Imagination under pressure: Ideology and history in Danilo Kiš’ a tomb for Boris Davidovich and Milan Kundera’s the book of laughter and forgetting

Bu çalışma, Stalin etkisinin yoğun olduğu komünist rejimlerdeki Doğu ve Orta Avrupa yazınında kurgusal tarih ve tarihsel kurguya ilişkin karşıt söylemlerin irdelenmesini içerir. Bu bağlamda belirli ideolojik sınırlar içerisindeki gerçekliği dile getiren Danilo Kis’in Boris Davidovich Için Bir Mezar adlı yapıtı ile Milan Kundera’nın Gülüşün ve Unutuşun Kitabı adlı yapıtı arasında karşılaştırmalı bir inceleme yapılmıştır. Yazarın ideolojik baskı altındaki imgelemiyle somutlaştırdığı kurgusal yapıtını incelerken, genel anlamda tarihin, özel anlamda tarihsel doğruluğun önemi, “bellek” ve “unutma” motiflerine yazarın yaklaşımı, görünüşte farklı olsalar da, tarihsel doğruluğu dillendirme aracı olarak benzer anlatı biçimleriyle bireysel öyküler içeren birbirinin bütünleyicisi farklı eleştirel etmenlerin varlığı ve son olarak Kis ve Kundera’nın mizah anlayışlarıyla karşılaşılır. Her iki yazarın mizah anlayışının kara mizahtan düşündüren mizaha, iğneleyici olanından duyguları hedef alanına kadar farklı mizah anlayışına sahip olduklarının ve çeşitli şekillerde insanın ölüm karşısında duyumsadığı acıyı ve yası ortaya koyduklarının ayrımına varılır. İnsanlık tarihinin belirli bir kriz döneminde kaleme alınmış yapıtlar olarak, iki yapıtın yazınsal söylemi ve biçemi arasında benzerlikler olduğu göze çarpar. İzleksel ve anlatısal bir çözümlemeyle, iki yapıt arasındaki benzerlikleri açığa çıkartmak bu çalışmanın temel amacıdır.

Baskı altındaki imgelem: Danilo Kis’in Boris Davidovich için bir mezar ve Milan Kundera’nın gülüşün ve unutuşun kitabı

The present study focuses on fictional history and historical fiction as forms of oppositional discourse in the East-Central European literature during highly Stalinized communist regimes. The study evaluates comparatively Danilo Kiš’ A Tomb for Boris Davidovichand Milan Kundera’s The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, two literary works that express a reality which takes place within restricted ideological limits. While exploring the fictional material reified by the writers’ imagination being under the pressure of ideology, a number of aspects have attracted our critical attention. The first regards the importance of history, in general, and of the historical truth, in particular, as being expressed in the texts of the two writers. The second is represented by the authorial attitude towards the motif of ‘memory and forgetting’. The third concerns the originality of the genre: both novels receive the form of a collection of individual stories consisting of certain narrative lines which, on one hand, are seemingly separate, but, on the other hand, are linked within a given collection as a means of expressing the historical truth. The fourth refers to the characteristic humor of Kiš and Kundera’s novels. The works of the two writers reveal a very complex humor, alternating from black humor to thoughtful, from biting to sentimental, exposing the human experiences of grief, pain of existence and anguish at facing death. These aspects represent the main similarities between the two literary discourses, which were written in a period of crisis in the history of humanity, and, in order to reveal this, the investigation of these aspects in their thematic and narrative perspectives becomes the main aim of this study.

PDF

___

Berlatsky, E. (2003). “Memory and Forgetting: The problem of the Postmodern in Kundera’s The Book of Laughter and Forgetting and Spiegelmann’s Mauss”. In Cultural Critique, No. 55 (Autumn, 2003), pp. 101-151.
Bertens, H. (ed.) (1997). International Postmodernism. Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
de Certeau, M. (1988). The Writing of History.Trans. Tom Conley. New York: Columbia University Press.
Derrida, J. (1974). Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Esterhazy, P. (1998). “The I-narrator as a Provocation of the Mimetic in the Discourse of the Fantastic. Peter Esterhazy Reads Danilo Kiš and Peter Esterhazy”. Literaturmagazine 41, pp. 170-77.
Foucault, M. (1984). “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History”. In The Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow, New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 76-100.
Gorjup, B. (1984). Review of Contemporary Fiction. Spring94, Vol. 14, Issue 1, p. 161.
Halbwachs, M. (1980). The Collective Memory. Trans. Francis J. Ditter Jr. and Vida YazdiDitter. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
Hutcheon, L. (1995). “Historiographic Metafiction”. In Metafiction, ed. Mark Currie. London and New York: Longman, pp. 71-91.
Kiš, D. (1980). A Tomb for Boris Davidovich. Trans. Duška Mikić-Mitchel, Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
Kiš D, (1990). Gorki talogiskustva (The Bitter Sediment of Experience), ed. Mirjana Miocinovic (Belgrade: BIGZ/SKZ/Narodnaknjiga).
Knight, C. A. (2004).The Literature of Satire. West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Kundera, M. (1982).The Book of Laughter and Forgetting.Trans. Michael Henry Heim. Faber and Faber, London and Boston.
Levine, J. S. (1979). “Originality and Repetition in Finnegans Wake and Ulysses”. PMLA, pp. 106-120.
de Man, P. (1979). “Autobiography as De-Facement”. MLN 94, pp. 920-30.
Nora, P. (1989). “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de memoire”. Representations 26 (Spring, 1989), pp. 7-25.
Pifer, E. (1992). “The Book of Laughter and Forgetting”: Kundera’s Narration AgainstNarration. In The Journal of Narrative Technique, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Spring, 1992), pp. 84-96.
Pinker, M. (1994). “Do You Get It Now?”: Humorous Dispositions in DaniloKiš and TadeusKonwicki”. In Review of Contemporary Fiction, Spring 1994, Vol. 14 Issue 1, pp.189-201.
Snel, G. (2004). “Gardens of the Mind, Places for Doubt: Fictionalized Autobiography in East-Central Europe”. In History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th centuries. Cornel-Pope, Marcel (Editor). Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 386-400.
Wachtel, A. (2006). “The Legacy of Danilo Kiš in Post-Yugoslav Literature”. In The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, Special Anniversary Issue, Spring,2006, pp. 135-149.
White, H. (1973). Metahistory:The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe.Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
White, H. (1980). “The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality”.In Critical Inquiry7, no.1, pp. 1-25.