As an important site of cross-cultural exchange, theatre translations performed in Britain form key routes for international writers to be introduced to, and to influence, British audiences and theatre-makers. This article introduces Jack Thorne's 2017 adaptation of Woyzeck by Georg Büchner, performed at the Old Vic Theatre in London, as a case study to trace how British theatre practitioners and institutions frame and utilise German texts and playwrights to construct an image of German (theatrical) culture in Britain. I will focus on institutional practice in the first instance, tracing how the Old Vic Theatre framed this production as appealing to two different ‘crowds’ and how Woyzeck relates to the Old Vic's stated institutional aims. This will be combined with performance and textual analysis that draws out the ways in which the production thematises borders and cultural difference. While theatre in translation can be seen as a bridge between different national cultures, I ultimately argue that this Woyzeck adaptation highlights, and indeed propagates, divisions between British and German (theatrical) cultures.
作为跨文化交流的重要场所,在英国演出的戏剧翻译为国际作家介绍并影响英国观众和戏剧制作人提供了重要途径。本文介绍了杰克·索恩2017年在伦敦老维克剧院演出的乔治·比奇纳(Georg b chner)改编的《沃泽克》,作为一个案例研究,追踪英国戏剧从业者和机构如何框架和利用德国文本和剧作家来构建英国的德国(戏剧)文化形象。我将首先关注制度实践,追溯老维克剧院是如何将这个作品框定为吸引两种不同的“人群”,以及沃泽克是如何与老维克剧院所陈述的制度目标联系起来的。这将与表演和文本分析相结合,得出生产主题边界和文化差异的方式。虽然翻译中的戏剧可以被看作是不同民族文化之间的桥梁,但我最终认为,沃泽克的这部改编作品突出并实际上传播了英国和德国(戏剧)文化之间的分歧。
{"title":"BÜCHNER, BORDERS AND THE CONVERGING OF ‘CROWDS’: JACK THORNE'S WOYZECK (2017)","authors":"Joseph Prestwich","doi":"10.1111/glal.12391","DOIUrl":"10.1111/glal.12391","url":null,"abstract":"<p>As an important site of cross-cultural exchange, theatre translations performed in Britain form key routes for international writers to be introduced to, and to influence, British audiences and theatre-makers. This article introduces Jack Thorne's 2017 adaptation of <i>Woyzeck</i> by Georg Büchner, performed at the Old Vic Theatre in London, as a case study to trace how British theatre practitioners and institutions frame and utilise German texts and playwrights to construct an image of German (theatrical) culture in Britain. I will focus on institutional practice in the first instance, tracing how the Old Vic Theatre framed this production as appealing to two different ‘crowds’ and how <i>Woyzeck</i> relates to the Old Vic's stated institutional aims. This will be combined with performance and textual analysis that draws out the ways in which the production thematises borders and cultural difference. While theatre in translation can be seen as a bridge between different national cultures, I ultimately argue that this <i>Woyzeck</i> adaptation highlights, and indeed propagates, divisions between British and German (theatrical) cultures.</p>","PeriodicalId":54012,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN LIFE AND LETTERS","volume":"76 4","pages":"547-563"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/glal.12391","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44776323","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter examines poetic works by the Swiss-German performance poet Nora-Eugenie Gomringer that draw on monsters as a conceptual lens to engage with experiences of vulnerable subjects, that is, those that have experienced harm or violence or are considered especially susceptible to these risks. The anthology Monster Morbus Moden (2013–17), with its initial collection Monster Poems (2013), reflects poetically on how female subjects and their bodies, which are conventionally represented as weak, are simultaneously and paradoxically considered dangerously non-normative and in need of policing. Gomringer explores how this paradox emerges from the interplay of textual and media surfaces, institutional logic and intersubjective power imbalances. The author employs an experimental mix of intertextual, intermedial and performative strategies that draws attention to the embodied and culturally iterative nature of such subject constructions. Putting emphasis on visualising and voicing victimisation, these works can be seen to probe to what extent a monstrous poeticisation of such experiences might shift stereotyping scopic regimes that produce the conditions for the widespread sexual violence against women or curtail reproductive freedoms. This experimentation, this article argues, seeks to establish awareness around the potential mobility of the concept of ‘vulnerability’ that has also been raised in recent feminist discussions.
{"title":"VOICING VULNERABILITY: MEDIATING VIOLENCE, VICTIMISATION AND FEMALE SUBJECTIVITY IN NORA GOMRINGER'S MONSTER POETRY*","authors":"Annegret Märten","doi":"10.1111/glal.12395","DOIUrl":"10.1111/glal.12395","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This chapter examines poetic works by the Swiss-German performance poet Nora-Eugenie Gomringer that draw on monsters as a conceptual lens to engage with experiences of vulnerable subjects, that is, those that have experienced harm or violence or are considered especially susceptible to these risks. The anthology <i>Monster Morbus Moden</i> (2013–17), with its initial collection <i>Monster Poems</i> (2013), reflects poetically on how female subjects and their bodies, which are conventionally represented as weak, are simultaneously and paradoxically considered dangerously non-normative and in need of policing. Gomringer explores how this paradox emerges from the interplay of textual and media surfaces, institutional logic and intersubjective power imbalances. The author employs an experimental mix of intertextual, intermedial and performative strategies that draws attention to the embodied and culturally iterative nature of such subject constructions. Putting emphasis on visualising and voicing victimisation, these works can be seen to probe to what extent a monstrous poeticisation of such experiences might shift stereotyping scopic regimes that produce the conditions for the widespread sexual violence against women or curtail reproductive freedoms. This experimentation, this article argues, seeks to establish awareness around the potential mobility of the concept of ‘vulnerability’ that has also been raised in recent feminist discussions.</p>","PeriodicalId":54012,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN LIFE AND LETTERS","volume":"76 4","pages":"564-587"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/glal.12395","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47548437","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the Third Reich, ideas about Heimat became entwined with racial fantasies about blood and soil. This article investigates the dynamics and consequences of this development based on a study of the kinship network of Annemarie and Heinrich Brenzinger from Freiburg (Breisgau). The Brenzingers subscribed to a ‘völkisch’ worldview which conceptualised Heimat as a refuge for kinship groups connected to their locality through lineage. While völkisch groups assisted the Nazi regime in amplifying a fascistic discourse which predated the dictatorship, they also influenced the culture of the Third Reich according to their own ideas. The Nazi regime accepted their activities as part of a transformation of society which required civil engagement. A contrasting reading of Heimat is found in the letters of the Jewish members of this kinship network who were forced from their homeland. It is further elucidated by émigré writers who carefully avoided the völkisch aspects of the Heimat narrative and employed alternative definitions of belonging. By historicising the concepts of Heimat contained in the family collection of the Brenzingers, this article sheds light on the narrowing of the Heimat discourse in Nazi Germany and recovers some of the marginalised voices that resisted it.
{"title":"MICROHISTORIES OF HEIMAT IN THE THIRD REICH","authors":"Sandra Lipner","doi":"10.1111/glal.12394","DOIUrl":"10.1111/glal.12394","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the Third Reich, ideas about Heimat became entwined with racial fantasies about blood and soil. This article investigates the dynamics and consequences of this development based on a study of the kinship network of Annemarie and Heinrich Brenzinger from Freiburg (Breisgau). The Brenzingers subscribed to a ‘völkisch’ worldview which conceptualised Heimat as a refuge for kinship groups connected to their locality through lineage. While völkisch groups assisted the Nazi regime in amplifying a fascistic discourse which predated the dictatorship, they also influenced the culture of the Third Reich according to their own ideas. The Nazi regime accepted their activities as part of a transformation of society which required civil engagement. A contrasting reading of Heimat is found in the letters of the Jewish members of this kinship network who were forced from their homeland. It is further elucidated by émigré writers who carefully avoided the völkisch aspects of the Heimat narrative and employed alternative definitions of belonging. By historicising the concepts of Heimat contained in the family collection of the Brenzingers, this article sheds light on the narrowing of the Heimat discourse in Nazi Germany and recovers some of the marginalised voices that resisted it.</p>","PeriodicalId":54012,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN LIFE AND LETTERS","volume":"76 4","pages":"506-524"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/glal.12394","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45425610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In G. E Lessing's Nathan der Weise (1779) Muslims are represented alongside Jews and Christians. These relationships are framed in terms of shared human morality and the shared biology of family, expressed through physical resemblance, rather than through similarities or differences of faith. Ultimately, it is the biological fact of consanguine family, not religion, which forms the basis of future human relationships. The Early Romantic Novalis, by contrast, sketches a figurative, interfaith family in Heinrich von Ofterdingen (1801). This accommodates Christians and Muslims within a universal model of ‘aesthetic’ human religiosity, which nonetheless allows each faith to maintain distinctive, even mutually conflicting beliefs, and thus envisions a more pluralistic unity. Modelling interfaith relationships around familial similarities offers a tempting alternative to the mutual alienation and ‘othering’ of critical Orientalism, although this approach can fixate upon normative characteristics and deflect attention from the distinctiveness of differing faiths. Both writers locate their Muslim characters within differing trajectories of historical progress: for Lessing, humanity's future is grounded in a common humanity rooted in shared biology, with Islam rendered incidental or obscure, whereas Novalis envisions a pluralistic, multi-perspectival future, marked by shifting, re-imaginable familial relationships, within which Muslims can retain core aspects of their faith.
在G. E .莱辛的《内森·德·怀斯》(1779)中,穆斯林与犹太人和基督徒并列。这些关系是建立在共同的人类道德和共同的家庭生物学基础上的,通过身体上的相似来表达,而不是通过信仰上的相似或不同。最终,是血缘家庭的生物学事实,而不是宗教,构成了未来人类关系的基础。相比之下,《早期浪漫主义诺瓦利斯》在海因里希·冯·奥夫丁根(1801)中描绘了一个象征性的、跨信仰的家庭。这将基督徒和穆斯林纳入一个“审美”人类宗教的普遍模式,尽管如此,它允许每个信仰保持独特的,甚至相互冲突的信仰,从而设想一个更加多元化的统一。围绕家族相似性建立不同信仰间关系的模型,为批判东方主义的相互异化和“他者化”提供了一个诱人的替代方案,尽管这种方法可以专注于规范特征,并转移对不同信仰独特性的关注。两位作家都将他们的穆斯林人物置于不同的历史发展轨迹中:对莱辛来说,人类的未来是建立在共同的人性基础上的,而伊斯兰教则是偶然的或模糊的,而诺瓦利斯则设想了一个多元化的、多视角的未来,以不断变化的、重新想象的家庭关系为标志,在这种关系中,穆斯林可以保留他们信仰的核心方面。
{"title":"FAMILIES, SIMILARITIES AND MULTI-FAITH FUTURES: RE-IMAGINING ISLAM AND MUSLIMS IN LESSING AND NOVALIS","authors":"James Hodkinson","doi":"10.1111/glal.12379","DOIUrl":"10.1111/glal.12379","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In G. E Lessing's <i>Nathan der Weise</i> (1779) Muslims are represented alongside Jews and Christians. These relationships are framed in terms of shared human morality and the shared biology of family, expressed through physical resemblance, rather than through similarities or differences of faith. Ultimately, it is the biological fact of consanguine family, not religion, which forms the basis of future human relationships. The Early Romantic Novalis, by contrast, sketches a figurative, interfaith family in <i>Heinrich von Ofterdingen</i> (1801). This accommodates Christians and Muslims within a universal model of ‘aesthetic’ human religiosity, which nonetheless allows each faith to maintain distinctive, even mutually conflicting beliefs, and thus envisions a more pluralistic unity. Modelling interfaith relationships around familial similarities offers a tempting alternative to the mutual alienation and ‘othering’ of critical Orientalism, although this approach can fixate upon normative characteristics and deflect attention from the distinctiveness of differing faiths. Both writers locate their Muslim characters within differing trajectories of historical progress: for Lessing, humanity's future is grounded in a common humanity rooted in shared biology, with Islam rendered incidental or obscure, whereas Novalis envisions a pluralistic, multi-perspectival future, marked by shifting, re-imaginable familial relationships, within which Muslims can retain core aspects of their faith.</p>","PeriodicalId":54012,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN LIFE AND LETTERS","volume":"76 3","pages":"334-357"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/glal.12379","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49434206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The theologian imagines the imaginative life of the Christian – a life of enviable vividness – through a tactful gesture towards the limits of his own religious imagination. We are drawn to picture the fervent believer in the bodily expression of his devotion, in which a mental image of God as man provides grist for his spiritual longing and a bridge between earthly and divine. But the devotion of the Christian – for whom this bridge is no imaginative tool, but a reality – surpasses imagination.
Kermani's book is made up of a set of attempts towards an understanding of a religious and cultural other: the energetically and sometimes grotesquely visual Christianity, Catholic and Orthodox, of central and southern Europe. Through describing the experience of viewing works of Christian art, Kermani, a Muslim, enters into its aesthetic life – a life that is not detached from belief, but intertwined with it. Thanks to this book and his other writing and speeches, Kermani has become a key representative of a varied body of contemporary German thought which has critically examined ideas of religious dialogue and toleration, particularly since the first decades of the twenty-first century when a straightforward picture of secularisation showed itself to be inadequate.2 What distinguishes the work of Kermani from the philosophically, politically and sociologically oriented approaches which characterise this thought is his emphasis on the aesthetic and imaginative aspects of belief. It is these aspects that this special number of German Life and Letters wishes to address. The following articles draw on 250 years of German literature, across prose fiction, poetry, drama and the essay, to examine the way writers have drawn on the imagination – or have made demands on their readers’ imaginations – in presenting and exploring religious difference. In so doing, they challenge simplistic notions of dialogue – between religions, within them, or between believers and the secular world. By bringing attention to the imagination, the articles foreground the creative and transformative potential of both art and religion, as well as the limits and dangers of the imagination in acts of interreligious engagement.
This special number thus contributes to the growing field of literature and religion within German Studies. In its focus on the imagination it throws down a challenge to the model of interreligious dialogue which seeks to find commonalities or parallels, a feature seen in initiatives such as the ‘House of One’, a multi-religious place of worship in Berlin Mitte, which explicitly calls on the doctrinal similarities of the three monotheistic faiths, scriptural overlaps and shared figures.3 This emphasis is often unhelpfully simplistic. It presupposes not only a similar attitude to the alleged commonalities, such as scripture, but also towards what a religion is, and where the boundaries of each religion, or what counts as religious, might lie.
克尔马尼则坚持认为,文学不是整个社会的代表性表达,而是“not enddig Zeugnis eines Einzelnen, der siich im Glauben oder Unglauben, im Zweifel oder in der Erkenntnis mit religiösen Erfahrungen, Texten und Traditionen auseinandersetzt”,并补充说,这很少能让那些代表宗教“qua Ausbildung und Amt”的人满意。虽然盖尔纳和兰根霍斯特倾向于想象文学探索宗教身份的可能性,而不是表现宗教身份,但他们的书依赖于或多或少稳定的文本,而且——至关重要的是——对特定宗教体验的真实记录,善意的读者可以从中了解他人,将艺术视为见证(正如上文克尔马尼所做的那样)。但艺术不止于此。正如莱斯利·a·阿德尔森在讨论土耳其-德国文学时所指出的那样,把艺术看作仅仅是反映和表现已知的东西的观点,削弱了它带来想象世界的新方式的创造潜力与其将想象文学作品视为真实的“Spiegelungen”,从中我们可以了解现有的宗教,不如将它们视为想象、实验、争论和生产的场所。在德国的背景下,这一观点以不同的方式发展,取决于批判方法。例如,继Arthur L. Greil和David G. Bromley之后,Ludmila Peters将宗教理解为“话语的范畴[…],其确切的意义和含义在社会互动过程中不断被协商”,并将文学视为这些协商过程的参与者,由他们决定并反映他们西尔克·霍斯特科特(Silke Horstkotte)在讨论20世纪90年代德国文学中的“宗教转向”时认为,当代文本中对宗教的引用必须被视为一种真正的尝试,以考虑“Suche nach und Erfahrung von großen Transzendenzen”:也就是说,不仅仅是对宗教身份或以宗教人物为特征的历史事件的表现,而是对“neue Möglichkeiten des Glaubens im Anschluss and die Postmoderne”的实验性探究玛格丽特·利特勒更进一步,将文学文本中的宗教视为一种破坏固定身份的不稳定力量。在她德勒兹式的研究方法中,宗教可以在文学文本中发挥作用,“不仅仅是作为内容或主题,而是作为一种创造性强度的来源,迸发出既定的宗教习俗和文化认同的既定概念”作家代表了一个给定的现实,这种想法掩盖了一种最终不可知的、激进的异质性,正如朱迪思·巴特勒(Judith Butler)所说:“当语言拒绝‘概括’或‘捕捉’它所描述的事件和生活时,它仍然是有生命的。”但是,当它试图实现这种捕获时,语言不仅失去了生命力,而且获得了自己的暴力力量。16文学文本的图片代表或作为信仰的真实见证,假设作者是在描绘他们“自己的”宗教。这种方法的局限性在描述他人的信仰时尤为明显。在德国文学经典中,跨宗教想象行为的一个关键例子是约翰·沃尔夫冈·冯·歌德的《西方-östlicher Divan》(1819),其中明确提到了伊斯兰教,特别是苏菲派哈菲兹的精神。迈克尔·霍夫曼(Michael Hofmann)等人持有的一种观点是,歌德是拥抱东方诗歌形式的跨文化先锋文学(avant la letter)的支持者。17 .霍夫曼将Divan视为“自由文化的要素”,即“自由文化的要素”,即“自由文化的要素”,即“自由文化的要素”,即“自由文化的要素”,即“自由文化的要素”,即“Originalität”即“国家”,即“Übersetzers”这种将《Divan》置于“第三空间”的解读可以说是保留了德国和波斯文化的完整,最小化了文本对德国文化的变革潜力。此外,这种跨文化生产的方法一直不愿意承认权力动力学在文化交流中的作用。Yomb May在这种背景下讨论了歌德,指出尽管Divan避免了冲突的叙述,但它仍然是“不对称的跨文化相遇过程的一部分,代表了一种更复杂的努力,它不能免除矛盾和本质主义”。18 Şenocak同样批评了歌德对东方化刻板印象的依赖,例如,在歌德的解释性的《在divan上的Noten und Abhandlungen》中,将本质上好斗和保守的心态归因于“东方人”。19 Şenocak认为,一个真正的跨文化项目的要求是巨大的:它将需要“eine Ästhetik[…],die sich selbst夜vergißt, wenn sie den Anderen betrachtet, und den Anderen im Gedächtnis behält, wenn sie zu sich zur<e:1> ckgekehrt ist”。 Eine Ästhetik der Grenzerfahrungen and ständigen ber<s:1> hrung。想象他者会带来伦理上的危险,以及认识论和神学上的焦虑。马修·波茨(Matthew Potts)在他为《剑桥文学与宗教指南》(Cambridge Companion to Literature and Religion)撰写的关于想象力的章节中提醒我们,神学与想象力之间的联系似乎削弱了宗教所宣称的真理,因此宗教思想家对这种联系持谨慎态度;他还提醒我们,世俗和科学话语之间的联系是僵化的,在这种联系中,所有的宗教都是纯粹的幻想但是近几十年来,在神学(尤其是基督教神学)内部,人们对想象力重新产生了兴趣,特别是对它在促成信仰方面的作用,正如al-Jāḥiz在9世纪所认识到的那样正如露西娅·特劳特和安妮特·威尔克所建议的那样,正是想象力使“das night - beschreib - oder - greifbare vorstellbar, beschreibbar, behandelbar - kurz: religiös verf<e:1> gbar”或者,正如道格拉斯·赫德利所说:“通过想象的‘内在之眼’,有限的存在可以理解永恒和不变的形式。”在当代的叙述中,想象与现实的严格区别以及想象与发明的联系——这两者在20世纪的大部分时间里都支配着对想象力作用的理解——受到了质疑。正是想象力使我们能够把我们理解为现实的一部分的东西呈现给自己,无论是黑洞还是病毒,“新奥尔良的狂欢节”还是“突出部战役”正如特劳特和威尔克所指出的那样,正是想象力使超越的范畴成为可能。想象跨越内在和超越,允许日常现实和宗教现实同时存在,甚至允许两者的融合波茨将当前对想象与世界之间关系的更微妙的理解置于20世纪后期思想史的位置,与后现代对“无处可见的观点”的拒绝,以及坚持“每一个主观的洞察力都将被社会和历史所定位,没有任何一种知识或思想模式不被解释所过滤”。“想象”,也就是说,“不是脱离严谨思考的异想天开的发明。”相反,它激发并与思考本身合谋。27根据这些说法,在宗教概念的心理表征中,信仰者和非信仰者之间的活动并没有明显的区别:两者都依赖于想象,正如安布尔·l·格里菲斯(Amber L. Griffioen)在讨论没有信仰的宗教体验的可能性时所指出的那样。想象的东西,并不一定是想象主体的“异想天开的发明”,而是来
{"title":"INTRODUCTION: IMAGINING THE BELIEFS OF OTHERS IN GERMAN LITERATURE FROM THE ENLIGHTENMENT TO THE PRESENT","authors":"Rey Conquer, Joseph Twist","doi":"10.1111/glal.12380","DOIUrl":"10.1111/glal.12380","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The theologian imagines the imaginative life of the Christian – a life of enviable vividness – through a tactful gesture towards the limits of his own religious imagination. We are drawn to picture the fervent believer in the bodily expression of his devotion, in which a mental image of God as man provides grist for his spiritual longing and a bridge between earthly and divine. But the devotion of the Christian – for whom this bridge is no imaginative tool, but a reality – surpasses imagination.</p><p>Kermani's book is made up of a set of attempts towards an understanding of a religious and cultural other: the energetically and sometimes grotesquely visual Christianity, Catholic and Orthodox, of central and southern Europe. Through describing the experience of viewing works of Christian art, Kermani, a Muslim, enters into its aesthetic life – a life that is not detached from belief, but intertwined with it. Thanks to this book and his other writing and speeches, Kermani has become a key representative of a varied body of contemporary German thought which has critically examined ideas of religious dialogue and toleration, particularly since the first decades of the twenty-first century when a straightforward picture of secularisation showed itself to be inadequate.2 What distinguishes the work of Kermani from the philosophically, politically and sociologically oriented approaches which characterise this thought is his emphasis on the aesthetic and imaginative aspects of belief. It is these aspects that this special number of <i>German Life and Letters</i> wishes to address. The following articles draw on 250 years of German literature, across prose fiction, poetry, drama and the essay, to examine the way writers have drawn on the imagination – or have made demands on their readers’ imaginations – in presenting and exploring religious difference. In so doing, they challenge simplistic notions of dialogue – between religions, within them, or between believers and the secular world. By bringing attention to the imagination, the articles foreground the creative and transformative potential of both art and religion, as well as the limits and dangers of the imagination in acts of interreligious engagement.</p><p>This special number thus contributes to the growing field of literature and religion within German Studies. In its focus on the imagination it throws down a challenge to the model of interreligious dialogue which seeks to find commonalities or parallels, a feature seen in initiatives such as the ‘House of One’, a multi-religious place of worship in Berlin Mitte, which explicitly calls on the doctrinal similarities of the three monotheistic faiths, scriptural overlaps and shared figures.3 This emphasis is often unhelpfully simplistic. It presupposes not only a similar attitude to the alleged commonalities, such as scripture, but also towards what a religion is, and where the boundaries of each religion, or what counts as religious, might lie. ","PeriodicalId":54012,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN LIFE AND LETTERS","volume":"76 3","pages":"321-333"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/glal.12380","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44171366","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}