East German Literature after the Wende. Kerstin Hensel, Angela KrauB, and the Weiterschreiben of GDR-Iiterature Ulrike Kalt Wilson Hampden-Sydney, V A Erstes Staatsexamen, English and Physical Education, Johannes Gutenberg Universitat, Mainz, Germany, 1979 M.A. English and Canadian Literature, York University, Toronto, Canada, 1979 Zweites Staatsexamen, English and Physical Education, Studienseminar Mainz, Mainz, Germany, 1982 Post-Graduate Studies in English Literature, Rhetoric, and Composition, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio (1982-1987) M.A. German Literature, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, 2004 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty ofthe University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures University of Virginia December 2011 ii Abstract This project contributes to the current debate about the future role of GDR- literature in Germany’s post-WWII literary history. Among three distinct groups of literary critics and historians, the first focuses on the formal and aesthetic similarities between East and West German literatures and argues for a merging of the two. The second maintains that literature from the former GDR should be considered a regional variant of post-WWII German literature, thus emphasizing and preserving the political, historical, and cultural differences between the two countries and their literatures. Within this second group, some even claim that though the state GDR no longer exists, GDR- literature is still being written. Siding with this third group, I argue that the GDR’s unique history—its socialist past and the dramatic effects of the Wende—gave, and still gives, rise to a literature with a distinctly regional character both in form and content. In support of my argument, I first address the question of what we mean by GDR-literature and identify certain characteristic features of this literature. I then show that there is indeed such a phenomenon as a Weiterschreiben of GDR-literature. To demonstrate that there is indeed a post-GDR-literature in the tradition of GDR-literature, I examine three fictional texts by East German writers Kerstin Hensel and Angela Krauß. I discuss how both writers’ choices of subject matter are directly related to the GDR’s unique past and present situation and how their narrative methods can be traced back to the kinds of writing styles previously identified as particular to the GDR’s literary scene. Maintaining the idea of two German literatures preserves the memory of a unique and important phase in post- iii WWII German literary history and accords with the emerging pluralism and multiculturalism in Germany’s literary scene. iv Contents Introduction 1 Chapter One. The Case of GDR-Literature 12 I. Introduction II. Germany’s Literary Battle of the Early 1990s 15 III. Nationhood, Politics, and Aesthetics 26 IV. Characteristic Themes and Writing Styles of GDR-Literature 38 V. Conclusion 71 Chapter Two. Kerstin Hensel’s Gipshut: Weiterschreiben and the Aesthetics of Disorder 73 I. Introduction II. Kerstin Hensel on Writing and Being an East German Writer 78 III. The Disorderly World of Gipshut and Hensel’s Disorderly Narrating 88 IV. Conclusion 149 Chapter Three. “Wann, wenn nicht jetzt.” Angela Krauß and the Writing of Life 153 I. Introduction II. Angela Krauß, the Writer 157 III. Die Überfliegerin. Caught between the ‘No Longer’ and the ‘Not Yet’ 171 v IV. Weggeküsst. “. um uns unseres eigenen Rätsels zu versichern” 200 V. Conclusion 238 Conclusion 243 I. Hensel, Krauß and Weiterschreiben. A Summary 243 II. Weiterschreiben and Wendeliteratur 251 Works Consulted 255 vi Für meine Eltern Marianne und Fritz Kalt; für meine Töchter Monika Leah und Shannon Alexandra; für meinen Mann Patrick. 1 Introduction Zeit fiel aus Zeit und alterte. Zeit blieb Zeit auf einer Uhr ohne Zeiger. Sie sprang, sie kreiste, sie eilte dahin: eine Kugel, die eine engläufige Schneckenbahn hinabrollte. (Uwe Tellkamp, Der Turm, 890) I. The Argument Literature in the reunited Germany is in a state of transition with no clearly identifiable direction. The heated and often highly emotional debates of the literary battle in the early nineties have quieted down (and not much ever came of them); readers and critics have long given up waiting for the Wenderoman; and most of all, just as economically and socially the Germany of the new millennium is still very much a divided country, so is its literature. In the introduction to his and Gerhard Fischer’s collection of essays about the development of German literature during the first ten years after reunification, David Roberts remarks that German literature at the end of the twentieth century is characterized by plurality rather than unity (Schreiben nach der Wende, xi). On the topic of Germany’s post-Wende literature, he notes that it is still too early to give a structured survey or identify any major emerging patterns of thoughts. Indeed, he wonders whether in the age of globalization and multiculturalism, the concept of “Epochendiskursen”— i.e., the idea of there being a unified discourse during a particular historical period—is not perhaps outdated or even impossible (xiii). And as to the merging of the two post-war German literatures into a new Nationalliteratur, Roberts argues that in the context of the recent changes within Europe, such an undertaking would be anachronistic and should 2 altogether be abandoned (xv). Also, Germany’s literary market at the beginning of the twenty-first century clearly reflects the country’s change towards becoming a multicultural society, a fact that directly undermines the idea of a Nationalliteratur. One of the issues yet to be resolved is how to deal with the two German literatures that emerged during the fifty years of the country’s division. More specifically, what should the role of literature from the former GDR be in Germany’s future literary history. One option would be considering it a regional variant of German speaking literatures in general, much like Austrian or Swiss-German literature. This would be a way of emphasizing and preserving the differences between the two literatures. Another option would be to leave aside all regional, national, and cultural differences, as was done by Ralf Schnell in the second, revised and expanded edition of his Geschichte der deutschsprachigen Literatur seit 1945, published in 2003. Schnell discusses the works of writers from the former GDR side by side with those from the other German speaking countries. His history is organized according to overarching themes, such as “Literatur versus Politik— Konstellationen der fünfziger Jahre” or “Im Zeichen der Postmorderne (1978-1989).” In his history, literature from the neue Bundesländer (he labels it “Wende- Literatur”) is just one of the many sections of his final chapter “1989 und die Folgen.” Located at the other end of the spectrum is the expanded, new edition of Wolfgang Emmerich’s Kleine Literaturgeschichte der DDR, published in 2000. As the title suggests, Emmerich’s is a literary history of works by writers from the pre- and post- Wende East. By maintaining the idea of a separate post-WWII East and West German literary tradition, Emmerich wants to emphasize and preserve the differences between the two kinds of German literature. The difference in Schell’s and Emmerich’s approach to 3 literary history is one of perspective and depends on how much emphasis each historian puts on the cultural, social, and historical context within which a literature is produced. Another question to be dealt with is that of historiography. Writing a literary history of the united Germany depends not just on the historian’s perspective as a number of other, interrelated issues are complicating the process. There is first of all the question of what exactly is to be understood by GDR-literature, a phenomenon whose defining characteristic is its chameleon-like quality: depending on who is using the term and when and where, its meaning changes dramatically. This problem is further aggravated by the question whether the end of the state GDR also signifies the end of GDR-literature. Is it perhaps possible to apply the label GDR-literature to works written in the neue Bundesländer after 1989? If so, under what circumstances could this happen, and how would this affect and change the meaning of the term GDR-literature? Immediately after the Fall of the Wall, critics and historians were mostly concerned with a re-reading and re-evaluating of literature from the former GDR. The many heated debates about the literary value of works by GDR writers and about the relationship between ideology, cultural politics, and aesthetics in general are now known as the deutsch-deutsche Literaturstreit. Also, while for some the end of the GDR also meant the end of GDR literature, others saw (and still see) in the literature emerging in the new East signs of its continuation. Clearly, at some point, a decision needed to be made about what exactly were the essential characteristics of this literary phenomenon GDR-literature. (The one point everyone agrees upon, however, is that there is more to GDR-literature than just the state-sanctioned, system affirmating literature, since works belonging to this category never played an important role in the country’s literary scene.) 4 When, starting in the mid-nineties, a great variety of fictional texts by writers from the former GDR began flooding Germany’s literary market, this question of definition took on new importance. Some of these texts were unconventional and sophisticated post- modern texts such as the fictions of Reinhard Jirgl or Wolfgang Hilbig; others were light und humorous, and more accessible to a general audience. These include works by Ingo Schulze, Jana Hensel, and Thomas Brussig. Also, while some writers wrote fictions that recaptured the past, other focused on issues related to the immediate present.