Danilo Kiš:Factography and Thanatography (A Tomb for Boris Davidovich, Psalm 44, The Hourglass) Renate Lachmann I The phantastic in Danilo Kiš's poetics—somewhat analogous to Dostoevsky's concept—refers to a bizarre, paranoid reality. In A Tomb for Boris Davidovich (Grobnica za Borisa Davidoviča) that reality is the Great Terror of the late 1930s, in The Hourglass (Peščanik) it is the massacre on the Danube in Novi Sad in 1942, perpetrated by Hungarian fascists, and the death of Kiš's father in Auschwitz. Though this reality is to be represented by authentic stories rather than fiction, the authentic in his prose texts does intertwine with the phantastic, not an irrealistic phantastic that projects alternative worlds, but a phantastic "documentation" of catastrophe. The phantastic is legitimized by authenticity and vice versa.1 Consequently, the documents presented in Kiš's novels are, as in Borges's Ficciones, factual as well as fictitious. In his ethical poetics, however, or "po-ethics," as he calls it, Kiš distances himself from the ludic erudition of Borges's fictive documents.2 While Borges uses fictive documents in order to denounce the contingency of facts and [End Page 219] to disclose the possibility/impossibility of other worlds governed by strange, paralogical order systems, Kiš insists on the fatefulness of documents that are dictated by facts. Despite his criticism, Kiš recapitulates Borges's playful erudition, yet in a paradoxical way. The subject of the story "The Book of Kings and Fools" from The Encyclopedia of the Dead (Enciklopedija mrtvih), The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is a document not of Kiš's literary invention. Nonetheless, the intricate history of its genesis, or rather the true story that Kiš unfolds of the falsification, mystification, plagiarism, and re-writing of this scandalous text, reminds the reader of Borges's pseudo-documents. The narration of the eccentric fate of the text (in whose negative career political systems participated along with historical persons), of the transformation of a French satire on Napoleon III into a pamphlet by Russian religious fanatics about a Jewish world conspiracy and the imminent appearance of the Anti-Christ, definitely resembles fiction. Kiš's focus is on the text's fatal-plot3 character, as well as its similarity to a fake text, and its unlikely (improbable) "intertextuality." Paradoxically, when Kiš uses not real documents but invented ones, there appears to be no trace of simulation, feigning, or improbability. For Kiš, the fictive text actually documents the core of reality. Or rather: the very fictivity of fictive documents leads into the core of fact. By means of the fictive document the author tries to come to terms with the real document, trying to control its incredibility (or rather phantasticality). The fictive document substitutes the real one, the real document being less credible and more phantastic than the fictive one. (Or again, paradoxically, it is the fictive document that lays bare documentarity and at the same time demonstrates that credibility, probability can be feigned.) Kiš believes that phantasy can equal the document as far as its persuasive power is concerned. Kiš was familiar with Russian postrevolutionary literary concepts and with the debates concerning the document that lay at the center of the so-called antiliterary literature of facts, literatura fakta.4 The avant-garde documentarism of the 1920s Russian literature was meant to establish a countermodel to bourgeois belles lettres; it revolted against a [End Page 220] fictional plot, the constellation of invented persons, mimetic strategies, the narrator as mediator, and the concept of authorship. The antiliterary program favored the biographical interview, reports of all sorts, travelogues, memoirs, etc. Viktor Shklovsky, one of the theorists of the poetic mechanisms of the plot,5 coined the term vnesiuzhetnaia proza(Shklovskii 1929: 222-26)—"prose outside the plot"—or rather, "plotless prose." Yet the intended effect of non-literariness (and plotlessness) could not be achieved. Authorship, stylistics, and the narrative returned. As was the case with the early interpreters of photography who believed that nature itself entered the photograph without the mediation of the human eye or hand, the "factographers'" idea that reality would represent itself, authorlessly, proved to be a false assumption. The plot, the...
Read full abstract