On 13 February allows the display of The New Look Christian Dior to a global name. At dawn on July 18 completes British soldiers ship Exodus 47 , with the destination of Palestine, and the more than 4000 Jewish refugees on board forced finally back to Germany. On September 15 opens on the Main Street in Vasteras what will be the world’s first H & amp; M store. On September 27 will begin the trial in Nuremberg against 24 SS officers who were active in the Einsatzgruppen on the Eastern Front.
What does this tell us – and all the other fragments that together form the backbone of the Elisabeth Åsbrink latest book – about the year 1947? A lot of course, but at the same time very little.
Åsbrink exposes an uncomfortable condition where nothing is held sacred. When Germany put in ruins must choose the path of justice must stand back for kallakrigspragmatism. Across Europe mobilizes conspirators fascists; albeit without uniforms and racial replaced with culture. In the Anglo-Saxon actions regarding Israel’s creation includes anti-Semitic resentment as a crucial element.
All of this is enter the state, but also the public domain. It is therefore difficult to understand between the lines noticeable surprise that the Second World War was not the liberation of humanity.
The impressions and insights Åsbrink convey – whether it is about new Nordic insurance regulations or Thomas Mann thoughts about the German bourgeois culture – becomes so countless that they dissolve into nothingness. Possibly mean Åsbrink that history must be understood and presented as contradictory and fragmentary, but it is so, an eclectic approach that contributes to her poetic prose, at once powerful and elusive, sometimes only appear as aesthetically after effect.
Åsbrink is not the first to try to capture a specific year. Immediately thoughts go to Florian Illies much spoken book about 1913, but in the short disheartened there is also a stylistic kinship with Peter Englund strife beauty and sorrow . Unlike Englund uses Åsbrink not collagen form to enter the small and unseen man close, but concentrates instead on postwar intellectual guns.
The descriptions of the Simone de Beauvoir love Nelson Algren work the Second sex Nelly Sachs and Paul Celan poetry in exile and George Orwell immortal quickening essence of totalitarianism is captivating, but the gossips while on an elitist and idealistic view of history.
to which Åsbrink literary joining the most diverse materials also makes it impossible for the reader to distinguish fact from fiction. It remains problematic also try to make it past less strange than that induced with large accounts.
All of history is anachronistic, particularly the one used as a bridge between then and now, as in the past actively seeking such adopted foreshadow our own time. The weight Åsbrink attaches Per Engdahl fascist movements, the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder and pile ragged Counsel Raphael Lemkin obsessed with work to establish genocide concept is legitimate, but still impregnated in the early 2000- century anxious pessimism and incurable faith decrees and declarations.
the longer the reading suffering, the stronger the feeling that Åsbrink not writing to inform the general sense, but perform a different task. In the book’s final page confirms the impression: “Perhaps it is not the year I want to collect. Collecting concerning myself. “
The real issue bears the name” The days of death “, a barely twenty-sided sections interspersed by breaks in the middle of the chronological collage. It is about György Fenyo , a Hungarian Jew who before 1943 succumbs somewhere in the Ukraine, with the letter promptly announces his wife Lilly that she was the better part of his life. It’s about how he Lilly, who are doing the best she can, three times to save his son escape extinction. It’s about how his son, who bears his father’s name, much later lets her ten year old daughter soon – which will be known as the award-winning author Elizabeth Åsbrink – knowing that she’ll never feel sorry for himself. If this trauma she had to tell. It is quite impossible to oppose.
Post a Comment