| Author | Message | ||
     Degsy (Degsy) Username: Degsy Registered: 08-2010 Posted From: 86.142.2.252 |
I was intrigued to see the following announcement from Sidereal Press about a forthcoming Ewers inspired anthology. http://www.siderealpress.co.uk/ It's public knowledge that Ewers was a vociferous supporter of the Nazis in the early 30's before falling from grace, but what surprised me was seeing the names of several contributors to the 'Never Again' anti-fascist anthology in the list of contents. Please don't take this as a criticism of anyone, just a statement of genuine puzzlement on my part. Having not read any of the stories it would be wrong for me to pre-judge the tone of the anthology, but the very idea of a Ewers rehabilitation 'festschrift' makes me uneasy. Should knowledge of the dubious parts of an author's biography ever impinge on how one reads their work? | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
Degsy, there's an existing thread on said anthology (Delicate Toxins) not far below this one. As regards Ewers himself, I wouldn't claim to be an expert on his work, but this is from his Wikipedia entry: 'During the last years of the Weimar Republic, Ewers became involved with the burgeoning Nazi Party, attracted to its Nationalism, its alleged Nietzschean moral philosophy, and its cult worship of Teutonic culture, although he never officially joined it. He did not agree with the party's anti-Semitism (his character Frank Braun has a Jewish mistress, Lotte Levi, who is also a patriotic German) and this plus his homosexual tendencies soon ended his popularity with the party management. During 1934 most of his works were banned in Germany, and his assets and property seized. Ewers eventually died in poverty from tuberculosis.' Despite his great influence on 20th century fantasy and horror literature, Ewers remains out of favor in many literary circles because of his association with the Nazis. As a result, post-World War II editions of his works are often difficult to find, and earlier editions can command a premium price from collectors.' Ewers' importance is- as I understand it- as a Decadent writer, a literary movement that the Nazis themselves detested. It's as a writer of Decadent fiction that his work should be judged, and it should be judged on its literary merits and demerits. Let's face it, I'm not sure we'd want to closely inspect the political pedigree of many highly-regarded 'old masters' in the weird fiction field. Lovecraft- to give the most obvious example- wrote superlative horror fiction but was also a racist arse for most of his life. Lovecraft's stated political views were far uglier than anything I'm aware of that's been attributed to Ewers (and many of Lovecraft's tales contain overt racist rants, to say nothing of the anti-Semitism- the latter trait, notably, one that Ewers had no time for) but I think people are able to recognise Lovecraft's importance within the field and judge his work on its literary merits without regarding doing so as 'rehabilitating' the views the author held and sometimes expressed therein. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 86.142.147.0 |
Spot on, Simon. I read and enjoy Ewers' work as a writer, which is what Delicate Toxins celebrates - the *writer*, not his politics. I was asked early on why I was contributing to the anthology and I'll repeat here what I said then: "There are many people whose personal lives may be objectionable for one reason or another but I try to let their work speak for itself. I can't reject a person's work simply because I may disagree with them. (Or lord knows I wouldn't have many friends! LOL) I certainly wouldn't contribute to a Fascist propagandist anthology (and who would produce one?) but a tribute to Ewers as a writer of weird fiction isn't the same thing at all. Liking someone's work despite his objectionable politics doesn't make one pro-Fascist and any troublemakers who want to make such claims are welcome to. It won't faze me at all because it's just silly." I'm not a political writer (or indeed a political person). I don't support Fascism but I do support weird fiction. And if you can't enjoy Ewers' writing independent of his misguided politics, at least try to keep in mind that the Nazis didn't approve of him either. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.237.21 |
The reason Ewers is so neglected nowadays is because: 1° although he was a major author in his day his books were banned by the Nazis during his lifetime - it is even rumoured that Ewers was on the Night of the Long Knives death list (a major purge in 1934 when the SA was completely decimated by the SS); 2° after the war he was assuredly mostly remembered for his association with Goebbels et al, as well as the writing of the Horst Wessel song "Die Fahne Hoch" which subsequently became the Nazi anthem. These two elements were enough to ensure a 'conspiration du silence' which has endured until today. I say let the stories speak for themselves. | ||
| Degsy (Degsy) Username: Degsy Registered: 08-2010 Posted From: 86.142.2.252 |
I started this as a separate thread because I felt it was raising a more general issue about Ewers work rather than on said anthology (which I should point out was initially floated as a 'tribute to the life and works' of Ewers). And I should make it clear that I'm not 'stirring the pot' or suggesting that liking Ewers fiction makes you a Nazi - that is indeed just being silly. I freely admit that unlike Kate I find the separation between a writer's life and their work is often a grey area and for me sometimes I have to stick to principles and walk away from a writer who I might enjoy reading because I object to their politics (and yes, Lovecraft's letters are an issue for me). Time is, as ever, a great leveller. For example, if I discovered today that one of my favourite contemporary authors was a member of the BNP then his books would undoubtedly be heading straight off to the Oxfam shop. But as time passes, peoples' indignation seems to grow less and less (take Kipling's Jingoism for instance, which was once a burning issue). As for Ewers I personally feel that his reputation is still tarnished by his dalliance with fascism and the time is not yet right for him to be accepted uncritically into the canon of weird fiction. One of the reasons I would urge caution is that most of the biographical information (including the Wikipedia entry) available in English is written by enthusiasts who seek to paint Ewers in the best possible light. His politics were detestable and he supported the Brownshirts at the height of their campaign of murder, kidnapping and intimidation against left wing-intellectuals, trade unionists and communists. Ewers mistake was simply to back the wrong side in the struggle for control of the Nazi political machine. If he hadn't been purged I see nothing in his biography to indicate that he wouldn't have become a more fulsome and dedicated supporter of Hitler. Just something I feel strongly about. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.237.21 |
I appreciate that stance, Degsy, but also think it is very limiting. Personally I would go so far as to say that I don't care whether Ewers was a Nazi or not - it is interesting background information, and nothing more. Don't forget that in his day the majority of the German people were National Socialists. Then there's that interesting article of his entitled "Why I am a Philosemite" which makes it quite clear that he had nothing whatsoever against the jewish population. If you're going to drop artists because of their (erstwhile) political beliefs you lose an awful lot. And what about technicians and engineers? Werner Von Braun comes to mind . . . | ||
| Degsy (Degsy) Username: Degsy Registered: 08-2010 Posted From: 86.142.2.252 |
You're quite right Hubert. I'm afraid I do come across as a bit of a humourless bigot in the above post. I come from a very left-wing background where the tenet was always 'never compromise with fascism no matter how small the arena'. So perhaps I'm being a little over-zealous in this case. I take your point about rehabilitated Nazi's such as von Braun. In those cases I do believe that the science can be objectively judged on its own merits. But I've always stuggled with the cases of critics/philosophers like Heidegger, Paul De Man or E.M Cioran who did compromise with fascism to greater or lesser degrees despite the fact that there is much I agree with in their works. In the case of artists like Ewers or (more famously) Leni Riefenstahl, the knowledge of their collaboration deadens any enthusiasm I might have for their work. From what we know now about Himmler and the Ahnenerbe, far from being 'decadent',Ewers Occult Gothicism was in fact, very much to their taste (it was modernist art that the Nazis saw as truly decadent). But that is another argument in itself. Ok, rant over!  | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.237.21 |
Well, I don't know if Himmler would have agreed with Ewers' vision of woman. | ||
| Tom_alaerts (Tom_alaerts) Username: Tom_alaerts Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.176.34.112 |
About Riefenstahl: has anyone here seen the photographs of african tribes she made in 1970s? Remarkable work. |