fiction of the 1970S and 1980S Robert
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Transforming Suicides: Literary Heritage, Intertextuality, and Self-Annihilation in GDR Fiction of the 1970s and 1980s Robert Blankenship A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures. Chapel Hill 2011 Approved by Advisor: Dr. Richard Langston Reader: Dr. Alice Kuzniar Reader: Dr. Eric Downing Reader: Dr. Gabriel Trop Reader: Dr. Edna Andrews i ABSTRACT Transforming Suicides: Literary Heritage, Intertextuality, and Self-Annihilation in GDR Fiction of the 1970s and 1980s (Under the direction of Dr. Richard Langston) This dissertation examines fictional suicides in the literature of the second half of the German Democratic Republic and questions the common assumption that these works represent a direct, realistic reflection of East German society. I point instead to intertextuality in these works and investigate the relationship between fictional suicide in the literature of the German Democratic Republic and the canonical literary works revered by that country’s cultural authorities. These intertextual, fictional suicides disrupt the literary heritage of the GDR, a matter that is even more subversive than implying that people killed themselves in the GDR. Each of the four main chapters of the dissertation focuses on one GDR text and and the literary heritage that it subverts. Ulrich Plenzdorf’s Die neuen Leiden des jungen W. brings Goethe’s Die Leiden des jungen Werther into contact with GDR youth culture when the novel’s main character reads Goethe’s work without context and, like the main character in Goethe’s work, kills himself. Werner Heiduczek’s Tod am Meer gives its main character, who resembles the main character in Thomas Mann’s Der Tod in Venedig, a voice for narrating his own suicidal downfall. Christa Wolf’s Kein Ort. Nirgends describes a fictional meeting between the writers Heinrich von Kleist and Karoline von Günderrode, who reevaluate literary history before killing themselves, paralleling a reevaluation of GDR literary heritage. Christoph Hein’s Horns Ende utilizes a ghost resembling that of Hamlet’s father to instigate subversive memory of fascism and Stalinism. ii Acknowledgements Writing about suicide is not always easy. Many people helped me along the way, so many, in fact, that it would be impossible to list them all here. I must, however, mention a few people, without whom this dissertation would not have been possible. Anja Wieden, Marina Jones, John Ribó, and Kevin Eubanks proved to be consistently trustworthy interlocutors, proofreaders, and colleagues. Kristie Foell and William Odom offered me endless advice, both academic and personal. Jill Twark patiently listened to me organize my thoughts early in the writing process and, later, pushed me to become an ever better writer. Siegfried Mews taught me the value of persistence, without which no dissertation can be completed. Dorothee Kimmich introduced me to narratological approaches to space, including the works of Yuri Lotman, and encouraged me to continue engaging Gérard Genette. David Pike, who understands the rhetorical and contentious nature of East German history and literature like few others, gave me ample warnings while I was navigating that minefield. Of course, the members of my dissertation committee were quite helpful. Edna Andrews encouraged me to engage the theory of Yuri Lotman. Gabriel Trop carefully read manuscripts and helped me locate the sources of allusions made by Christa Wolf and Günter Kunert to German romantic writers. Eric Downing helped me avoid beginning an un-complete-able dissertation. Alice Kuzniar supported my research even before I officially arrived at UNC and has since provided moral and intellectual support at crucial moments in my development. Most of all, I thank my dissertation advisor, Richard Langston, who tirelessly, endlessly read manuscripts, listened to me organize my thoughts, gave me pep talks, and was ever present. iii Table of Contents Introduction: Suicide and the Invention of Literary Heritage in the GDR .........................1 Chapter One: Literary Heritage and Fluidity: Plenzdorf’s Die neuen Leiden des jungen W. .......................................................................................................................................45 Chapter Two: Writing and Self-Destructive Memory: Heiduczek’s Tod am Meer..........75 Chapter Three: Reevaluating Literary Heritage: Wolf’s Kein Ort. Nirgends.................117 Chapter Four Haunting and Subversive Memory: Hein’s Horns Ende ..........................156 Conclusion: The Reality of Fictional Suicides ..............................................................209 Epilogue ...........................................................................................................................218 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................221 iv Introduction Suicide and the Invention of Literary Heritage in the GDR Serious transformation, or transposition, is without any doubt the most important of all hypertextual practices, if only because of the historical importance and the aesthetic accomplishment of some of the works that fall under its heading. Gérard Genette1 Fictional suicides from the German Democratic Republic have been greatly misunderstood. It might seem that suicide was rampant in the GDR, given the representations of suicide in GDR literature, and given the regime’s attempt to hide suicide rates. It might seem too that writers used canonical literature as a secret code to communicate about the real problem of suicide. While suicide was a highly taboo topic in the GDR, the fictional suicides do not primarily reflect a perceived problem of suicide in GDR society. These fictional suicides are much more complicated. While intertextuality often allowed for smoother passage through the censors, this is far from the whole story. Suicide in GDR literature eventually advanced GDR literary heritage to erode that heritage, to highlight its own self-destructive nature. This dissertation examines the relationship between fictional suicides of the German Democratic Republic and the canonical literary works revered by that country’s cultural authorities. 1 Gérard Genette. Palimsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Channa Newman and Claude Doubinsky (Trans.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. 212. Originally published in 1982 by Editions du Seuil. 1 Comprehending this relationship requires an understanding of the central role that literary heritage in the GDR, which leads to the concept of Kulturerbe. Kulturerbe The cultural and literary heritage (Kulturerbe) of the German Democratic Republic was invented. Cultural and literary heritage had to be constructed in 1949 for the GDR as a new country, but also for the purposes of establishing a heritage different from that which had been invented by German fascism and different from the literary heritage claimed by the Federal Republic of Germany.2 Officially, the process of inventing heritage was part of the “Programm der antifaschistisch-demokratischen Erneuerung” [Program of Antifascist-Democratic Revitalization] (1945-1949). Yet debates concerning German cultural heritage had already occurred in the 1930s and early 1940s among Germans in exile,3 but ideas about cultural heritage were turned into policy in 1946. As early as June 11, 1945, barely a month after the National Socialists capitulated, the German Communist Party (KPD) called for a “Weg der Aufrichtung eines antifaschistischen, demokratischen Regimes, einer parlamentarisch-demokratischen Republik mit allen demokratischen Rechten und Freiheiten für das Volk.”4 Not long thereafter, the cultural equivalent of this process was proposed, when Wilhelm Pieck 2 Walter Ulbricht, in Elimar Schubbe (Ed.). Dokumente zur Kunst-, Literatur-, und Kulturpolitik der SED. Stuttgart: Seewald, 1972. 534. Wolfram Schlenker. Das "kulturelle Erbe" in der DDR : gesellschaftliche Entwicklung und Kulturpolitik 1945-1965. Metzler-Studienausgabe. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1977. 66-73. 3 David Pike. German Writers in Soviet Exile, 1933-1945. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982. 4 Invocation of the Central Committee of the German Communist Party to the German people on June 11, 1945. Published in Deutsche Volkszeitung on June 13, 1945. Appears in Matthias Judt (Ed.). DDR- Geschichte in Dokumenten: Beschlüsse, Berichte, interne Materialien und Alltagszeugnisse. Berlin: Christoph Links, 1998. 45. 2 declared, “[d]aß nun wirklich einmal die erhabenen Ideen der besten unseres Volkes ... zu den beherrschenden Mächten in unserem Kulturleben werden und ebenso zu lebendigen Kräften, die unser gesamtes politisches und gesellschaftliches Leben richtunggebend gestalten.”5 In his speech at the Erste Zentrale Kulturtagung on February 3, 1946, Anton Ackermann stated, “Die Erneuerung des deutschen Kultur- und Geisteslebens nach zwölfjähriger Nazibarbarbei und Knechtschaft gebietet stärker denn je die restlose Verwirklichung einer der grundlegendsten humanistischen Forderungen, nämlich der Forderung nach Freiheit der wissenschaftlichen Forschung und der künstlerischen Gestaltung.”6 Although Ackermann’s use of words such as “humanism” and “freedom” ring false for Western readers, such key words nevertheless played a large role in the creation of GDR cultural heritage. Adherence to