Seven chapters of a common history u Tombs for Boris Davidovich, whose happy ending was only in the fact that the work was published, in the words of Josif Brodski, were the occasion for a frenzied attack on the author, a setback for art criticism guided by political considerations. In this way, space was opened for the most important polemic to be conducted in South Slavic literature in the last decades of the twentieth century.
A shack for Boris Davidovich It saw the light of day in 1976 and soon became the subject of heated debate and controversy, which it sometimes received as a result of serious academic criticism, the consequences of which last to this day. All due to unresolved accounts of the past, the inability to confront fascism and Stalinism, which is Rain was a moral obligation of every writer. If for a twentieth-century intellectual there is only one examination of conscience, condemnation of two totalitarian ideologies, then Danilo Kiš passed with the highest grade, fulfilling his literary duty in exposing the dark period of European history, pointing out the terrible crimes that influenced the specific fates of the heroes of his literature.
Eye of the Spore Tombs, this perfidious belittling of her originality, is actually miles away from what was the author's main intention, the condemnation of all vandalism and hooliganism. The innocent victim found herself face to face with a treacherous executioner, who wants to prove her non-existent guilt at all costs. Obviously, resignation appears at the end, due to the realization that this is a book that does not provide comfort and does not end with the hope of victory and does not carry within itself the justification of crimes, in the name of historical progress, in the name of the movement of history.
Kiš's negation of the dialectical movement of history, of the Marxist scheme on which historical progress is based towards the utopian projection of a classless society and the communist future of humanity, as a legitimate transition from capitalism - a backward social order, to an ideal one, is fundamentally called into question. The writer challenged revolutionary persecution as a method of reaching a perfect society, presented pragmatic evidence of the criminal behavior of revolutionaries who ultimately suffer themselves from the sword of revolution. The sacred goals of a more just society are soiled by repressive means for their establishment on the historical stage, violent behavior cannot be the path to the formation of good interpersonal relations, or democracy. This twilight of humanism, visibly highlighted in the fate of Boris Davidovich, angered those who challenged the writer's vision, convinced Marxists, doctrinaires, bewitched by an ideological way of thinking. It is precisely the state will of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, which was not only a party, but a government that behaved like a party, and whose actions, since it was modeled after the Bolsheviks, were not unfamiliar with all those methods of cruel harassment in the Soviet Union, as in the case of Boris Novski, and which they applied to their ideological like-minded people as well as to their real opponents.
Kiš was a witness, a rebellious intellectual, and Tomb, an unpleasant read about these staged - political trials in Yugoslavia after World War II. He stepped into the very epicenter of the ideology of evil, and therefore the regime's response had to be quick, efficient and uncompromising. Instead of the real reason, the critics' blade was redirected to quasi-literary observations, disqualification on the basis of sublime academic debates about alleged shortcomings in his unoriginal, literary creation. All in all, they avoided touching on the main topic, the innocent victims of communism, because it reminded them too well of their own experiences, of the similarities with the existing political reality. The possibility of inventing political affairs was a dead end for anyone who did not think in a dogmatic way. Dealing with ephemeral aspects Tombs, with quotes and their originality, they tried to mask their true intentions, and the shadowy orderers, bypassing the essence of the work's humane message, that strong condemnation of communist gulags, the suffering of innocent people, the sacrifice of millions for the sake of some imaginary happiness in the future.
There is no doubt that inspiration from literary heritage, philosophical texts, faith in the power of knowledge and enlightenment, as well as original life experience, influenced Kiš's revision of previous writing practices in our country, which had a huge influence on writers after him, because they knew that this is exactly how to write.
Kiš boldly stepped into our literary Pantheon, intending to speak out about political indoctrination that narrows horizons, becoming an apologist for the fight against abuse, everything that teaches us and keeps us awake. It was an alarm for alarm, a sobering up from the dark labyrinth of political practices that have lost their connection with morality, and have given themselves the right to protect exclusively their own interests, power and survival in power. Kiš exposed that unscrupulous force that was concentrated in the hands of the leaders of fascism and Stalinism, and their party followers - the mindless masses - social control, at its root, and depicted their effects on individuals in a brutal light. In doing so, he inevitably had to cause nervousness in his contemporaries, a bad conscience, of those who openly or covertly supported the Yugoslav communist order.
That is why the controversy that culminated in the works of a university professor Dragan Jeremic, would take on a solemn tone, uttered from a respected academic level and the undoubted educational horizon of the critic, in order to remove Kiš from Yugoslav literature as an unworthy copyist of other people's texts, without a shred of authenticity. Thus, his basic idea: dealing with the victims of Stalinist purges, would be indirectly called into question, or at least put into the background. Professor Jeremić academically arrogantly warned that he would stick to his respected professorial calling so that the book Narcissus without a face, descended, contrary to his academic promise, to the lowest comments, insulting remarks, and with all the references to Kant's categorical imperative, tried to degrade Kiš, destroy him as a writer - creator, belittling his personality and talent. His remark that a playful imagination, and a tendency to invent - lie, a characteristic of Kiš's unbridled personality, could rightly be applied to him, the author Narcissus without a face, who is like Dr. Tulp, in Rembrandt's picture Doctor Tulp's Anatomy Lesson, sought to point to the canon with his learned reflections on literary creation and its opposite - imitation. epigonic writing Danila Kiša.
All in all the right to free critical speech (Narcissus without a face, Nolit, Belgrade, 1981, p. 7), was created as a desire to reveal untruths Anatomy class, and his Tomb for Boris Davidovich, revealed as an indicator of an imitative procedure in which other people's texts are stolen. Jeremić's hopeful thoughts on literature, in opposition to taking over the works of other authors, the senselessness of copying, is an attempt to point out Kiš's futile defense of the important topic of creativity in literature, through imitative procedure. No matter what the author is Tombs pointed to the meaning of postmodern artistry, the use of documentary and historical material, literary and non-literary texts, Jeremic's accusation of epigonism tried to remain valid. The epigon tries to reflect himself in someone else's work, but in this there is no his face, but the face of the one who created that work. (A faceless narcissus). It is to be expected then that in Tombs, the reader immediately recognizes the conglomerate rewritten, borrowed, imitated and directly taken over other people's works, which of course is not the case. Kiš's creative imagination made a new work out of all these segments, which before his literary intervention did not exist in any form, neither real nor ideal. This new wholeness, composed of various fragments, taken from life or literary experience, acquires an authentic form, serves as the basic theme and the construction of a plot that has a unique spirit throughout.
Quite in style high criticism Jeremić writes that in Anatomy class, the author is consumed by anger and hatred, armed with irony and sarcasm, while he is a respected professor devoted to the Stoic ideal, behold the miracles of gentleness, reasonableness, greatness of soul, and Kiš's anger holds a disgusting and ugly vice (Narcissus without a face). The latent cynicism in Jeremic's self-promotion, according to which he is a teacher - reasonable and full of virtues, in fact imputes to the victim of his frenzied attack, enragement, injustice, and rage, which is not befitting his often-highlighted respected academic personality. Not even this ironic imposition of one's own emotional mood on another can hide the amount of anger, the poisonous arrow aimed at Danilo Kiš, the face of a critic who actually reflects his own frustrations in the mirror of other people's works, an incomplete, and now increasingly forgotten author, who has not entrusted Serbian culture with any significant creative work. The envy of a philosopher, a non-creator, in relation to a writer-creator is a possible reason for the attempt to expel Kiš from ideal of the state, because he, by his work, disturbing an order in which all geniuses with authentic achievements parade. This is exactly how everyone who thinks differently is treated, they see him as an enemy who needs to be cut down with a devastating word: There is no doubt that for him, humanist is an abstract noun, and polemics are a way to identify dissenters under the pretext of freedom of expression. (Narcissus without a face). Exactly, in Anatomy class, Kiš's sharp mind truly cut through like a scalpel all the insinuations and insinuations uttered under the cloak of literary theoretical discussion about his copying skills.
Although he tried to skillfully obscure his main accusation that Tomb, a work without any aesthetic value - false value, the theft of other people's creative efforts, Jeremić was offended by Kiš's sharp response, a fierce reaction in which his mountaineer temperament came to the fore. ("Kiš is an offshoot of a certain social environment in which culture represents a thin layer of temporarily accepted politeness, not a permanent refinement of the soul", p. 12) This strategy of conceptually undermining the writer's work found a creative defense in an intellectually conceived defense, no less gifted than that expressed in his literary endeavors. In that Ariadne's thread, the monster was slain by the ingenious remarks of a talented writer, imaginative, and agile in all that play with words, wit, and irony that gave the whole thing an aura of spectacle.
Aware that criticism is inferior to imaginative literature, Jeremić does not hesitate to write: Kees's anger in The Anatomy Lesson is the clearest example of the behavior of an offended writer who has the power to take harsh revenge on those who have discovered the unoriginality and worthlessness of his work.As an all-seeing eye, the polemicist Jeremić credits himself with exposing Kiš's case through detective work, as an investigator. fraud, and convinced all those who had only doubted until then, worthlessness his work. In an effort to defame him, the professor really tried hard, comparing his text with the texts of other writers, pointing out places theft, accused of unoriginality, and low indecent assault and on the personality of the writer himself. But all his analogies, showing what Kiš looked up to, are just part of his basic strategy to disavow the writer, to cast a curse on his literature, given from fish soup literary - critical pen of our entire culture. Accusing Kiš of being, due to his spiritual immaturity, unwilling to calmly accept evidence of his own literary independency, he acknowledges the truth which should stand above all interests, Jeremić has ostensibly stood in the protection of national literature which should not to lag behind countries with strong cultural development and epigonically imitate and steal their literary achievementsWhat seems natural to Jeremic's approach is bother for cultural life, preventing non-creators from slipping under its skirts, condemning the imitation of literary greats of Europe, in order to make the public scene transparent. By condemning clan conflicts, the ingenious Jeremić actually added fuel to the fire, divided literary workers: for and against Kiš, influenced literary issues to gain a political dimension, welfare which can arise for literature, by directing the writer to true values, by critical remarks of the lowest kind.
Not only does he belittle Kiš's work, Jeremić, in his characteristic manner, looks down on his personality: What I want to present myself to is not Kish's personality and his writing style, but arrogance, hatred, lies, ignorance, creative incompetence and rejection of the right to criticism. (p. 18). This way of belittling is not to be joked about, it is all in the general interest of literary criticism, because the critic is aware to announce the truth, thereby admitting that he is committing violence against thought, with his rudely stated claims: My goal is not to beat my opponent, but to teach him a lesson. (p. 19), says Jeremić, in order to use his professional expertise to persuade Kiš to burn his previous books. Because they worthless and begins to write in Jeremić's style, thereby earning his affirmation and approval as big a literary scholar. All this in the name of moral truth, to which the critic bows to the ground, incorruptibly devoted to moral virtues, honor and integrity. Nothing is more vicious than an obvious pamphlet abuse of a writer, taken as moral truth their personal goals and proclaim them as irrefutable facts, reformulating political motives into malicious fabrications, arrogantly holding himself out as an authorized judge of great renown in literary matters. (“Even today I cannot understand why Kiš declared me his main enemy, unless he did so because I was a member of the jury for the Andrić Award, which he did not receive, and the winner of the October Award, which he had been waiting for in vain”, p. 23)
In a way, Dragan Jeremić's argument in the book Narcissus without a face, seems logical and convincing scientific expertise, but in fact it is false, prepared according to the a priori set task of exposing Kiš, regardless of the aesthetic value of his prose. The philosophy of freedom and the morality he represents are contested, along with the literary height of his storytelling mode. This means responding to creativity with clichéd replicas, comments without authentic critical thought, dealing with form, not essence. Basically, this formalistic approach did indeed find fragments of other people's texts, ideas and thoughts, characters and plots in the narrative used, but it lost sight of the originality of the entire literary creation, a unique linguistic statement with which the writer expressed his existential standpoint more fundamentally, exercised creative skill, set up his literary world, and sophisticatedly built the psychology of his heroes. He used events, history and myth, shaped his own experiences in language that grew to a unique atmosphere of time.
(Continued in the next issue)
Bonus video:
