Focus Spring 1994.tif 52 FOClIS on Literatur ROßERT SCHNEIDER. Dreck. Lelpz.ig: Reclam, 1993.71 S. DM 12,00. Roben Schneider, born in 1961 in Bregcnz, was adopted at the age o f two br a [arming couple frolll {he ti ny village of Vornrlherg. He qudied composition, theate r, an d an history in Vicllua. His debul !lovel, which will appea, as a film in 1995, was Schlafes Bruder (1992). fo ll owed by the pby Dreck, wh ieh was performed for the first time in Hamburg 3t the Thalia~Thealer. Dreck is a dramatic monologue which opens with the characlcr, Sad, standing on a dark stage beside a buckel of fOseS. He leaves lhe stage rarely; (lllce to gel an anion to eal, anee to fetch a boule of gin. Thc rest of the piece im'okes Sad's increasingly intense self-beratement, which is eventually drowned out in a c1imactic finale. Sad is a young Arab living in Germany, finaneing his edueation by selling roses on the street and in restaurants. He has intentaliz.ed the n~eist hatred whieh rohs him of hi~ identity. Sad never reveals his last name, feeling that this would be an inappropriate assertion of h is individuality; a Ilame would grant h irn a hjstory and an authentic cullllra1 tradition. Thc only installce when he can be himself, wholly himseIr, is when he screams his entire name into the din of an S-Bahn roaring past. Otherwise he is simply "Sad," which, he recalls over and over, is the English word for "traurig." Self-hate is given a bitingly ironic twist by Sad, whospeaks LO the audience in direct address and always ill t he fatuiliar form. The racist diches which he endures daily are encapsuhned in shon. 5entences which weave in and out of h is monologue. The repetition of these hateful diehes creales an unbearable rhythm, until the pallerns of self-abuse occasionaU)' crescendo into impassioned shouting. Ile al­ ways regains control of himself, apologizi.ng ;md taking back whal he has said. Rather than truly ha\'ing his own voice, therefore, Sad speaks the language of the xenophobes. For example, he deseribes all the reasons Germans should fear for their children who are sllpposedly becoming corrupted by lhe insidious Arab culwre working its way illlo the schools and streeLS. "Hört euch mal ihr Deutsch an! Die lemen ihre eigene Munersprache nicht mehr" (37). Gaining mOIllel1llllll as he speaks, he grndually becomes more and more insistent as to the "Iogic" FOCNS on Liltratur Vol. I, No. 1 (199<4) Book Reviews 53 of the racist beliefs he rurects againsl himself. The absurdity of this insistence works 10 ridicule the stereotypes themseh·es. Feeling he has "no right" to complain, Sad's more overt criticisms are carefull)' placed and often c10aked in irony. At one point he be­ comes enraged at patroniz.ing attemptS at so-called Ga5ifrellndschafi on the pan. of some Germans he encounters. Ile describes its limits in an oralory exemplal)t for Dreck, in whieh he adopts the argument of the racisl German: "Mir ist mein Kind wichtiger als die Gastfreund­ schaft!! Es ist ein fröhliches Kind!! Es trägt einen deutschen Nanlen!! Mir ist mein Land wichtiger als alles andere auf der Welt!! ICH BIN KEIN FASCHJST!!!" (39). Despite his irony, Sad is dearly humili.ned and consumed by tbc hat red expre<;sed loward hjm in German seeiel)'. H is way of respond­ i.ng is to repeat how graleFul he is 10 be ah le 10 live in a German city, to be mesmerized by the land of Dlcht~r und D~nker,luxuries of which such a filthy person as hirnself is nOt worthy: "Wir wollten nielH, daß ihr euch an 11Il~ dreckig macht!" (69). As he utters these words. noise grows in the background. Someone smashes a bottle. Sad speaks louder. The no ise geLS progressively doser, more threatening, encirding him. He screams to be heard o\"er the 110i<;e, but it is no use; the national anthem, a huge chorus and a gigantic orchestrn drown Out his words. The sounds of Germao national pride and "high" cuhure prevail over the powerless Sad, who is suffocated into sIlence. Gi\'en that racism and ethnic and religious conniCl are of increas­ ing concern, Dreck's focus is a \'ery topical ooe. An interesting aspeu of the work is that ;t auempts to comment on the very genertr!lheme of racislll in nationalism (and "ice versa) through a single voice. Be­ c:\use tbe play seeks to ex pose a general problem, Sad does not sit on the stage and share with the audience how he feels and what he expe­ riences; he is rat her a mouthpiece for hringing to light the endle .. s filth wh ich the alldienc(" is implicated in proliferating. (h is therefore unclear why the play, whose character repeaLS countless stereotypes of his cu!ture, neglects issues of gender and sexuality which are so relevant tO its discussion of racism.) This formal aUows Dreck to dem­ onstrate the constraims of operating within racisl discourse. The rac­ ist language that defines SOld (and his people) in the eyes of German socie1Y cre:nes a spaee in whieh it is impossib le for lum not tO hale h imself. I low can Sad be underslood as an individual and not as "one 54 roCZiS on Llleralur of u lOse" when he him self can no langer exercise an authe ntie subjec­ tiviry? Perhaps this queslio ll is the one that Dreck raises most strongly . Because the audience aod reader are provided 110 insight ioto the "real" Arab (as tl10ugh there were such a rep resentative person), they are forced to confro nt the vicious erele of hare perpetuated by racism. Duke Ulliversity Barbara Shllmamlfang ------------......... ------------ H.C. ARTMANN. Der zerbrochene Kmg. Salzburg: Residenz, 1992. 102 S. DM 36,00. The cover jacket to H.C. Artmann's latest work, an adaptation­ cr perhaps better an .. Austrianization"-of Hei nrich von Kleist's c1as­ sie comedy, poses the followtng questions: "Warum muß der ver­ maledeite Krug immer im fernen Huisum zerbrechen? U nd wamm muß die folgende unglückselige Gerichtsverhandlung immer in einer Sprache abgewickelt werden, die uns-Hand aufs Herzl-doch schon ein wenig fremd anmutet? Wobei die dralle Komik nur allzuleicht im Bemühen um Verstehen untergeht. " With th is in mind, any reader familiar with Artmann 's work and Kleist's play ean expeet both an amusing and sati rical version of Klei st's 18 11 parablc of justice and jurisprudenee, but written in typical Arunannian style, in Austrian dialect. Whether "die dralle Komik, [die] allzuleicht im Bemühen um Verstehen untergeht" by KIeist is reseued here, depends of course on how conversant the reader is with the dialeet of Niederösterreieh. However, with abasie knowledge of Kleist's play and a b it of imagi­ nation, even th e most northern of Germans should enjoy Artmann's adaptation. Arunann, while perhaps best known for his Iyric and sati ri cal prose wrinen in various Austrian dialects, has in reeent years tumed mueh of h is attenti on to tran slations and dialectieal transformations of works in German. As a leading figure in the "Wien er Gruppe" iJ1 the 1950s, Artmann experimented with dialect, slang, and found lyr- Fom, on Lift:rttfllr Vol. t, No. 1 (1994) !:Sook Kevlews ies, eombining them Wilh humor and aeute satire whieh ohen over­ shadowed the underlying soeial eritieism found in a11 his works. As such, KJeist's play is perfect material for Artmann in that Il affords him the opportunity to convey serious social themes in a comic tone, as well as to relish in the word plays and [he verbal jousting amongst the villagers, an element which aceounted for much of the humor in Kleist's origin al work. Essentially, Al1.mann's story fol lows the outline of Kleist's play fairly closely. Both works are divided imo 13 seenes and the principal eharacters remain the same, although here with appropriate name variations. Whereas Kleist's story takes place in the Nethe rlands, Al1.mann transportS his story to 19th-century Niederösterreich. Dorf­ richter Adam and his Schreiber Licht! must preside o\"er a dispute bcrween Frau Magdelena Rull and Ruprecht Dimpn, who is engaged to her daughter Eva. The dispute concerns, of course, a broken jug, a fanlily heirloom, which in typical Artmann fashion stems he re from the Budweiser province, an obvious jab at the Austrian Blerieidenschaft. Whereas Kleist notes in apreface to his play that thc Ocdipus story of self-revelation is centrallO the play, Artmann concentrates more on the archetypal image of the Fall in the opening scene. After explain­ ing how he injured himself "über den Stein des Anstoßes halt, wie's in der Bibel heißt," Adam asks Licht! what he is thinking: Lich/i: (zu'(!it!elttlg) Ans Paradies hab ich hah denkt: Der leidige Vorfall mit dem Namensvetter vom Herrn von Adam ... Adam: Was soll denn mit dem sein? Licht!: Der ist annodazumals auch gSlolpen, nicht wahr? Acißm: Ja, aber nicht über seinen inneren Stein, mächt ich memen. Licht!: Das nicht, aber über die Maschanskeräpfel ,·on der E\"a ... Adam: (laI/emd) Oho, will Er da etwa auf was anspielen, Schreiber? Licht!: I wo! Adam: Möcht ich Ihm auch nicht raten Stein oder Maschansker, wenn man druberstolpen. tU! 's meistens weh. ('·9) This type of exchange is typical for Artman ll's charaeters and for the play in generaL Whereas Kielst problematizes the lack of communica· Focus on Literatur lion and misunderslandings within society, Anmann plays with the hUll1orous dialog whieh gendy satirizes the memality and simplicity o( the society, yet (unelions a1l the while to uneover the aCLUalturn o( events. This satire and eriticism o( the villagers' simplieity be<:omes apparent whell Ger'ichtsrat \'<'alter von Waherberg arrives 10 observe the proceedings and audit t he town's treasury. When Frau Theresia (a gooel Austrian version of Kleist's Frau Brigiue) testifies she saw some­ one leave Eva's hause lale the night berore and curiously followed the footprints through thc snow-whieh appeared to her to be the devil's tracks-Waller impatiemly exclaims: "0 GOtt, als hätte es niemals eine Aufklärung gegeben! Wo sollen wir mit diesem Gefasel, mit diesem verdammu ngswürdigen Wahnsinn noch hinkommen?n (88). Indeed, Artmann's Gerichtsrat is (ar more vocal than Kleist's ami rnake<; no reservations in eriticizing the viUagers for tbeir ignorance ;lud irratio­ nality. For Anmann, both Waltel' and Lichd represent the only true voices of rationality aod logical thougln amongst a group of towns­ people incapable of surmounting their petty bickering and concerns for eating and drinking to ersltnt Ber/m Bmnka Schal/er ----------........ ------------ URS WIDt-1ER. Liebesbrzeffrir Mar)'. Zürich: Diogenes, 1993.99 S. DM 26,80. 1u pres!i releases and on the dust jacket, Swiss author Urs Widmer feels compelled tO emphasize that his haest werk is indeed "ein Stück deut.:;che l.iterntur," a statement prompted by the facl that nearly half o f th is Erzählung is writle n in English. Mary Hope, the intcnded re· cipient of the titular love leu er, is Irish, and her knowledge of Ger­ man is such that she confuses Herz with Schmerz and Liebe with LeId. Thus H elmut, the author of the letter and one-timc lover of Mary, uses English in a lengthy epistle designed 10 win her back. Helmut's assertion in his letter that probably only a German-speaking reader could undcrstand his English is nonsense; stylistically it belies lhe ex­ perience of someone who supposedly had juSt one ye~r of E,~gljsh , supplemented by a love o f American movies. The occaslonalnusused worcls and strategic misspellings serve only to accentuate the overall quality of the prose. H elmut is notthe on ly one in love willl Mary; an unnamed nar­ rator also loved and lost her. In abrief German introduction this narrator exphuns that I ielmut was a friend and neighbor of his si llce childhood, aod that the letter was imended for Mary, who leh thern bodt to find true love wi th an aborigine in the Aus1ralian Outback. He makes it c1ear that he regards the love letter as Helmut's legacy, and he prints il here m totQ 10 tell the story of 1his bizarre l ove tri­ angle :lnd how bOlh it