There are moments in the conflict between father and daughter when Katja seems to suggest that consensus and conciliation with her father are possible, but such moments turn out to be deceptive. Some critics have suggested that Musbach and Katja are able to achieve a reconciliation, not because of any great change in attitude, but because Musbach turns out not to be guilty244.
Musbach was not the man Katja saw in the photograph at the
Wehrmachtsausstellung, and however guilty he may feel about his actions,
the basis for Katja's conflict with him therefore turns out to be unfounded. Consequently, the tension between Katja and Musbach disappears, not because they have resolved their differences through discussions and come to a mutual conclusion about a difficult past, but because the whole reason for
244 Hummel, Christine op cit at 198; Geier, Andrea op cit at 290. These views
recall those commentators on Der Vorleser who consider that Hanna’s
illiteracy removes her guilt and consequently the source of Michael’s dilemma: see the previous chapter at 90 – 91.
their dispute has fallen away. However, it does not necessarily follow that the lack of a crime as the basis for the intergenerational conflict between Katja and Musbach must lead to reconciliation because it removes the reason for dispute. Rather, the relative paucity of Musbach’s “crime” exposes the confrontation between father and daughter as being in large part about the power relationship between two generations, with the Nazi past being used by Katja as a convenient weapon in her power struggle with Musbach and her attempt to exorcise her intergenerational demons.
Another opportunity for consensus comes when Katja criticises the
confrontational approach of her generation towards their parents and their parents’ past, suggesting a desire to break with the established modes of
Väterliteratur and inaugurate a new way of dealing with the past at an
intergenerational level:
“Und die anderen? Die gefragt hatten? Hatten die ihre Väter nicht zu erbarmungslos, voller Vorurteile gefragt? Ihnen keine Chance
gegeben, offen zu reden? Hatten sie nicht allzu schnell die eigene Unschuld sichern wollen, indem sie ohne Unterschied eine ganze Generation zu Tätern, Mitläufern, Zuschauern machten, um ja nichts mit ihnen zu tun zu haben? Für die Väter galt dann: schuldig; für sie selbst: gewissenhaft. Sogar als Opfer konnte man sich sehen, als Opfer der Täter-Väter. Deren damalige Sorgen, Ängste und Hoffnungen ließen sie beiseite. Hatten sie jemals Nachsicht und Mitgefühl empfunden, zu verstehen versucht?” (UB 255)
However, these reflections form little more than a series of unanswered questions. They come directly after Katja’s realisation that Musbach has
aimed his narrative towards putting himself on the side of the victims in order to deflect closer scrutiny and judgment (UB 255), and immediately before she forms her decision to push Musbach to answer her charges about his
involvement in Nazi crimes (UB 256), suggesting that she considers an
alternative, conciliatory approach to dealing with the Nazi past with her father, but rejects this in favour of continuing conflict. Her musings about the attitude of her contemporaries do nothing to change her own plans to confront her father (UB 256), and her continuation of her accusatory and frequently hostile approach indicates an unwillingness or inability to break away from the
established patterns of Väterliteratur.
The extent to which Katja shows concern about the detrimental effect her questioning is having on Musbach’s physical and mental health follows a similar pattern. Her misgivings about putting her father through the trauma of remembering and her expression of a desire for attentive listening and
understanding in intergenerational dialogue are different from the attitudes expressed in earlier forms of Väterliteratur. She recognises that she will need to take the time to listen to her father and bear his memories if she wishes to uncover the truth (UB 40), and sometimes regrets taking an aggressive tone with him (UB 45, 49). She considers the possibility of unity between the generations following completed memory work (“Eine Insel der
Gemeinsamkeit für Vater und Tochter? Das wäre schon viel, für zwei
Generationen” (UB 105)) and contemplates the need to understand her father
in order to maintain their relationship:
“Er brauchte diesen Umweg auf seiner Wanderung zu ihrem, Katjas, Ziel: seiner Antwort auf die Fotos der Ausstellung. Würde sie auch das
verstehen? Verstehen können? Verstehen müssen, wenn sie dem Vater weiterhin eine Tochter sein wollte?” (UB 174)
She also considers the need for the second generation to share the burden of the past (both guilt and suffering) with the first, rather than simply pushing it away:
“Wenn wir die Erben der Verstrickung unserer Väter und Mütter in die Nazijahre sein wollen, wenn wir ehrlich Verantwortung für diese Geschichte mit übernehmen wollen, dann müssen wir auch die Erben der Leiden, der Verletzungen werden, all der zerstörten Lebenspläne der Deutschen dieser Jahre.” (UB 145)
“War sie, Katja, bereit, mit ihm die Erinnerung dann auch zu teilen? Wiegt geteilte Schande doppelt? Oder nur noch halb - wie geteiltes Leid?” (UB 151)
However, as with her thoughts about her generation’s approach towards talking to their parents about the past, her thoughts on this score remain just that and are not reflected in her actions. Katja may have some scruples about putting her father through the trauma of reliving the past, but every time she asks herself whether she ought to stop, she answers her own question in the negative:
“War es richtig, den Vater so zu quälen? . . . Es war richtig, den Vater zum Sprechen zu bringen.” (UB 145)
“Die Bilder, die sie umtrieben, waren sie überhaupt noch wichtig? Waren die Fotos wichtig? Fotos oder der Vater? Der Vater,
Ende zerstört? Hatte sie dazu ein Recht? Wo es ein Pflicht gibt zu erinnern, dachte sie, muß auch einer ein Recht geben zu erfahren. Ein Recht auf das Erinnern und ein Recht auf das Fragen.” (UB 150 - 151)
“Bereute sie, mit dem Buch, mit diesen furchtbaren Fotos, diesen Sturzbach an Erinnerungen ausgelöst zu haben? . . . Nein, Katja bereute nicht.” (UB 105)
The many question marks peppering Katja's reflections about the need to listen to and understand the first generation (UB 145; 151; 174) are an indication that these thoughts are speculations, rather than concluded positions, and her actions in confronting her father tell a different story.
Despite Musbach’s rapidly deteriorating health and increasing signs of mental trauma, Katja is determined to force the issue and refuses to let him rest until she has achieved her desired outcome. Although she allows her father plenty of space in which to tell his story, she is reluctant to let the progression of their dialogue deviate from her intentions for it: “Er sollte erzählen, was sie hören
wollte” (UB 81). She is impatient to reach her goal, namely her father's
confession to a crime, which will expose his fallibility and allow Katja to
dispose of him as her idol. In her view, only this confession, which places her in the position of power, will resolve the rift in their relationship, as she
suggests when reflecting on the Wotan/Brünnhilde relationship in Wagner's opera: “Wotan und Brünnhilde: Liebe, Nähe, Vertrautheit. Wotan, der seine
Schwäche, seine Verfehlung, seine Schmach gesteht. Und Brünnhilde nimmt mit der Liebe und dem Vertrauen auch die Bürde des Vaters an” (UB 188).