Revelation without Readers: Publication in the West

Born in 1913 to a Jewish family, and an antifascist from an earlier age, Heym was one of the youngest literary exiles from National Socialist Germany. After being expelled from his grammar school in 1932 for writing an anti-military poem, he moved to Berlin to finish school and begin his studies. After the accession to power of the NSDAP in 1933, he fled first to Czechoslovakia (where he worked for German news­papers in Prague) and then, in 1935, to the United States where he completed his education. He established himself as a successful writer in the USA, worked for the US psychological warfare unit during World War II, and became a US citizen. In 1948, at the height of McCarthyism, Heym made the decision to return to Europe, first to Czechoslovakia, and then, in 1952, to Germany, choosing—as a committed socialist—to live in the GDR. He rapidly ran into conflict with the SED regime and became one of its most vocal and well-known critics, who nonetheless supported the idea of socialism and remained in the GDR until the end.2For a complete biography, see: Hutchinson, Stefan Heym.

The plot of Collin revolves around questions of revelation and concealment. It is both the burden of knowledge, the desire to conceal unpleasant facts (also from oneself) and the need for revelation that is the cause of Collin’s health problems and their potential cure. Collin’s literature becomes a source of knowledge for his doctor, Christine Roth, albeit an imperfect one. She reads his novels in an attempt to learn more about her patient and his past, but the historical events they recount are partially concealed and sanitised in their fictionalised forms. Roth reflects: “verhüllte und vertuschte der Autor nicht immer, indem er zu offenbaren schien? Wie viele höchst verschiedenartige Schalen mußte man entfernen, bis man zum Kern gelangte?” (“didn’t an author always reveal things by appearing to conceal them? How many shells of how many thicknesses did you have to remove until you got to the core of the matter?”).3Heym, Collin, 64. Further page references are given after the abbreviation “Collin (1981/1979)” in the text in parenthesis (referring to the 1981 edition of the first publication in 1979). Translations are taken from the Hodder and Stoughton edition—here 66. Further page references are given after the abbreviation “Collin (1980)” in the text in parenthesis. As with many of his works, the translation was completed by Heym himself. It is Collin’s memoir that promises to “nichts auslassen, was wesentlich sei zum Verständnis unsrer Zeit und ihrer Menschen und seiner eignen Person, soweit diese ihm erkennbar” (“leaving out nothing that was essential to the understanding of our time and its people, as far as they would reveal themselves, and of his own person,” Collin (1981/1979), 19; Collin (1980), 19). Collin’s manuscript conveys this knowledge to a limited readership: he reads extracts to Christine and it is stolen and read by Urak. Nonetheless, it remains unfinished and unpublished at the end of Heym’s novel: Collin wonders if those who live in the GDR will ever read his “Wahrheiten” (truths), or if they are instead destined for “irgendwelche Verleger im Westen, die eine Sensation witterten” (some publishers in the West who scented a sensation, Collin (1981/1979), 296; Collin (1980), 301).

Heym’s novel is marked as fiction and yet it has been frequently read (including by the Stasi)4Summary report on OV “Diversant” (Stefan Heym), dated April 26, 1977. as drawing its main characters from Heym’s own experiences and from the history of the socialist movement.5See e.g., Borgwardt, Im Umgang mit der Macht, 234–36. Havelka can be viewed as a lightly fictionalised Walter Janka—the writer and publisher convicted and imprisoned in the 1950s for “counter-revolutionary conspiracy.” The character Julius Faber, also a victim of the show trials of the 1950s, has much in common with Paul Merker—convicted for espionage in the broader international context of the Rajk trial in Hungary in 1949 and the Slánský trial in Czechoslovakia in 1952.6See Brown, Paul Merker, the GDR, and the Politics of Memory. Like Merker, Faber is demoted to running a state-owned restaurant in a small town, a position in which Collin re-encounters his old comrade, and (with very little resistance) abandons him when he is attacked by an angry mob of “workers” (Collin (1981/1979), 126–27; Collin (1980), 129–30). The literary critic Theodor Pollack, who prompts Collin to write his memoir, shares many features with Heym himself, including the loss of a daughter in Auschwitz (Collin (1981/1979), 30; Collin (1980), 31) and emigration to the United States during World War II, including serving in the American army (Collin (1981/1979), 17; Collin (1980), 17). It is also easy to see parallels between the struggles of Collin to write his memoir “leaving nothing out” and Heym’s production of a text that addresses directly the trials of the 1950s, the power wielded by the State Security Service (embodied by the ultimate survival of Urack), and the motivations and methods of the Stasi (especially the observation of Urak’s dissident grandson, Peter.)7E.g., Collin (1981/1979), 90, 105, 160–63; Collin (1980), 92, 108, 163–66 See Reinhard K. Zachau’s discussion of where “Heym himself might be hiding in his characters.” Zachau, “The Stasi as the Force of Evil,” 51. Heym himself was the subject of open observation, as he details in his autobiography Nachruf (Obituary, 1988); his knowledge of their methods increased further when he came across a bundle of file notes dropped carelessly in front of his home by one of the officers observing him.8Heym, Nachruf, 806–11. We might also view Collin as one in a series of texts by Heym that offer fictional explorations of controversial historical figures in the socialist movement, including Lassalle (1969), which was also initially published only in the West, and the post-Wende publication Radek (1999).9Heym, Lassalle/An Uncertain Friend; Heym, Radek.

The plan to publish the manuscript in the West generally meant keeping the existence of the text secret while it was being composed in the East. Heym discovered after the opening of the Stasi files that his home had been infiltrated by IM “Frieda” who was the couple’s housekeeper, a discovery he describes in the opening to the text Der Winter unsers Mißvernügens (The Winter of our Discontent, 1996).10Heym, Der Winter unsers Mißvergnügens, 9–15. Der Winter gives an account of the Biermann Affair from Heym’s perspective and as a series of diary entries. The archival record shows that Heym did indeed write at least the first draft of this text in the immediate aftermath of the Biermann expulsion: a report of a meeting with “Frieda” dated December 16, 1976 notes that the manuscript is already 88 pages.11Report on meeting with IMV “Frieda,” dated December, 16 1976. “Frieda” is reported as adding that Heym locks the manuscript away whenever he leaves the house: “Dies widerspricht vollkommen seinen sonstigen Gewohnheiten, da er sonst die laufenden Arbeiten immer auf seinem Schreibtisch offen liegen läßt” (this completely contradicts his usual habits, as he always leaves the work in progress lying open on his desk). Der Winter is a further example of a text seemingly written “for the drawer,” and published years later, reframed and in a different social and political context. Heym appears to have made efforts to keep the manuscript secret until he felt the time was right to “reveal all”—efforts that were ultimately unsuccessful. A Stasi summary report on Heym dated April 26, 1977 notes that the manuscript was completed in February 1977 and that it could be “durch zielgerichteten IM-Einsatz konspirativ dokumentiert” (secretly documented through the targeted deployment of an informant).12Summary report on OV “Diversant” (Stefan Heym) dated April 26, 1977.

The April 1977 report focuses principally on Heym’s actions during and subsequent to the Biermann expulsion and his leading role in drafting and disseminating the open protest letter. However, the report also contains a reference to Collin, including details on the planned publisher and the potential connection to Walter Janka.13Summary report on OV “Diversant” (Stefan Heym), dated April 26, 1977. A summary report dated November 9, 1977 indicates that an IM (likely “Frieda”) was able “das Manuskript ‘Collin’ unter strengster Beachtung der Konspiration fototechnisch [zu dokumentieren]” (to document the manuscript ‘Collin’ in photographs, ensuring strict secrecy).14Summary report on OV “Diversant” (Stefan Heym), dated November 9, 1977. We see here that the Stasi were also among the first readers of this manuscript and that they had knowledge of Heym’s plans to publish well before its appearance in 1979 in West Germany. They also knew when he had likely smuggled the manuscript across the border, noting that he copied the text before his trip to readings in the Federal Republic in November 1977, but those copies were no longer in his home. What is interesting from the perspective of knowledge and secrecy is that the Stasi do not make this information public (e.g., by arresting Heym or restricting his travel); in fact, they stress that the IM should operate “unter strengster Beachtung der Konspiration” (ensuring strict secrecy). Heym too is reported as keeping the project “außerordentlich intern” (exceptionally internal) with only his closest friends knowing about it.15Undated report. Likely 1977 or 1978. Both sides operate with a complex interweaving of secrecy and knowledge. Heym’s text reveals knowledge of the 1950s trials and the activities of the Stasi and the Stasi’s own assessment of the text makes clear that they were aware of that intention.16Undated report. Likely 1977 or 1978. However, prior to publication, both parties operate to keep knowledge about the text under wraps—or, in the case of the Stasi, knowledge about their knowledge of the text.

This dynamic changes on publication, as Heym actively seeks publicity for his work in both Germanies. A report dated February 6, 1979 details the author’s and publisher’s plans for the promotion of Collin. Much of this is standard—pre-announcements about the book’s appearance, comments by Heym in the media, and sending copies to journalists—all designed to give the book visibility to Western audiences (and anyone in the East accessing Western media). However, Heym reportedly also asks that a copy be sent directly to Erich H. (the report notes dryly that this probably means Erich Honecker) and Klaus Höpcke (then Deputy Minister for Culture). According to a file note dated September 23, 1980, Heym states in a reading from Collin in Sweden in 1980 that he writes his books “zuerst … für die DDR-Leser” (above all … for GDR readers) and that it is only those readers who can completely understand them. Heym adds that he is confident that Collin will appear in the GDR one day, noting that Lassalle (1969 in FRG/1974 in GDR) and Der König David Bericht (1972 in FRG/1973 in GDR), both once banned, have now been published in the country.17Report on a visit by Stefan Heym to Stockholm, dated September 23, 1980.

The report of November 9, 1977 notes that Heym and his wife recognise that the content of Collin is politically explosive and fear that they will have to leave the GDR if the text is published in the West.18Summary report on OV “Diversant” (Stefan Heym), dated November 9, 1977. In fact, the response of the SED regime was to punish Heym through legal means, charging and convicting him for breaching exchange controls in relation to the Western publication; subsequently, in June 1979, he was expelled from the Berlin Writers’ Union, alongside eight other critical authors who had been charged with the same offence, or written in protest at the SED’s actions.19See the documentation in: Walther et al., Protokoll eines Tribunals. It seems that Heym saw his ideal reader in the East and that his decision to publish in the West was a recognition that reaching his ideal reader would entail compromising the text—toning down its revelations—in a way that would not be acceptable to him. Publication only in the West was also—as Borgwardt notes—a revelation of censorship in the East.20Borgwardt, Im Umgang mit der Macht, 237.

Heym’s stance as an unwaveringly critical intellectual did not mean he was unwilling to compromise and negotiate for the publication of his works behind the scenes, as Jones has shown.21Jones, Complicity, Censorship and Criticism, 94–147. The request to send a copy of the text to Honecker may be seen as confrontational, but it might also have been tactical (or we might even say hopeful): the publication of Der König David Bericht in the GDR in 1973 was the result—at least in part—of a request by Honecker himself that this possibility be explored.22See Krämer, “‘Der Hase und der Igel,” 91. Heym describes in his autobiography how Honecker revealed to him in a meeting that the publication of Der König David Bericht in the GDR was a result of his own personal intervention. See Heym, Nachruf, 785. However, this hope was misplaced, as Collin was never published in the GDR. As Malcolm Pender wrote in 1984: