Small Protocol (ProjektNr1 Heissenbuttel )
Eduard lived in Hamburg at the address at which he could not be reached. He walked to the Funkhaus in Rothenbaumchaussee and visited his colleague Bertolt Wildermuth, whom he had known for years, a brother of Ottilie Wildermuths, with whom he had traveled on the train, and Helmut Maria Wildermuths, whom he knew from his studies in the fifties and whom he was to meet later at lunch in the Kebenhavn restaurant (on the corner of Hohe Bleichen, Amelungstrafße and Heuberg), where they also saw the fourth of the Wildermuth siblings, the painter Andie, who was eating there with Mrs. d’Alembert.
Eduard wanted above all to discuss a project with Bertolt Wildermuth, about which nothing definite could yet be said. But he also wanted to exchange plans, be inspired to sensations and offer what he had in turn. In between, they discussed general topics of conversation. They talked about the situation, which was gradually becoming more serious. They were looking for questions rather than solutions. They didn’t exactly want to join in the protests, but they were aware of it. A situation, by the way, about which one could still talk, could not yet be completely catastrophic. They considered the case of catastrophe to be avoidable. They saw catastrophic consequences only for the permanent citing of the catastrophe. They wanted to do everything in their power. They were clear that there was little they could do. It was not in their power. But they could try not to let up. They were not going to let up on keeping their eyes open. To make experiences, to collect, to examine, to utilize (discard?). Not to slacken, to do this conscientiously, to scrutinize every little bit. To confront prejudices. To oppose reaction and restoration. They did not want to be seduced.
Eduard, for example, disapproved of the behaviour of people he preferred not to call by name. People whom he preferred not to call by name, he already held responsible for the fact that the matter could no longer simply be called by name; and if these people touched something, they actually did it only if they were sure not to burn their fingers in the process. Instead of calling a spade a spade, they recirculated old slogans. In truth, didn’t they just want to be the ones who did? And wash their hands of guilt?
Bertolt Wildermuth did not agree. In a certain way they both did not agree, but that was something else again, and they now asked for those who could still agree at all. Being understood filled them both with mistrust. Although, of course, at the same time as well. Eduard had reserves. Bertolt Wildermuth had no reserves, or at least fewer reserves than Eduard. He thought it possible to have no reserves. For him, this possibility was almost a matter of course. For Eduard it was not. They remembered something in between that they had already almost completely forgotten. However, what Eduard had already almost completely forgotten again was not what Bertolt Wildermuth had already almost completely forgotten again. They had only both not yet lost the ability to remember what they had already almost completely forgotten again. If there were different objects, matters, experiences, which they had almost forgotten again, then it had to be asked whether it was now, when they remembered what they had almost completely forgotten again, about these objects, matters, experiences or about the fact that they simply remembered what they had almost completely forgotten again. They asked themselves, for example, what these objects, affairs, experiences were based on. They wondered whether the difference was not rather in the conviction. It used to be said of Bertolt Wildermuth, and this is well-founded, that he never laughed nor cried. This trait pretty much characterizes this man. He did not know the tumult of the passions, nor all those impetuous impulses by which the greatest men are often dominated; nor had his cold and insensitive heart ever felt the magic power of beauty, the lively impressions of virtue, the charming sweetness of friendship.
Topics of conversation that touched them: Production cuts in radio programs; program takeovers; last week’s television program; the Berlin student protests, the Easter riots more generally; the Chinese Cultural Revolution, about which her colleague Joachim Schikkel had written an essay a year ago and to which a younger author who wrote manuscripts for Eduard, Michael Scharang, wanted to return again; the Vietnam War, protest songs and Erich Fried; the palette of Hubert Fichte, the island of Peter O. Chotjewitz; the last vacation; the armament spiral; the development of manned space flight; subsequent publications by Ludwig Wittgenstein entitled: Zettel (Slips of paper); Claude Levi-Strauss and Herbert Marcuse; LSD; color television; the last novel by Alfred Andersch (Efraim); the study of Germanic studies, the study of sociology, the study of political science; the weather; the past; whether they wanted to have lunch together, but Eduard already had an appointment with Bertolt Wil- dermuth’s brother Helmut Maria.
Topics of conversation that did not touch them: mutual fee expectations; the Middle East crisis; the federal ministers Schröder, Straufß and Schiller; Der Spiegel; Marcel Reich- Ranicki, Theodor W. Adorno and Hans Egon Holthusen; starfighter crashes; the NPD; the civil war in Nigeria; Group 47; serial music; Joachim Kaiser; Peter Handke; young German film; their own body weight; plans; private matters.
They talked, among other things, about questions of the day. Among other things, they did not talk about some questions of the day. And if there was something of general importance in it, it was in the fact that they talked about matters of the day at all and not about private matters or ways of earning money. They dealt with what they had been informed about, mostly recently. Some of what they had been informed about they did not deal with. They were informed, for example, by the morning news of the radio, the evening show of the television, the newsreel of the cinema, the relevant daily newspaper, the preferred national newspaper or magazine, Bild, Zeit, Spiegel, Konkret, Monat etc., the oral conversation. Information flowed between them. Changed, varied and nuanced according to the usual, used or accepted (quoted) way of speaking. According to the usual, customary or acceptable way of thinking. Information got into flow, into flow of speech, flow of thoughts, as far as thoughts were involved in the flow of speech. Until new information put the old one out of course. Not all old information was set off course. On the morning of July 26, 1968, Eduard and Bertolt Wildermuth were talking about questions of the day in the broadcasting center of the NDR at the Rothenbaumchaussee. Of course, they were not only repeating, reproducing and varying what they had just heard or read personally, but they were doing this together with many others at many other places, and all of this was composed of all kinds of things; in all of this possible things, for example, there was also mixed what they had almost completely forgotten. And already they themselves would have been, if they had called it into the consciousness, already almost ready to attach to this conversation only just so much importance, as about goods stereotyped. If it had been possible to read objectively from the mixture of quotation, opinion, report and statement.
That, however, things of such general importance as, for example, the protests of the Berlin students or the war in Vietnam or the conflict between blacks and whites in the U.S., which they had talked about; or things like the war between Israel and the Arabs or the passing of the emergency laws by the German government, which they had not talked about, were merely topics of conversation. An occasion to talk about it. That these things actually did not affect those who were talking about them, or at least not at the moment, worse than regular politicians. That those who took part in the conversation nevertheless had other worries. The dentist or the liver problem, for example, the promotion to a higher pay grade or the next vacation destination, the children’s school report or the concealment of a sex jump or the next tax return, and so on. Were there people involved? Was the talking point they seized more than a talking point for, say, government officials, military commanders, party chairmen, police commanders, bank presidents, broadcasting executives, Axel Springer, administrators of industries, overseers of corporations? If the topic of conversation was only a topic of conversation for them, those for whom it was not only a topic of conversation were only those who were victims of what was talked about in the topic of conversation. Perhaps, however, no one is safe from becoming such a victim, and only therefore the talk, full of secret fear, in which everyone is only trying to keep himself safe.
When the door opened, Bertolt Wilmuth’s secretary asked if he could still see Dr. d’Alembert today, who was waiting outside and said that he wanted to look in. Eduard replied that he was glad to see him. D’Alembert came in. They greeted each other warmly. They discussed plans between the three of them and promised to help D’Alembert, who indicated that he was not well. They talked on like this, Eduard imagining d’Alembert, as they talked, as the hero of a story, a certain disturbed, uncommunicative, melancholy impression that d’Alembert made that morning made him want to gossip. Eduard had once seen him jealous. It had been the sight of something unbelievable. While Eduard was fantasizing, 59 d’Alembert had entered his fairway. Whenever he got into his fairway, he got upset. They threw him off his stride. They talked about color, which was the deciding factor in the most current phase of visual art. They talked about reproduction, which, since Walter Benjamin, had replaced aura and, as the disinherited, d’Alembert said boldly, had now become the owner of the order. They touched on a rumor about which Eduard and Bertolt Wildermuth could not speak openly, and the direct question d’Alembert asked could only be answered hypothetically. D’Alembert, of course, was only worried about his further earning possibilities, he needed his living and the rent for two apartments and, of course, something in addition. Eduard looks out the window into the blue light of the cool July afternoon (12:55 short sun). When Eduard went out, he surprisingly met the man who had once been almost really famous, a former sailor. 60
[machine translation of Topics of conversation that touched them: Production cuts in radio programs; program takeovers; last week’s television program; the Berlin student protests, the Easter riots more generally; the Chinese Cultural Revolution, about which her colleague Joachim Schikkel had written an essay a year ago and to which a younger author who wrote manuscripts for Eduard, Michael Scharang, wanted to return again; the Vietnam War, protest songs and Erich Fried; the palette of Hubert Fichte, the island of Peter O. Chotjewitz; the last vacation; the armament spiral; the development of manned space flight; subsequent publications by Ludwig Wittgenstein entitled: Zettel (Slips of paper); Claude Levi-Strauss and Herbert Marcuse; LSD; color television; the last novel by Alfred Andersch (Efraim); the study of Germanic studies, the study of sociology, the study of political science; the weather; the past; whether they wanted to have lunch together, but Eduard already had an appointment with Bertolt Wil- dermuth’s brother Helmut Maria.
Topics of conversation that did not touch them: mutual fee expectations; the Middle East crisis; the federal ministers Schröder, Straufß and Schiller; Der Spiegel; Marcel Reich- Ranicki, Theodor W. Adorno and Hans Egon Holthusen; starfighter crashes; the NPD; the civil war in Nigeria; Group 47; serial music; Joachim Kaiser; Peter Handke; young German film; their own body weight; plans; private matters.
They talked, among other things, about questions of the day. Among other things, they did not talk about some questions of the day. And if there was something of general importance in it, it was in the fact that they talked about matters of the day at all and not about private matters or ways of earning money. They dealt with what they had been informed about, mostly recently. Some of what they had been informed about they did not deal with. They were informed, for example, by the morning news of the radio, the evening show of the television, the newsreel of the cinema, the relevant daily newspaper, the preferred national newspaper or magazine, Bild, Zeit, Spiegel, Konkret, Monat etc., the oral conversation. Information flowed between them. Changed, varied and nuanced according to the usual, used or accepted (quoted) way of speaking. According to the usual, customary or acceptable way of thinking. Information got into flow, into flow of speech, flow of thoughts, as far as thoughts were involved in the flow of speech. Until new information put the old one out of course. Not all old information was set off course. On the morning of July 26, 1968, Eduard and Bertolt Wildermuth were talking about questions of the day in the broadcasting center of the NDR at the Rothenbaumchaussee. Of course, they were not only repeating, reproducing and varying what they had just heard or read personally, but they were doing this together with many others at many other places, and all of this was composed of all kinds of things; in all of this possible things, for example, there was also mixed what they had almost completely forgotten. And already they themselves would have been, if they had called it into the consciousness, already almost ready to attach to this conversation only just so much importance, as about goods stereotyped. If it had been possible to read objectively from the mixture of quotation, opinion, report and statement.
That, however, things of such general importance as, for example, the protests of the Berlin students or the war in Vietnam or the conflict between blacks and whites in the U.S., which they had talked about; or things like the war between Israel and the Arabs or the passing of the emergency laws by the German government, which they had not talked about, were merely topics of conversation. An occasion to talk about it. That these things actually did not affect those who were talking about them, or at least not at the moment, worse than regular politicians. That those who took part in the conversation nevertheless had other worries. The dentist or the liver problem, for example, the promotion to a higher pay grade or the next vacation destination, the children’s school report or the concealment of a sex jump or the next tax return, and so on. Were there people involved? Was the talking point they seized more than a talking point for, say, government officials, military commanders, party chairmen, police commanders, bank presidents, broadcasting executives, Axel Springer, administrators of industries, overseers of corporations? If the topic of conversation was only a topic of conversation for them, those for whom it was not only a topic of conversation were only those who were victims of what was talked about in the topic of conversation. Perhaps, however, no one is safe from becoming such a victim, and only therefore the talk, full of secret fear, in which everyone is only trying to keep himself safe.
[machine translation of Topics of conversation that touched them: Production cuts in radio programs; program takeovers; last week’s television program; the Berlin student protests, the Easter riots more generally; the Chinese Cultural Revolution, about which her colleague Joachim Schikkel had written an essay a year ago and to which a younger author who wrote manuscripts for Eduard, Michael Scharang, wanted to return again; the Vietnam War, protest songs and Erich Fried; the palette of Hubert Fichte, the island of Peter O. Chotjewitz; the last vacation; the armament spiral; the development of manned space flight; subsequent publications by Ludwig Wittgenstein entitled: Zettel (Slips of paper); Claude Levi-Strauss and Herbert Marcuse; LSD; color television; the last novel by Alfred Andersch (Efraim); the study of Germanic studies, the study of sociology, the study of political science; the weather; the past; whether they wanted to have lunch together, but Eduard already had an appointment with Bertolt Wil- dermuth’s brother Helmut Maria.
Topics of conversation that did not touch them: mutual fee expectations; the Middle East crisis; the federal ministers Schröder, Straufß and Schiller; Der Spiegel; Marcel Reich- Ranicki, Theodor W. Adorno and Hans Egon Holthusen; starfighter crashes; the NPD; the civil war in Nigeria; Group 47; serial music; Joachim Kaiser; Peter Handke; young German film; their own body weight; plans; private matters.
They talked, among other things, about questions of the day. Among other things, they did not talk about some questions of the day. And if there was something of general importance in it, it was in the fact that they talked about matters of the day at all and not about private matters or ways of earning money. They dealt with what they had been informed about, mostly recently. Some of what they had been informed about they did not deal with. They were informed, for example, by the morning news of the radio, the evening show of the television, the newsreel of the cinema, the relevant daily newspaper, the preferred national newspaper or magazine, Bild, Zeit, Spiegel, Konkret, Monat etc., the oral conversation. Information flowed between them. Changed, varied and nuanced according to the usual, used or accepted (quoted) way of speaking. According to the usual, customary or acceptable way of thinking. Information got into flow, into flow of speech, flow of thoughts, as far as thoughts were involved in the flow of speech. Until new information put the old one out of course. Not all old information was set off course. On the morning of July 26, 1968, Eduard and Bertolt Wildermuth were talking about questions of the day in the broadcasting center of the NDR at the Rothenbaumchaussee. Of course, they were not only repeating, reproducing and varying what they had just heard or read personally, but they were doing this together with many others at many other places, and all of this was composed of all kinds of things; in all of this possible things, for example, there was also mixed what they had almost completely forgotten. And already they themselves would have been, if they had called it into the consciousness, already almost ready to attach to this conversation only just so much importance, as about goods stereotyped. If it had been possible to read objectively from the mixture of quotation, opinion, report and statement.
That, however, things of such general importance as, for example, the protests of the Berlin students or the war in Vietnam or the conflict between blacks and whites in the U.S., which they had talked about; or things like the war between Israel and the Arabs or the passing of the emergency laws by the German government, which they had not talked about, were merely topics of conversation. An occasion to talk about it. That these things actually did not affect those who were talking about them, or at least not at the moment, worse than regular politicians. That those who took part in the conversation nevertheless had other worries. The dentist or the liver problem, for example, the promotion to a higher pay grade or the next vacation destination, the children’s school report or the concealment of a sex jump or the next tax return, and so on. Were there people involved? Was the talking point they seized more than a talking point for, say, government officials, military commanders, party chairmen, police commanders, bank presidents, broadcasting executives, Axel Springer, administrators of industries, overseers of corporations? If the topic of conversation was only a topic of conversation for them, those for whom it was not only a topic of conversation were only those who were victims of what was talked about in the topic of conversation. Perhaps, however, no one is safe from becoming such a victim, and only therefore the talk, full of secret fear, in which everyone is only trying to keep himself safe.
Topics of conversation that touched them: Production cuts in radio programs; program takeovers; last week’s television program; the Berlin student protests, the Easter riots more generally; the Chinese Cultural Revolution, about which her colleague Joachim Schikkel had written an essay a year ago and to which a younger author who wrote manuscripts for Eduard, Michael Scharang, wanted to return again; the Vietnam War, protest songs and Erich Fried; the palette of Hubert Fichte, the island of Peter O. Chotjewitz; the last vacation; the armament spiral; the development of manned space flight; subsequent publications by Ludwig Wittgenstein entitled: Zettel (Slips of paper); Claude Levi-Strauss and Herbert Marcuse; LSD; color television; the last novel by Alfred Andersch (Efraim); the study of Germanic studies, the study of sociology, the study of political science; the weather; the past; whether they wanted to have lunch together, but Eduard already had an appointment with Bertolt Wil- dermuth’s brother Helmut Maria.
Topics of conversation that did not touch them: mutual fee expectations; the Middle East crisis; the federal ministers Schröder, Straufß and Schiller; Der Spiegel; Marcel Reich- Ranicki, Theodor W. Adorno and Hans Egon Holthusen; starfighter crashes; the NPD; the civil war in Nigeria; Group 47; serial music; Joachim Kaiser; Peter Handke; young German film; their own body weight; plans; private matters.
They talked, among other things, about questions of the day. Among other things, they did not talk about some questions of the day. And if there was something of general importance in it, it was in the fact that they talked about matters of the day at all and not about private matters or ways of earning money. They dealt with what they had been informed about, mostly recently. Some of what they had been informed about they did not deal with. They were informed, for example, by the morning news of the radio, the evening show of the television, the newsreel of the cinema, the relevant daily newspaper, the preferred national newspaper or magazine, Bild, Zeit, Spiegel, Konkret, Monat etc., the oral conversation. Information flowed between them. Changed, varied and nuanced according to the usual, used or accepted (quoted) way of speaking. According to the usual, customary or acceptable way of thinking. Information got into flow, into flow of speech, flow of thoughts, as far as thoughts were involved in the flow of speech. Until new information put the old one out of course. Not all old information was set off course. On the morning of July 26, 1968, Eduard and Bertolt Wildermuth were talking about questions of the day in the broadcasting center of the NDR at the Rothenbaumchaussee. Of course, they were not only repeating, reproducing and varying what they had just heard or read personally, but they were doing this together with many others at many other places, and all of this was composed of all kinds of things; in all of this possible things, for example, there was also mixed what they had almost completely forgotten. And already they themselves would have been, if they had called it into the consciousness, already almost ready to attach to this conversation only just so much importance, as about goods stereotyped. If it had been possible to read objectively from the mixture of quotation, opinion, report and statement.
That, however, things of such general importance as, for example, the protests of the Berlin students or the war in Vietnam or the conflict between blacks and whites in the U.S., which they had talked about; or things like the war between Israel and the Arabs or the passing of the emergency laws by the German government, which they had not talked about, were merely topics of conversation. An occasion to talk about it. That these things actually did not affect those who were talking about them, or at least not at the moment, worse than regular politicians. That those who took part in the conversation nevertheless had other worries. The dentist or the liver problem, for example, the promotion to a higher pay grade or the next vacation destination, the children’s school report or the concealment of a sex jump or the next tax return, and so on. Were there people involved? Was the talking point they seized more than a talking point for, say, government officials, military commanders, party chairmen, police commanders, bank presidents, broadcasting executives, Axel Springer, administrators of industries, overseers of corporations? If the topic of conversation was only a topic of conversation for them, those for whom it was not only a topic of conversation were only those who were victims of what was talked about in the topic of conversation. Perhaps, however, no one is safe from becoming such a victim, and only therefore the talk, full of secret fear, in which everyone is only trying to keep himself safe.
Topics of conversation that touched them: Production cuts in radio programs; program takeovers; last week’s television program; the Berlin student protests, the Easter riots more generally; the Chinese Cultural Revolution, about which her colleague Joachim Schikkel had written an essay a year ago and to which a younger author who wrote manuscripts for Eduard, Michael Scharang, wanted to return again; the Vietnam War, protest songs and Erich Fried; the palette of Hubert Fichte, the island of Peter O. Chotjewitz; the last vacation; the armament spiral; the development of manned space flight; subsequent publications by Ludwig Wittgenstein entitled: Zettel (Slips of paper); Claude Levi-Strauss and Herbert Marcuse; LSD; color television; the last novel by Alfred Andersch (Efraim); the study of Germanic studies, the study of sociology, the study of political science; the weather; the past; whether they wanted to have lunch together, but Eduard already had an appointment with Bertolt Wil- dermuth’s brother Helmut Maria.
Topics of conversation that did not touch them: mutual fee expectations; the Middle East crisis; the federal ministers Schröder, Straufß and Schiller; Der Spiegel; Marcel Reich- Ranicki, Theodor W. Adorno and Hans Egon Holthusen; starfighter crashes; the NPD; the civil war in Nigeria; Group 47; serial music; Joachim Kaiser; Peter Handke; young German film; their own body weight; plans; private matters.
They talked, among other things, about questions of the day. Among other things, they did not talk about some questions of the day. And if there was something of general importance in it, it was in the fact that they talked about matters of the day at all and not about private matters or ways of earning money. They dealt with what they had been informed about, mostly recently. Some of what they had been informed about they did not deal with. They were informed, for example, by the morning news of the radio, the evening show of the television, the newsreel of the cinema, the relevant daily newspaper, the preferred national newspaper or magazine, Bild, Zeit, Spiegel, Konkret, Monat etc., the oral conversation. Information flowed between them. Changed, varied and nuanced according to the usual, used or accepted (quoted) way of speaking. According to the usual, customary or acceptable way of thinking. Information got into flow, into flow of speech, flow of thoughts, as far as thoughts were involved in the flow of speech. Until new information put the old one out of course. Not all old information was set off course. On the morning of July 26, 1968, Eduard and Bertolt Wildermuth were talking about questions of the day in the broadcasting center of the NDR at the Rothenbaumchaussee. Of course, they were not only repeating, reproducing and varying what they had just heard or read personally, but they were doing this together with many others at many other places, and all of this was composed of all kinds of things; in all of this possible things, for example, there was also mixed what they had almost completely forgotten. And already they themselves would have been, if they had called it into the consciousness, already almost ready to attach to this conversation only just so much importance, as about goods stereotyped. If it had been possible to read objectively from the mixture of quotation, opinion, report and statement.
That, however, things of such general importance as, for example, the protests of the Berlin students or the war in Vietnam or the conflict between blacks and whites in the U.S., which they had talked about; or things like the war between Israel and the Arabs or the passing of the emergency laws by the German government, which they had not talked about, were merely topics of conversation. An occasion to talk about it. That these things actually did not affect those who were talking about them, or at least not at the moment, worse than regular politicians. That those who took part in the conversation nevertheless had other worries. The dentist or the liver problem, for example, the promotion to a higher pay grade or the next vacation destination, the children’s school report or the concealment of a sex jump or the next tax return, and so on. Were there people involved? Was the talking point they seized more than a talking point for, say, government officials, military commanders, party chairmen, police commanders, bank presidents, broadcasting executives, Axel Springer, administrators of industries, overseers of corporations? If the topic of conversation was only a topic of conversation for them, those for whom it was not only a topic of conversation were only those who were victims of what was talked about in the topic of conversation. Perhaps, however, no one is safe from becoming such a victim, and only therefore the talk, full of secret fear, in which everyone is only trying to keep himself safe. 60
[machine translation of Kleines Protokoll]
