21st Century Literature discussion

In this thread we will discuss Chapters 1 - 25 (approximately the first half) of the book. Feel free to discuss your initial thoughts and any event, writing, questions, etc. pertaining to this part of the book. No spoiler tags. Please, however, discuss the remainder of the book at the "Whole Book" thread.

On the page immediately prior to the (second) title page appear 3 quotes. One from Wolfgang Pauli. One from Heiner Müller. One from Martin Luther King Jr.. I appreciate each individually, but I don’t see the connection between them . Is there one? Or does each suggest different aspects of the tale Erpenbeck intends to tell?

A GR friend concluded of GWG that it was written not for Germans but for US and UK readers of a translated version, or, more cynically, for literary prize award judges. She based that conclusion on several factors, none of which relate to these quotes. I admit, though, that I was struck by Erpenbeck’s choice to include this King quote upfront, as if considering an American audience.

I was curious about Muller, since he was not familiar to me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heine...

“...Arguably the most important German dramatist of the 20th century after Bertold Brecht.” Also, like Erpenbeck, from the former East Germany.

On page 8, she references the Merseburg Incantations.

Here’s a link to a wiki page for background.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merse...

The 2 spells or incantations were written in the 9th or 10th Century and are the only known surviving instance of pagan, pre-Christian Old High German literature.,

I've read as far as Ch. 11. At first the translation annoyed me, but I am getting used to it.

I think including the drowned man whose body remains in the lake an excellent plot device. This suggests a submerged side of Richard that he will discover. We must pay attention to the visible and invisible! Richard is stunned that he didn't notice the men on a hunger strike in the square and only became aware of them when he sees the spot on TV. How realistic. Besides, we tend not to register that which we don't see televised.

Elaine wrote: "I've read as far as Ch. 11. At first the translation annoyed me, but I am getting used to it.

I think including the drowned man whose body remains in the lake an excellent plot device. This sugges..."

Elaine - I find your last point so interesting because my anecdotal experience is the opposite - that people attend to what they encounter in their own lives and what is televised is perceived as personally unimportant because it is in a sense unreal - occurring elsewhere and to strangers. I say that, however, as someone who hasn't viewed nightly news since perhaps 1969, although I am a heavy newspaper and now digital news reader. Perhaps the importance of nightly news diverges by culture/nation/region or age in some instances.

I'm curious - what annoyed you about the translation, initially? I'm a fan of this translator - I think she's worked with Erpenbeck on all of her English translations - but I'm always interested in why translations work for some readers and not others.

Dublin II allows all the European countries without a Mediterranean coastline to purchase the right not to have to listen to the stories of arriving refugees. In other words, so-called “asylum fraud” is nothing more than telling a true story in a country where no one’s legally obligated to listen, much less do anything in response.

Erpenbeck tells it like it is.

"we tend not to register that which we don't see televised."

I don't watch much television either except for the local news at dinner time. My point was really a generalization. These days people are too caught up in their cell phones to pay attention to what's happening around them. What I was getting at was the sense of authority or validation, having reality confirmed; somehow things do not register unless they are televised or written about. In my own experience, years ago I was present at a shooting. Perhaps it was because I was in shock, but I somehow needed to see the news report for confirmation that it had actually happened. One can also think of how many times people seemed to need to see the towers falling on TV after 9/11 as a means of processing the reality.

Of course, this is not Richard's situation, but I think he is meant to be like many citizens of modernity who are simply oblivious to what is happening around them. We are too wrapped up in our own lives. I think this is a common experience, i.e., not unusual.

Elaine wrote: ""we tend not to register that which we don't see televised."

I don't watch much television either except for the local news at dinner time. My point was really a generalization. These days people ..."

That must have been a horrific experience to go through, Elaine. I’m so sorry you experienced it.

Go, Went, Gone is definitely a book that rewards a close reading.

From chapter 20: “In [room] 2017 no one opens the door when he knocks, but in 2019 a bleary-eyed young man opens the door to him.”

As the author has written elsewhere (ch. 21), “Language is never a coincidence...” So one suspects these room numbers are not arbitrary. If so, there may be a hope expressed here.

But Erpenbeck also recognizes the difficulties inherent in trying to improve things. Richard muses,”Doing CPR proved to be far more strenuous than he’d expected” (ch. 20). Finally, suggesting that we must learn to tolerate the dissonance for quite some time even as we strive against injustice, we are warned against “happy-ending terrorism” (ch.24).

Karen

Great catch on those room numbers, Karen. I’m certain you’re right and I noticed them but didn’t really consider them.

I love the device of Richard’s daily shopping list. It’s mundane. Repetitive. Small ball.

I keep thinking about Elaine's comment about the drowned man showing up intermittently and what that means. I just read another reference to him in chapter 19 when Richard is eating dinner with friends. They are discussing what they would do if they were suddenly forced to flee their country as the refugees have. Richard mentioned the escaping across the lake, and his friend Sylvia asked if the drowned man is still missing. It was so random and unexpected. If the references turn out to mean nothing, I will be disappointed.

I have been wondering about the man in the lake references too. I thought that maybe he symbolises the fact that even if we don’t want to see things (Richard not noticing the refugees at first) and we don’t act on things, they are still there and will come to the surface... one day in one form or another. That maybe the man in the like is our thoughts, niggling and uncomfortable but always there unless we decide to do something.

One thing that strikes me is that humans have a tendency to put more thought into the inexplicable and tragic (that we can’t remedy) than we do the still-here whom we can assist (there are so many and a fix would require that we take action). Richard spends untold moments contemplating the man in the lake, but initially walked past the protesting African men without so much as noticing their existence. One does wonder though whether Richard bears any specific culpability for the man’s death, although the proximity alone would be sufficient to bring him to mind on a recurring basis.

It does seem that the people are very aware of the drowned man in the lake but are seemingly less aware of the refugees once they are moved out of the public space. In one case it's out of sight out of mind; in the other case, people won't even go in the lake because the missing man is still there. Concern for the living seems less than concern for the dead. You are right, Carol, that caring about the refugees takes effort or makes one feel guilty while it's easy to feel sorry for the dead.

I have the feeling that the book is very repetitive. Richard has always the same thoughts, everything he experiences he compares with the life in the former GDR. Of course, that has meant a big change in his life, but was more than 25 years ago and he did not move on with his life, or so it seems.
Maybe it is emphasized so much to make it clear to a foreign audience, because for me as a German, I am quite aware of the changes, even though they happend before my birth. There are too many explanations of what he does and why, which are not necessary for German readers. Do you also have the feeling a lot is explained in the book?

I like the parts where he speaks with the refugees and you learn more about their lifes. Maybe the repetiveness from the language and Richards thoughts should mirror the life of the refugees, where every day is the same and nothing changes until their status is clear and a decision about them has been made.

It is repetitive in a way that is odd. For instance whenever Richard shops for food, he goes to "the Kaufhalle that's now a supermarket." And when he puts on his shoes, they are "the brown ones, his most comfortable pair." This repetition doesn't bother me but I find it strange. It may be a way to show the sameness of his life everyday, like never putting away the Christmas wreath after his wife died.

Erpenbeck used repetition a lot in her earlier novels, so I am sure it is a deliberate artistic choice. In places it is very effective.

I'm up to Ch. 26 now and really enjoying this novel. It certainly is different. I also find it beautiful in a strange way. The stories the refugees tell are very moving. We really know so little about their lives. They have suffered tremendous hardships and trauma. This is a true eye-opener. I also find it fascinating the way poor old lonely Richard is drawn to them. It makes me wonder why people are so unwilling to help refugees. It actually makes a lot of sense to have a well-off widower who is lonely adopt a few or at least try to help them. I know a woman in her late sixties who does volunteer work at a shelter for homeless women and she derives a great sense of purpose and worthiness from her work.

Thinking of the drowned man, earlier we were informed that he had actually been waving his arms, apparently as a way of attracting help, but his signal was misread. It reminds me of the Stevie Smith poem, "I'm Not Waving, I'm Drowning."

I think if we were to pay more attention, we would see many people out there in need of help, esp. the homeless.

The repetitions have a kind of rhythm to them. Like routine, they are hypnotic.

I'm suppose the info about the former east Germany is for the benefit of westerners, but will also pay more attention to that. It was an event that changed lives dramatically, so Richard does have this in common with the refugees, although he is clearly privileged. I think that contrast is emphasized as is the arbitrariness of our privilege, except of course for the color of our skin.

Kristina wrote: "I have the feeling that the book is very repetitive. Richard has always the same thoughts, everything he experiences he compares with the life in the former GDR..."

I wonder if it's a case of showing-and-telling:

Here too the prohibition had served only to make the prohibited item more desirable. The workings of causality are indirect, not direct, he thinks, as he’s had occasion to think so many times in recent years.

Maybe the author is working on indirect influence, instead of telling us what she thinks, instead of making an argument, she’s letting leitmotifs do their job and color our mood, perception.

The title of the book itself is a kind of repetition too, isn't it? Like the auditorium scene were Richard saw many migrants individually repeating the same introduction, "My name is, I'm from, I'm here because..." like a Language 101 classroom.

History repeating itself -- I'm beginning to appreciate the way Erpenbeck is making Richard's background in the classics relevant, esp. the Tuareg, of whom I know nothing. I must try to find some background.

Confession: I’m finding this a little dull. I’m at the beginning of chapter 26. The refugees’ stories are very moving and I find my attention growing when Erpenbeck weaves the current crisis with German history, but overall I’m not invested in Richard’s growth. It’s hard not to compare this with Exit West. That felt much more alive and vital to me.

June, The middle of the book definitively has its lenghts and I was also bored by it. But I can assure you, it get's better towards the end.

Kristina wrote: "June, The middle of the book definitively has its lenghts and I was also bored by it. But I can assure you, it get's better towards the end."
Thank you, Kristina, I needed to hear that! Onward.

I have finally made it up to chapter 26.

My take is similar to a lot of comments above.
- I am finding the refugees' stories interesting
- Also the information from Richard's pov of Germany Reunification and the idea of border and the effect or no effect on one's life. The I thought about the refugees going from Italy to Germany and what a border means to them
- I think that I am more involved in the story as the US is struggling with the idea of refugees crossing the US border in mass
- I think it also showed how a person's attitude can change when they get to know "others" on a more personal level and that attitudes usually change on a one person at a time level

Beverly wrote: "I have finally made it up to chapter 26.

My take is similar to a lot of comments above.
- I am finding the refugees' stories interesting
- Also the information from Richard's pov of Germany Reunif..."

I find myself generally wishing for more of the refugees and less of Richard, primarily because I find their stories more compelling, which is not a surprise given the tumult from which they fled and the process of fleeing. Richard's story, on the other hand - other than the relationship with his mistress, which Erpenbeck keeps bringing up from time to time -- is naturally more mundane and linear by comparison. Nonetheless, I'm such a fan of Erpenbeck's writing that however she chooses to tell her tale, she always has me enthralled.

Hello
any reasons why Richard might have decided not to give his name in chapters 6 and 7?

- Is it because he lacks purpose?