Tag: German Literature

The Writer’s Vision – Peter Handke’s Afternoon of a Writer

Peter Handke’s Afternoon of a Writer (Nachmittag eines Schriftstellers) is my fourth work by the controversial Austrian Nobel laureate and the second which I have succeeded in squeezing a blog post out of, after his Goalie’s Anxiety at the Penalty Kick. I certainly don’t return to Handke because I enjoy reading him. Rather, I keep giving in to the aura of importance created by his prizes and his praises, in particular the curious assertion by native speakers, one I am unable to verify although I am reading in the original German, that Handke was one of a few writers who rescued the German language from the degradation that Nazism forced upon it. What I can say, and what was obvious at once with The Goalie’s Anxiety, is that Handke created what felt like a new way of writing about subjective experience, about consciousness, that was neither free indirect discourse nor the full interiority of the first person, stream-of-consciousness.

In The Goalie’s Anxiety Handke used this approach to question and probe the state of mind of a chance murderer as he increasingly lost touch with the world. In Afternoon of a Writer, by contrast, Handke represents the state of mind of a writer, who can stand in for perhaps any artist, as they go about their day. The morning’s work of creating is over, and now is time for the living. But living, for an artist, (all of this post must be silently caveated by saying this applies to some, not all creatives), is not the same as it is for the rest of us. For an artist, their subjectivity is changed, their living is charged and crackling with the absorption of material and impressions. Handke, particularly through his language, shows the full intensity of this subjectivity in his short novel as his writer goes for a walk.

It is on this language that I want to focus today, because language is the centre of this work, and observing its effects is the main source of excitement as we read. But there is also a space for judgement too. As we observe the writer and his consciousness it is impossible to avoid judging him, just as he judges his own self and relationship with the world. But to get to that judgement one must first make it through the language and what it does.

Plot

A writer finishes his writing for the day and goes for a walk. (Welcome to the world of Peter Handke.)

Clarity and Details

Perhaps it is best to begin with a paragraph, from when the writer enters his garden:

Despite the winter it still flowered, here and there, in his surroundings. It was precisely from their littleness and isolation that the campions, the daisies, the buttercups and the dead-nettles brought life to the carefully dug landscape. The buttercups, shining like enamel, for a moment even deceived him into believing he saw some sunshine. In the crown of an apple tree, eaten up by birds, there still hung a few fruits, their flesh likely frozen to glass. The last few leaves, heavy with hoar frost, fell, one after the other, almost vertically, with a crackle. The catkins were colourless, as if lamed by the cold. On the picket fence and next to the house door there was even a bluebell, frost blue.

Trotz des Winters blühte es noch hier und da in dem Umkreis. Gerade in ihrer Kleinheit und Vereinzelung belebten die Lichtnelken, die Gänseblümchen, die Hahnenfüße und die Taubnessellippen das starr gerippte Gelände. Die emailleglänzenden Hahnenfußkelche täuschten für Augenblicke sogar einen Sonneschein vor. In der Krone des einen Apfelbaums, von Vögeln angefressen, hingen noch einige Früchte, das Fleisch wohl glasig gefroren. Die letzten Blätter, beschwert vom Reif, stürzten eins dem andern zu Boden, fast senkrecht, mit einem Krachen. Die Haselkätzchen waren farblos, wie gekrümmt von der Kälte. Am Palisadenzaun und neben der Haustür stand je eine Glockenblume, frostblau.

Once, when I was at school, an English teacher I much admired made us do a test. We had to identify, from pictures, about twenty different common plants in our surroundings – I mean things like oaks, elms, birches. I think the high score was about seven. Today I would be no better, but I have always found it funny that I can name more plants or birds or fish in German or Russian than I could ever identify with my own eyes. The knowledge of the natural world that is needed to give specificity to our impressions is increasingly absent among us, but not with Handke’s writer, who pins down each of the flowers’ names. There’s also a richness to them that the English cannot quite convey, though my own attempt could be improved. Daisies are literally “little geese flowers”, buttercups are “hen feet”, nettles echo the word “Taube”, for a dove, while catkins at least manage to carry over the association to English. In short, the flowers are not static, but by Handke’s choice, perhaps, are each associated with living animals, giving them still further liveliness. We can almost see the writer (and his author) noticing this and smiling to himself.

The leaves falling – how clear this is, how precise, how mechanically, the writer notices them! First – that there are not many leaves left, then, the hoarfrost, then the order of falling, then the way they fall, and finally the sound. In short, he captures the whole thing, a series of impressions forming a whole. Then we end with a single word in German, “frostblau”. It sounds like a breath on a wintry afternoon with its open vowel ending. Its purpose again is to show the artistic vision focusing in. A bluebell’s colour is obvious, known, in its name. But the writer must be clearer than that, must note to himself exactly what the right word is – and that is precisely why that word is there, the follow up that caps the impression. It confirms that he knows how to look.

We can notice another characteristic element of Handke’s style – the relative absence of images that are not the things present. In a story, a writer has to decide whether to see what is there, or what is not. And here Handke has the writer seeing what is before him, yet with just a hint of looking beyond. The glassy apples are an example – it’s like the beginning of an image, the first thought before its elaboration. The German is also softer than my rendering. “Frozen glassily” is softer than “frozen to glass” or even “like glass” because it keeps the wordcount low and lets us pass by, barely registering it. Instead, we notice the image, the apple itself. It’s about prioritisation, framing.

This is a section of Afternoon of a Writer from before the man begins his walk. It hangs on the page, surrounded by white space. It is a noticing, a thing of beauty to me, a word person. It is not merely the background to some other impression or emotion, or that concealed boast of botanical erudition that I remember feeling while reading someone like A.S. Byatt – here, this noticing is all there is. What is normally the background has become the foreground, even if one day, perhaps in the writer’s work, it will need to move back into the background once again. We are simply made to see.

Imagine

The novel is so rich with details, with noticings, that it is almost a shame to move on. Besides noticing, besides detail after detail, about light, about eyes, about landscape, we also see another aspect of the artistic vision, when the man imagines, rather than merely seeing. The autobahn suddenly causes him to feel, for a moment, “a vibration in his arms, as if he were sitting with the driver in the cabin” of a truck. He then sees a stationary train, and seems, instantaneously, to create characters from afar. He imagines how “a child’s hand searched for the hand of an adult.” He sees the waiter, the dishwasher, each with their actions and their distinct being. And all of this from just a “Fernbild[]” – a distant image. 

We learn very little about the writer’s work in Afternoon of a Writer, but one of the few things we learn is that it is set in the summer. At another moment, looking at some birds, his mind shifts from the detail into the imagination, and then into the work. We observe this process again, directly, in the text:

“Motionlessly sat the tiny birds up in the branches, just like the crows in the crown of the next tree along, and the even the gulls, otherwise so unruly, sat motionless upon the railings of the bridge. It was as if snow were falling upon them all, even though there were no flakes in sight. And just here, at this living image with the rain of wings, hardly noticeable, the gaps of the beaks as they opened, with the eyes like little dots, there arose before the observer that summer landscape where the story played out which he was writing at that moment.”

The first sentence gives us the real, with the second we begin to see the artistic mind look beyond the real, and with the third we arrive at the destination – the image of the story, entirely different from what he is seeing. In this way we see the process of creation yet again.

To be a successfully writer, Handke might argue here, we play many different roles. Hence the use of that word “Beobachter” (observer) instead of the “Schriftsteller” (writer) of the novel’s title.  At another point he is the “Beschatter”, or shadower. One thing that I have just noticed as I write this is these two examples contain the passive “be” prefix in German. Compared to the activity of writer, they suggest a much more receptive role. This is appropriate. If the novel begins with the man having finished his writing, for the rest of it he is primarily receiving, experiencing. At one point he grows anxious while reading the newspaper because he feels it is stopping him from thinking. Instead, he wants perhaps to be that transparent eyeball which Emerson described in his essay “Nature”. He takes things in and reflects while we watch.

Hence the use of questions in the novel. They are not the fake questions of a stream of consciousness, but the questions we can imagine the artist asking themselves as they reflect: “Wasn’t it curious that it was only during the hours of writing that his living space could lose its boundaries in this way?” It’s a note to self we are privileged to see, but nothing more. It may have a future use, but we will not be present to see it.

Judgement

The one role that the writer does not give himself directly in the text is “mad”, but it is not so far away from his experience for him to be entirely safe from it. For just as the writer experiences the world with the aim of gathering material, of making it “beschreiblich” (describable), we can also see him facing other consequences of that particular tuning. Early on, and in a beautiful (in the original) phrase about his hopes for his writing, he thinks “the shadows of a bird twitching over the wall should, instead of distracting him, accompany the text and make it transparent.” The word “accompany” is the one to focus on. For we soon notice that the writer has no family except a cat, and no real social life to speak of. He believes, indeed, that he cannot truly connect with others anymore. Stopping in a pub, the people he meets are reduced to their artistic use – “turns of phrase, exclamations, gestures and cadences.”

In short, we could say he has made himself stunted, stranded. He can create, we must assume, and he can absorb from the world far more than most of us can. Yet for all that richness, what poverty! To gain every shade of green he has eliminated all red from his world. He refuses to go onto his own balcony except to do the washing because the impression of the view is too overwhelming. When he goes for a walk he feels no “joy” until he has placed his movements within a plan. Handke is not a writer for judgements, but it is probably telling that the novel ends with the word “Schauder” – awe. “He wondered at himself, near to a long-forgotten awe.” Such a word redeems him, even if it does not do so to us. Just as with earlier use of the word “entrücken” (translate), in the biblical sense of going from earth or hell to heaven, we have a sense that we ought not judge him. His life is different, higher, even if it seems strange to us. He, himself, appears happy – he is at work.

Certainly, I can sit here in judgement, but I am jealous really. I mentioned a few posts ago that I wanted to start carrying around a notebook precisely for such noticings – I need to learn to experience the world around me in the way the writer does here. While I may not wish for myself the isolation this writer has, (at least on a full time basis), there’s no denying that this novel portrays a way of life that is far closer to what is necessary for the kind of art I might want to make than the way of life I currently lead. And what is hardest to avoid is the sheer clarity of Handke’s work as it describes that way of life. We spend the novel standing next to the writer as he perceives. We observe his observations. We see exactly what he sees, how he processes his material and reflects upon it, even the questions he asks. In short, and probably far better than any guidebook, Afternoon of a Writer is a guide to precisely that – being a writer, being in the world and finding in it what you need to create.

I would like to be more critical, but I can’t. I don’t enjoy reading Handke. Yet each time I return I learn something I seriously think no other writer would be able to teach me. Some of it can only be done in German, of course. His use of separable verbs (especially the word “fort” for a continuing indicated only at the end of the sentence) to freeze an image for an extended moment of observation, or his long adjectival phrases which maintain the connection between a thing and its surroundings thanks to forgoing commas in a way that is difficult in English, for example. But the rest – the details, the details, all of the wonderful details – we can take away, whoever we are, whatever language we write in. I don’t want to read more, but I know I must. He surely is one of the greats.

Interrogation as a Way of Life – Max Frisch’s Bluebeard

Like a suicide, a crime well investigated makes even a lazy reader pay attention, looking for clues that might explain what happened. In the Swiss writer Max Frisch’s tale Bluebeard (Blaubart), our attention is rewarded with a short but rich exploration of the consequences of one man’s experience of being under investigation for murder. Though he finds himself “acquitted for lack of proof”, the accusation of murdering his ex-wife leaves Dr Felix Schaad stuck in a kind of self-interrogative mode of thinking long after he walks free. In this way, Frisch’s tale becomes both a kind of parable about identity under threat, a challenge to all investigative legal systems, and finally a story about the relationship between truth and conviction in a world of unreliable and confused memories and witnessing.

The Crime

Dr Felix Schaad, a doctor and respected member of Zurich’s upper-middle class, is informed that his ex-wife Rosalinde was found strangled with a menstrual pad stuffed in her mouth and a tie used to finish her off. Rosalinde, now an escort, had seemingly remained on good terms with Schaad and the two had met on the morning of the crime at her house – he had been seen by two witnesses. Most importantly the tie, we learn immediately, is his. Schaad has no alibi because his excuses – walking, or being in his office – cannot be corroborated. For the courts, the question is simple – why did he do it? For the reader, inhabiting something approximating Schaad’s mind, there’s a different question – did he do it?

Interrogation as a way of life

The first thing we notice with Bluebeard is the narration. This is a short, dense book, but also a divided one. On the one hand we have Schaad, brief flashes from his own mind as he tries to play billiards or go for a walk, and on the other we have the world of his intrusive thoughts, coming in the form of memories of his time at court. This dialogue is delivered using dashes rather than quotation marks, which gives it a formal quality, as if we are reading a transcript or report. Neither section lasts more than a page or at most two before we shift into the other. At one point Schaad plays billiards. The clicking of the balls can keep his attention focused, but when he stops to use some billiard chalk on the cue, these memories burst in. Their very shortness on the page makes them feel sudden and, as it were, diegetic.

More important than the division of the text into interrogation and narration is the relative weighting of the two. Schaad is utterly dominated by the remembered, then later imagined, world of the court. “Acquittal from lack of evidence – how can anyone live with this? I am fifty-four.” This is the entirety of his introduction to us. Then we return to the dialogue. As a portrait of a man, we get very little of who Schaad is through these sections. Rather, we get a sense of how he lives – entirely in the shadow of the remembered trial. He cannot take his own life or leave Zurich, for either of these would be considered a tacit acknowledgement of his own guilt for the murder. Even as the months pass, and Schaad sells his medical practice, the trial remains in his own mind. He has left the interrogation, but it hasn’t left him.

At some point we notice that we are moving on from memories into something stranger. Schaad’s dead parents are questioned as witnesses, even Rosalinde herself is brought forth. Though he is now free, the fantastical prosecutor continues to challenge Schaad’s every action. In a way, this makes me think a little of that famous philosophical injunction to know oneself. In Schaad’s case the self-questioning becomes so dominant that it totally destroys his ability to live. He wants to be free of it, but nothing seems to help – alcohol, walking, travel. At the end of the book he is finally so broken by the questioning that he actually does the one thing that he imagines means it should stop – he goes to a police station and admits the guilt that feels is his own but, as it turns out, never was.

In Bluebeard interrogation becomes a way of life, just as the court drama changes Schaad’s life. His friends are called in to bear witness against him, his name covers newspaper headlines, and he loses his livelihood as people no longer want to be treated by him. On a simple level we can read this as a fair complaint about how being accused of murder works. Yet on another, it’s about identity and how hard it can be to maintain. All of Schaad’s secrets are placed in public view and this leaves him unable to allow himself any privacy again in case he should once more be subjected to judicial scrutiny. No independent life remains for him. He becomes fearful, trapped within the biting thoughts of his own mind. 

Truth, Guilt, and Certainty

If the effect upon someone’s identity of being dragged through the courts is one key thematic aspect of Bluebeard, another is its treatment of the matter of truth. We might want to say that the judicial system aims at truth, but really this is a desperately idealistic suggestion. Much fairer is to say that it aims at a relative certainty – a “good enough” reading of the facts that can convince the court of one thing or another. Nothing higher, no matter the evidence marshalled, is in the end determined. If truth was something so simple to establish, the philosophers would be out of a job.

Just as a narrator wants to present his or her version of events, not the truth, so too does the prosecution in a legal environment. But this is a bias, an interpretative lens, that barges in and pushes truth out of the way, whenever it is inconvenient. Schaad, for at least some of the people in the court room, has murdered his ex-wife, and all that remains is to find the smoking gun. As Bluebeard comes from a time before omnipresent CCTV or DNA testing, instead the goal of the investigation is to find a psychological justification for Schaad’s actions. If the goal were interpreting physical evidence like fibres or fingerprints, perhaps Schaad’s mind might have emerged relatively unscathed. Instead, the evidence is mental, personal, psychological.

Schaad’s many ex-wives are interviewed to find proof that not only was the man subject to fits of jealousy, he also took out this rage on others. (They deny it, stating that his violence was only ever directed towards himself). Schaad’s drunken comments to a friend that he could strangle Rosalinde appear as clear evidence of his intention. But if he did not kill her nor did ever truly intend to they mean nothing except that he should watch his language better. The same can go for the notes that Schaad made or his diaries, which are likewise trawled through. Eventually, even his dreams are interpreted. (At this point we have moved beyond memory of the trial into imagined persecution, I hope). None of these pieces of evidence confirms that Schaad did it, but they aim at building enough certainty that they might ultimately displace any question of the truth.

Yet all these pieces of evidence are inherently unreliable. Just as the court tries to find its truth, or rather certainty, we see how flaky it is – which is why Schaad ultimately gets acquitted. Schaad himself cannot remember what his tie is doing in Rosalinde’s home, or account for his every movement. A witness who claimed to have seen him that morning later admits that it was actually his wife who saw him, because he himself was in the cellar. Another witness is just a child. “As witness you have to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. You know that false witness is punishable by time in prison, and in serious cases by as many as five years there.” This phrase is repeated over and over as witnesses are introduced. But it’s hard not to read it ironically, when there’s so little truth reported, and so little accurate witnessing.  

Conclusions

The power, though, of institutions like courts is that they can determine, at least to a certain extent, what is true. They get inside the head, as they do to Schaad. They turn chance remarks into dark intentions, and leave him unable to live his life. I found myself thinking as I read of another person faced with the overwhelming power of truth-determining institutions, Nellie Bly. The American journalist visited the Women’s Lunatic Asylum on today’s Roosevelt Island after posing as insane, but dropped the act once she was already in there. Yet “the more sanely I talked and acted, the crazier I was thought to be”. Just as with Schaad, all action and speech becomes refracted through the idea that a person is guilty – of murder or in this case mere madness. To protest that one is innocent, as Schaad does, is proof that one is guilty. An innocent person, of course, has nothing to hide.

Bluebeard is short but intense. In a way, it feels like Kafka’s The Trial, in that both works are both real and both parables of justice. Both works end with their central characters admitting to a guilt that is not really there, though Frisch’s tale, being situated in something closer to the real world, is kinder, and leaves Schaad alive. To me the interest in the work lies not in the crime itself, but in the light the work throws upon those human fallibilities of memory and motive, and especially in that very real-feeling form of madness as Schaad turns his own interrogation into a way of life.

Bluebeard was the last work of fiction that Frisch published in his lifetime. Reading it, you can see how it might have felt like an end for him. What it says about the possibilities of narrative and truth-finding are just too negative, the impacts upon a life from this fact are just too stark. Still, it makes for a work worth pondering.

Ideas of Emancipation in Lou Andreas-Salomé’s Fenitschka

Lou Andreas-Salomé is someone I had long imagined I would only encounter through the words and biographies of others. Perhaps the most important woman Nietzsche knew, and certainly the only one to whom he ever proposed – as many as three times, without success – and a lover and confidante to Rilke who taught him Russian and introduced him to Tolstoy, before finally becoming a significant figure in psychoanalysis, where she worked alongside Sigmund Freud, Andreas-Salomé found herself at the centres of German-language culture practically from the moment she was born in 1861 to her death in 1937.

A Russian, born in St Petersburg of mixed Huguenot and German ancestry, Andreas-Salomé had everything she needed to succeed as a woman in her age. Her father maintained an intellectual atmosphere at home, including letting his daughter attend her brothers’ classes. Then, when he died young, he left his daughter enough money for a certain amount of choice in how to live. The most important thing for her, however, came from within – the will to choose her own destiny, everything else be damned. She eventually married for affection rather than desire, spending her entire life in what today we might call an open relationship, passing from one rapturous affair to the next, never settling for too long or surrendering her independence to the men she adored. Deeply intellectual, deeply passionate, and finally heroic in her own choice of life, she seems a person it would be great to get to know.

What a relief it is, then, to learn she wrote some books. They aren’t easy to come by, either in the original German (Andreas-Salomé spent most of her adult life in Germany) or in any other language (though, in one of the quirks of translation, Goodreads seems to suggest she has become quite popular in Turkish). Still, I wanted to hear her words. I bought a slim and tiny Reclam edition of Fenitschka, one of her best-known novellas. I thought it would be as good a place as any to start with.

As a work of literature, Fenitschka excels in the subversion of our expectations. This stretches from the novella’s title, to its genre and characters. It appears at first glance to be a traditional bildungsroman, a story of education. We follow Max Werner, an Austrian flaneur on the streets of Paris who encounters the mysterious Russian woman, Fenia or Fenitschka, while at a bar. His destiny, from the moment he lays eyes on her, seems to be to unite himself in marriage with her. Marriage, after all, is the key moment in traditional works of the genre, as it provides a synthesis of all the education that has gone on before. And Max, who thinks of himself as something of a psychologist, appears to have undertaken all the other “education” needed – all that remains is the marriage.

Yet just as the novella places Max as the hero, ready for marriage, it undermines Max’s education. Max’s “psychology”, is really just an excuse for him to stare at women. When on an evening walk with Fenitschka, who has taken herself through a degree in Zurich, she talks about the importance of education for female emancipation, Max shows very little enthusiasm or understanding for what she’s talking about. By this point he has decided to seduce her. He abuses his right as a man to ensure a lady is taken home safely to her hotel by taking her back to his hotel, then actually locks her in his room to make sure he gets what he wants. It appears he knows the theory of seduction, but as for the reality…

Fenia tells him to get lost and leaves. Not only that, but she calls him “the first indecent man” she has ever met. Rather than happily enjoying the fruits of his manliness, Max is not just denied what he thinks is his by right, but he also finds his own sense of self and knowledge challenged by this stranger. It’s a remarkable scene insofar as the supposed hero is acting the villain, while the readers watch in increasing discomfort. The education Max has received is not proved through marriage, but undermined by showing that he is an asshole.

We wait a year for the action to continue. Max is in Russia for his sister’s marriage when he encounters Fenia again. She refers to their “love affair” (Liebesroman) with a certain mockery, born of her increased confidence from being a little older (she has finished her studies) and from being in her own country. For that is what the first section of Fenitschka is – a love story that has the wrong ending. The remaining sections of the novella are only more different to what we expect.

Max follows Fenia to St Petersburg to meet her family, as a friend, that is. (He reveals to her at the wedding that he is himself engaged, but readers smile knowing an engagement can always be broken off). We might expect that having failed at the “affair” part, Max might have a go at the “love” part of his “love affair”. For a reader, Max is still the person we follow, and we always have in mind the novella’s title – Fenitschka is the central figure, and we expect such figures to get married. Regular references to love, such as through quotes from the Russian poet Lermontov’s long poem The Demon, and a sense that Max is finding Fenitschka ever more physically attractive, make us think that he and she will soon end up together. But this is not what happens. Instead, Max discovers that Fenitschka is herself conducting a secret affair, and assumes the (traditionally female) role of confidant.

While Max has his moments when it seems he realises his worldview is limited, he is still very much that voice of tradition which lurks behind apparent liberal outlooks. When Fenitschka’s lover insists they get married, he encourages her to go ahead with it. But this is precisely what she does not want, as it would constrain her. The novella ends with her rejecting the lover, but with gratitude for their time together – a very modern moment.

We think that this is Max’s story. He is referred to always as “Max Werner”, as if to highlight his solidity and manly importance in contrast with the fragile female Fenitschka. The novella’s title, Fenitschka, is itself a diminutive, turning the independent woman into a cutesy figure. Her real name is Fenia, and the narrative shifts between the two to emphasise that she has two identities – one imposed from outside, and the other that she is crafting for herself. We see a similar situation in Nadezhda Kvoshchinskaya’s The Boarding School Girl, where “Lelenka” becomes “Elena” once she has achieved independence.

The comparison with Kvoshchinskaya’s work is worth exploring. One key similarity is in their narrative structures. In both works we have stories that are seemingly about men – the exiled revolutionary Veretitsyn and the flaneur Max Werner – who we expect to marry the titular female figures, but who are soon revealed to be far less impressive than their female counterparts, who instead move beyond them. Veretitsyn is supposedly a progressively-minded revolutionary, but is shocked when Lelenka becomes an artist and lives independently in St Petersburg. Werner claims to be up to date in psychology and has long discussions with Fenia about women’s rights, only to try to persuade her to marry her lover after all. Like Lelenka, Fenia instead prefers to be alone – in her case as a professor.

Where these works differ is in their treatment of the obstacles facing women in the 19th century. The Boarding School Girl paints a miserable picture of Lelenka’s home life, where she is essentially sold into a marriage she does not want. The enemies are mainly her family – father and mother – and the way out is self-education. Fenitschka instead focuses on the shortcomings of male figures who are not even aware of what they do. While certainly the novella makes the typical stabs at the empty “faultless mechanism of coming and speaking and moving on” of society evenings, and Fenia has an uncle who is something of a toady, freedom through education is still available to Fenia to ignore all of that. Instead, the real enemy is Max, precisely because he has no idea that he is one, believing himself liberal and sensible. Whether trying to seduce her or marry her, he continues to “demonise or idealise” her, rather than viewing her as a human being, and force her into traditional roles.

Of course, we smile at the thought that the so-called psychologist is unable to view his subject properly. But in Fenitschka we see the more subtle pressures placed upon women, compared to parents telling them what to do. Calling the incident in Paris a “love affair” gives it a recognisable narrative shape, and thus pressures both of their existences to follow this same shape. When they encounter the Lermontov (“All on this earth I give to you. / Just love me, you have to love me!”), Fenia notes that the quotes are hanging in near-enough every house in the city, ready for impressionable girls and boys to learn their roles: the one to love, the other to submit to its force. In this way, the novella shows that our traditional understandings of narrative, shaped by culture, are also a subtle barrier to emancipation.

In both Khvoshchinskaya’s novella and Andreas-Salomé’s, the women choose independence, but in both works there remains a certain ambiguity – the loneliness that comes with the rejection of ties. Max hears Fenia reject her lover, but never sees her again, just as Veretitsyn ends his story descending from Lelenka’s apartment, not sure what to do with himself. Yet in the almost fifty years between the novellas, (The Boarding School Girl is from 1861, while Fenitschka was published in 1898) there is a sense that the victories of the women are quite different. Lelenka has fought off the suitor her parents provided and is now an independent artist, but it has come at a cost – she is now rational and cold, as if she has had to adopt qualities from the men who aimed to control her in order to control her own freedom. Fenia, however, retains both her emotional side and her intellectual side when she achieves her freedom: “I thank you! I thank you!” These are emotional words, but they are also the words of someone choosing to be a professor – an eminently rational pursuit. To put it another way, Fenia appears to be achieving a more complete existence as a free person compared to Lelenka.

When we see this synthesis, we realise that Fenitschka was indeed a kind of bildungsroman after all. It was not Max who needed to grow, develop, and get married. He only learned, and probably not well enough, of his own mistakes and limitations. But Fenia grew, finally demonstrated her independence, and achieved a kind of synthesis in her own life – one that required no marriage at all. Here we have a model for growth without shortcuts. There may be challenges ahead for the Russian, but she is now well-set to face them. Of all the many heroes and heroines we know who end their books married instead, of how many can we really say their marriage will last?

As literature, Fenitschka has certain issues – it’s a little weak in terms of language, and I find the idea that a young woman would forgive so readily the man who locked her in his room to try to seduce her a little unbelievable – but it’s quite an exciting look at the challenges and opportunities for self-discovery available to women (or anyone) in the late 19th century. And with its emphasis on the idea that marriage and conformity are less important than being true to yourself and your ideals, it’s a work with a message that is as fresh now as it was then. It’s especially worth seeking out if you want to experience for yourself the voice of the “free spirit” Nietzsche once truly loved, and see how she imagined emancipation for herself.