Politics, the Elegiac, and the Carnivalesque: Gerhard Fritsch's Moos auf den Steinen and Fasching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When in 1967 Gerhard Fritsch published his second novel, Fasching, his critics and readers experienced something of a shock. Fritsch's first novel, Moos auf den Steinen (1956), had been well received, in large part no doubt because its subject – the attempts by an old aristocratic family to restore a neglected baroque castle – seemed to fit in well with the nostalgic k.u.k. themes pervading post1945 literature. That literature, in turn, was in accord with the attempts by successive politicians as well as authors and other cultural figures to affirm a continuous connection between the Second Republic and the glorious past of the Austria of the Habsburgs. In Fasching Fritsch drew blood by insisting that this connection, denying the inter-war and Nazi years, was a spurious one; moreover, he insisted that the true post-war Austria was rather different from the flattering picture presented in the official versions of the makers of politics and culture. To some, Fritsch's attack especially on Austria's way of dealing with the past seemed to suggest or precipitate a political and cultural crisis. To others the novel appeared, because of its excessive bitterness and rancour, to be inspired primarily by a personal crisis. To all, however, the formal aspects of the novel, its structure and language, appeared to be singularly strange and unfamiliar. Since the virtually unanimous rejection of the second novel has very much to do with the celebration of the first, this article will attempt a re-evaluation of both, first by placing them within the political climate of the time of their appearance, second by providing a formal reading that clarifies their meaning and allows them their proper place within certain traditional categories of genre. Gerhard Fritsch (1924-69) played an influential role in the reshaping of Austrian after 1945. In addition to his activity as Gymnasiallehrer and librarian of the Wiener Stadtische Bucherei, he was also, after 1959, editor of the literary journal Wort in der Zeit, and from 1966 on co-editor of the influential Literatur und Kritik and a number of other literary journals. His most important role was that of a literary mediator. In his role as editor, co-editor, translator, and promoter of young writers, he became one of the most influential literature
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".