Phil McKnight. "Ein Mosaik zu Christoph Heins Roman Horns Ende. Sinn und Form, 39 (1987), 2: 415-425. A great deal is made of the metaphor of the tatler/denunciant (Petzer). All tellers of history are fundamentally denouncers of something or someone. At least, this is true of all the adult male charactrs in this novel. Horn's ghost's command to Thomas to "speak on" is a particularly difficult thing, because the speaking is a tatling. Just as we first see Thomas avoiding tatling in connection with the gypsies, so we see him throughout resisting Horn's demand that he tatle on Paul, in effect, in describing the finding of Horn's body. This all has bearing on the moral obligation we may have to take some particular stance toward history. Kruschkatz, Spodeck, and Horn each take a stand; it seems less certain what Thomas can or should do. His stand is not taken until after the book closes, and we don't know what it is/will be. The situation is analogous to that of the boy in "Araby." (Says I.) Kruschkatz's theory of the "Blutzoll" is a Nazi allusion. The entire range of responses to history, from forgetting it to remembering it, finds valorization in the novel. (Might this not amount to its not saying anything at all?) Bachofen = Gnadigen Herr in "Ah Q" -- a transpolitical opportunist. QUOTATIONS. McKnight makes some interesting if far-fetched comparisons/ connections among the characters, aside from the obvious one aforementioned, that of the three philosophers of history. B”ger is compared to the Apotheker -- both are "self-made men" who rose from nothing; the difference between them is merely that caused by socio-historical circumstance (the Apotheker plys his trade in the DDR, B”ger before the fall of the Reich). 417. On the connections and difference between B”ger (Spodeck's father) and the Apotheker (Thomas's father): "Die entwiclung von der Generation B”gers bis zum Apotheker -- dargestellt in einem Fragment -- ist der Ablauf zu einer Geschichte, die keinen Endzustand ihren Entwicklung kennen darf." 418. On the technique of sympathetic alienation (my term) that Hein employs, polarizing his characterizations into very good and very bad within one character: "Wenn Hein ein Vorbild [zu HE] hatte, so drfte es Kleist sein: die Widersprche werden so grndlich aufgebaut, daá eine Verunsicherung entsteht, die daran hindert, Partei zu ergreifen. Die Absolutheit des Erkenntnisverm”gens zerf„llt auch in Scherben, die darber hinaus t„uschen, wenn man sich auf einzelne verl„át. Dadurch wird es fast unm”glich gemacht, anhand einer Sympathie mit irgendwelchen Charakteren in dem Roman deren Ansichten ber Geschichte oder Moral zu bernehmen. Das geschieht mit Absicht, denn es ist nicht mehr der Zwech der Kunst, die alte Technik des argumentum ad hominem, jenes m„chtigen rhetorischen Mittels, zur šberredung zu benutzen. Das wrde die Koproduktion der Auseinandersetzung verhindern und den Leser unmndig machen." (True of all of Hein's work, plays and stories included. Hein's method of arriving at Wahrheit is to make his characters both idealized and individualized. The extreme polarity leads to the inconsistancies and undecidabilities so characteristic of his characters. Shakepeare did the same thing, incidentally. The technique of HE is the same as that of DFF, but multiplied. Already in DFF, we were trapped into trusting a point of view that becomes untenable; the same thing, sometimes in reverse, happens in HE much more complexly. We are unable finally to fully sympathize or accept the theory of history of any of the characters. None of of Hein's characters is designed so as to foster for long an illusion of reliability. They are maximally attractive and repulsive at the same time. McKnight's description of traditional, subjectively compelling, cajoling narration as "ad hominem" argumentation is extremely clever. Just the facts, ma'am.) (Note also the remark about coproduction -- very important to Hein. Mentioned several times in the article.) 418. In this novel, McKnight sees a definite standard of humanity and moral human relations -- the role of Marlene and her association with the gypsies. Both are signs pointing back to the Nazi murder of undesirable "sub-humans." Here is the "Maástab der Menschlichtkeit in diesem Roman." The attitude of the town toward them, and Marlene's rape, shows that nothing much has changed since the war. 419. The other major standard in the book is Gertrude Fischlinger, who has every reason to become embittered and withdrawn, but does not. She is the most objective and resilient of the narrators. 421. Spodeck as the completely disengaged manipulator, not chronicler of history (not fully in agreement, I think, with Hein's comments in the Polish interview. There Hein never says Spodeck is disengaged, in fact, he is too engaged to be objective, tendentious he is, but I'm not sure about disengaged. Claudia is a much better example of disengagement.) -- "Fr Spodeck ist Geschichte kein historischer Prozeá, sondern ein Werkzeug der Manipulation. Seine Theorie stimmt mits einem Erfahrung berein. Ohne Erkenntnissicherheit gab es ekine Garantie. Mit dieser Ansicht konnte er `alt werden', so Horn, was eigentlich `zum Kotzen' ist. Warum? Weil er dadurch v”llig unmndig leben kann, ohne Verantwortung und ohne das Risiko der Verantwortung." (How fair or accurate is this?) 422. "Durch Heins Vort„uschungskunst, abwechselnd zwischen Weitwinkelobjecytiv und Mikroskop, wird eine Kette von Sympathie aufgebaut, dann in Antipathie verwandelt oder umgekehrt, ohne je an einem festen Punkt zur Ruhe zu kommen." (Good -- sympathetic alienation again.) 423. Hein both idealizes and individualizes his characters, as in the case of Kruschkatz. Both forgetting and remembering valorized by Hein in the character of Kruschkatz (a typical paradox?): ". . .wessen Feinde sind denn eigentlich die Zigeuner? Was haben die Guldenberger gelernt? Moralisch ist jedoch Kruschkatz eben gerade dadurch zu retten, daá er die alten Geschichten ruhen lassen will, die Horn und Gohl nicht vergessen wollten. Was ntzt denn eine in Stein geschriebene Feindlichkeit, ein ewiges Verbittern, ewiges Grbeln in der Vergangenheit? Man muá sich l”sen und sich nach vorn richten." (Would Hein agree with this?) 425. Book ends with "Thomas dran." A gesture of openness, of work yet to be done: "Die šbereinstimmung zwischen Form und Inhalt in diesem Mosaikroman ohne fertiges Bild entspricht der šbereinstimmungzwischen Produktion und Rezeption. Die Schluáfolgerung lag schon bei Wang vor, der sagte, als AH Q hkeine Botschaft an das Publikum hatte, `sie sollen sich selber was ausdenken.'"