INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in ^pewriter face, while others may be from aiy type of conq)uter printer. Theq u a lityof this reproduction is dqiendaxt upon the quali^ of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and inqnoper alignment can adverse^ affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing firom left to tight in equal sections with small overl^)s. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photogrsq>bs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photogTEq>hic prints are available for aiy photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directfy to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313.'761-4700 800.521-0600 PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN CARL STERNHEIM’S DIE KASSETTE. THOMAS MANN’S DER ZAUBERBERG. AND MARIELUISE FLEIBER’S PIONIERE IN INGOLSTADT DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ann Bladder Young, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1 9 9 5 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Mark Roche Hugo Bekker Adviser Department of Germanic Linda Rugg Languages and Literatures UMI Number: 9534099 Copyright 1995 by Young, Ann Blackler All rights reserved. DMI Microform 9534099 Copyright 1995, by DMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, Onited States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Copyright by Ann Blackler Young 1 9 9 5 To Bernie I I ACKNOWŒDGMEIsrrS I would like to thank those individuals who helped me complete this project. I am grateful to Drs. Hugo Bekker and Linda Rugg who served on my committee and who offered valuable comments and recommendations throughout the writing process. I would especially like to thank my adviser, Dr. Mark Roche, for both his critical reading and his continual words of encouragement. Many thanks also to my husband, Greg, who read every last word—even when he really didn’t want to! 111 VITA August 29, 1964 Bom— Long Beach, C a lifo rn ia 1986 B.A., Linfield College McMinnville, Oregon 1988 M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1986-1992 Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, The Ohio State U n ive rsity 1992-Present German Instructor, Reynoldsburg City Schools, Reynoldsburg, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: German I V TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ............................................................................................................... il ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................... i l l VITA ............................................................................................................................... IV CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1 Scholarly Research on Photography and Literature . 4 Choice of Time F r a m e................................................................ 10 Selection of Primary T e x ts........................................................14 The Relationship between Photography and L iteratu re..................................................................................16 Photography in Literature: Some Common Themes . 22 The Sternheim, Mann, and FleiBer Texts: Common Bonds through Photography.............................................. 2 5 II. CARL STERNHEIM’S DIE KASSETTE: PHOTOGRAPHY AS MEDIATION ........................................................................................... 3 4 Die Kassette in Sternheim Scholarship . 36 The Interrelationship between the Strongbox and Photography...................................................................41 Krull, Elsbeth, and Fanny: Relationships Mediated through Photographs............................................................51 The Relationship between Fanny and Elsbeth . 58 Seidenschnur, Lydia, Emma, and Fanny: The Role of the Camera in Male-Female Relationships . 62 Seidenschnur as a Photographer/Artist . .7 0 Photographs and the Private S p h ere.................................... 76 Seidenschnur’s Photographs and Technology . .8 2 C onclusion..................................................................................... 85 III. PHOTOGRAPHS IN DER ZAUBERBERG: TIME, DEATH, AND HANS CASTORP'S SEARCH FOR IDENTITY ..............................8 7 Photography and T im e............................................................... 92 X-rays, Death, and Disease: a Photographic Glimpse behind the Facade.............................................122 Photography and Hans Castorp's Search for Id e n tity................................................................................... 139 Dr. Krokowski as a Photographer Figure . .169 Photography and Parody......................................................... 173 C onclusion................................................................................... 177 IV. TABLEAU AND PHOTOGRAPHY IN FLEIBER’S PIONIERE IN INGOLSTADT .............................................................................. 182 The Tableau................................................................................ 183 1928 Version...............................................................................195 1929 Version.............................................................................. 2 0 3 1968 Version.............................................................................. 2 1 4 C onclusion...................................................................................2 2 2 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................2 2 4 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 2 4 4 VI CHAPTER I Introduction As an artistic medium, literature has always had the capacity for reflection. It presents, through words, an image of society—or a certain segment of society—that attempts to portray life in a new way. Its mode of presentation may be an affirmation of the picture presented or it may call on people to change what they see around them. Given this nature of literature, it is not surprising that it would concern itself with other artistic forms of representation. From very early on, authors integrated paintings (usually portraits) and painters into their works. This allowed for reflection on the way in which humans envision themselves as well as on how they are envisioned by others. In addition, it was a convenient method of integrating debates on the meaning and value of art itself into literary texts. With the increasing industrialization of society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, however, authors were forced for the first time to deal with life on the brink of sudden and 1 constant change. Technology revolutionized not only matters of everyday life but also the way in which we perceived ourselves and our existence. The camera—with its objective eye and apparently infallible ability to reproduce nature—became a representative manifestation of a new mode of “seeing” in which the individual had been shaken from its central position in the universe: The camera isolated momentary appearances and in so doing destroyed the idea that images were timeless. [. .] What you saw depended upon where you were when. What you saw was relative to your position in time and space. It was no longer possible to imagine everything converging on the human eye as on the vanishing point of infinity. This is not to say that before the invention of the camera men believed that everyone could see everything. But perspective organized the visual field as though that were indeed the ideal. Every drawing or painting that used perspective proposed to the spectator that he was the unique centre of the world. The camera—and more particularly the movie camera—demonstrated that there was no centre. The invention of the camera changed the way men saw (J. Berger, Wavs of Seeing 18).i 1 In support of this point, Berger also quotes an article written in 1923 by Dziga Vertov, the revolutionary Soviet film director: "The inherent contradiction in perspective was that it structured all images of reality to address a single spectator who, unlike God, could only be in one place at a time. After the invention of the camera this contradiction gradually became apparent. Tm an eye. A mechanical eye. I, the machine, show you a world the way only I can see it. I free myself for today and forever from human immobility. I’m in constant movement. I approach and pull away from objects. I creep under them. I move alongside a running horse’s mouth. I fall and rise with the falling