“But there is a veil hanging before it …” Response to Edith Krause By

“But there is a veil hanging before it …” Response to Edith Krause By

Dialogue and UniversalismE Volume 2, Number 2/2011
“But there is a veil hanging before it …” Response to Edith Krause
“Aber da hängt ein Schleier davor, und schon ist ein Faden zur Stelle, der sich
spinnt, der sich herumspinnt ums Bild, ein Schleierfaden spinnt sich ums Bild
herum …”
„But there is a veil hanging before it, and already a thread in place,
spinning itself, spinning till it‟s spun round the picture, …‟
(In den Alpen 43)1
By
Roxane Riegler
Abstract
Using the metaphor of the thread Edith Krause brings the structure of
Elfriede Jelinek‟s play Stecken Stab und Stangl (Rod, Staff, and Crook, 1997) into
sharper focus. Her metaphor serves as a meta-text to analyze the play. This response
not only critically appraises Krause‟s article but also uses some of her threads to
elaborate on selected ideas. It emphasizes particularly the murder of the four
Romanies and its role in coming to terms with Holocaust history. This response
pursues whether Jelinek raises the question of the Romani Parraimos (the devouring)
together with the Jewish Shoah (great calamity), or if she, like many others, focuses
more on the public discourse about the Jewish Holocaust.
Introduction
In her article, “Threads/Threats of Violence: Elfriede Jelinek‟s Stecken, Stab und
Stangl. Eine Handarbeit (Rod, Staff, and Crook. A Handiwork) Edith Krause skillfully
weaves together different messages from Jelinek‟s play. Using the metaphor of the
thread she brings the structure of the play into sharper focus. This metaphor serves
thus as a meta-text to analyze the play as Krause demonstrates how it is an image
inherent to the play itself. Not as “the logically ordered thread of a plot” but rather “a
mesh of yarn that is appended to the scene like a second skin” (Krause 24), she writes.
Krause‟s figure of speech operates as an excellent starting point for approaching the
text in that her analysis itself is a sophisticated weave of thought- and insightful ideas.
Let us review Krause‟s summary of Jelinek‟s objective: “… the author wants to
elucidate, accuse, and unearth by exposing layers of meaning, obscured facts, and
deluded mindsets” (Krause 25). Jelinek‟s intention is to critically engage not only with
All translations are my own with the kind help of Joshua Easterling; except for the Celan quotation from In den Alpen (43) and from
Stecken, Stab und Stangl (40).
1
the murder of the four Romani men but also with the Austrian Sonderweg „special path‟
by which the culture negotiates issues of racism that are intrinsically linked to the
country‟s fascist past: Vergangenheitsbewältigung „coming to terms with the past‟ gone
horribly awry, as it were. The following quote connects the February murders to the
covering up by Austria of its own entanglement in National Socialism: “Ab hier:
Asiens grenzenlose Weite. Links geht‟s zu den Alpen” „From here on: Asia‟s limitless
expanse. To the left you get to the Alps‟ (Jelinek SSS 40).2 Asia‟s limitless expanse
ironically refers to the signpost that the four men tried to remove before the bomb
went off. It read: “Roma zurück nach Indien!” „Romanies back to India.‟ “Links geht‟s
zu den Alpen” may point to Jelinek‟s abhorrence for rural surroundings and the nonurban population, or “Pöbel” „rabble‟ who, according to Jelinek, played a crucial role
in the rise of national-socialist ideas and practices.3 In addition, the link between
“Pöbel” and the Alps may allude to her play In den Alpen where she uses a disastrous
accident in the mountains to remind her audience that there are far more tragic events
in history than the people who were killed that day. The play interweaves the account
of the accident with an attack on Austria for its involvement in the Holocaust. 4
Stecken, Stab und Stangl is a harsh, unforgiving analysis of Austria‟s refusal to
confront both the racist exclusion and the silencing of Romani voices in
contemporary Austrian society as well as the repression of history. The play deals with
selective memory and the Holocaust itself. Interestingly, it is not clear from the text
itself whether Jelinek raises the question of the Romani Parraimos (the devouring)
together with the Jewish Shoah (great calamity) although one hopes that she is doing
just that. The same can be said of Carp‟s interview with Jelinek. In it, the author states
that she needed to express her outrage against the bomb attack and the reactions of
the Austrian media. It was important for her to link those murders to Auschwitz. As a
rule, Auschwitz remains a symbol that points to the Shoah, and Jelinek does not seem
to be an exception here.
It becomes apparent that despite her immense sensitivity towards oppressed
minorities and her concern for historical truth Jelinek fails to point out that the
Romanies suffered a similar fate as the Jews. It is a fact that as far as absolute
numbers are concerned far more Jews than Romanies were annihilated.5 However,
that barely changes the tragic outcome for either group. For all intents and purposes,
Jelinek wanted to give a voice to those who were/are silent and silenced in Austrian
society. For instance, throughout the play Jelinek touches directly on the Shoah (e.g.
The title of the play Stecken, Stab und Stangl will be abbreviated to SSS.
This reference is taken from the interview that Stefanie Carp conducted with Jelinek: “Ich bin im Grunde ständig tobsüchtig über
die Verharmlosung” „I am in fact constantly raving mad against the trivialization.‟ This interview will be quoted as “Im Grunde.”
4 Here I cannot agree with Krause‟s universal interpretation of that passage (24). Since Jelinek is a master of double entendres and
(self-) reference the above quote unquestionably has a different meaning.
5 Six million versus 500,000.
2
3
49
Jelinek 30, 32, 42, 60, 63). Likewise, analyses of Stecken, Stab und Stangl by and large
make the leap from the four murdered Romanies to the repressed memory of the
Jewish Holocaust without ever mentioning the Parraimos itself.6 But who can blame
the critics since the genocide of Romanies eludes the notice of even Jelinek? One
wonders what the reason for that oversight might be. Generally speaking, within
historiography, literature and the arts etc., the Shoah has received far greater attention
than the Parraimos. It is only in the past twenty years that Romani history has drawn
more interest from writers and critics. Partly, this long-lasting neglect is undoubtedly
due to the extremely low social prestige and representaion of Romanies. Moreover,
Jelinek has a personal connection to Jewish history since her father was a Jew.
However, in Jelinek‟s defense, this text implies, if subtly, a willingness to
consider the relevance of the Parraimos to Ausschwitz. Although the Shoah is
mentioned directly on several occasions in the play, allusions to the Holocaust remain
overall oblique. Consequently when the focus on the four Romanies shifts to the
Holocaust we would do well to include the Parraimos. In Stecken, Stab und Stangl
(Jelinek 40), it reads: “Wir stehen auf Leichen, und jetzt sind halt noch vier
dazugekommen, damit wir nicht aus der Übung kommen. Na, wie stehen wir da? Wo
kommen wir denn da hin, kommen wir auf ein Massengrab oder was?” „We are
standing on corpses, and four have been added now so that we won‟t get out of
practice. Where will we end up, are we coming upon a mass grave or something?‟7 It is
a fact that Romanies were also buried in mass graves. Moreover, from the interview
“Im Grunde” it is evident that Jelinek is definitely aware of Romani history in Austria.
As Stecken, Stab und Stangl was written in the aftermath of the murder of those
four young men and another racially motivated bomb attack in the federal province of
Burgenland, Jelinek expresses her outrage at the socio-political situation at the time. In
an attempt to deal with that murder, Jelinek used the ensuing reports and articles in
the Austrian media as well as generally held opinions by the Austrian population to
deconstruct public and private discourse and expose its mendacity. In contrasting
several tragic incidents that happened around the same time of those killings Jelinek
mercilessly attacks the Austrian media coverage that clearly favored personal
catastrophes and neglected or downplayed the collective tragedy of discrimination and
murder.
Language, then, is not trustworthy and hides the truth. On the other hand, by
quoting and slightly changing original press reports the playwright dismantles this
disingenuous discourse. It is through language that the language of denial is
See for instance Grobbel or Kallin
Auf etwas stehen has a double meaning here. First, if taken literally it means „physically standing on something‟ but secondly it also
signifies that someone is fond of something (we are fond of corpses).
6
7
50
unmasked. Jelinek‟s characters are not individuals with distinctive personalities but
rather are language surfaces (Sprachflächen). This is also how Krause interprets the
quotations from Paul Celan, Sprachflächen that represent an impersonal
“undistinguished, and carelessly uttered speech part” (Krause 29). On the other hand,
as Krause is quick to point out, those seventeen Celan quotes not only demonstrate
the carelessness of the play‟s characters but indeed – “as a meshwork of diametrically
opposed threads” (Krause 29) – expose the “forgetfulness” of the Austrian
population. Celan‟s voice is perceived as something rather strange, something that
makes the speaker pause. It thus functions as a reminder of history. That is for the
audience, for the characters on stage may indeed pause for a moment but with no
further reflection. None of them is able to see through her/his author‟s intentions so
to speak. These warnings are not heeded and violence on stage is taken for granted.
According to Jelinek, her characters are all inept and worth despising (“Im
Grunde”). They insist on speaking, as if doing so might save them from their
repressed guilt. Matthias Konzett calls those language surfaces “Sprachschablonen,
linguistic clichés” (Konzett 122). Stefanie Carp equates their uncontrolled speaking
with a “Sprachdecke” „speech cover‟ (“Im Grunde”), thus further tightening the
connections between discourse and crocheting. In this widely quoted interview Jelinek
states:
Alle sind unheimlich eifrig, und darunter ist unser Boden grundlos. Grundlos, weil er
morastig ist und jederzeit einbrechen kann. Und unsere Geschichte, auch die deutsche, wird
uns weiter verfolgen. Je öfter sie für beendet erklärt wird, je öfter [sic] wird sie uns verfolgen.
„Everyone is terribly fervent; and underneath, our soil is like a bottomless pit.
Bottomless because it is a morass and can give in at any moment. And our
history, like German history, will persecute us. The more we declare it to be
over the more it will persecute us.‟ (“Im Grunde”)
As pessimistic as Jelinek considers herself, here we detect a glimpse of hope:
her “undead,” the victims of the Nazis, do not give in. Memory cannot be indefinitely
repressed. It is bound to resurface. Auschwitz is not dead precisely because no one is
willing to talk about it.8 “Einmal muß Schluß sein” „It has to be over‟ the characters
keep insisting. In a more sincere moment one of them voices (everyone‟s?) her
uneasiness:
8See
also Jelinek‟s novels Die Kinder der Toten(1995, The Children of the Dead)and Wolken.Heim (1997, Clouds.Home). In Die Kinder der
Toten Jelinek writes about the repressed Nazi past and that one of Austria‟s foundations is the denial of the murder of millions of
Holocaust victims. Similarly, the play (monolog) Wolken.Heim sarcastically deals with Austrian fascist tendencies.
51
Ich hab dauernd das Gefühl, der Tod ragt, wie das Eck eines Tischs, an dem wir uns
andauernd stoßen, weil wir uns nicht daran gewöhnen können, daß er da steht, ein Stück ins
Bewußtsein hinein…
„I have the constant feeling that death protrudes into our conscience like the
corner of a table that we continually knock against because we cannot get used
to its being there…‟ (Jelinek SSS 54)
Of course, this character retracts and is again distracted. In the play, the “Einmal muß
Schluß sein”- demands multiply after that scene. In addition, it is the four “Herren
Tote” „dead gentlemen‟ that “are held responsible for [that] resurgence of
uncomfortable memories that must be suppressed” (Riegler 269): a classic example of
Freudian projection.
Apart from her use of Celan, Jelinek employs still more means to directly
disrupt speech on the stage. For the author, also a musician, uses rhythmic devices to
deconstruct and subvert defensive yet insidious justifications, especially the attempts
to deny the magnitude of the Holocaust. When a customer representing the notorious
Austrian Kronenzeitung-journalist Richard Nimmerrichter aka Staberl states that the
killing of so many people was technically impossible, Jelinek lets the same character
interrupt himself with “pfui” „yuck‟ or „boo,‟ an exclamation that signifies disgust or
disapproval (Jelinek SSS 41-42). Since this word is used to scold children for saying
something “dirty” or is a negative response to a performance, Staberl‟s language is
thus ridiculed and exposed. Moreover, a children‟s choir (an allusion to the prestigious
Wiener Sängerknaben [Viennese Boys‟ Choir]) interrupts “Zwei Männer” „two men‟
and essentially overrides the trivialization of the Shoah. While the two men are trying
to convince us that most of the Jews were not gassed but otherwise killed – as if the
genocide thus would have been less cruel – the children are singing “barbarisch”
„barbaric‟ at the top of their lungs, or a modification thereof (SSS 46-47). These two
instances are once again underscoring the cynicism of the Auschwitzlüge „Auschwitz lie.‟
If we for any reason do not or do not want to question these statements, Jelinek
makes sure that the “pfui” and the children‟s voices drive the historical truth home.
We should not judge Jelinek so hastily after all. If the characters are not
individuals but discourses that one would read in the Kronenzeitung, hear on television,
or at the butcher‟s counter in the supermarket, which Krause defines as a “cultural
code” (Krause 22), then the question of whose voice we hear takes on a different
meaning.9 Bärbel Lücke writes that “in einer solchen Sprache verliert auch eine
eindeutige Figur im Roman oder im Drama ihren Umriß. Die Sprache selbst wird
Stimme über dem Abgrund der verlorenen einen Wahrheit, …”. „in a language like that
9Even
Staberl, although a prominent voice, does not speak for himself alone but rather echoes and elaborates widely spread attitudes.
52
a distinctive character loses his/her contours in a novel or play. Language itself turns
into a voice above the abyss of the one lost truth …‟ (Lücke 127). If there is only
discourse left, after all the silent Romanies on stage may not need an actual voice since
they speak through their mere presence. Those “ghosts” (Grobbel) lie on the stage or
walk about as a constant reminder of what has happened. First, they represent
themselves, four actual dead Romanies, recently murdered. Then again, these four
men are stacked against the concentration camp mass murders during the Third
Reich. They are the undead. As we know from other Jelinek-texts the undead are –
however mute they may appear – a loud voice that calls up the past and penetrates
into our psyche or, to borrow Marlene Streeruwitz‟ expression, creates an archeology
of the subconscious (Streeruwitz 265). The references to the Parraimos never are
unequivocal in the play, yet I want to think they are inferred.
According to Krause the Häkellandschaft (handiworkscape) is reduplicating the
Sprachdecke but also creating “its own signifying string” (Krause 25). Whereas Krause
pursues the difference between those two signifiers, between discursive and visual, I
wish to draw attention to the paradox that language and the crocheted material are
used both to cover and uncover the truth. Just like the incessant on-stage speaking
which forms the Sprachdecke, the Häkellandschaft (dis)covers reality. For instance, in
contrast to knitting, crocheting, produces a looser fabric and leaves holes, and if one
looks carefully one notices the “morass” underneath. Although the characters on
stage may endeavor to hide the truth with words and crochet over people and objects,
the content underneath those crocheted forms is still recognizable. In the play, then,
the signifiers of language and the Häkellandschaft – discourse and visual – complement
each other and reinforce Jelinek‟s project of unmasking the energies of denial.
Bibliography
Carp, Stefanie. “Ich bin im Grunde ständig tobsüchtig über die Verharmlosung: Ein
Gespräch mit Elfriede Jelinek.” Elfriede Jelinek Homepage. Web. 12 October 2011.
Grobbel, Michaela. “Haunted by History: Ghosts and „Ghosting‟ in Elfriede Jelinek‟s
Stecken, Stab und Stangl [Stick, Staff, and Pole].” Elfriede Jelinek: Writing Woman, Nation, and
Identity. A Critical Anthology. Eds. Matthias Piccolruaz Konzett and Margarete LambFaffelberger. Madison; Teaneck: Fairleigh UP, 2007. 135-56.
Jelinek, Elfriede. In den Alpen. Drei Dramen. Berlin: Berlin Verlag 2002.
---. Stecken, Stab und Stangl. Raststätte. Wolken.Heim. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt,
1997.
---. Die Kinder der Toten. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1995.
53
Kallin, Britta. “The Representation of Roma in Elfriede Jelinek‟s Stecken, Stab und
Stangl. Colloquia Germanica 37.2. (2004): 173-93.
Konzett, Matthias. The Rhetoric of National Dissent in Thomas Bernhard, Peter Handke, and
Elfriede Jelinek. Rochester, NY; Woodbridge, UK: Camden House, 2000.
Krause, Edith. “Threads/Threats of Violence: Elfriede Jelinek‟s Stecken, Stab und
Stangl. Eine Handarbeit (Rod, Staff, and Crook: A Handiwork). Dialogue and UniversalismE
2.1 (2011): 21-31. Web. 12 October 2011.
Lücke, Bärbel. Elfriede Jelinek: Eine Einführung in das Werk. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink
Verlag, 2008.
Riegler, Roxane. “The Necessity of Remembering Injustice and Suffering: History,
Memory, and the Representation of the Romani Holocaust in Austrian Contemporary
Literature.” Ed. Maria-Regina Kecht. Austrian Literature: Gender, History, and Memory.
Studies in 20th& 21st Century Literature 31.1 (2007): 260-284.
Streeruwitz, Marlene. “3000 Jahre Sachertorte. Oder: „Darf‟s ein bisserl mehr sein?‟”
Elfriede Jelinek: Die international Rezeption. Eds. Daniela Bartens and Paul Pechmann.
Graz: Literaturverlag Droschl, 1997. 253-265.
54