Aspects of Myth, Parody, and Obscenity in Grass’ Die Blechtrommel and Katz und Maus
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9855516 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Erhard Friedrichsmeyer (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, corresponding author), Erhard M Friedrichsmeyer (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee) |
| Year | 1965 |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 240-250 |
| Publication date | 1965-05-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Germanic Review Literature Culture Theory (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0016-8890 • E-ISSN: 1930-6962 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/19306962.1965.11787223 |
| OpenAlex | W2562170688 |
| Language | EN |
NotesMunich, 1961, pp. 15–16.There is no doubt that myth plays a role in Grass’ other works as well. Especially Hundejahre shows Grass’ preoccupation with mythology.Gesammelte Werke (Frankfurt, 1960), IX, 495–496.Günter Grass, Die Blechtrommel (Neuwied, 1962), p. 167.Leipzig, 1940.—This study is bipartite. Kerényi deals with the mythological aspects under the title “Das Urkind in der Urzeit,” Jung’s contribution is entitled “Zur Psychologie des Kind-Archetypus.” (Authorship of quotations referred to here are identified by name: “Jung” or “Kerényi”).Mann, p. 498.Hermes in the Homeric hymn also has a number of negative qualities, but he is nonctheless radiantly glorious, which Oskar is not. He is a god, Oskar is a parody.Karl August Horst, Kritischer Führer durch die deutsche Literatur der Gegenwart (Munich, 1962), p. 158.Katz und Maus, rororo ed. (Hamburg, 1963), p. 31.Possible analogues to the mine sweeper scene—the masturbation scene on the Mississippi island in Twain’s Huckleberry Finn or Dedalus’ visit to the nighttown brothel in Joyce’s Ulysses—are not explored here since they are situational analogues and are not important as keys, as is Jung’s and Kerényi’s study.“Wollen” and “Dürfen” are clearly superfiuous aspects of the challenge. If Mahlke had wanted to perform, no challenge would have been necessary. We know of him that he expressed a dislike for the ” ... üblichen Sauereien der Tertianer ... ” (p. 23). “Dürfen” as such is nowhere in the novel a challenge to Mahlke. Even when he is denied permission to give a talk at his alma mater, returning as a highly decorated soldier, “Dürfen” merely frustrates “Können.” His school, where the cat forever menaced his mouse, is to see the “mouse” protected behind the knight’s cross.Mahlke does not chew these excrements because he is different. He abstains from the “Sauerei en” of his companions. Furthermore, if we understand him as an allegorical figure, it is essential that he desist. On thi s level it would be incompatible with his role if he had been as “unconscious” as his companions.Kritisches Lesebuch; Literatur unserer Zeit in Probe und Bericht (Hamburg, 1962). p. 212.Blöcker, p. 212
Art · Art history · Hymn · Literature · Mythology · oskar · German Literature and Culture Studies · Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Hegel · Philosophy · Psychoanalysis and Social Critique
| Highly cited | No |
|---|