VOICES FROM THE DEAD
by
Douglas Messerli
Harry
Mulisch Siegfried, translated from the Dutch by Paul Vincent (New York:
Viking, 2003)
For
more than a third of Harry Mulisch’s 2001 fiction Siegfried the reader is
immersed in the terrifying confessions
of an elderly Austrian couple. The narrator of most of this fiction, Rudolf
Herter—a world-renowned Dutch novelist—has been invited to Vienna to lecture
and read from his work. During a radio interview granted the day before the
lecture, Herter is sidetracked in his discussions to consider the issue of
fiction as representation as opposed to historical representation, which, in
turn, leads him to the conclusion that perhaps the only way to get at the
nature of a hateful figure such as Hitler is to “capture” him in fiction.
Over the next several hours and day he
becomes almost obsessed with the idea of attempting to understand Hitler, not
through a “political, historical, economic, psychological, theological, occult
representation,” but by exploring the inexplicable beginning with a “highly
fantastic but not impossible fact and mov[ing] from mental reality into social
reality,” “not from the bottom up but from the top down.”
As German cities are increasingly
destroyed, however, and Hitler and his officers progress further and further in
their mad plots to destroy all Jews, a horrible command is relayed from Hitler
through Bormann that Falk must kill Siggi, the boy he now perceives almost as
his own son. With no choice other than death to him and his wife and possibly
their families as well—deaths which, moreover, would not alter the inevitable
murder of the boy—Falk shoots Siegfried at the Berghof rifle range, framing it
as an accident.
The events described by the Falks drive
Herter later that afternoon into a kind of intellectual madness as he attempts
to comprehend Hitler—within the context the philosophies and life events of
Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Wagner—as an Antichrist of “nothingness.” Like many
believers in conspiracy theories, Herter makes improbable links between ideas
and events such Nietzsche’s warnings about such an “Antichrist” in his writings
(“One may deliver the young criminal to me; I shall not hesitate to destroy
him…”) and the philosopher’s subsequent madness at the very moment of Hitler’s
birth; connects Wagner’s hatred of Jews with the “Final Solution”; and links
Hitler’s birthplace “Braunau” with the color of Nazi “brownshirts,” the Munich
headquarters, the “Brown House,” and everything else of that color: “Brown did
not occur in the spectrum; it was a shit color that was created when you
smeared all the colors of the spectrum together on a palette—and that thought
reminded him of something that explained everything seamlessly. In Dr. Wille’s
clinic, the duty doctor noted of Nietzsche in the month of Hitler’s birth,
“Often smears feces.—Wraps feces in paper; and places them in drawer.—Once rubs
feces on leg like ointment.—Eats feces.”
Herter’s younger companion, unable to
comprehend the ravings that have overtaken her lover, insists that he rest
before their airplane ride home.
So far in this fiction readers have
perhaps willingly followed along with a story that the
narrator-author—seemingly inseparable from Mulisch himself—has predicted: a
fiction revealing “highly fantastic but not impossible fact and mov[ing] from
mental reality into social reality.” The shift to the more wildly conjectured
“coincidences” of historical and philosophical facts, however, radically alters
the direction of Mulisch’s fiction. Even if one were to accept the Falks’
shocking revelations as “fictional fact,” it is more difficult to respond to
the tenuously posited linkings and associations of the narrator’s mind. In a
sense, the reader has the feeling that not only, perhaps, has the character
become somewhat mentally unhinged, but—since it is difficult to separate him
from the author—the author has also begun to lose control of his narrative,
spewing out somewhat irrational ideas that have long been held within. Given
the normal precision of Mulisch’s writing, one reads Herter’s disjunctive associations
with some sense of embarrassment. What are we to make of these rambling
connections of fiction and fact?
Even though he recognizes that the
author’s subject is one that can only illicit irrational reactions—as the
author suggests, Hitler is after all a singular figure of evil, unlike even
Nero or other such destructive beings—the next section of this short fiction
propels the reader into stranger terrain. Purporting to be a previously unknown
diary of Eva Braun—destroyed in the raging fire that killed her and new groom,
Hitler—these fragments relay the stories behind the reasons why Hitler murdered
his only son and why he married Eva on the eve of their deaths. Eva’s writings
indicate that Himmler (or perhaps another disaffected Nazi henchman) had
created a dossier on Eva and her family that (falsely) indicated that she was
one-eighth Jewish. Hitler had no choice, he claims, but to destroy the child so
that he could never come to power. Eva, attempting to understand how being even
one-eighth Jewish could have had any effect on his being, Hitler—like all
insane believers throughout history who argue for a racial-purity—argues, as if
from rational logic:
“An eighth!” he shouted
contemptuously. “An eighth!
Birdbrain! Why don’t you
read a book occasionally in-
stead of just fashion
magazines? Then you would know that
every generation throws
up a full Jew according to Mendel’s
principles.”
Hitler
marries Eva primarily to placate her, to compensate, so to speak, for her loss.
Strangely, this impossible narrative told
from the viewpoint of a woman who loved this monster even after he destroyed
her own flesh and blood, makes Hitler all the more human, portrays him as a
monstrous bigot, perhaps, but still as a man who, believing in principles, is
betrayed by the faith he has put in those he has gathered near him. In a sense,
Eva’s fictional diary disputes the metaphysical posturing of Herter’s recent
diatribe.
As if Mulisch had not yet created enough
dilemmas for the now somewhat confused reader—a reader who has begun to wonder,
perhaps, from where the voices of this fiction emanate—the author tells us in
the last scene that Herter’s companion Maria returns to the room to find him
dead. The only remnant of any stories with which the reader has been
presented—other than his somewhat mad conversations with Maria—is a strange cry
Herter’s tape recorder has captured: “…he…he…he is here...,” similar to an
outcry that Julia Falk has heard from Hitler during a nightmare.
Accordingly, we have to wonder who has
spoken the words of this book: the narrator who has been told the Falks’s
story, promising to keep it secret, is now dead; Eva Braun’s diary—even if it
had truly existed—supposedly was destroyed with her death. Granted, Siegfried,
the book I hold in my hands, is a fiction, nonetheless the voices the author
has portrayed as relating the substance of this work are by fiction’s end all
dead. One has the strange feeling that the highly fantastic recounting one has
just experienced has been wiped away in the process of its telling. And we are
left, like Herter, with a terrifying vacuum, a story told by the dead.
In part, I suppose, it depends upon how
the reader interprets Herter’s cry in the dark; who is the he which so
terrifies him in his sleep: Hitler? Satan himself? The angel of death? Perhaps
the author comes to wipe away the fiction he has just told in order that
“something” or “someone” will not be created out of the “nothingness” that
destroyed so many millions of human beings? Throughout the fiction, Maria and
others warn Herter/Mulisch that in attempting to “net” Hitler he may also
humanize him and even allow him to be conceived as a sort of anti-hero.
Doubting the sanity of our now dead narrator, and left with no one to confirm
or deny what we have just overheard (actually “over-read”), Hitler remains a
cipher, a true zero. And we have no choice but to rub our eyes as if in
completing this tale we have just awakened from a deep sleep.
Los
Angeles, July 10, 2003
Reprinted
from Green Integer Blog (February 2009).
No comments:
Post a Comment