|
November 9th, 2009 My German family came from the East, and I have relations in the East who I don;t know because after the war and the division of Germany, my mother lost touch with them. I had a great-aunt Hedwig Kolodziej - I wonder where her descendants are now? I remember the first time I saw the Wall making an ugly barrier through the Brandenburg Gate. Not a door that could be opened. A barricade, like the bricks that filled the windows of the houses that abutted the border. I so much yearned to go through the Brandenburg Gate and down Unter den Linden just in an ordinary way. In 1972, when I first went to Berlin, you could either go through an Allied checkpoint, or go through Friedrichstrasse station, have your passport taken away and be given a dirty little chit with a number on it. Then you had to listen for your number to be called through a crackly tannoy. You went into a room where the guards stared at you and made you adjust your hair so it was in exactly the same position as it was on the photograph - and finally let you through. It was scary and like going into limbo. It was, of course, meant to be intimidating as this was the checkpoint for citizens of the Federal Republic - who - as I remember - had only just been able to visit the East as a result of Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik. On the west side of the Wall were steps up to platforms where you could look across. These had been built, not for tourists, but for people who wanted to wave to their relations in the days when that was all you could do. I've spoken of my aunt Hedwig, but the Wall divided parents from children, brothers from sisters, in some cases husbands and wives. After Brandt's Ostpolitik, it was at least possible for them to visit one another. I can still remember watching him, on the television, standing up in the Bundestag - the West German parliament - and saying: 'What matters is that we have made human beings's lives easier.' His critics, of course, said any negotiation with the East was a failure, morally wrong. I think Brandt was right. I think, apart from anything else, that the traffic across the frontier helped a younger generation to realise that there was a place where things were different. Of course they idealised it, and of course disillusion was bound to follow. Nothing is perfect. I've read people like Timothy Garton Ash criticising the peace movement of the '80s for being concerned only to save their own skins and failing to support the demonstrators and dissidents of Eastern Europe. Nothing could be further from the truth. CND in the '80s was a grass-roots movement that went far beyond the simple unwillingness to be incinerated in the cause of 'freedom.' For one thing, we didn't think it'd help the peoples of Eastern Europe if they were the battlefield on which a nuclear war was fought - something glibly talked about by Reagan and Thatcher in those days, incredible though it may now seem. For another thing, the peace movement made people see how injustice the world over was linked together, how the military-industrial complex fed dictatorships, and how the idea of 'enemy threats' helped keep people in subjection. When CND people, like Bruce Kent and Joan Ruddock, went to Moscow, they knew exactly how useless the 'official' peace groups were. They tried to get into touch with dissident groups and, in the old Quaker phrase, they 'spoke truth to power', telling the Russians that if they wanted to have peace, really wanted it, they must liberalise. Gorbachev, in the end, took notice . The rest is history, but on that morning when I found the newspaper and saw the photographs, switched on the television and saw the footage of what had happened the night before, it was the present, and it was simple joy. And it's still a joy to go through the Brandenburg Gate, just stroll through it, where once there was the death-strip and the patrols and the guards staring at you through their binoculars. I wish all the walls that separate people - in Belfast, in the Middle East - would follow suit. And the walls inside our heads, too, those are the worst. July 19th The Wilderness of Childhood This is a title I've filched from the New York Review of Books, from an article of the same name by Michael Chabon. He talks about the free space he had to play in his childhood, just a sort of park behind his house, and the streets around. It doesn't take much to make a wilderness for children to play in. I remember Queen Katherine Street in Kendal, where all the children used to ride their bikes - where I, indeed, learned to ride a bike, without being taught by any adults, just by scooting along with one foot on the pavement till I got my balance and could pedal too. There was a back lane that ran up behind our house, where all the kids played again, paved with long limestones with grass growing in between them, and a walled triangle, raised off the ground, which was a flag stand for the Territorial Drill Hall, and sometimes we were chased off it, but most of the time it made a fantastic fort. We played in the canal, which was drained there, so you could hurtle down into its bed, and, when we wanted a real castle, we'd go uphill to Kendal Castle and clamber on the walls. Nobody ever asked where we were, we came home when we were hungry, and stayed at home if it rained - which was often, of course! I remember sitting in a window at the castle, looking out of the arrow-slit and imagining I was watching for enemies coming across the hills at the back. There was a tower that my brother always climbed into, and when I was older I went up there, too. And when my parents took us to see friends who lived in a converted barn out at Crook, we rambled off over the hills with their Lakeland Terrier. My Dad was in the YMCA and they had an outdoor activity centre at Lakeside, on Windermere, where Phil and I would be given lifejackets and kayaks and we paddled around there. And we kayaked, too, when we went to visit another lot of friends', they'd come up in the world and had a largish country house and two dilapidated Roma caravans, but also a little tarn in front of the house. We were getting exercise and learning physical competence, clambering in worked-out quarries and up crags, climbing dry-stone walls (in those days, the Lakes weren't as overrun as they are now, and so kids were allowed to do that.) But also, I was getting the kind of experiences that would lay the ground for being a writer later on. Our adventures were very small, but they were big to us, and of course we imagined all the time, we were cowboys and Indians, or we were on the run from witches, or tracking gangsters, and loads of things I've forgotten. When I was away with the other authors last week, we were chatting and all talked about having this kind of childhood. My kids mainly played in our garden, so I thought, but in fact they used to climb over the fences and into the neighbours' gardens, hiding from the neighbours. The house next door to us was occupied by an old lady who never went into the upper reaches of her garden, so they had free run there - and I'm really glad they had that measure of freedom, though I was more protective than my parents had been. It wasn't so much 'stranger danger' as traffic. Though I have to say that Aynam Road, where I grew up, was a very busy road, the main A6 to Carlisle and all the traffic northwards ran along it. I don't know how much freedom, if any, my grandson will have. And it's sad, because actually the 'stranger danger' is no greater than it ever was. Maybe we should all be getting out of our cars much more and walking or taking buses, so that the kids could play out again. July 16th One of the things I often get asked when I go to schools is: 'Do you know any other authors?' Well, yes, I do. I've got a lot of friends who are authors, some I've met by chance, others through my literary agent or via other author friends, and then there is a wonderful group of people I've got to know through joining the Scattered Authors' Society. This organisation brings together people who write for young people of whatever age, and we socialise, exchange problems, and, more importantly, exchange solutions. We swap skills, thus giving each other valuable training. Once a year we go to a lovely manor house in the depths of the country, where all these activities take place, and I always come back tired from staying up too late talking, but really recharged and feeling much better about the whole business of being an author. It's an odd job, it's done on one's own, but like anyone else, we need colleagues, and the SAS gives us that. I do remember, actually, when I was a kid, being astonished that Charlotte Bronte was friendly with Elizabeth Gaskell, I did have this ideas of writers all being separate from each other. Talking of being a kid, I had a very enjoyable time when I went to my old school, Nottingham High School for Girls, to do two talks. I was greatly pleased to discover that the same story of the school ghost had survived all the years, and I did enjoy meeting the pupils, who were intelligent, lively, and fun to talk to. And the staff, too! I went upstairs and saw the old staff room, now divided into two classrooms. I remembered how I used to go there to talk to a teacher and clouds of smoke used to come out - no smoke in staff-rooms nowadays. And there was one of the classrooms I used to sit in and stare out of the window and imagine plots for books - they'd put in new ceilings and windows and it only slightly resembled the room I'd used to know. I did have this odd little delusion that the actual old school would be there waiting for me, if I only turned a particular key. The only key is memory, though. Afterwards I went back to the tram stop, to go to the station, via the Arboretum which was always on the hillside below the school, and then I did get the feeling of going back in time, because it did seem to be quite the same. Only the white cockatoo who used to be there had died long since. He lived to something like 115 years old! There was a notice about him by the aviaries. I do remember they were always full of wolf-whistling mynah birds in my day. It's a lovely park, the Arboretum, all done out with Victorian carpet-bedding. I remember going through there one afternoon in the autumn, when the gardeners were taking the dahlias out, and they told us to pick as many flowers as we liked. It was the first time I'd really noticed dahlias, and the pleasure of that bouquet of gaudy blooms still stays with me, I can feel the coldness of the stems and petals. 12th June I've read another superb book, by an author I should have read ages ago, Siobhan Dowd's A Swift Pure Cry. Now I can't wait to read her other books, too few, unfortunately, since she died recently of cancer. A great shame. We've had the European elections, which have seen two BNP members get into the European parliament. It represents a very worrying development, since this is a frankly racist party - they only allow white people to join - and though they've smoothed over their surface, they are simply the successors to the British fascist party.
There were two letters in the Guardian about this which I found interesting and disturbing, and both rang uncomfortable bells with me. The first was from a person who had voted for the BNP to give 'a salutory lesson' to the major parties. It did make me wonder how many of the people who voted for Hitler in the run-up to his accession to power really wanted him, and how many were also exercising a protest vote. The trouble is, that if everyone votes for the extremists to give the main parties a shock, you end up with the extremists in power. OK, this was the European parliament, but it wouldn't have been wonderful if Britain had sent a largely BNP contingent there. The other letter was rather naively suggesting that it would do the BNP good to be exposed to political realities. This was an idea that some people had about Hitler. The trouble with extremists is that as soon as they can they start making the political realities. I was not particularly encouraged by the lineup of 'top historians' in another part of the paper, who were all saying that the BNP aren't a threat, because conditions now were very different from the conditions in Germany when Hitler came to power. Surely historians, of all people, should know that things never happen the same way twice? What worries me is that even without any extremist parties getting to power, our civil liberties are shrinking in this country - the excuse being crime and terrorism - and we are watched more than anyone else has ever been watched. George Orwell saw it all coming. Only he didn't envisage it happening in the framework of a democracy. And are we going to say, oh well, we're a democracy still, so it's all right? On a more cheerful note, I have been doing some lovely talks and workshops based around Rafael, and have so much enjoyed working with school pupils. They are so bright and fun, and often make me laugh. I was asked if I'd been in the Hitler Youth. Answer - no, I may be a grandmother, but I am MUCH too young for that! Actually, my mother was in the German Girls' League for a while, but she hated it, there was too much standing around for hours so that when some important person flew over they'd be making a swastika shape on the ground. Such disenchantment wasn't uncommon among the young of that period, it all became very dreary and tiresome. Some kids just made excuses not to go, but my mother left, though one of her teachers, who was a Nazi, told her the family would lose their ration book. They didn't. May 15th There's been a sudden rush of excellent books published, so I want to talk about them. The first is Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall, which I was lucky enough to read a proof of at Christmas. It sheds fascinating new light on Henry VIII's minister, Thomas Cromwell, as well as on all the other characters of that period. It's a satisfying, absorbing, and wonderfully-written book, and though it's really long, there wasn't a page or a word too many. I can't wait for the sequel! Another is Adele Geras's Dido. The story of its unfortunate queen and her fatal love for Aeneas gets a new spin and is retold in a riveting, moving way. As always with Adele Geras's work, the characters walk off the page, she brings the place wonderfully to life, you can hear the sounds and smell the scents - and it's another page-turner. To please me, a book has to be a good story, but I do demand that the good story has all the other features as well - in other words, I'm very demanding. Another book that fulfilled all my demands was Dark Angels by Katherine Langrish, who has written the wonderful Troll trilogy. It took me into a past where people believed in magic and saw the world differently from us as a result. So Katherine Langrish's supernatural figures have nothing artificial about them - they live and breathe the life that they really had in medieval times, when ghosts, demons and spirits were simply part of people's mental landscape, in the way cars and planes are part of ours. I couldn't put Dark Angels down till I'd finished it. Then there's Jane Eagland's Wildthorn, another page-turner set in a Victorian lunatic asylum, a love-story and a fierce attack on attitudes towards women which, alas, aren't entirely extinct nowadays. The last in the batch is Mark Illis's Tender, a series of linked short stories centring round the life of a family. This is a book for adults, not for young adults, but apart from the humour, the quirkiness, and the spot-on observation about life, this moving book also manages wonderfully to step inside the skin of its teenage characters. So I've been totally spoiled. Now I'm back to another brilliant book by Friedrich Glauser, a Swiss author. I'm reading it in the original German, but the books have been translated into English. This one is called, in German, Matto Rules. They're all detective stories, but the detective, Sergeant Studer, is a unique policeman, who probably has more sympathy with the criminals he's investigating than with many of his colleagues or the 'respectable' members of society. May 1st The Imperial War Museum is a fantastic resource for a writer. They were a great help to me when I was writing Kummersdorf, and once again, with the help of a wonderful woman called Sarah Paterson, who is an archivist there, they have come up with the goods for my current novel. I went there a fortnight ago and spent a great day browsing on a wealth of material that gave me answers to all kinds of questions, some of the most obscure nature, as well as telling me a lot of additional things about life in Berlin at the period I’m writing about. It’s the hand-written stuff I adore, the boxes full of letters home, the journals, the little bits of memoir and the photographs and ephemera, people’s id cards, books of rules for the British Occupation forces – you really feel you’re there. April 2009 The film of The Reader is out, and I plan to go and see it next week. To prepare myself, I have been reading the book. I'm struck once again by how excellent it is, so much so that I find myself wondering how on earth the film can live up to it. Reading some of the criticisms of the film, I do feel a little apprehensive, but shall go and see it to make up my own mind - and will write something more on that topic on this blog, afterwards. The book itself, like Schlink's later book,The Homecoming, is a complex layering of moral dilemmas. The focus is on the character of Michael, who has an affair with Hanna Schmitz, who later turns out to have been a concentration camp guard. Michael was only 15 when he had the affair with her (she was 36), but comes upon her later when he becomes a law student and takes part in a seminar which deals with a current concentration camp trial. Hanna turns out to be one of the defendants. Michael guesses the reason for much of Hanna’s puzzling behaviour during the trial, and why she got girls from the concentration camp - a work unit which was a satellite camp of Auschwitz - to read to her – as she’s got Michael to read to her during the course of their affair. Hanna is illiterate, and the fact that she won't admit this, along with greater honesty about her actions than that of the other guards, is her downfall in the trial. The guards were marching women away from Auschwitz – these marches are called death-marches, because so many people died on them – they locked the women inside a church one night, which was bombed and went on fire. Because the guards wouldn’t let them out, almost all of them died. People have criticised the film – and by extrapolation the book – for focussing too much on Michael and his feelings about the Holocaust, and not enough on the victims. I find this a strange criticism, but maybe that’s because I’m half German. It’s easy to dismiss the weight of the Holocaust on the shoulders of Germans – and half-Germans too – of my generation. But the truth is, the Holocaust is a German tragedy as well as the Jewish one. It’s a haunting darkness for those of us who are of German descent – and people who live in England shouldn’t be surprised at this. They have only to look at things that are written, very easily, about Germans, ascribing guilt for the Holocaust to people who were not even born at the time. I had to hear this kind of thing when I was a child, and while I rebutted it intellectually – that part is easy – I lived with a fear that there might be this inhuman, murderous person lurking within me. Nowadays I know that is true, but it’s nothing to do with being half German. It’s to do with being human. Nevertheless, if you know that your mother’s nation perpetrated such a horror, it does make you ask questions – and go on asking them - about how it is that people can commit such crimes. Schlink is an intelligent, challenging writer, not one for easy answers. What impressed me particularly was his description of the numbing process of the trial, through familiarity, the judge, the students who attended daily, the lawyers, all get used to the horror of the night when the women were locked in to burn to death inside the church. This is a reflection of the numbing that made it possible for the Holocaust to happen – because though there was undoubtedly anti-semitism in Germany, the history books I have written have convinced me that people turned their backs on what was happening often more through a desire not to get involved or get into trouble than any hatred. As for the actual perpetrators, a lot of them regarded it as a job to do. Nowhere is that expressed more powerfully than in Hanna’s explanation, during the trial, of why they failed to let the women out of the church. She says to the judge: ‘We didn’t know what to do. It all happened so quickly, and the priest’s house (where the guards were sleeping) was on fire, and the church tower, and the men and cars were there, then they were gone, and suddenly we were alone with the women in the church. They’d left us a few weapons, but we didn’t know how to use them, and if we had – how could that have helped us, just a few women? How could we have guarded all those women? A column like that, it stretches out, even if you hold it together, and guarding such a long line, we needed far more than just the few of us’ (my translation). It’s a question of logistics, then, not a question of whether the women should have been let out. The brutal truth that lies behind Hanna’s statement is of course that the women were meant to die anyway, so how they died didn’t matter – but what Hanna’s words say to me is that she wasn’t thinking about life or death at this moment, only about her job, and how she could do it. It’s difficult to fathom Hanna, actually. Even her repentance at the end of the novel is questionable – and Michael doesn’t fail to question it. The dead ‘understand’ she says. They come to her at night, and if their visits don’t exactly seem to be comfortable ones, nevertheless one may well wonder what the ‘understanding’ consists of. I find it right that this should be so, because there is a huge gulf between those of us of the post-Nazi generation and the generation who were part of these things. It’s like the saying: If a lion were to speak to you, would you understand it? I often find myself wanting to ask my grandfather questions, but if I could get him back - even if he answered - I doubt how much benefit I’d get from talking to him. That generation, even when they told us things, often slithered away from telling us what really happened – or maybe they truly thought we couldn’t understand? They’d lived in a different environment, one that called out the worst in human nature. I have to say, though, that I dislike Hanna, as a character. I get irritated by the way in which she takes over Michael’s life. But then, I don’t like femmes fatales, and I hate books in which people are trapped and doomed. I don’t like Thomas Hardy. Luckily for me, there’s enough moral questioning in The Reader for this not to put me off. So much for the novel, now to see the film. So: I’ve seen the film of ‘The Reader’ (see previous entry) and have to report that I don’t think it’s as good as the novel. I can even understand much of the criticism, re the character of Hanna. And at this stage I must apologise to blog-readers who’ve come off the site and are maybe not yet 15. But the film will probably hang around on video for a good many years, so the opportunity to see it will come up later. I mentioned in the previous posting that I approved of the opacity of Hanna in the book – we really never get a sense of what it’s like to be her. This works in the book, because you can write fiction from one person’s point of view, but in film it’s harder. I know this sounds like gubbins at first glance – after all, a film only shows a person’s emotions from the outside, which is all we get to see of another person’s emotions in life. However, a novel, composed of words, need only reveal as much of that person’s physical reactions as the author chooses. Also, the technique of film is dedicated to increasing, if appropriate, the transparency of people. If one can’t show people’s unvoiced thoughts, one can show their facial expressions and body language. In the film, Hanna – and not the other, rather gorgon-like defendants – is shown with her face working, apparent anguish on it, confused, upset. Whereas the corresponding times in the novel are described: ‘Hanna didn’t understand what the presiding judge meant by the question.. Hanna had more or less grasped the sense of the exchange. But she herself remained preoccupied… Hanna hesitated.’ And, when she meets Michael’s eye in the courtroom: ‘Her face begged for nothing, requested nothing, assured nothing and promised nothing.. I saw how stressed and exhausted she was. She had shadows under her eyes and in each cheek there was a horizontal crease which I didn’t recognise; it wasn’t deep, but marked her out, as if it was a scar. When I flushed under her gaze, she turned away and turned back to the judge’s bench.’ Sorry for the two ‘turned’s. It is only a rough translation. But the film seems to go way beyond stress and exhaustion. Somehow the anguish does suggest repentance. Hanna’s character is softened, actually, in the film. In the book there’s a scene where Michael goes out early to buy breakfast and leaves her a note telling her where he is – which of course she can’t read. On his return, she’s furious with him and whacks him across the face with a belt. This brutality seems to betray the woman who’d been a concentration camp guard and I think it should have been retained. I also didn’t like it that the film showed her learning to read in prison by looking at the words of books and listening to Michael’s reading – he sends her cassettes of books. In the book, he is told about this by the prison governor. Again, we’ve been taken too close to the character and there’s an unwelcome note of the ‘heartwarming’ which I felt we could have done without. Another problem, shared by both book and film, is Hanna’s naïveté. It’s rather strange that she so willingly comes up with the truth about what she and her fellow-guards did. When she’s such a closed character, I’d have thought it would be more in character to try and hide it. Unless she’d done some kind of deal with the prosecution, but of course that would run flat contrary to the actual plot, where her truthfulness, combined with her refusal to admit that she’s illiterate, lead to her getting the heaviest sentence – and incidentally, I was totally unshocked by this, though I felt the film was directing me to feel injustice had been done her. The shocking thing was hearing the other guards getting off with four-year sentences. I felt all of them, without exception, should have got life. But to return to the problem of Hanna’s naïveté, I did think it came out more glaringly in the film, probably because of the greater plot-simplification that a film necessitates. The final scene was horridly sentimental, and I did think that, without Michael’s thoughts and anguishings, it was greatly impoverished.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|