WPCv  :.;\3O3GeaI[u( :.;4ڡnIgL)K)#՞|,{S1sRawC7YF3qU)J`{P@ڻпYo{\]BҫIIuldBᤙ|hD0N{Z;WH(>-iѿkF\81rfZ"ع z`Yr׈歩q˔Y SS1wŭ~kv1TGGp)3Y|Eq,LP ]uK:4!:(VM;DǦBY'F#ԣ v_' v7Rd_bߞuP!Eov[asTZRMVopJ$#d3AR ' R7_ꍏ@'=6..[n`I S/u^Kd#Zg2XO%A(*#LU N  %[ 0:a 0 0 0t 0\ 0A 0# 0 0 0 0 0i 0B 0 0 0 0 0R 0 0 0 0 0e 07 0 0 0 0aU>$UDbN^ * w6 4: N ] m_ HP LaserJet 4,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  \  `&Times New Roman7\  `,Times New Roman CE  % ' steven0steven .   |e. HC6.n_np03|xU !USUS.,  _SS SDEUS., X XXX  US.,DE,.hUKUS.,_Imre_Ԁ_Kertsz_ԀaestheticalexpressionoftheHolocaust S SB1. Thispaperwillbedeliveredintwoparts.Firstly,IwillconcentrateontheHungarianliterary  receptionof_Kertsz_sbooksandattempttopointouttheeventualmisinterpretationsofthisliterature  andtheirpossiblerationale.Afterwards,Iwilldealwiththepoeticalfeaturesoftheauthorsuseof q languageandtheproblemofauthorshipinhisoeuvre,_focusing_Ԁonabetterunderstandingofthe ]  interconversionoffictionandautobiographyinhislifework.Iwouldliketopresenttheauthors I  works!withspecialemphasison_Fateless_andKaddish󀄀despitethefactthatheisnotaregional 5  inthecontextoftheholocaustliteraturelayingspecialstressontheCentralEuropeanculturaland ! q socialaspects._Kertsz_ԀsetshimselfthetaskofaestheticallypresentingbothNazitotalitarianismand  ] communism,andoftencommentsonthefactthatforhim,asopposedtootherAuschwitzsurvivors  I  intheWest(_Celan_,_Amry_),thesoleconceptthatpreventedhimfromcommittingsuicidewasthe 5  disillusionoffreedomordemocracy.Inthiscontext,_Kertsz_soriginandCentralEuropeanlife !  experienceisoneofimmenseimportanceintheliteraryanalysisofhiswork.As_Kertsz_Ԁdeclared   inhisNobelspeechaddress: IfIlookbacknowandsizeuphonestlythesituationIwasinatthe   time,IhavetoconcludethatintheWest,inafreesociety,Iprobablywouldnothavebeenableto   writethenovelknownbyreaderstodayas_Fateless_,thenovelsingledoutbytheSwedishAcademy  forthehighesthonour.NazismwassoonfollowedbycommunisminHungary,whichhelped m _Kertsz_Ԁtofinallyrecognizetotalitarianismasageneralhumancondition.Inhisessayshepointsout Y thatinhisinterpretationAuschwitzwasnotacoincidence,butalogicalandunavoidable E consequenceofthemodernEuropeanculture.Inmanyofhisworks,Auschwitzsymbolizesthe 1 powerofGodandofthefather. m  S?+ *x bL6!X? 2. Thefactthat_Kertsz_ԀisthefirstHungariantowintheNobelPrizeinLiteraturegeneratedmuch \ debateintheHungarianmediaabouttherealreasonofneglect,andwhyhisworkdidntattractso L muchattentioninHungaryasitdidinothercountries,e.g.inGermany.Thereweresomegoodand 8 illuminatingobservationsintheHungarianmediaabouttherationaleforthisneglect,suchasthe $t incapabilityoftheHungariansocietytoconfronttheirhistory(_Vergangenheitsbewltigung_) ` regardingtheirownrolesinthegenocideofHungarianJewsin1944andtheexistingandreoccurring L antiSemitisminHungary._Kertsz_Ԁhasinconvenientsubjectsindeed,suchastheholocaust,the 8 distortionofhumanintegrity,thelossoflanguageandidentityduringthesocialistdictatorship $ (Failure,1988),theunresolvedproblemsandhatredinHungariansocietyafter89(SomeoneElse,   1997),theillusionoffreedom,theoldstructureswhichsurvivedthetotalitarianism,unlawfullaws ! anddefencelessness(Notebook,1993),the systemofauthority,as_Kertsz_Ԁmentionsinoneofhis " interviews,anditsimpactonpeopleofthepostcommunistcountries.Thesearecommonthemes #  intheregion.In_Kertsz_soeuvre,however,oneseesauniquelanguageandnarrativeposition.In p$! _Fateless_,forexample,thereisnoretrospectivepointofview,noexplanationofwhathappenedand \% " noreleaseevenforthesocalled victims(theHungariansundertheGermanoccupation),a H&!# techniquesuggestingthatthephaseisnotover,theholocaustisacontinuumandpartofourpresent 4'"$ time.InhisNobelspeech,_Kertsz_Ԁdeclaresthismentalityvehemently, 8nothinghashappened  (p#% sinceAuschwitzthatcouldreverseorrefuteAuschwitz.Inhiswriting,attheendofthestoriesthe  )\$& pasttensenarrativeisexchangedwiththepresenttensesuggestingacontinuationoftheploteven )H%' inourpresentdays(See_Fateless_,Kaddish,Notebook,TheBritishFlag). *4&(  3. Inaddition,thelackofresponsibilitytowardstheholocaustinHungariansocietycouldbeone , (* reasonwhymanyreadersandcriticsdidntunderstandordidntwanttounderstandtheironyand -(+ _selfironyofKertszsprose,oneoftheimportantpoeticalfeaturesoftheauthorsfictional  language,andtookoffenceatthisirony.Failingtorealizetheselfironyandselfreflexivityofthe  narrator,somecriticsarealsounabletodecidebetweendocumentary(autobiography)andfiction.  AlthoughFatelesswasdeclaredanovel,manycriticsweremoreinterestedinthelifestoryofits t authorinsteadofanypoeticalcharacteristicsofthenovel.Infact,thismentalitywasextendedtothe ` literaryreceptionofFailure,Kertszssecondnovel.Thetendencyofreducingthisoeuvretothe L  authorsbiographyisevenmoredespicable,ascanbeseeninthecaseofroundtableconversation 8  aboutSomeoneElsepublishedin#X XX X z#!XXXX Beszl.#X XX!X`# X XXX ԀSomeoneElse,aworkborderingtheboundariesofessay, $ t diaryandfiction,hadambivalentliteraryreception:somecriticssaythatthewriterisvagueor  ` possiblywrongwithrespecttohisdescriptionof paranoidand apocalypticreality,anddidnt  L  trulydescribeHungary.Thisbook,asdomostofKertszbooks,hasstrongemotionalimpacton  8  bothreadersandcriticswhoseemtoforgetthatthisisnotadocumentary,ontheonehand,andon $  theother , thatthenarratorspeaksironicallyofhisownroleasa prophetofthetruthwhile   presentingtheapocalypsesofourdays,andthusshowingthatthisisonlyone,thoughavalidand   verypersonalpointofview.    ,?+ *x bL6!N? ,B+ *x bL6!*NB 4. AnotherquiteusualwayofinterpretingKertszsbooksinHungarianliteraryreceptionisthatthe p commentatorsidentifywithoneoftheauthorsheroesorwiththeauthorhimself,andcorrectwhat ` isbeingsaidorarguewiththeirutterancesasiftheworkwereaphilosophicalstudyinsteadof L fiction.AnexampleistheliteraryreceptionofKaddish:SndorRadn;tiinhiscompetentreviewon 8 Kaddishcriticizesthenarrators inconsequentand pathologicalpridethathedoesntletanyone, $t notevenhiswife,interrupthiminhismonologue.PterSzirk,anotherreviewer,alsoobjectstothe ` unavoidableveracityofthenarratorsvoice,andpointsoutthattheauthorneverletshimselfbe L interrupted,claimingtruthwithoutallowingtheothercharacterstoagreeordisagree.Forthisreason, 8 SzirkconsidersKaddishafailureinasensethat , theconfessionalandtheoreticalvoicecannotfind $ itsownadequateform.Thiskindofliterarycriticismisbanalamongthemostcompetentcritics,as  theyarenotneutral.Insteadofpoeticandaestheticpointsofviewandappreciation,theyasserttheir  ownresentmentandincomprehensionregardingKertszssubjectandlanguage,claimingthatthey  havehadenoughofhispessimism,orasonereviewer,SndorBazsnyi,callsit, rhetoricof  unhappiness.Moreover,PterDvidhzy,writingaboutTheGalleyDiaries,asksforahappierand p untroubledworkafterthegloomyones.SndorRadn;ticallsthisbook monomaniac.Thesecritics \  areconfrontedwiththevoiceofasinglenarrator(oronehero)inthenovel,andtherefore,areinno H! positiontoassessthenovelasawhole.ItisacomparablereactiontothecriticsofDostoevskys 4"  works.Forinstance,BakhtinpointsoutinthediscussionofProblemsofDostoevskysPoeticsthat  #p! mostofthetimecriticswritingaboutDostoevskyarguewithoneoftheheroes,thusrepeatingthe  $\" samecontradictionsastheheroesthemselves.Toavoidthistypeofonesidedviewinliterary $H # interpretation,Bakhtinintroducestheconceptofpolyphony,assertingthatinDostoevskysnovels %4!$ therearemanyindependentstreamsofconsciousnesswithoutbeinginanyconflictwitheachother. & "%  5. InKertszsnovels,mostcharacteristicallyKaddishforaChildNotBorn,thepolyphonyappears (#' inthelanguageofonenarratorwhichisnotonlyconfessionalortheoretical,butalsoironictowards )$( hisowntruth.Asisdemonstratedinthesocalled monologue,aprayerofapotentialfather *%) commentingontheimpossibilityofhavingachildaftersurvivingAuschwitz.Consideringthefact p+&* thatDerridainEnvoiscomparesthedesireforachildtothedesireforuniversaltruthsinasensethat \,'+ bothofthemrepresentachancetoavoiddeathandfinitude,makesiteasiertounderstandwhythe H-(, narratoroftheKaddishsaysnotoachildand,atthesametime,notothelanguageofpowerand  authoritativestatementsbymeansofironytowardshisowntruths.Thepolyphonyofthenarrators  statementsandthediscontinuityofhisstreamofconsciousnesscanbefollowedinthefollowing  passagefromKaddish: Andifinthefinalanalysissurvivalisntachieved,whichofcoursecanonly t beachievedatahigherlevel(Dr.Oblath),then(webothtogether)therearenotonlytheslightest ` indicatorsforthisideabutitsoppositeappearstobethecase,namelythecollapseinto L  ignorance8Andsoon,andsoonweblewthefalsenotesoftheEnglishhorn8(10.)Theother 8  voicescitedbythenarrator,thewife,andDr.Oblathaccomplishonlywhattheironicvoiceofthe $ t narratorhasalreadystarted:thedecompositionofhisowntruth,andthustheuseofanyauthoritative  ` andtotalitarianlanguage.The Inarratorhasthefacultiesofacomicorfoolwho,inBaudelaires  L  opinion,isabletobebothhimselfandsomebodyelseatthesametime.IfweconsiderKertszs  8  essaysandlecturesasacontextandintertextureofhisnovels,andthisinterpretationseemstobe $  correctbecauseofthemutualandcontinuousconnotationsofthetexts, thefalsenotesofthe   EnglishhorncouldbeinterpretedastheselfironyoftheessayistKertsz,theironyofastaticand   moralizingattitudetowardstheholocaust.InKaddish,Kertszcreatesalanguagewhichdisplaysthe   fragility,andsometimestheimpossibilityoftalkinggenerallyandwithoutresponsibilityaboutthe   holocaust. p   6. AnotherreasonforneglectofKertszsworkcouldbethatliterarytheoristswerefocusedonthe H socalled turnofthe80sinHungarianliterature,andonhowthecontemporaryWestern 8 EuropeanformsofliteraryexpressionandpostmodernityappearsinHungarianliterature.Therefore $t itcanbeconstruedthatitmightnothavebeenfashionabletowriteaboutanauthorwhoseplotsand ` heroesdontencompassthemovementtowardmodernitybyhisrefusaltobanishthecoverageof L reality,personalconfessionandethicalrelation#X XX X #!XXXX sfromhisprose.(Thiscouldbeonereasonforthe 8 factthatErnKulcsrSzab;didntevenmentionhisnameinhis#X XX!X8# X XXX HistoryofHungarianliterature $ between19451991.)ThepersonalityoftheauthorisveryimportantinKertszslifework,butthis   author,ofcourse,cannotbeidentifiedwithKertszhimself,asthiswouldbeagrosssimplification  andneglectofthefictionalcharactercalledintolifebythenarrative.Infact,whenoneconsidersthe  autobiographicalaspectsofKertszsprose,theinterpretationofhisoeuvrebecomesevenmore  complicated.InTheBritishFlag,thenarratorofKertszhimselftalksabouttheinsufficiencyof p literaryformulationwhendescribingtheexperienceofthetotalitarianismanditsdestroyingimpact \  onpersonality.Hedeclaresthattheonlyacceptableformofexpressingtheexperienceofthe H! holocaustwouldbetheevidencegivenbythewitness,thetestimonyasaformofliteraryexpression. 4"  AlthoughKertszisnotamoralistasheneverjudges,hisdescriptionofNazismandcommunism  #p! conveystheconceptofatestimonyinaliteraryformwithbothaestheticandstrongethical  $\" connotations $H # S7&!%4! S 7. Kertsz,ofcourse,isnottheonlyonewhostruggleswiththeincommunicabilityoftheholocaust 7&!$ ononehand,andthefearofforgettingontheother,byurginganewlanguageandanewwayof ''w"% thinking.OtherssuchasYerushalmiinhisbookZachor,talkingabouttherelationbetweenJewish (c#& historyandmemorydeclaresthathistoriographycannotreplacecollectiveretrospection. (O$' Furthermore,YerushalmiclaimsthatdespiteconsiderablehistoricalresearchabouttheHolocaust, );%( itwasnotthehistorian,butthewriterswhocouldformarealnotionoftheconceptbecauseofthe *'&) factthatwiththeHolocaust,historybecameincommunicable.HaydenWhite,examiningNazism +'* andthe Endlsung,triestofindananswertothequestionofwhetherhistoricalrealitiesortheform ,'+ ofnarrativedeterminetheirowngenre,whichwouldmeanthateventheHolocaustcouldbe -(, interpretedinmanydifferentwayswithoutanyrestriction.Whitetakesoverthenotionof   intransitivewritingfromBarthes,adiscourseinwhichthesubject(theauthor)isnotindependent  fromitsobject:asthewriterwritesabouthimself,andthus,hetransformswritingintoameansof  seeingandselfunderstanding.Thisstyleofwritingis,inWhitesopinion,theonlypossiblewayto t writeabouttheHolocaust,wheregivingupallourpreviousideasaboutrealisticdescriptionis ` necessaryinordertobeabletoconfronttheexperiencesofthetwentiethcentury.Whitewentabit L  furtherandsuggeststhatalltheJewsshouldtelltheGenocideoftheirownpeopleinthesameway 8  astheywerecommandedbyGodtotelltheexodusfromEgypttotheirchildren,asifithappened $ t tothemselves.Thisisonereasonthetraditionaldistinctionbetweenautobiographyandfiction  ` shouldbeatthisexperiencesuspended,oratleastinviewofKertszsandotherholocaustwriters  L  proseneedstobereinterpreted.  8  Sz 'w  8. Itisnotseldomthattheholocaustwriterschoosethefirstpersonsingular.Borowski,justlike z  Kertsz(inFateless,Kaddishorthediariesandessays)hasanInarratorwhilewritingaboutthe j  concentrationcamp.Itmighthavetheillusionofanautobiographyorasimplediary:hisreaders V  automaticallyidentifiedtheauthorwithhisheroandBorowskiwasaccusedofmurders,butinfact B  hisstoriesshowhowimpossibleistheconceptofidentityoftheIinthecamp.Inhisshortstories, .~ inThisWayfortheGas,LadiesandGentlemanandmanyothers,Borowskisimplydescribestheloss j ofidentity,thetotalassimilationofthe'I'!heroofautobiographies!totheconditionsofthecamp. V Throughthisshockingprocesswecanseeonlyaluckysurvivorwithoutanymoralproblems,who B isabsolutelyloyaltotherulesoftheannihilationcamp.Thecampisnotunnaturalanditseemseasy . togetaccustomedtoitsrules.Andthereisnobigdifferencebetweentheprisonerslivesbeforeand  afterthecamp.Thisisthemostrealistic,yetthemostshockingwayofdescribingthecamp,despite  thefactthatitistheonlytruerememberingofthe6millionvictims.Thefirstpersonsingular  narrativewasintentionalbybothBorowskisshortstoriesandKertszsFateless:ithelpstolaybare  allkindofideologiesandmythsabouttheholocaustnarrative.Onegoodexampleofthisisthatthey z bothdescribethefootballfieldinAuschwitzasanimportantaspectofthecamp,whichseemsto f destroytheconventionalnarrativepatternsaboutAuschwitz.Itisjustasunconventionalasthe R nostalgiaofKvesfortheeveningsoftheconcentrationcampandhislongingtobebackagain.At > theendofFatelessheplanstotalkaboutthehappinessoftheconcentrationcamps,ahappiness *z whichinthiscaseiscalledatrapbyhim,anabsurditythatmakesKvesleadonhislifeevenifit  f isnotpossible.Kertsz,whokeepsBorowskiatruewitnessoftheholocaust,talksinhisessays !R aboutthenecessityofanewlanguagewhichcoulddescribethisnewexperienceofrealitywhich !> overwritesourmoralandethicalcategoriesandculturalconcepts.PaulCelan,oneofthemost "*  representativeholocaustpoetsalsotriedtofindananswerforthisexperiencebyrethinkingofpoetry #! andpoeticlanguage.Kertszcallsthisnewwayofspeakingthe languageofexile,thelanguage $ " ofatonality,whichalsomeanstheimpossibilityofidentifyingwiththeexistingconditionsina % # dictatorship.Inhisnovels,thisatonality,orthelackofharmonyispresentedbyirony,aclear &!$ linguisticallyformulateddistanceandobjectivitytogetherwiththenearnessofthewitness.This v'"% doubletoneandpointofviewcanbeobservedinFatelessandinKaddishaswell,wherethe b(#& touchingmonologueofthenarratorisofteninterruptedbyhisowndoubtandscepticismgivingno N)$' placetosentimentalism.OnegoodexampleisthelastpassageofFateless,atypicalKertszsentence :*%( ofironyandcontingencywhichmakesanymorallessonimpossible:Kvesplanstotalkaboutthe &+v&) happinessofthecampifanybodyaskshimatallandifhedoesntforgetithimself. ,b'* S-(Q-( 9. IncomparisontoSemprunsTheLongJourney,afamousandsuccessfulrepresentativeliterary -(+ workofholocaustliterature,onedifferenceisquiteclear.WhiletheSemprunsherotalksmuch  aboutlove,solidarityandfriendshipwhichhelpshimbearthetorturesandaccepteventhedeathof  hisfriends,inFatelessthereisnothingremainingofthesehumanassets.TheinitialisationofKves  takesplaceinatotalitarianismwhichtransformsnotonlytheoutsideworld,buttheinnerandmost t personalworldofpeoplearoundhim.Thisiswhythedescriptionofeventhedeepestfeelingsinthis ` novelseemstobeafarce.Theholocaustdidnthaveanyheroes.AsKertszdeclaresina L  conversationaboutSchindlersList,Spielbergsfilmpresentsonlyarareexceptionofsolidarity,of 8  peoplewhohadthechancetodosomethinggood.InKertszsopinion,Spielberghardlyknew $ t anythingabouttherealnatureoftheholocaust,leastofallthatitmeantthecollapseofEuropean  ` culture.SemprunknowsmuchmoreaboutitthanSpielberg,butheisstillcreatingmythsof  L  friendshipandsolidarity,asifhewastryingtoavoidtotalhopelessness.  8  Sz 'w 10.AnotherfamousholocaustmemorialisJoszlRakoverTalkstoGod,byZviKolitz,ahighly z  confessionalworkinthefirstpersonsingular.Thenarratorissupposedtobeoneofthelastfighters f  oftheWarsawghettorebellion,writinghisdiaryandprayingtoGodonthelastafternoonbeforehe R  died.TheworkofZviKolitzwastakenbyhisreadersasarealtestimony,adocumentaryfromthe >  ghetto,althoughtheauthorwasnotinWarsawduringthewar.Hisreallytouchingstorypresentsa *z rabbiwholosteverythinghehad,hisproperties,hisbigfamilyandhismatesaswell,butnothis f faithandloyaltytoGod.Thus,JoszlRakoverspersonalintegrityanddignitywasnotannihilated. R InKertszsoeuvrethingsaredifferent.Hepresentsatotalitarianworldwherenothingremained > untouchedandstable,noteventhehumansoul.Ifthereisnofate,thereisnoworthydeath.Kves * doeshisbesttoadapttothisworld,whichseemstobethemostnaturalandacceptableworld,and  heeventriestounderstandhismurderers.Good,onthecontrary,hasthemostirrationaleffectsin  theconcentrationcamp.ThenarratoroftheKaddishtellsastoryaboutasocalled Professor(the  Englishtranslationfailstogivebacktheconnotationof rabbi, MessiahastheoriginalHungarian   Tant;r),whoholdsthefoodportionoftenprisonersandheriskshisownlifeinordertobring v theallotmenttotheboy(thenarratorhimself)layingonastretcher.However,heisnotpresentedas b ahero,butasaprisonerwhohasotherrulestoobeythantherulesofthecamp,but,forthisreason, N preciouslittlechancetosurvive.( Iwantedtosaysomething,anditseemsthatmytotalsurprise : screamedunabashedlyfrommyface,becauseashequicklyheadedback!iftheydidntfindhimin &v hisplacetheydkillhim!herepliedwithrecognizabledisgustonhismoribundface: Well,what  b didyouexpect8?)Ineachofhisbooks,Kertszcreatesaspecialobjectiveandironiclanguage,  N eitherofconfessioninKaddishorimpersonalinFatelesswhichopposesanypathosorselfpity,and !: thusgivesamorerealisticandextensivepictureoftheholocaust,adisclosureofthis negative "&  revelationwithallitsconsequences,ashecallsitinhisessays,thanSemprunorKolitz. #! ST% %Q 11 . Lszl;Mrton,acontemporaryHungarianwriter,inhisnovel, rnyasf#X XX X 8#!XXXX utca#X XX!Xh# X XXX Ԁ(MainStreetwith T% " Shadows)triestogiveanaccountoftheHungarianholocaust,andlikeKertsz,comestothe D&!# conclusionthatsomethingirreparablehadhappened,andtheevidentsignsforthatarethelossof 0'"$ identityandthelanguageofallthosewhosurvived,eithervictims,offendersoronlyunconcerned (l#% spectators.Hisomnipotentnarratormakesupastoryabouttheimaginarypersonsofaphotographic )X$& collection,theonlyrecordswhichremainedofJewswhohadlivedinasmallHungarianvillageand )D%' weredeportedin1944.Thenarratoriscontinuouslytryingtofindachancetosavethelivesofhis *0&( heroes,butinthecontemporaryHungarianconditionstherewasnotasingleone.Therewereno +') peoplearoundhelpingtheJews,noteventheirownneighboursinthevillage.Thereisonlyone ,(* heroinewhosurvives1944andtriestoliveinthesamesocietywhichhadletherfamily_die. -(+ _Mrton_sJewishheroinesurvivingthelossofherfamilycanfindnocontinuityinheridentitybefore  andafterthewar,sheisnotthesame,thoughtheworldaroundhertriestobethesameagainasif  nothinghappened.Thenarratoralsocomestotheconclusionthatforthosewhosurvivedthe  discriminationandmassmurderoftheJews,thereisnocontinuityoftheIbeforeandafterthe t holocaust.Theworldisnotthesame,andthisiswhypeoplewhowanttorelatethisexperiencehave ` tofindanew,authenticlanguage. L  S .   12. Ihopetohavepresentedwiththisbriefstudyhow_Kertsz_sworkofartshouldbeinterpreted  . withintheCentralEuropeancontext,concerningthepolitical,socialandculturalconditionsof   thetotalitarianismandposttotalitarianism,aswellaswithinthecontextoftheEuropean   holocaustliterature,representedbysuchnamesas_Borowski_,PrimoLevi,Jean_Amry_,Paul    _Celan_,etc.However,_Kertsz_Ԁisnotaregionalwriter,andhecannotbelabelledasonlya    holocaustwriter(alabelwhichplaysupratherthisgravesubjectthantheskillsofthewriter). ~  Theseareexactlythesimplificationswhichgeneratedmisunderstandingsandproblemsaround j  hishomeliteraryreception._Kertsz_Ԁhasfoundthelanguagetoauthenticallyexpressthe V  catastropheofthe20thcentury,andthus,hesucceededsomehowtospeakaboutmanyofthe B  importantsubjectsandproblemsofourtime. .~  S  WorksCited m  _Angyalosi_,_Gergely_,_Bn_,_Zoltn_Ԁ_Andrs_,_Nmeth_,_Gbor_Ԁ_s_Ԁ_Radn;ti_,_Sndor_:_IRODALMI_  _KVARTETT_Ԁ!_Kertsz_Ԁ_Imre_Ԁ_Valaki_Ԁ_ms_#X XX X bh#!XXXX Ԁ_cm_Ԁ_knyvrl_Ԁ_beszlget_Ԁ_Angyalosi_Ԁ_Gergely_,_Bn_Ԁ_Zoltn_   _Andrs_,_Nmeth_Ԁ_Gbor_Ԁ_s_Ԁ_Radn;ti_Ԁ_Sndor_.#X XX!Xw# X XXX (LiteraryQuartet!ConversationaboutSomeoneElseby  _Imre_Ԁ_Kertsz_)#X XX X =z#!XXXX _Beszl_#X XX!X${# X XXX .1997/6:104108.  _Bakhtin_,_Mihail_.ProblemsofDostoevskysPoetics.Trans._Caryl_ԀEmerson.Minneapolis:Univ.of } _Minnessota_ԀPress.1984. i  _Bazsnyi_,_Sndor_.A_boldogtalansg_Ԁ_retorikja_.(The_rhetorics_Ԁofunhappiness)._Holmi_Ԁ1998/12: U! 17441747. A" _Borowski_,_Tadeus_:_Hlgyeim_Ԁ_s_Ԁ_Uraim_,_parancsoljanak_Ԁa_gzba_Ԁ_fradni_.(ThisWayfortheGas, -#}  LadiesandGentleman)in:_K#X XX X {#!XXXX #X XX!X# X XXX vilg_.Budapest:_Mlt_Ԁ_s_Ԁ_jv#X XX X V#!XXXX _#X XX!X# X XXX .1999. $i! _Dvidhzy_,_Pter_._Hnyatott_Ԁ_mlt_Ԁaz_ut;szerkeszts_Ԁ_jegyben_.(PastofUpsandDownsinTermsof %U " AfterEditing)In:Per_passivam_Ԁ_resistentiam_:_vltozatok_Ԁ_hatalom_Ԁ_s_Ԁ_rs_Ԁ_tmjra_.US.,UK.,DEUS.,Budapest: %A!# _Argumentum_.1998.344351. &-"$ _Derrida_,_Jacques_.DiePostkartevon_Sokrates_ԀbisanFreudundjenseits.Spekulieren!ber/auf '#% Freud.bers.vonHansJoachimMetzger.Berlin:Brinkmann&_Bose_.1987. ($& _Kertsz_,_Imre_.Az_angol_Ԁ_lobog;_.US.,DE,.&UKUS.,(TheBritishFlag).Budapest:_Magvet#X XX X g#!XXXX _#X XX!X'# X XXX .2001. )$' _Kertsz_,_Imre_._Fateless_.Trans.ChristopherC.Wilsonand_Katharina_ԀM.Wilson. *%( _Kertsz_,_Imre_.A_kudarc_Ԁ(Failure).1988.Budapest:_Szzadvg_.1994. y+&) _Kertsz_,_Imre_.KaddishforaChildNotBorn.1990.Trans.ChristopherC.Wilsonand_Katharina_ԀM. e,'* Wilson.Evanston:NorthwesternUniv.Press,1997. Q-(+ _Kertsz,Imre.Glyanapl;.(TheGalleyDiary).Budapest:Magvet#X XX X z#!XXXX #X XX!X# X XXX .1992.  Kertsz,Imre.#X XX X ^#!XXXX Jegyzknyv#X XX!X΋# X XXX ԀEsterhzyPter:.letsirodalom(Notebook:ImreKertszwithPter  Esterhzy).US.,UK.,DEUS.,#X XX X #!XXXX Budapest:Magvet.1993.  #X XX!X# X XXX Kertsz,Imre.Heureka!http://www.nobel.se/literature/laureates/2002/kerteszlecturee.html t US.,DE,.ŒUKUS.,Kertsz,Imre.Valakims.Avltozskr;nikja#X XX X f#!XXXX (SomeoneElse:TheChronicleofChange). ` Budapest:Magvet.19#X XX!X~# X XXX 97. L  Kolitz,Zvi.JoszlRakoverbeszlazIstennel.(JoszlRakoverTalkstoGod).In:2000,2000/5:1621. 8  #X XX X #!XXXX KulcsrSzab;,Ern.Amagyarirodalomtrtnete19451991kztt.#X XX!X# X XXX HistoryofHungarian $ t literaturebetween19451991.Budapest:Argumentum,1993.  ` Mrton,Lszl;. rnyasf#X XX X z#!XXXX #X XX!XW# X XXX utca.(MainStreetwithShadows).US.,UK.,DEUS.,Pcs:Jelenkor.1999.  L  Mihancsik,Zs;fia.Spielbergbrkja.(Spielbergsboat).Filmvilg1995/4:2430.  8  Radn;ti,Sndor.Auschwitzmintszellemiletforma.(AuschwitzasaSpiritualFormofLife).Holmi $  1991/3:370378.   Radn;ti,Sndor.KertszImre:Glyanapl;.US.,DE,.UKUS.,(ImreKertsz:TheGalleyDiaries).Knyvvilg1992/5.   Semprun,Jorge.Anagyutazs.(TheLongJourney).Budapest:Eur;pa.1974.   Szilgyi, kos.2000beszlgetsKertszImrvel.(1995).(2000ConversationwithImreKertsz).   1995.2000.2002/11:511. p Szirk,Pter.Asz#X XX X #!XXXX #X XX!XX# X XXX kazmosttgasabb.(Thenarrowisnowwider).Kortrs1992/11:96100. \ White,Hayden.HistoricalemplotmentandtheProblemofTruth.In:SaulFriedlander.Probingthe H limitofrepresentation.Univ.ofCaliforniaPress.1992:3753. 4 Yerushalmi,YosefUS.,UK.,_#X XX X #