Ohne Nachfolger

Der Blog The Mumpsimus dokumentiert eine ausführliche Kontroverse um die Kohlhaas-Deutung von Gabriel Josipovici und dessen These:
»This suggests that what happened to the Grimm Tales in the course of fifty years of ›revision‹ was that they were transformed from tales told by speakers who were deeply convinced that they were true (whatever meaning one assigns to the term) into tales told by writers (Wilhelm Grimm, in effect) who did not believe in them and therefore added scene-setting, morality and psychology to make them both attractive and meaningful. […] However, it was perhaps Kleist alone among the writers of the century who really grasped what was at issue here. His great novella, Michael Kohlhaas, takes many of the elements that go to make up the Grimm Tales and stands them on their head, bidding an anguished farewell as it does so both to community values and to the power of wishful thinking. But Kleist had no successors, and, by and large, nineteenth-century novelists and storytellers took the path of Midrash and romance, still the staple diet of readers of twentieth-century fiction, with neither writers nor readers quite believing what they are doing, but under a strange compulsion to pretend that they do.« http://mumpsimus.blogspot.de/2005/08/grimm-kleist-details-and-belief.html

Dieser Beitrag wurde unter Allgemein abgelegt und mit verschlagwortet. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.