What do you think?
Rate this book
پابرهنه ها تمرین انقلاب می کنند
A full-length play dealing with the German intellectuals' abandonment of the East German workers during their rebellion in 1953. Translated by Ralph Manheim. A Helen and Kurt Wolff Book.
First published January 1, 1966
2 people are currently reading
125 people want to read
About the author
Günter Grass
308 books1,839 followersNovels, notably
The Tin Drum
(1959) and
Dog Years
(1963), of German writer Günter Wilhelm Grass, who won the Nobel Prize of 1999 for literature, concern the political and social climate of Germany during and after World War II.
This novelist, poet, playwright, illustrator, graphic artist, and sculptor since 1945 lived in West Germany but in his fiction frequently returned to the Danzig of his childhood. He always identified as a Kashubian.
He is best known for his first novel, The Tin Drum (1959), a key text in European magic realism. He named this style “broadened reality.” “Cat and Mouse” (1961) and Dog Years (1963) also succeeded in the period. These three novels make up his “Danzig trilogy.”
Helene Grass (née Knoff, 1898 - 1954), a Roman Catholic of Kashubian-Polish origin, bore Günter Grass to Willy Grass (1899 - 1979), a Protestant ethnic German. Parents reared Grass as a Catholic. The family lived in an apartment, attached to its grocery store in Danzig-Langfuhr (now Gdańsk-Wrzeszcz). He has one sister, born in 1930.
Grass attended the Danzig gymnasium Conradinum. He volunteered for submarine service with the Kriegsmarine "to get out of the confinement he felt as a teenager in his parents' house" which he considered - in a very negative way - civic Catholic lower middle class. In 1943 he became a Luftwaffenhelfer, then he was drafted into the Reichsarbeitsdienst, and in November 1944, shortly after his seventeenth birthday, into the Waffen-Schutzstaffel. The seventeen-year-old Grass saw combat with the 10th Schutzstaffel panzer division Frundsberg from February 1945 until he was wounded on 20 April 1945 and sent to an American prisoner of war camp.
In 1946 and 1947, he worked in a mine and received an education of a stonemason. For many years, he studied sculpture and graphics, first at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf and then at the Universität der Künste Berlin. He also worked as an author and traveled frequently. He married in 1954 and from 1960 lived in Berlin as well as part-time in Schleswig-Holstein. Divorced in 1978, he remarried in 1979. From 1983 to 1986 he held the presidency of the Berlin Akademie der Künste (Berlin Academy of Arts).
During the German unification process in 1989 he argued for separation of the two states, because he thought a unified Germany would resume its past aggression. He moved to the northern German city of Lübeck in 1995. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1999. In 2006, Grass caused controversy with his disclosure of his Waffen-Schutzstaffel service during the final months of World War II, which he had kept a secret until publishing his memoir that year. He died of complications of lung infection on 13th of April, 2015 at a Lübeck hospital. He was 87.
This novelist, poet, playwright, illustrator, graphic artist, and sculptor since 1945 lived in West Germany but in his fiction frequently returned to the Danzig of his childhood. He always identified as a Kashubian.
He is best known for his first novel, The Tin Drum (1959), a key text in European magic realism. He named this style “broadened reality.” “Cat and Mouse” (1961) and Dog Years (1963) also succeeded in the period. These three novels make up his “Danzig trilogy.”
Helene Grass (née Knoff, 1898 - 1954), a Roman Catholic of Kashubian-Polish origin, bore Günter Grass to Willy Grass (1899 - 1979), a Protestant ethnic German. Parents reared Grass as a Catholic. The family lived in an apartment, attached to its grocery store in Danzig-Langfuhr (now Gdańsk-Wrzeszcz). He has one sister, born in 1930.
Grass attended the Danzig gymnasium Conradinum. He volunteered for submarine service with the Kriegsmarine "to get out of the confinement he felt as a teenager in his parents' house" which he considered - in a very negative way - civic Catholic lower middle class. In 1943 he became a Luftwaffenhelfer, then he was drafted into the Reichsarbeitsdienst, and in November 1944, shortly after his seventeenth birthday, into the Waffen-Schutzstaffel. The seventeen-year-old Grass saw combat with the 10th Schutzstaffel panzer division Frundsberg from February 1945 until he was wounded on 20 April 1945 and sent to an American prisoner of war camp.
In 1946 and 1947, he worked in a mine and received an education of a stonemason. For many years, he studied sculpture and graphics, first at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf and then at the Universität der Künste Berlin. He also worked as an author and traveled frequently. He married in 1954 and from 1960 lived in Berlin as well as part-time in Schleswig-Holstein. Divorced in 1978, he remarried in 1979. From 1983 to 1986 he held the presidency of the Berlin Akademie der Künste (Berlin Academy of Arts).
During the German unification process in 1989 he argued for separation of the two states, because he thought a unified Germany would resume its past aggression. He moved to the northern German city of Lübeck in 1995. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1999. In 2006, Grass caused controversy with his disclosure of his Waffen-Schutzstaffel service during the final months of World War II, which he had kept a secret until publishing his memoir that year. He died of complications of lung infection on 13th of April, 2015 at a Lübeck hospital. He was 87.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
June 24, 2015
رییس :دستور طبخ جرم همینه!یه شاخه ی کوچیک نادونی رو با یه قاشق سرخالی عشق نابجا به آزادی مخلوط کنین،بعد تو خمیر تردید ِ از آگاهی ِمن بپیچینش. بعدش سر و کله ی اونا پیدا میشه منو باانگشت نشون میدن و میگن :"دستپخت خودشه ... "
May 17, 2014
The art of revolution
28 March 2013
This is one of those pieces of literature that I simply love, and it is a play that I definitely have to see performed (if it is ever performed, so I will have to keep my ear to the ground). Anyway, the author, a German, writes a play which is about a group of playwrights performing Coriolanus during the backdrop of the 1959 uprising in East Berlin. Obviously the uprising was put down, and it was done so quite brutally. In fact there is one section of the play where the workers who are rising up are waiting for American tanks, which never come, while the Soviet tanks are sitting on the outskirts of East Berlin.
The argument that Grass is making here (and the version of the play that I read included the transcription of a lecture that Grass gave that deals with Coriolanus, as well as a paper that he wrote at the end) is that Coriolanus is written in the backdrop of a peasant uprising in England, and that Shakespeare picked what he wanted from Plutarch's work and that Shakespeare's adaptation falls far short of what Plutarch was exploring in his biographies. Personally, I am not surprised that Shakespeare is butchering the text since he is using a story to make a point that is relevant to his audience. Remember that the values that Plutarch's readers held were much different to the culture that Shakespeare was writing in (which in turn is vastly different to our own culture).
Grass is correct when he says that Shakespeare cannot necessarily be taken as timeless, and in some cases he can be seen as a political critic who is warning the general public about taking certain courses of action. Shakespeare was appointed by the King, and as such you will find that much of what he writes about is the need for a stable government, and rebelling against the king is not so much a religious thing (the idea of Divine Right insinuates that rebelling against the king is the same a rebelling against God) but rather a social thing. One could say that all of the history plays (and in fact a number of his tragedies) deal with somebody usurping the throne and what comes out of it (though Henry V is a bit 'hey we're English and we're pretty good').
The conflict in this play though tends to be between the intellectuals and the working class. It appears that the intelligentsia did not want to take part in the uprising (and they are represented by characters from Coriolanus), while the working class (as represented by the numerous professions) were pushing them on. However, it was not that the playwrights (apparently the Boss represents Brecht) supported the government, it is just that they did not see revolution at that time to be a necessity. In fact he quotes Lenin as suggesting that 'Revolution is an art'.
That is quite true since while there are uprisings all the time, it is only the revolution that comes out of a successful uprising. However the difference between a successful uprising and an unsuccessful uprising tends to be timing, and we can see this throughout history. The revolutions that do happen tend not to act in a vacuum, there tends to be a lot of external factors that go into a successful revolution. For instance the Russian Revolution of 1905, while there was some success, the Czarist regime remained in control of Russia and members of the uprising were punished. Secondly both 1917 revolutions (though the second one could be labelled more as a coup than a revolution, though it was successful) occurred in the background of rising resentment, war losses, and a government that had grown weak, yet the communist success post 1917 had, once again, a lot to do with timing, particularly due to the lack of willpower within the United States and Britain to launch a successful counter-revolution.
However, being the intellectual, the boss realises that at this time a revolution is not necessarily going to be successful, which is why he is not willing to get involved. Why get yourself killed in an uprising that will not work, but rather bide your time and wait for a better opportunity. Of course the counter argument tends to be that by staying out of the revolution, you are not in support of the cause, and that if everybody takes that attitude then nothing would get done. However, one must remember that in an uprising it is only those who are discontented with the way things are that rise up against the government. In a democracy this tends to take the form of protests though some protests can turn quite ugly. Even then, democratic governments, when looking to make cuts, will only make then to small areas (or try to) since the smaller the disruption in as few a peoples lives are the best, otherwise the discontent will end up being unmanageable.
28 March 2013
This is one of those pieces of literature that I simply love, and it is a play that I definitely have to see performed (if it is ever performed, so I will have to keep my ear to the ground). Anyway, the author, a German, writes a play which is about a group of playwrights performing Coriolanus during the backdrop of the 1959 uprising in East Berlin. Obviously the uprising was put down, and it was done so quite brutally. In fact there is one section of the play where the workers who are rising up are waiting for American tanks, which never come, while the Soviet tanks are sitting on the outskirts of East Berlin.
The argument that Grass is making here (and the version of the play that I read included the transcription of a lecture that Grass gave that deals with Coriolanus, as well as a paper that he wrote at the end) is that Coriolanus is written in the backdrop of a peasant uprising in England, and that Shakespeare picked what he wanted from Plutarch's work and that Shakespeare's adaptation falls far short of what Plutarch was exploring in his biographies. Personally, I am not surprised that Shakespeare is butchering the text since he is using a story to make a point that is relevant to his audience. Remember that the values that Plutarch's readers held were much different to the culture that Shakespeare was writing in (which in turn is vastly different to our own culture).
Grass is correct when he says that Shakespeare cannot necessarily be taken as timeless, and in some cases he can be seen as a political critic who is warning the general public about taking certain courses of action. Shakespeare was appointed by the King, and as such you will find that much of what he writes about is the need for a stable government, and rebelling against the king is not so much a religious thing (the idea of Divine Right insinuates that rebelling against the king is the same a rebelling against God) but rather a social thing. One could say that all of the history plays (and in fact a number of his tragedies) deal with somebody usurping the throne and what comes out of it (though Henry V is a bit 'hey we're English and we're pretty good').
The conflict in this play though tends to be between the intellectuals and the working class. It appears that the intelligentsia did not want to take part in the uprising (and they are represented by characters from Coriolanus), while the working class (as represented by the numerous professions) were pushing them on. However, it was not that the playwrights (apparently the Boss represents Brecht) supported the government, it is just that they did not see revolution at that time to be a necessity. In fact he quotes Lenin as suggesting that 'Revolution is an art'.
That is quite true since while there are uprisings all the time, it is only the revolution that comes out of a successful uprising. However the difference between a successful uprising and an unsuccessful uprising tends to be timing, and we can see this throughout history. The revolutions that do happen tend not to act in a vacuum, there tends to be a lot of external factors that go into a successful revolution. For instance the Russian Revolution of 1905, while there was some success, the Czarist regime remained in control of Russia and members of the uprising were punished. Secondly both 1917 revolutions (though the second one could be labelled more as a coup than a revolution, though it was successful) occurred in the background of rising resentment, war losses, and a government that had grown weak, yet the communist success post 1917 had, once again, a lot to do with timing, particularly due to the lack of willpower within the United States and Britain to launch a successful counter-revolution.
However, being the intellectual, the boss realises that at this time a revolution is not necessarily going to be successful, which is why he is not willing to get involved. Why get yourself killed in an uprising that will not work, but rather bide your time and wait for a better opportunity. Of course the counter argument tends to be that by staying out of the revolution, you are not in support of the cause, and that if everybody takes that attitude then nothing would get done. However, one must remember that in an uprising it is only those who are discontented with the way things are that rise up against the government. In a democracy this tends to take the form of protests though some protests can turn quite ugly. Even then, democratic governments, when looking to make cuts, will only make then to small areas (or try to) since the smaller the disruption in as few a peoples lives are the best, otherwise the discontent will end up being unmanageable.
November 28, 2015
The four-star rating is for the book taken as a whole. It is made up of three distinct parts:
(1) A 30-page address given by the author at the Academy of Arts and Letters, in Berlin on 23 April 1964, The Prehistory and Posthistory of the Tragedy of Coriolanus from Livy and Plutarch via Shakespeare down to Brecht and Myself, which is a welcome introduction to the play, its historical context, and also serves as a sort-of comparative analysis between Shakespeare's Coriolanus and Bertolt Brecht's adaptation. If anything this primer makes it easier to understand the main feature of the book (ie: Grass' play), and is - at times - more interesting than the play itself.
(2) The Play. (111 pages)
(3) The Uprising of June 17, 1953, a 10-page documentary report by Uta Gerhardt. Self-explanatory.
So a breakdown of the rating would be: 3 stars for the play itself, with an extra star for the 'bonus material': historical context, introduction, etc., relevant information that help the reader get the most out of the play and its many references to actual historical events, now 60+ years after these events.
(1) A 30-page address given by the author at the Academy of Arts and Letters, in Berlin on 23 April 1964, The Prehistory and Posthistory of the Tragedy of Coriolanus from Livy and Plutarch via Shakespeare down to Brecht and Myself, which is a welcome introduction to the play, its historical context, and also serves as a sort-of comparative analysis between Shakespeare's Coriolanus and Bertolt Brecht's adaptation. If anything this primer makes it easier to understand the main feature of the book (ie: Grass' play), and is - at times - more interesting than the play itself.
(2) The Play. (111 pages)
(3) The Uprising of June 17, 1953, a 10-page documentary report by Uta Gerhardt. Self-explanatory.
So a breakdown of the rating would be: 3 stars for the play itself, with an extra star for the 'bonus material': historical context, introduction, etc., relevant information that help the reader get the most out of the play and its many references to actual historical events, now 60+ years after these events.
January 13, 2015
Grass, in this drama, uses an ingenious ploy to discuss the workers uprising in East Germany in 1959. The Boss, thinly veiled as Bertolt Brecht, is modifying Shakespeare’s Coriolanus to support communist rhetoric. Coriolanus deals with a peasant uprising, and so it is a natural fit for such a play. The east German workers were protesting an increase in their norms of production by 10 percent. The workers appeal to Brecht to support them, in fact they seem assured at first that he’ll do so. He remarks early, however, “No plan, no logic. You can’t make a revolution with feeling.” In Shakespeare’s play, the plebeians search for support of their uprising against the Roman patricians. In Germany, the workers continue to appeal to the Boss. “Great bastions are seldom taken at the first try.”
Unfortunately, while Brecht may have been sympathetic, he is practical and realizes that revolutions and protest depend on timing. In his estimation, the timing for this workers protest is not right and has little chance of success. In fact it did not, as the Soviets rolled in tanks and brutally ended the protest. Brecht dismisses the protesters as “the brainwashed mob, demanding freedom.” In the end he pens a letter supporting the party, and not the workers.
What starts as an ideal scaffolding for a play within a play, Coriolanus is not well developed within the story. Brecht’s character is also puzzlingly depicted, momentarily showing enthusiasm but in the end manifesting a cold and calculated response.
This is a great play by a great writer, that could have gone beyond its final form.
See my other reviews here!
Unfortunately, while Brecht may have been sympathetic, he is practical and realizes that revolutions and protest depend on timing. In his estimation, the timing for this workers protest is not right and has little chance of success. In fact it did not, as the Soviets rolled in tanks and brutally ended the protest. Brecht dismisses the protesters as “the brainwashed mob, demanding freedom.” In the end he pens a letter supporting the party, and not the workers.
What starts as an ideal scaffolding for a play within a play, Coriolanus is not well developed within the story. Brecht’s character is also puzzlingly depicted, momentarily showing enthusiasm but in the end manifesting a cold and calculated response.
This is a great play by a great writer, that could have gone beyond its final form.
See my other reviews here!
March 30, 2021
Reading this play was a bit of a roller coaster of emotions. It is quite funny and cynical in the best possible way. Gunter Grass, taking a dig at Bertolt Brecht kinda failed attempt to adapt Shakespeare. "We can't change Shakespeare unless we change ourselves" the Boss, who is not so thinly vailed Brecht character.
However, there is more to this play, and the historical context to Brecht attempted adaptation, given at the end of the book, suggest Grass' heart breaking disappointment of his predecessor, Brecht, who failed when his politics was tested. It makes Grass' play poignant.
There is a sober cynicism to it.
At times it feels like he is overselling his point perhaps and loosing the edge he gained with a great premise and backdrop, but that is perhaps to be expected from Grass' first full length play.
I did feel that in the end, despite the history, Grass tried to give Brecht the benefit of the doubt, but in a way it just makes the reality a bit more crushing.
I take one star off because I am not sure whether this play is as effective out of context.
I recommend this read very much, but it is worth reading definitely the Shakespeare source and I would say the Brecht one as well, though it is out of print.
However, there is more to this play, and the historical context to Brecht attempted adaptation, given at the end of the book, suggest Grass' heart breaking disappointment of his predecessor, Brecht, who failed when his politics was tested. It makes Grass' play poignant.
There is a sober cynicism to it.
At times it feels like he is overselling his point perhaps and loosing the edge he gained with a great premise and backdrop, but that is perhaps to be expected from Grass' first full length play.
I did feel that in the end, despite the history, Grass tried to give Brecht the benefit of the doubt, but in a way it just makes the reality a bit more crushing.
I take one star off because I am not sure whether this play is as effective out of context.
I recommend this read very much, but it is worth reading definitely the Shakespeare source and I would say the Brecht one as well, though it is out of print.
September 27, 2014
Obra de teatro que leí (entre todas las otras que no guardé en goodreads) para proponerle a mi curso como obra de egreso (o sea la ultima obra como alumnos :')) No fue la elegida, pero a mi me gustó mucho.
June 2, 2013
4.5 stars
October 17, 2022
Obra de teatro satírica y un poco triste, basada (o al menos parcialmente) en Bertolt Brecht y en una fallida reinterpretación socialista de una obra de Shakespeare. El argumento es intrincado e interesante; en un teatro se ensaya la obra de Coroliano (que no he leído) y el director al ver qué los actores al no ejercer su papel con la suficiente destreza se desespera, al mismo tiempo llegan unos obreros a pedir un escrito que posicione al director a favor de la revolución obrera pues estallo una revuelta popular. El director al percatarse que los obreros encarnan en cierto sentido una revolución los graba y los utiliza de material para que los actores comprendan el espíritu revolucionario. La rebelión es suprimida, la obra cancelada y finalmente el director tiene que retractar sus palabras en favor a los obreros escribiendo una carta al Comité del partido comunista.
La obra es interesante, el argumento me pareció bueno y el final un poco trágico. No hay muchas indicaciones ni para el elenco ni para el equipo del teatro y se lee con bastante fluidez. Al principio hay un prólogo que explica el contexto de la obra y de los orígenes de dicha rebelión, que lo veo muy atinado pues contiene algunos fragmentos de una entrevista del autor.
No soy muy asiduo a leer obras dramáticas, pero está la disfrute. Esta obra es muy distinta a lo que he leído del autor aunque hay un cierto sarcasmo que se encuentra en toda su obra. El libro es un poco difícil de conseguir y se que hay más obras escritas por el autor, pero desconozco si se han publicado en español, de ser así sin duda vale la pena echarle un ojo.
La obra es interesante, el argumento me pareció bueno y el final un poco trágico. No hay muchas indicaciones ni para el elenco ni para el equipo del teatro y se lee con bastante fluidez. Al principio hay un prólogo que explica el contexto de la obra y de los orígenes de dicha rebelión, que lo veo muy atinado pues contiene algunos fragmentos de una entrevista del autor.
No soy muy asiduo a leer obras dramáticas, pero está la disfrute. Esta obra es muy distinta a lo que he leído del autor aunque hay un cierto sarcasmo que se encuentra en toda su obra. El libro es un poco difícil de conseguir y se que hay más obras escritas por el autor, pero desconozco si se han publicado en español, de ser así sin duda vale la pena echarle un ojo.
October 9, 2021
I came across this book very much by accident, while searching online for another title. Having an interest in German history, and knowing Günter Grass as a novelist rather than a playwright, I was intrigued, and felt that I had to read this book. It wasn't until I found this book that I knew there was a worker's uprising in Germany in 1953, and, discussing it with my father later, I discovered that he actually participated in this uprising as a young apprentice builder (although in Eisleben rather than Berlin). I thought it was very clever for Grass to link this uprising with the story of Coriolanus.
I'd only seen a film version of Coriolanus before, and not read Shakespeare's or Brecht's play, so I'm not sure that I got as much out of the book as I could have, but Grass' introductory essay, and the eyewitness account at the end of the play certainly helped to put it into perspective. I will definitely be searching out Shakespeare's and Brecht's versions of Coriolanus after this. Interestingly, the concept of the arrogant leader who despises the 'common' people still seems highly relevant today.
I'd only seen a film version of Coriolanus before, and not read Shakespeare's or Brecht's play, so I'm not sure that I got as much out of the book as I could have, but Grass' introductory essay, and the eyewitness account at the end of the play certainly helped to put it into perspective. I will definitely be searching out Shakespeare's and Brecht's versions of Coriolanus after this. Interestingly, the concept of the arrogant leader who despises the 'common' people still seems highly relevant today.
September 29, 2025
Reading this on the cusp of everything falling apart feels poignant, if not a little on the nose.
April 24, 2015
Se trata del viejo mal: mi curiosidad. Lo que quisiera saber es quién al final se sale con la suya: la naturaleza o mi teatro.
... que nosotros, por ejemplo, no podemos cambiar Shakespeare en tanto no cambiemos nosotros mismos.
-Sentado dijo al tigre: antes de que pases a la práctica, dime el número de tus dientes, confiésame bajo qué sistema están ordenados; me gustaría saber a qué estética obedecen tus articulaciones.
-¿Tanto tiempo le dejó el tigre al teórico?
-Al final se fue con el rabo entre las piernas.
-¡Falso! Se lo tragó sin teoría.
'Los plebeyos ensayan la rebelión'
... que nosotros, por ejemplo, no podemos cambiar Shakespeare en tanto no cambiemos nosotros mismos.
-Sentado dijo al tigre: antes de que pases a la práctica, dime el número de tus dientes, confiésame bajo qué sistema están ordenados; me gustaría saber a qué estética obedecen tus articulaciones.
-¿Tanto tiempo le dejó el tigre al teórico?
-Al final se fue con el rabo entre las piernas.
-¡Falso! Se lo tragó sin teoría.
'Los plebeyos ensayan la rebelión'
February 9, 2022
بی هیچ توضیح اضافهای فقط می تونم بگم نمایشنامه فوقالعادهای بود، حتما بخونید.
فقط بهتر بود مترجم به بومیسازی شعارا فکر نمیکرد.
از متن:
ما میخواستیم بت کوریولانوسو نابود کنیم... ما خودمون بتیم و حقمونه نابود شیم...
فقط بهتر بود مترجم به بومیسازی شعارا فکر نمیکرد.
از متن:
ما میخواستیم بت کوریولانوسو نابود کنیم... ما خودمون بتیم و حقمونه نابود شیم...
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews