The Migration of a Story
The Enduring Transcontinental Contemporariness of Erpenbeck’s “Gehen, Ging, Gegangen”
“Sie kennen doch sicher den schonen Abschnitt in Tacitus’ “Germania” uber die Gastfreundschaft unserer vorfahren?…Jetzt, 2000 jahre spater, gibt es dafur den Paragraphen 23, Absatz 1, Aufenthaltsgesetz”
Upon a cursory reading of the reviews for “Gehen, Ging, Gegangen” by the Jenny Erpenbeck, pattern quickly emerges most German reviewers of this seemingly popular, award winning, German book heap criticism, while those who review the English language version have little but praise. The novel, notably originally written in Germany by one of that country’s most prominent modern authors, takes place in the mid 2010’s and follows the experiences of Richard, a recently retired university professor and widower, who, like his creator, was an East German who lived through “Die Wende”, as he initially interviews, and then befriends a group of African immigrants seeking asylum in Germany. It’s differing receptions raises the questions of what it means for a book to be “German”. Is Richard’s story a German story? And ultimately, to what countries do the stories of the refugees who dominate the narrative belong, when their storytellers have been denied the right to choose where they themselves belong?
See, all these English speakers agree. I rest my case.
Wolfgang Schneider, a German book critic for Deutshlandfunk Kultur, has a generally negative review written back in 2015, shortly after the novels initial release. The protest of African migrants on Oranienplatz that inspires much of the plot began in 2012, and the novel came out amidst the 2015 influx of Syrian refugees. He sees Richard as an overbearing and unrelatable distraction from the heartfelt tales of the refugees. He considers Erpenbeck’s critique of German laws to be oversimplified and unconvincing. Overall, in Mr. Schneider’s view, the novel simple repeated the themes of empathetic “Wilkommenskultur” that had already dominated German news coverage and political policy up until that point without offering anything usefully new to the public conversation of a complicated issue. His views are frequently repeated in German reviews. Many of those reviews seem to go on to allege that Erpenbeck wrote this book for prize committees and the international audience. Whether that accusation is meant pejoratively is unclear.
However, James Wood, in his review for the New Yorker in 2017, is more indicative of the books reception in the english speaking realm. He sees Richard as a placid, character, whose arc falls deliberately short of any attempt at transformation or redeption. Instead, he his a foil on which the reader can project their own levels of ignorance. Writing of the detailed list of questions Richard creates before first interviewing the refugees, Wood writes, “Erpenbeck itemizes these queries, one after another, rubbing our faces in their fathomless ignorance, since, by and large, this is our fathomless ignorance, too”.
“Erpenbeck itemizes these queries, one after another, rubbing our faces in their fathomless ignorance, since, by and large, this is our fathomless ignorance, too:”
While Wolfgang sees Richard’s musing as an unnecessary distraction, Wood seems to view them as a useful, cautionary reminder of how our own biases and limitations will remain present, no matter how curious or open-minded we attempt to be. Wood praises the lack of focus on Richard and his motivations. He also believes that Richard’s “East Germanness” is useful in exploring the parallels and history behind the modern migrant situation. In the end, Wood sees “Gehen, Ging, Gegangen” as useful call to action and praises it for the quiet subtly of its argument. In a novel of comparative cultures, and religion, in which religious themes are often present, it carefully rides the thin border (another one of the novel’s themes), between morality and moralization.
Such works are always on the verge of becoming scripture or parable, because they announce that to read is to comprehend, and to comprehend is to act.
I think part of the reason the book is less well received in Germany is because the German audience is less willing to engage with Richard’s East Germanness. Additionally, they see themselves as more directly confronted and saturated with the issues at hand. Wolfgang claimes this makes the book superfluous. However, I think for some educated reviewers, the books portrayal of German ignorance was maybe also received as mildly insulting. Additionally, since the book was popular in Germany the role of the critic to critique is more promptly demanded. Meanwhile, the select group of American reviewers tasked with reading the book and describing it to their English readers, come at the book somewhat ignorant to both sides of the conversation. This allows them to fully appreciate the beauty of the cross-cultural conversations as not just a one-way street. And the distant setting makes the acceptance of one’s own ignorance an easier pill to swallow.
The book focuses frequently on Dublin II and the European struggles over who among them should deal with the refugee crisis. While the wave of mass migration to Europe has slowed from its peak, the integration of those who arrived is still ongoing and the war in Ukraine has created fresh source of influx. Germany, in fact, seems to be doing better than most at integrating the refugees, this despite the fact that they accepted far more than most:
Europe’s migrant crisis: The year that changed a continent — BBC News
Meanwhile in America, just earlier today, in response to the pending end of Pandemic health procedures and the pent-up demand of millions of migrants to enter the United States, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security proposed a new rule. In this rule they state that working closely with Canada and Mexico, they will offer some new processes for legal asylum seekers, but that these will couple with swifter deportment and harsher treatment of those who cross borders illegally. Just as Germany now only as “Paragraphen 23, Absatz 1, Aufenthaltsgesetz” where they once had the hospitality noted by Tacitus, America, who once inspired the poetic motto “Give me your huddled masses, yearning to break free”, now as simply: “88 FR 11704-Circumvention of Lawful Passages.” And yet, perhaps both countries can share in the trans-continental message of “Gehen, Ging, Gegangen”.
