Pala

Die Trauer ist das eine. Das andere ist der Eintritt in eine Sphäre des Verlusts. Anders gesagt: Der Verlust ist das eine, das andere aber ist, ihn dauern zu sehen und zu wissen, wie er überdauern wird: Nicht im Medium des Schmerzes und nicht als Klage, nicht einmal expressiv, sondern sachlich, als graduelle Verschiebung der Erlebnisintensität.
Man könnte auch sagen: Etwas Relatives tritt ein. Was kommt, misst sich an diesem Erleben und geht gleichfalls durch den Knacks. Es ist der negative Konjunktiv: Etwas ist schön, wäre da nicht… Es tritt ein Moment ein, in dem alles auch das eigene Gegenteil ist. Als kämen, auf die Spitze getrieben, die Dinge unmittelbar aus dem Tod und müssten sich im Leben erst behaupten und bewähren.
(…)
Vielleicht wird jemand sagen, dieser eine Verlust sei ein Kontrastmittel. In der Konfrontation mit ihm wirkten die Farben der Welt nun leuchtender, als sei das Dauernde durch die Begegnung mit dem Vergänglichen noch wunderbarer. Es ist die Dialektik der Sonntagsrede. Als müsste man dem eigenen Leben nur Verluste zuführen und würde gleich dessen froh, was man hat. Nein, man kann ganz gut unterscheiden zwischen der Schlappe, dem Unglück, dem Scheitern, der Einbuße, dem Verlust, der überwunden werden kann. Man kann ja in manchem Verlust diesen selbst nicht einmal fühlen, sondern möchte lachen: über die Pantomime des Tragöden, über das Stummfilm-Pathos der Trauer. Man wird darüber hinwegkommen, über die Trauer und über das Gelächter, das sie weckte.
Aber der Knacks ist etwas anderes, über ihn kommt man nicht hinweg. Er ist ein Schub, meist bewegt er sich lautlos und unmerklich. Erst im Rückblick kann man sagen: Dann war nichts mehr wie zuvor. Eine posthume Perspektive, die des Passé. Die Farben nehmen jetzt Patina an, die Genüsse büßen ihre Frische ein, die Erfahrung wählt einen flachen Einfallswinkel, sie kommt eher vermittelt, wie durch eine Membran gegangen. Das Leben wechselt die Sphäre, es reift, es altert, und irgendwann ist zum ersten Mal das Gefühl da, überhaupt ein eigenes Alter zu haben, das heißt, es fühlen zu können.
(Roger Willemsen – Der Knacks)

Art is that thing having to do only with itself – the product of a successful attempt to make a work of art. Unfortunately, there are no examples of art, nor good reasons to think that it will ever exist. (Everything that has been made has been made with a purpose, everything with an end that exists outside that thing, i.e., ›I want to sell this‹, or ›I want this to make me famous and loved‹, or ›I want this to make me whole‹, or worse, ›I want this to make others whole‹.) And yet we continue to write, paint, sculpt, and compose. Is this foolish of us?
(Jonathan Safran Foer – Everything is Illuminated)

Mr. Black said, “I once went to report on a village in Russia, a community of artists who were forced to flee the cities! I’d heard that paintings hung everywhere! I heard you couldn’t see the walls through all of the paintings! They’d painted the ceilings, the plates, the windows, the lampshades! Was it an act of rebellion! An act of expression! Were the paintings good, or was that beside the point! I needed to see it for myself, and I needed to tell the world about it! I used to live for reporting like that! Stalin found out about the community and sent his thugs in, just a few days before I got there, to break all of their arms! That was worse than killing them! It was a horrible sight, Oskar: their arms in crude splints, straight in front of them like zombies! They couldn’t feed themselves, because they couldn’t get their hands to their mouths! So you know what they did!” “They starved?” “They fed each other! That’s the difference between heaven and hell! In hell we starve! In heaven we feed each other!” “I don’t believe in the afterlife.” “Neither do I, but I believe in the story!”
(Jonathan Safran Foer – Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close)

Let me tell you a story, the Dial went on. The house that your great-great-great-grandmother and I moved into when we first became married looked out onto the small falls (…). It had wood floors, long windows, and enough room for a large family. It was a handsome house. A good house.
But the water, your great-great-great-grandmother said, I can’t hear myself think.
Time, I urged her. Give it time.
And let me tell you, while the house was unreasonably humid, and the front lawn perpetual mud from all the spray, while the walls needed to be repapered every six months, and chips of paint fell from the ceiling like snow for all seasons, what they say about people who live next to waterfalls is true.
What, my grandfather asked, do they say?
They say that people who live next to waterfalls don’t hear the water.
They say that?
They do. Of course, your great-great-great-grandmother was right. It was terrible at first. We couldn’t stand to be in the house for more than a few hours at a time. The first two weeks were filled with nights of intermittent sleep and quarreling for the sake of being heard over the water. We fought so much just to remind ourselves that we were in love, and not in hate.
But the next weeks were a little better. It was possible to sleep a few good hours each night and eat in only mild discomfort. Your great-great-great-grandmother still cursed the water (whose personification had become anatomically refined), but less frequently, and with less fury. Her attacks on me also quieted. It’s your fault, she would say. You wanted to live here.
Life continued, as life continues, and time passed, as time passes, and after a little more than two months: Do you hear that? I asked her on one of the rare mornings we sat at the table together. Hear it? I put down my coffee and rose from my chair. You hear that thing?
What thing? she asked.
Exactly! I said, running outside to pump my fist at the waterfall. Exactly!
We danced, throwing handfuls of water in the air, hearing nothing at all. We alternated hugs of forgiveness and shouts of human triumph at the water. Who wins the day? Who wins the day, waterfall? We do! We do!
And this is what living next to a waterfall is like, Safran. Every widow wakes one morning, perhaps after years of pure and unwavering grieving, to realize she slept a good night’s sleep, and will be able to eat breakfast, and doesn’t hear her husband’s ghost all the time, but only some of the time. Her grief is replaced with a useful sadness. Every parent who loses a child finds a way to laugh again. The timbre begins to fade. The edge dulls. The hurt lessens. Every love is carved from loss. Mine was. Yours is. Your great-great-great-grandchildren’s will be. But we learn to live in that love.
(Jonathan Safran Foer – Everything is Illuminated)

I love you also means I love you more than anyone loves you, or has loved you, or will love you, and also, I love you in a way that no one loves you, or has loved you, or will love you, and also, I love you in a way that I love no one else, and never have loved anyone else, and never will love anyone else.
(Jonathan Safran Foer – Everything is Illuminated)

She never said no and never said yes, but pulled, slackened, pulled her strings of control.
Pull: ›What would be nicest‹, she would say, ›is if I had a tall glass of iced tea‹. What happened next: the men raced to get one for her. The first to return might get a peck on the forehead (slacken), or (pull) a promised walk (to be granted at a later date), or (slacken) a simple ›Thank you, goodbye‹. She maintained a careful balance by her window, never allowing the men to come too close, never allowing them to stray too far. She needed them desperately, not only for the favors, not only for the things that they could get for Yankel and her that Yankel couldn’t afford, but because they were a few more fingers to plug the dike that held back what she knew to be true: she didn’t love life. There was no convincing reason to live.
(Jonathan Safran Foer – Everything is Illuminated)

Alle aus dem Lateinischen hervorgegangenen Sprachen bilden das Wort Mitgefühl aus der Vorsilbe com- und dem Wort, das ursprünglich ›Leiden‹ bedeutete: passio. Andere Sprachen, so das Tschechische, das Polnische und das Schwedische, drücken diesen Begriff durch ein Substantiv aus, das aus der Vorsilbe Mit- und dem Wort ›Gefühl‹ besteht (tschechisch sou-cit, polnisch wspol-uczucie, schwedisch med-känsla).
In den aus dem Lateinischen hervorgegangenen Sprachen bedeutet das Wort compassio: wir können nicht herzlos den Leiden eines anderen zuschauen; oder: wir nehmen Anteil am Leid des anderen. Aus einem anderen Wort mit ungefähr derselben Bedeutung (französisch pitié, englisch pity, italienisch pietà usw.) schwingt sogar unterschwellig so etwas wie Nachsicht dem Leidenden gegenüber mit: »Avoir de la pitié pour une femme« heißt, daß wir besser dran sind als diese Frau, uns zu ihr hinabneigen, uns herablassen.
Aus diesem Grund erweckt das Wort Mitleid Mißtrauen: es bezeichnet ein schlechtes Gefühl, das als zweitrangig empfunden wird und nicht viel mit Liebe zu tun hat. Jemanden aus Mitleid zu lieben heißt, ihn nicht wirklich zu lieben.
In den Sprachen, die das Wort nicht aus der Wurzel ›Leiden‹, sondern aus dem Substantiv ›Gefühl‹ bilden, wird es ungefähr in demselben Sinn gebraucht; man kann aber nicht behaupten, es bezeichne ein zweitrangiges, schlechtes Gefühl. Die geheime Macht seiner Etymologie läßt das Wort in einem anderen Licht erscheinen, gibt ihm eine umfassendere Bedeutung: Mit-Gefühl haben bedeutet, das Unglück des anderen mitzuerleben, genausogut aber jedes andere Gefühl mitempfinden zu können: Freude, Angst, Glück und Schmerz. Dieses Mitgefühl (im Sinne von soucit, wspoluczucie, medkänsla) bezeichnet also den höchsten Grad der gefühlsmäßigen Vorstellungskraft, die Kunst der Gefühlstelepathie; in der Hierarchie der Gefühle ist es das höchste aller Gefühle.
(Milan Kundera – Die unerträgliche Leichtigkeit des Seins)

Forgetting that beauty and happiness are only ever incarnated in an individual person, we replace them in our minds by a conventional pattern, a sort of average of all the different faces we have ever admired, all the different pleasures we have ever enjoyed, and thus carry about with us abstract images, which are lifeless and uninspiring because they lack the very quality that something new, something different from what is familiar, always possesses, and which is the quality inseparable from real beauty and happiness. So we make our pessimistic pronouncements on life, which we think are valid, in the belief that we have taken account of beauty and happiness, whereas we have actually omitted them from consideration, substituting for them synthetic compounds that contain nothing of them.
(Marcel Proust – In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower)

Brod’s life was a slow realization that the world was not for her, and that for whatever reason, she would never be happy and honest at the same time. She felt as if she were brimming, always producing and hoarding more love inside her. But there was no release. Table, ivory elephant charm, rainbow, onion, hairdo, mollusk, Shabbos, violence, cuticle, melodrama, ditch, honey, doily… None of it moved her. She addressed her world honestly, searching for something deserving of the volumes of love she knew she had within her, but to each she would have to say, I don’t love you. Bark-brown fence post: I don’t love you. Poem too long: I don’t love you. Lunch in a bowl: I don’t love you. Physics, the idea of you, the laws of you: I don’t love you. Nothing felt like anything more than what it actually was. Everything was just a thing, mired completely in its thingness.
If we were to open a random page in her journal – which she must have kept and kept with her at all times, not fearing that it would be lost, discovered and read, but that she would one day stumble upon that thing which was finally worth writing about and remembering, only to find that she had no place to write it – we would find some rendering of the following sentiment: I am not in love.
So she had to satisfy herself with the idea of love – loving the loving of things whose existence she didn’t care at all about. Love itself became the object of her love. She loved herself in love, she loved loving love, as love loves loving, and was able, in that way, to reconcile herself with a world that fell so short of what she would have hoped for. It was not the world that was the great and saving lie, but willingness to make it beautiful and fair, to live a once-removed life, in a world once-removed from the one in which everyone else seemed to exist.
(Jonathan Safran Foer – Everything is Illuminated)

I never thought about things at all, everything changed, the distance that wedged itself between me and my happiness wasn’t the world, it wasn’t the bombs or burning buildings, it was me, my thinking, the cancer of never letting go, is ignorance bliss, I don’t know, but it’s so painful to think, and tell me, what did thinking ever do for me, to what great place did thinking ever bring me? I think and think and think, I’ve thought myself out of happiness one million times, but never once into it.
(Jonathan Safran Foer – Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close)