Fateless
Svenska Akademien informs the public in its press release from the 10th of October, 2002, that "The Nobel Prize in Literature for 2002 is awarded to the Hungarian writer Imre Kertesz "for writing that upholds the fragile experience of the individual against the barbaric arbitrariness of history."
One could say it was Fate. We know one cannot fight against Fate. It's implacable, its useless to try to change the course of things as long as there is Fate leading mankind to its way. A unique way.
Was it Fate that made him win the Nobel Prize so that the whole world can find out about his novel? This semi-autobiographical novel where he tells us about living as a Jewish teenager under the Holocaust was meant for the world to look back at that time of World War II, through the eyes of a 14 years old boy who is critical of the grownup world.
George Koves is a fourteen-year-old Hungarian Jewish boy who, shortly after his father was ordered away to a "labor camp," is taken with a group of young boys to a German concentration camp. This occurs during the last year of World War II, and although the crematoriums he saw still appeared to be active, George survives what he defines as his "given fate."
From the a.m. press release we find out that "for him [Imre Kertesz] Auschwitz is not an exceptional occurrence that like an alien body subsists outside the normal history of Western Europe. It is the ultimate truth about human degradation in modern existence."
There seemed to have been a lot of misunderstandings. We see the young boy who is being brought to a concentration camp looking forward to this, as if he was offered an opportunity.
Whoever wanted to could apply for work in Germany and like the rest of the boys... I immediately appreciated the idea." Fatal misunderstanding, we should say.
Wasn't the idea of communism misunderstood, too? People believed that society was meant to come to a supreme superior order where all are equals and have the same rights, obeying the same law
Kves regards events like a child without completely understanding them and without finding them unnatural or disquieting - he lacks our ready-made answers. The shocking credibility of the description derives perhaps from this very absence of any element of the moral indignation or metaphysical protest that the subject cries out for. The reader is confronted not only with the cruelty of atrocities but just as much with the thoughtlessness that characterized their execution. Both perpetrators and victims were preoccupied with insistent practical problems; the major questions did not exist. Kertesz's message is that to live is to conform. The capacity of the captives to come to terms with Auschwitz is one outcome of the same principle that finds expression in everyday human coexistence.
In thinking like this, the author concurs with a philosophical tradition in which life and human spirit are enemies. In Kaddis a meg nem szuletett gyermekert, 1990 (Kaddish for a Child not Born, 1997), Kertesz presents a consistently negative picture of childhood and from this pre-history derives the paradoxical feeling of being at home in the concentration camp. He completes his implacable existential analysis by depicting love as the highest stage of conformism, total capitulation to the desire to exist at any cost. For Kertesz the spiritual dimension of man lies in his inability to adapt to life. Individual experience seems useless as soon as it is considered in the light of the needs and interests of the human collective.
George's imprisoned group was made up of Jews and Gypsies, both of whom were labeled as "sinners," and some Muslims. The "sinners" had numbers, they new each other only by those numbers. So, they were alike, some numbers in a row, nothing else. These numbers are surviving, some of them already for a dozen of years, respecting the basic rules of survival: "First time in my life that I set eye on real convicts...clad in stripped suits of criminals...They were very much interested in our ages...Vierzehn funfzehn...They immediately protested with their hand, their heads their whole bodies. Zescajn they whispered from every direction I was astonished Warum? Willst du arbeiten? He asked me back. Naturlich, because, on reflection, that's the reason why we had come here after all. At this he grabbed me and shook me: Zescajn...
Shakespeare Never Read Aristotle? Or, the dynamic forms of catharsis and tragic flaws in Shakespeare's plays Shakespeare's most beloved plays are his tragedies. If one were to list his best and most popular plays: Othello, Romeo & Juliet, Hamlet, King Lear, and so forth, one would find the list comprised almost entirely of tragedies. So it would not be amiss to say that much of the modern literary conception of theatrical
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now