D. Worlds Apart
IV. Re-Evaluations of Surprise
trotzen” (447) are known in later life not for their subterranean, unprepossessing nature, but rather for what they are able to achieve in the world through hard work.
Comparable dynamics of speed and slowness operate on the reader of Brigitta, who is initially presented with a series of long descriptive passages in a style very typical of Stifter. This particularly applies to the descriptions of landscape in the two sections that constitute the first half of the novella. Many readers of works by Stifter have deplored such expanses of text, complaining that there is not enough action to hold their interest. The second half, by contrast, offers more plot- and character-driven sequences, culminating in the two suspenseful moments of the confrontation with the wolves and the reconciliation of Brigitta and Stephan. These passages offer a ‘fast’ reading experience, both in the sense that the reader’s awareness of the passage of time decreases in response to a high level of engagement, and in the sense that these portions of text are actually shorter.
evaluates in an opposite manner. On the one hand, there is the history of the person known as
“the Major”; based on this character’s obvious devotion to Brigitta, his enlightened management of his estate, and his friendliness and hospitality towards the narrator, the probable evaluation of his character is a decidedly positive one. A reader is likely to feel sympathy for him because he cannot marry Brigitta. On the other hand, there is the history of the person known as “Stephan Murai”; based on his unfaithfulness to Brigitta and his abandonment of his infant son, this character is likely to be evaluated as a contemptible person. Although he at first seems
sympathetic because he appreciates Brigitta when no one else does, that makes his betrayal of her even more despicable: betraying a person with whom one has previously fostered an emotional connection is even more devastating to the one betrayed, as is likewise demonstrated in The Seducer’s Diary, because it involves the negation of a greater quantity of hopes, expectations, and beliefs regarding the trustworthiness, reciprocal affection, and so on of the betrayer. The reader of Brigitta, on learning that these two histories belong to the same person, is instantaneously
confronted with the task of reconciling the positive and the negative character evaluations.
The surprise twist necessitates a further re-evaluation: up until that point, the reader has no solid reason to think ill of Brigitta; although the young Brigitta is often more prickly towards people than necessary, the third section of the novella provides a psychological basis for her behavior that makes it intelligible as a defense mechanism learned in early childhood. However, there is indeed something callous about carrying on a friendly association with the Major, visiting with him often, consulting with him on matters pertaining to the management of their estates — basically sharing life with him in a significant way, in the manner of romantic partners — and yet holding him at an emotional distance. In addition, Brigitta would have observed the development of the close bond between Gustav and the Major — and yet she withheld from Gustav the identity of his father, and withheld from the Major her consent to his openly acknowledging the
relationship. Brigitta is thus not the blameless character which she might, until the reconciliation scene, have been supposed to be.
This, in turn, is likely to sway the reader’s evaluation of the Major/Stephan in a positive direction due to the realization that the Major has been willing to suffer over a period of several years in order to have as much of a relationship as possible with Brigitta and Gustav; in other words, he has given proof of his dedication by enduring the emotional pain of being frequently in the company of people he loves while simultaneously being denied the more intimate
connections he desires.
Being confronted with many things to consider in a short span of time also increases the potential affective intensity of the reconciliation for the reader. Since knowing the histories of the characters marks them out as meaningful to the reader, having an accurate evaluation of them is important in the overall scheme of the mind. When the reader is confronted with data that are challenging due to the ambiguities of the characters as well as the sheer amount of reprocessing in light of the new information, the probable result is a strong emotional response, which would signal that this matter will require a large amount of mental energy to resolve. The details of the story that are stored in the reader’s short-term memory would be brought up for conscious contemplation once again. This is a strong encouragement to think critically about the plot of the novella — in other words, a likely indirect effect of the emotional ending is an increased
intellectual engagement. Instead of the reader merely thinking about the narrative during the process of reading and perhaps afterward — or perhaps not —, the text has a built-in cue in the climactic scene to elicit a further round of reflection. Brigitta thus presents an excellent example of an emotional thought operation and a reasoning thought operation mutually stimulating one another.
That both Brigitta and the Major need to be re-evaluated, and that both turn out to be ambiguous personalities, are among several structural symmetries of the novella. This reinforces the emotional impact of the novella because symmetry of form is aesthetically pleasing, as is an onslaught of new knowledge — assuming that the reader has an appreciation for knowledge.
Another symmetry is that each protagonist undergoes over the course of the novella a process of becoming acclimated to the tempo to which the other is attuned. As mentioned in the previous section, the Major’s affinity is for Schnelligkeit; during his years at Uwar, in which he learns the process of land cultivation from Brigitta, he both experiences and acquires an appreciation for Langsamkeit. Brigitta undergoes the inverse process: since her natural affinity is for slow-type processes, she initially lacks sympathy for the Major’s attunement; however, the dramatic scene at the end, in which Gustav is attacked by wolves46 and then the Major is overcome with grief at not being able to act as the boy’s father in the full sense, is an encounter characterized by speed and intensity. It is this experience of the power — and also, in the case of the Major’s outpouring of feeling, the positive value — of fast-type processes that breaks through her resistance to them and results in her likewise learning to empathize with the other’s attunement. The reconciliation of
46 When Wolfgang Oppacher claims that the wolves represent “die verdrängte wilde Sinnlichkeit,” it is an example of an interpretive overreach (“Schicksal und Schöpferfiguren in Adalbert Stifters Erzählung
‘Brigitta’” Literatur in Bayern 21, no. 81 (2005): 29). The viciousness of wolves is here irreconcilable with sensuality, especially since this novella as a whole codes sensuality as a positive value to be developed and encouraged; for example, the kiss is depicted as a positive step in the young Brigitta’s development.
Attaching sensuality to the wolves is furthermore disadvantageous for interpretive efforts because it obscures the emotional dynamics driving the reconciliation scene. The wolves, of course, function as a threat to the relational balance that has become established over time between Brigitta, the Major, and Gustav. The threat to Gustav’s life places stress on the emotional bonds that tie them together, shaking them out of a balance that has become a rut, a habit that no longer quite corresponds to the strength of their affection for one another. The external pull at these bonds, which the wolves represent, results in a counter-pull — that is, an upsurge of affection — which disrupts the restrained relationship that had for a long time prevailed between Brigitta and the Major. Through the catalyzing function of the wolves, the characters end up settling into a new balance that better suits their individual development.
Oppacher’s interpretation is an anachronistic application of psychological ideas drawn from twentieth-century literary criticism to this nineteenth-century work. Stüben comes much closer to a time- appropriate depiction of the worldview informing the text when he describes the wolves’ aggression as a merely temporary disruption of a divine balance that was thought to order the natural world
(“Naturlandschaft und Landschaftskultur,” 145).
the protagonists thus also involves their differing temporal affinities being brought into alignment.
The developmental arcs of the characters underscores that the mind is most readily shaped by repetition or by intensity. In the case of the reader, the ending functions as a synthesis of the fast and the slow processes: the twist itself is a fast-type process, but it relies, for its depth of effect, on the preparatory narratives, which illustrate slow-type processes of cultivation. The novella
promotes an acknowledgment of the value of both types of process.
The emotion of surprise is particularly suitable for reinforcing the major values advocated in the novella, notably forgiveness and constructive exertion. Since surprise inherently involves a correction to one’s latent beliefs, it is especially effective at destabilizing existing mental
constructs. During the process of correction, the reader is open to new beliefs, since the old ones are being rewritten; this is an ideal time for the values in the novella to take root. Here again, the experience of the reader mirrors the experience of the characters, particularly Brigitta, since her beliefs about the Major are shifted in the climactic scene.
A distinctive feature of the way Stifter structures the surprise is that, while the reader already has a great deal of information about the characters which has been acquired over an extended period while reading the prior sections of the novella, only a brief moment — the time it takes to read the word “Stephan” — is required to alter the significance of virtually every passage involving the protagonists. Once the reader makes this connection, suddenly it is possible to make the whole range of consequent connections that have just been discussed, and which had previously been unacknowledged: from the Major’s paternity to the overlay of suffering attendant on his residence in Uwar, from Brigitta’s unabated affection for the Major to the real reason why she has avoided a relationship with him. Since emotions are time-dependent, the onslaught of new realizations heightens the impact to a greater degree than would a slow process of
recognition.
By the time of the narrator’s visit to Marosheli, the Major has already, through long practice, changed his lifestyle habits as well as his assessment of Brigitta, such that his
recommendation of her to the narrator is altogether rhapsodic: “Sie werden in meiner Nachbarin Marosheli das herrlichste Weib auf dieser Erde kennen lernen.” (442) By applying himself to Brigitta-esque forms of “Thätigkeit” over and over, he has gradually rewritten the internal scripts
— the “sittlichen Gründe” (411) which guide behavior — that drove him to be a flighty spouse, and then to travel the world aimlessly. For latent beliefs about how life ought to be lived are a type of pathway, and the ones that are used more become better established. Brigitta, however, suffers from a willful misconception of the Major, in that she holds two opposing views of him which she has failed to reconcile. On the one hand, the narrator has the distinct impression that Brigitta regards the Major as “der Mann […], der ihr Wirken und Schaffen zu würdigen verstand.” (464) Yet although she recognizes his goodwill towards her, and even consults him as an equal partner in matters pertaining to the management of their estates, her prejudice prevents her from allowing the emotional gap between them to close. She still clings to a pride based on the requirement which she had imposed on the young Stephan when he asked why she told him not to court her: “weil ich keine andere Liebe fordern kann, als die allerhöchste.” (454) The intense emotionality of the scene at the end is what shakes her out of her mental rut and leads to a reassessment of her stance towards the Major. She finally realizes her mistake — “ich habe nicht geahnt, wie gut du seist” (473) — and makes a more balanced evaluation of him as a flawed yet vastly improved human being: “Wie bist du gut geworden, jetzt kenne ich dich” (473).
Brigitta’s forgiveness of Stephan stands in contradiction to the idyllic constructions (of landscape, for example) in the story and rescinds Brigitta’s own demand for absolute love which she made as a young woman, replacing it rather with a love that is strong enough to absorb betrayal — that is, to forgive. In addition, a reader who experiences a strong emotion at the twist
of the story is rendered more open to adopting the belief that a love capable of withstanding injury is superior to a love that demands to remain unspoilt and flawless.