Saturday, September 4, 2010
Gunther Grass's Creditability
As evidenced by the article "War and Remembrance" from The New Yorker, Gunther Grass was involved in the Waffen S.S. as a youth. Although this viewpoint may be very anti-Foucaultian, I believe Grass's involvement with the Waffen S.S. directly impacts the reader's judgment of the creditability of his discourse. Personally, because Grass has a first-hand perspective of the horrendous actions taken by the Nazi Germans, he, above others, is given the opportunity to critique these actions in a valid manner. And because he actually performed actions for the Nazis, he is in a way self-critiquing himself. I believe that a self-critique is more challenging and therefore more convincing than a critique of others. Do you guys also believe that Grass's participation in the Waffen S.S. makes his discourse more or less valid? Or is this information irrelevant because, in a sense, the author is "dead" after his work has been published?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think you make a good point when you say that Grass's involvement with the S.S. would have given him a unique perspective and experience during the war. It also raises questions about the theme of self-accountability (since it is impossible for the author to be entirely separated from his work, considering his wartime actions is entirely valid). Does Grass take responsibility for wartime atrocities along with the rest of Germany? Or does he refuse to be held accountable, like Oskar? It seems to me that Grass intends to be apolitical, just like Oskar, and that his main goal is to remember the war from a morally ambiguous standpoint. Though I don't think this makes his discourse less valid, I think Grass could be seen to be a hypocrite.
I think that although Gunther Grass's involvement with the S.S. was greatly criticized, his participation in such an atrocious regime allowed him to portray the reality of post war Germany. His experience, in my opinion, gave him the opportunity to write from both perspectives in his novel. However, I do find him extremely hypocritical.
I also believe that Grass's involvement with the S.S. would give him both an interesting perspective and authentic story to tell. Although it does seem hypocritical for Grass to criticize the Nazis since he was one of them, I think he has a distinct purpose for this critique. Rather than simply blaming other people and not taking accountability, I feel that portraying the Nazis in a negative light is a way for Grass to express disgust for his own prior questionable political activity and attempt to atone for his past.
I believe that Grass's involvement with the S.S. gives the reader a different view of the novel. I think that since he was a Nazi, it gave him a much better understanding of Germany during WWII. I think although he was clearly sided with the Germans, his novel gave him the opportunity to explain both sides.
Post a Comment