Stolen by the Stasi: Satirical Fiction and Hostile Readership
While Kunert belongs to the most well-known and canonical East German writers, our next example takes us to a figure who was and remains almost entirely unknown in the GDR literary field. The author in question is Ralf-Günter Krolkiewicz, who wrote short stories and poems alongside his (better known) career as an actor and director.
1See Buchholz, “Von der Ohnmacht,” esp. 180–82. Krolkiewicz’s papers are housed in the Archiv unterdrückter Literatur der DDR (Archive of Suppressed Literature in the GDR) and a collection of his poetry and short prose works,
Nirgends ein Feuer mehr (Never a Fire Again), was published in 2006 as part of a series titled “Die Verschwiegene Bibliothek” (The Silenced [or Secret] Library) funded by the Bundesstiftung Aufarbeitung and edited by Ines Geipel and Joachim Walther. The labelling of these archival and publication contexts points to the historical concealment of Krolkiewicz’s writings until their “silence” could be broken well into the post-Wende period. The dust cover of
Nirgends ein Feuer mehr describes Krolkiewicz as a “verbal aufmüpfige[r] Autor” (verbally rebellious author), whose literary career was abruptly ended after only two public readings.
In an interview conducted by Geipel and Walther in 2004, Krolkiewicz noted that he had never really considered publishing his writing, although it was an important aspect of his creative life, but that he had found audiences for his work that gradually progressed from the private to the (semi-)public:
Ich habe aber eine Öffentlichkeit insofern hergestellt, dass ich immer in einem Freundeskreis, der auch immer größer wurde, vorgelesen habe. Es gab auch ein Interesse für das, was ich machte, weil es etwas anderes war als die offizielle Literatur. So und dann ging das weiter, dass ich mich traute, ich gehe einfach mal öffentlich lesen.
2“Gespräch mit Ralf Günter Krolkiewicz.”[But I did create a public space in the sense that I always read aloud to a circle of friends, which grew ever larger. There was also interest in what I was doing because it was different from official literature. And then it went on to the point where I dared to go and read in public.]
As we have seen throughout this book, writers and artists in unofficial scenes across the GDR shared their writings, and with them their knowledge, at unofficial readings and cultural gatherings. Krolkiewicz was part of a smaller cultural scene in Potsdam, which he says was “sicherlich nicht so durchorganisiert wie im Prenzlauer Berg” (certainly not as completely organised as in Prenzlauer Berg), where he and his acquaintances also found creative ways to reach select audiences by organising exhibitions and private readings in apartments: “wir haben also versucht, die Texte lesender Weise unter die Leute zu bringen” (we tried to get the texts out to people by way of reading aloud).
3“Gespräch mit Ralf Günter Krolkiewicz.” Ironically, he recalls being approached to give a reading for the official Writers’ Union at the end of the unofficial reading that would ultimately lead to his arrest, “wo ich eigentlich dachte, oh Gott, jetzt klappt das vielleicht doch” (where I actually thought, oh God, maybe it’ll happen after all). Nonetheless, he stressed that he never entertained the “Illusion” that he might become a published author and make writing his “Brotberuf” (bread-and-butter job).
4“Gespräch mit Ralf Günter Krolkiewicz.” Significantly, he noted a difference in the reception of his works at readings and the lack of attention he received (or expected to receive) from other writers or editors: “Und das war so merkwürdig, dass die Resonanz bei Lesungen sehr groß war und mir war klar, wenn ich das irgendwo hinschicke, dass das dann keinen interessiert … Ich habe Elke Erb mal was geschickt. Und da gab es nicht einmal ein Gespräch” (And it was so strange that the response at readings was so great, and I knew that if I sent it somewhere, no one would be interested … I once sent something to Elke Erb. And there wasn’t even a conversation). These comments suggest that he had begun to find what we might call “adequate listeners” at his readings but that there was ultimately little opportunity to reach a wider readership.
Krolkiewicz’s texts therefore only reached limited audiences—and even then, usually fleetingly and aurally. Moreover, those audiences included the IMs who reported on him, after which his texts were seized by the MfS and only read by the hostile Stasi reader (until publication in 2006). Krolkiewicz’s readings from his literary works at unauthorised events and to students in Potsdam and Dresden had already attracted the Stasi’s attention, before his last public appearance on June 21, 1984 at the youth club “Spartacus” in Potsdam, where he had read 21 poems and four short stories to an audience of about 90, amongst them informants for the MfS.
5Walther, “Ralf-Günter Krolkiewicz,” 150. According to the Stasi, Krolkiewicz’s reading was met with divergent reactions: “Sie reichte[n] von recht drastischen ablehnenden Zwischenrufen bis hin zu lautstarken Beifallskundgebungen, besonders seitens der durch K. geladenen Gäste bzw. seiner Sympathisanten” (they ranged from quite drastic negative interjections to loud applause, especially from the guests invited by K. or his sympathisers).
6Report on Krolkiewicz’s reading at the “Spartakus” club in Potsdam, dated July 10, 1984, 169. See also Walther, “Ralf-Günter Krolkiewicz,” 151. A week after this reading, the
Operativer Vorgang “Bühne” was initiated against Krolkiewicz who was accused of “öffentliche Herabwürdigung” (public degradation) and “staatsfeindliche Hetze” (anti-state agitation). During a search of his apartment on July 6, 1984, the Stasi located and made copies of the texts Krolkiewicz had read at the Spartacus club, and three days later he was arrested.
According to the Stasi, Krolkiewicz’s satirical short story “Der Dissident” (The Dissident) had been a cornerstone of that last reading in Potsdam,
7Opening report of OV “Bühne” (Krolkiewicz), signed by Hauptmann Münn, Oberleutnant Tuda, and Oberst Knorr, dated June 28, 1984, 8. while a handwritten report on the search of his apartment suggests that they had been specifically looking for this text (it is referred to as “das gesuchte 3 seitige Schriftstück” [the sought-after three-page document]).
8Report by Oberstleutnant Fischer and Major Keil on the conspirative search of Krolkiewicz’s apartment, dated July 5, 1984, 86. The Stasi’s reading of “Der Dissident” forms a significant part of the opening report of the OV “Bühne,” in which they claim “K[rolkiewicz] greift im Stück wahre Begebenheiten auf und verpflanzt sie in die Handlung des Stückes” (K[rolkiewicz] takes up true stories and transplants them into the storyline of his piece).
9Opening report of OV “Bühne” (Krolkiewicz), dated June 28, 1984, 11. Amongst the “true stories” they claim to recognise is the, by that point publicly known, debacle around Uwe Kolbe’s hidden poem, discussed earlier in this chapter. “Der Dissident” is indeed a parody of the oppositional literary scene itself, as well as the ageing GDR regime, its cultural functionaries, and the Stasi.
10“Der Dissident” reproduced in Krolkiewicz, Nirgends ein Feuer mehr, 17–21. Subsequent page references are given in parenthesis in the text. Yet the Stasi’s notion of transplanted true stories is (unsurprisingly) somewhat simplistic. As we shall demonstrate, Krolkiewicz’s satirising and fictionalising techniques are both revelatory and concealing, playing with themes of secrecy and state surveillance, as well as the instability and transformation of knowledge in the public sphere. The main protagonist, Edmunt L, is a 50-year-old critical writer—still considered to be “literarischer Nachwuchs” (new literary talent, 17) and described by the third-person narrator as “ein Geheimtipp” (hidden gem, 17)—who writes a hidden poem with a coded message calling for the assassination of “unser[] Erste[r] Vorsitzender” (our First Secretary of the party and state council, 17). The secret text is decoded by a “pfiffige Bibliothekarin” (a smart librarian, 17), an adequate reader of sorts, who contacts Edmunt L but promises “sein Geheimnis zu wahren” (to keep his secret, 17). However, because he dreams of making his name as a dissident—as he is convinced this will secure him a contract with the West German publisher Suhrkamp—Edmunt is eager for his subversive act to be made public. Indeed, he decides to announce it himself:
So enthüllt Edmunt L. in seinem der linken alternaiven Szenerie zugeordneten Stammcafé Heide lauthals den wahren Sinn seines Pamphlets. Ein gefährliches Unterfangen. Besonders in diesem Café, in dessen unmittelbarer Nähe die Genossen der Inneren Hygiene leben und arbeiten und hier ihren Dienstkaffee schlürfen: Wessen Nähe übrigens ist bei uns vom Kaffeetrinken dieser Genossen verschont …
So erhofft Edmunt L. händeringend seine Verhaftung in der folgenden Nacht (18; italics in original).
[So Edmunt full-throatedly reveals the real meaning of his pamphlet in his local café Heide, associated with the left-wing alter-naïve scene. A dangerous undertaking. Especially in this café, in the immediate vicinity of which the comrades of the Internal Hygiene live and work and where they sip their work coffee: Whose proximity, by the way, is spared from the coffee drinking of these comrades …
In this way, Edmunt L. desperately hopes to be arrested in the coming night.]
This is not only a jibe at the “alter-naïve” literary scene to which writers like Edmunt belong, a play on the word “alternative,” but a thinly veiled representation of the omnipresent Stasi and the everyday nature of their surveillance tactics. Krolkiewicz’s recasting of the MfS as the “Ministerium für die innere Hygiene”—a ministry responsible for internal cleanliness rather than security—is recognisable to the reader (or listener) and arguably evokes further sinister parallels with the Gestapo. Moreover, it is materially visible through the handwritten edits in his typescript (Figure 1), which was seized by the Stasi, where we see the words “genossen der staatssicherheit” crossed through and replaced with “genossen der inneren hygiene.”
11Original typescript in StAufarb, AuL, Ralf-Günter Krolkiewicz, 43-I. During one of the many interrogations in which he was compelled to explain the intentions and meanings of his writings, Krolkiewicz explained he had made this alteration ahead of the public reading: “Diese Änderungen habe ich im Rahmen der Überarbeitung des Werkes vorgenommen, weil ich anfängliche ‘Plattheiten’ beseitigen wollte, um meine Absicht deutlicher zum Ausdruck zu bringen”
12Interrogation of Ralf-Günter Krolkiewicz, transcript dated July 9, 1984, 105–17 (112). (I made these changes while I was revising the work because I wanted to remove any initial ‘triteness’ in order to express my intention more clearly). While they were pushing him to explain the story’s incriminating content, the writer gave his interrogators insight into the literariness of his text, especially his use of satire and (a superficial form of) camouflage, which ostensibly conceals but ultimately reflects his critique of the GDR. In a later interrogation, Krolkiewicz was compelled to spell out his intention to illustrate with this particular passage, “daß der Staat ein Netz von Sicherheitsbeamten hat, die die Aufgabe haben, öffentliche Äußerungen zu begutachten und zu kontrollieren” (that the state has a network of security officers whose task it is to survey and monitor public utterances).
13Interrogation of Ralf-Günter Krolkiewicz, transcript dated September 20, 1984, 148. The decision to change the name of the ministry, he explained, was to ensure the story was not “plump” (clumsy) and to give it an “Allgemeingültigkeit” (universality) since “eine derartige Überwachung durchaus in anderen Ländern zu beobachten ist” (that kind of surveillance can certainly be observed in other countries). We might say that the Stasi interrogators simulated the role of “inadequate reader” in order to force Krolkiewicz to unpack his own work.
~
Figure 1 “Der Dissident,” by Ralf-Günter Krolkiewicz, original typescript with author’s handwritten edits. StAufarb, AuL, Ralf-Günter Krolkiewicz, 43-I.
The premise of the fictional Edmunt L’s quest for notoriety rests on the shared common knowledge that public displays of opposition—in this case, the public revelation of an initially secret form of opposition—would usually lead to arrest by the omnipresent secret police. Rather than using that knowledge to circumvent the authorities’ gaze, Krolkiewicz’s protagonist believes he can outwit them and instrumentalise their repressive apparatus to garner attention for himself. Much to Edmunt’s dismay, however, news breaks that the “Erster Vorsitzender” has in fact been exposed and executed as a double agent, meaning Edmund’s calculated attempt to get arrested as a dissident has spectacularly backfired, and his failure to foresee this unknown possibility has turned his staged dissidence into accidental conformity:
Ein Schauer des Entsetzens packt ihn: Wie ist das möglich, er liegt mit seinem Pamphlet nichts ahnend auf Linie. Der Erste Vorsitzende ein Agent, noch dazu ein Agent des US-Imperialismus, unglaublich. So hätte er ja, diese Möglichkeit einkalkulierend, ein Loblied auf den Ersten Vorsitzenden singen müssen und wäre ganz sicher längst verhaftet (19).
[A shudder of horror grips him: How is this possible? His pamphlet has unwittingly brought him into line. The First Secretary is an agent, and an agent of US imperialism at that, unbelievable. If he’d taken that possibility into account, he would have had to sing the First Secretary’s praises and would surely have been arrested by now.]
With this turn of events, Edmunt’s hidden poem in fact brings him “Anerkennung in der Öffentlichkeit” (public recognition), as an MfS report put it, “da er politischen Instinkt bewies, als er vor der Entlarvung des 1. Vorsitzenden bereits von dessen Schuftigkeit überzeugt war und zum Mord aufrief” (because he showed political instinct when he was already convinced of the First Secretary’s villany and called for his assassination before he was exposed [as an agent]).
14Opening report of OV “Bühne” (Krolkiewicz), dated June 28, 1984, 8. Worse still, Edmunt fears that the “Genossen des
MdiH, Ministerium der Inneren Hygiene” (comrades from the MdiH, Ministry of Internal Hygiene) will now invite him to give a public reading, “und von seinen Freunden im Café wird er, im Verdacht ein
Hygiene-Spitzel zu sein, furchtbar verprügelt und fortan gemieden
(and he’ll be terribly lambasted and isolated by his friends from the café who will suspect he is a
Hygiene spy, 19). Here, Krolkiewicz plays with those common forms of suspicion and mistrust that we have seen throughout our book, based on assumptions that public privileges must come at the cost of collaboration.
Furthermore, he points to the difficulty of trying to influence other people’s assumptions about oneself in a public sphere shaped by unstable knowledge and often arbitrary power structures. Indeed, as the story continues, it becomes increasingly absurd and increasingly crude. Having accepted an invitation to speak at the congress of an official literary association mockingly named “RosarotHimmelblau” (RosypinkSkyblue), Edmunt resolves to cause a scandal by dropping his trousers and masturbating and passing wind on stage. While the reactions to his performance are mixed—first silence, then confusion, and some insubordinate applause—the scene is transformed when the next speaker, the “Vorsitzende[r] der Pioneerorganisation” (Chairman of the Pioneer Organisation) does not condemn but rather imitates Edmunt’s obscene actions, evoking enthusiasm from the audience (19–20). Despite his best efforts, Edmunt’s attempts to cultivate his image and become known as a dissident (in order to gain the attention of a West German publisher) are misinterpreted and overwritten by the dynamics of opportunism and conformism in the satirised GDR cultural establishment. Ultimately, it is his new position as a celebrated and prize-winning author that finally gets Edmunt the West German contract he desires.
There is much in Krolkiewicz’s bitingly satirical writing that draws on and generates shared knowledge about life—particularly as an artist—in an authoritarian state, the decrepit and opportunistic nature of the state leadership and its apparatus, and a lack of honesty and open discussion in the tightly controlled public sphere. Krolkiewicz only had limited opportunity to discuss his texts and the knowledge they conveyed with listening audiences and a select group of friends before his arrest. In one of his interrogation reports, Krolkiewicz noted that a colleague had told him that “Der Dissident” did not work well as a story and that he had considered revising it or even destroying it.
15Interrogation of Ralf-Günter Krolkiewicz, transcript dated July 10, 1984, 123. Elsewhere he noted that the applause he received and discussion of “Der Dissident” at a reading in Dresden showed him that the audience had understood the work, “und es gab auch einzelne Personen, die ‘sauer’ waren, weil ich mich … über die Dissidenten lustig machte”(and there were individuals who were “peeved” because I made fun of the dissidents).
16Interrogation of Ralf-Günter Krolkiewicz, transcript dated August 29, 1984, 129. Finally, however, the knowledge conveyed by Krolkiewicz’s texts was above all that which could be gleaned by the hostile Stasi readership, who deemed them to be evidence of the writer’s own dissident stance and quest for fame (somewhat ironically given the themes and plot of “Der Dissident”).
17The opening report of the OV “Bühne” comments, for example: “Mit derartigen Arbeiten verfolgt K. das Ziel, in der Öffentlichkeit berühmt zu werden und Anerkennung zu finden” (with these kinds of works, K. seeks to become famous and gain public recognition). Opening report of OV “Bühne” (Krolkiewicz), dated June 28, 1984, 11. Their evaluations were shaped by what Walther calls the “reduzierte Wahrnehmung der Verfolger” (reduced perception of the persecutor) and Krolkiewicz was pushed during interrogations to provide evidence to support their conclusions. According to Walther, Krolkiewicz had initially tried to convince the Stasi that his writing was critical and irreverent, but not hostile. Yet, he was ultimately forced to accept that his interrogators had read and understood his writings “politisch konsequenter, als er sich selbst bis dahin eingestehen wollte” (with greater political consistency that he had cared to admit to himself thus far).
18Walther, “Ralf-Günter Krolkiewicz,” 153. In his post-Wende interview with Geipel and Walther, Krolkiewicz commented that the Stasi was “klüger” (cleverer) than him, “und nicht ganz zu unrecht. Die haben dort was gesehen, was mir selber noch gar nicht bewusst war” (and that wasn’t entirely unjustified. They saw something there was I wasn’t yet conscious of myself).
19“Gespräch mit Ralf Günter Krolkiewicz.” In this sense, he seems to concede that the knowledge which the Stasi acquired from his writing was not simply a distortion or misrepresentation, however reductive their reading of his work might have been. His writing might be said to have intuitively captured and thus conveyed aspects of political and cultural reality in the GDR. In the Stasi’s hands, however, the stolen manuscripts became a medium of knowledge which ultimately led to his imprisonment and expatriation.
20Walther, “Ralf-Günter Krolkiewicz,” 151. In a secret hearing that took place in November 1984, Krolkiewicz was sentenced to 18 months in prison but was expatriated to the West after a year.