Our author once described the writer Botho Strauß in a magazine as “Utta Danella of the cultural upper class”. He doesn’t want too go back, but he wants to tell how he managed to get back to Strauss through Heinz Strunk. Reading alone wasn’t enough.
Ten years ago, Rowohlt published Botho Strauss’s anthology “The Hunter Stuffed Back into His House,” compiled and edited by Heinz Strunk. The enigmatic title derives from a short story incorporated into Strauss’s 1984 “romantic and thoughtful novel”, The Young Man, in which a “harmless cotton wool producer” and hobby hunter, who is prevented from going hunting on the weekend due to a police operation, he becomes a “man wolf” due to being forced to stay at home.
The short text contains many characteristics that characterize Strauss’s work as a whole: the fusion of the profane and the fantastic, the comic and the demonic; the use of archaisms and absurd word formations (the “stuffing back” refers to the cotton producer’s “accumulated passion” caused by the prevented hunting); but above all the refusal to respect conventional distinctions between good and bad taste, high and low style, refinement and absurdity.
The author of these lines was one of the conventionalists who consider Strauss’ language absurd and precious when he described Strauss as ”Utta Danella of the cultural upper class” in the monthly magazine “Konkret” in 2013, a year before the publication of Strunk’s anthology . None of this can be undone – anyone who corrects himself is still doing something wrong – but it sheds light on the history before and after the ruling. In it Strunk, or more precisely: Strunk’s voice, plays the main role. An audiobook edition was published at the same time as the anthology in which Strunk Strauss reads what at first glance appears to be Kurt Krömer reciting Hölderlin.
Holding the anthology and audiobook together, it becomes clear that Strunk understands Strauss better than his enemies and lovers because he takes him seriously without reservation instead of mocking his quirkiness for applause. Through his seemingly arbitrary and chronological selection of texts (more like a collage than an anthology), but above all through his sometimes stammering and always somewhat mumbled speech, Strunk acquires dimensions from Strauss’s work - his language and the rampant precision of his imagination, which make him appear in a new light. Here the acting is authentic interpretation.
Read more
Reread with Strunk’s language, Strauss’s texts find nuances that risk being taken away from them by a prejudicial reading, but also by their own excessive tendency towards the superior. Contrary to what his detractors and fans believe, Strauss’ works are not for educated people who want to use them to confirm their own superiority. Rather, they testify to an openness to the world, a precise observation of everyday life that dose not get bogged down in realism, and a naivety that allows itself to be convinced by everything that happens and for which nothing is too banal, poor and epigonal: nothing is too much absurd to be taken seriously.
That’s why Strauß has something of Utta Danella, as do his plays – from the episodic drama “Big and Small” (1978) to the play “Final Chorus” (1991) about the fall of the wall, which is very far from contemporary. politics, to “The Simili” (1998), where the connection between the plot is fragmented into a multitude of fragmentary reflections – which have more to do with the boulevard than with the lyrical drama of hugo von Hofmannsthal. But this affinity is not a flaw, but is inseparable from the tone of his works, from the specific experience of reality that can only be gained by reading them.
The fact that Strauss considers himself a “continuer”, a rereader and rewriter of what has been handed down, and not a creator, is not an indication of the myth-fetishism which he sees as proof of an authoritarian mentality on the part of serious people, who they have a strong sense of preserving the ephemeral and are faithful to the object to be misunderstood, to be believed. Nor is it an expression of elitism, which, on the contrary, is much more a character trait of those who reject as boring or politically hazardous everything that is incompatible with their own patterns of opinion.More frequently enough than mediocre, what is denigrated as tabloid is that which has mediocre aspects that escape mediocrity. This could be demonstrated in the works of Edward Albee, Alan Ayckbourn and Eugene O’Neill, with whom Strauss’s works have a closer relationship than with Thomas Bernhard or Samuel Beckett, to whom they are frequently enough compared.
That bad taste, banality and unintentional comedy are not something that Strauss simply belittles and can thus be contemptuously accused of, but something that he accepts as there is no aesthetic success without waste and no purity of expression without dross must part with him , can be seen in Strunk’s ostrich collage. It restores to Strauss’s texts the impure, raw, crooked and dark quality that belongs to them and in them we repeatedly encounter the image of twilight as a metaphor for transition and indistinction. In Strunk’s collection, one can see fewer contradictions than transitions between vignettes like “Woman on the Telephone,” “A Visit” and “Late Shyness” from the 1987 prose volume “Nobody else,” which look like everyday photos, and the innumerable text fragments from the volumes “Dwelling Dawn Lies”, “The Particular” and “The One Below on Tiptoes”, in which mythological figures transform into mythical creatures, are full of transforming people and nocturnal dreams to Hoffmann.
Strunk’s method of recomposing Strauss’s texts without respecting their original constellation is not an indication of their arbitrariness, but rather indicates, with an original romantic gesture, the different connection in which they find themselves with each other and which goes beyond their respective arrangement . Probably because the eye for such connections owes more to childhood than to adult experience, what characterizes Strauss’s work is the fact that it can be found differently, not once and for all, but at least three times: as the the first blind and keen reader, as Strunk himself describes himself in his afterword, as the second adult reader, alienated and disappointed, and as the third reader who reads the unchanged work with new precision. Strunk offers the best instructions imaginable for such remedial reading.
What are the central themes explored in botho Strauß’s literary works?
Time.news Interview: Rediscovering botho Strauß with heinz Strunk
Editor (Time.news): Welcome, and thank you for joining us today to discuss the interesting intersection of Botho Strauß’s literary work and Heinz Strunk’s unique reinterpretation of it. It truly seems that your journey with Strauß’s anthology, “The Hunter Stuffed Back into His House,” edited by Strunk, has revealed some surprising insights. Could you start by explaining how this anthology came to be significant in your own literary exploration?
Expert: Thank you for having me. The anthology holds a peculiar charm that mirrors my own evolution in understanding Strauß. Initially, I categorized him as the “Utta Danella of the cultural upper class,” mostly dismissing his work as overly precious or absurd. Though, through Strunk’s approach, I realized Strauß’s writing embodies a fusion of the mundane and the fantastic. strunk’s method helps unearth layers of nuance that a conventional reading might overlook.
editor: It’s interesting that you mention Strunk’s method. In what ways does he reinterpret Strauß’s texts to reveal these hidden layers?
expert: Strunk approaches Strauß’s work not with ridicule, but with genuine engagement. His seemingly arbitrary selections—more akin to a collage than a conventional anthology—allow Strauß’s language and imaginative essence to shine. Strunk’s voice in the audiobook, full of stammering yet authentic interpretation, brings out dimensions of Strauß that celebrate his originality rather than mock it. It’s almost as if Strunk embodies Strauß, enabling listeners to experience the depth and absurdity of the narratives in a new light.
Editor: That’s a fascinating perspective. You mentioned that many, including yourself, held prejudices against Strauß’s style. How do you think these preconceived notions influence the reading of his works?
Expert: Prejudices can severely cloud our understanding. Many view Strauß’s language as elitist, which creates a barrier to appreciating the openness to the world that he conveys through his observations of everyday life. By focusing solely on his use of archaisms and absurd word formations,readers risk missing the deeper commentary on human experience and the nuance in the absurdity of our lives. It takes an open mind—much like Strunk’s—to see Strauß’s brilliance beyond those initial judgments.
Editor: Strauß’s works challenge conventional taste, merging high and low culture. In today’s literary landscape, do you think this characteristic has become more or less prominent?
Expert: Strauß’s style may resonate even more today, given the current cultural climate that frequently enough blends and blurs the lines between genres and tastes. There’s a growing acceptance of what might once have been labeled as ‘bad taste,’ allowing for a richer exploration of cultural narratives. Strauß’s ability to elevate the banal and absurd speaks to a broader openness in contemporary literature.
Editor: So, by embracing both the mundane and the ridiculous, Strauß presents a comprehensive view of life that is still relevant today. Do you see Mr. Strunk as a crucial figure in reviving strauß’s influence?
Expert: Absolutely. Strunk’s performance allows for a reintroduction of Strauß to a contemporary audience,illuminating what many have overlooked. His interpretation has the power to rekindle interest and provide accessibility to Strauß’s work, offering new readers the possibility to connect with those subtle nuances that make it enduringly relevant.
Editor: In reflecting on your journey from skepticism to thankfulness of Strauß, what advice would you give to readers who might feel similarly dismissive?
Expert: I would encourage readers to approach Strauß—and any challenging author—with an open heart and mind. Let go of any preconceived notions of what is ‘proper’ literature. Engage with the text audibly, as Strunk encourages through his recordings, and allow the bizarre beauty of Strauß’s language to wash over you. There’s richness waiting to be discovered if one is willing to look beyond the surface.
Editor: Thank you for sharing your insights and framing this discussion around the eclectic worlds of Strauß and Strunk. It’s clear this ongoing dialogue can significantly enrich our understanding of literature.
Expert: Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure discussing such vibrant literary figures!
