Anthologists: Helmuth A. Niederle, Elisabeth Erler
Translation: Katharina Liatzoura
Preface: Helmuth A. Niederle
**
Mario Keszner, Wolfgang Millendorfer, Michael Beisteiner, Sophie Reyer, Christian Teissl, Katharina Tiwald, Marlies Thuswald, Cornelia Travnicek
Find the book here
The temptation to interpret poems is as strong as would be expected – and this temptation is not reserved just for readers. Shouldn’t poetry speak be allowed to speak for itself, though? Poems are again and again treated as a writer’s attempt to engage in a dialogue with the existing world, in order to make it more comprehensible and tolerable. These probes of obscure meanings, who seek to restore clarity, are helpful guides for readers; moreover, they also serve as grounds for argument for those who, amid frequent mass-media nonsense, might turn to it to raise their own objections or express their agreement, which, in turn, suggests that they are not alone with their views. This assumption is confirmed as the individual quest for knowledge progresses. No one should expect more from literature.
Each generation since the end of the Second World War was forced to discover its own language, one that would be capable of properly perceiving the era and its emerging problems, albeit without imposing restrictions to its expression. The generation of German-speaking writers after 1945 had to overcome a challenge: they had to find words that would make the unthinkable, the rejection of the very essence of humanity, into something worth talking about. Needless to say, such a horror couldn’t be confined to a single and universally-accommodating literary interpretation. However, there were other acts of inhumanity, perpetrated by various totalitarian regimes, which also sought their expression in literature. The silence that had fallen in the wake of these atrocities had to be lifted.
Today’s challenges are different. A major challenge nowadays is determining what is real and what is not. Fake news keep us from distinguishing truth from lies disseminated on purpose into the world. Although, even back in the old days, no one had the illusion that news from dictatorships could ever contain even an iota of truth, the current phenomenon of fake news is closely linked with Europe’s turn towards post-democratic conditions. It is true that elections are still being held, though no political elite would wishes to see its accumulated political power shrink. What we see is an expanding model of political discourse surging into all aspects of advertising talk, to the extent that their boundaries become even more unclear. We see displays set up in established democratic societies; everything that happens in front of these displays is presented as democratic and everything that goes on behind them is concealed, catering to centers of power that have absolutely nothing to do with Democracy. If we were to coin a term for this, it would be digital fascism. This is a dehumanizing practice, undreamt of by past and long-vanished dictatorships, that serves surveillance organizations. The only way for writers to oppose it is by discerning their own misery and the misery of their fellow men, understanding it and transforming it into words. In addition, to avoid being the losers in this struggle, writers must also analyze misfortunes, defend historically acquired rights and devise a new future; a future, where on the one hand, the concept of paradise as invented by the human mind would finally be seen as the fantasy it is, and on the other hand, no one was, or could ever really be born into this cherished exquisite condition. Arthur Schopenhauer had summed up this particular state of things as follows:
We are all born, as Schiller says, in Arcadia. In other words, we come into the world full of claims to happiness and pleasure, and we cherish the fond hope of making them good. But, as a rule, Fate soon teaches us, in a rough and ready way that we really possess nothing at all, but that everything in the world is at its command, in virtue of an unassailable right, not only to all we have or acquire, to wife or child, but even to our very limbs, our arms, legs, eyes and ears, nay, even to the nose in the middle of our face. And in any case, after some little time, we learn by experience that happiness and pleasure are a Fata Morgana, which, visible from afar, vanish as we approach; that, on the other hand, suffering and pain are a reality, which makes its presence felt without any intermediary, and for its effect, stands in no need of illusion or the play of false hope.
Because this digital fascism is not created solely by pre-democratic structures in underdeveloped regions, but also appears in countries with high levels of development. This is also true of Austria. Fascism 2.0 is a reaction to the failure of Democracy in times of crisis. The dominant elites allow elections and referendums in order to plant “guided” or “illiberal” democracies. The new fascism is hidden behind two forms of pseudo-democracy that equally promote two complementary phenomena: the willing self-deprivation of the one and the many and the self-destruction of democratic institutions through their own means.
Taking these arguments into account, this selection of poetry from the younger generation of Austrian poets becomes twofold: it serves as an alarm flickering before a political system which, camouflaged as liberal, advocates oppression, and it is also a literary beginning that leads into an intellectual dimension, which poetry designs and marks in equal measure. The poems featured in this book are not frivolously dissident; their words are specifically selected with the intent to raise consciousness. These poems are linked with man’s autonomy, self-realization and freedom – and anything and everything else associated with these concepts.
Helmuth A. Niederle