X Close

The unbearable lightness of being cancelled Milan Kundera introduced us to the Devil's laughter

Any dissenter becomes an enemy (Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)

Any dissenter becomes an enemy (Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)




July 12, 2023   5 mins

Forty years ago, if there was one novel you could count on educated readers having read and loved, it was The Book of Laughter and Forgetting by Milan Kundera. First published in an English translation in America in 1980, it took the temperature of the age as no other book did. It was the great novel of the end of European Communism: a novel of ideas and eroticism, the surreal and the naturalistic. In tone intimate and ironic, it seemed to take its readers into its confidence, assuming a high level of curiosity and scepticism, large-mindedness and mirth, but also anxiety, lest waking from one nightmare was no guarantee that we wouldnā€™t fall headlong into the next.

We didnā€™t read it as we read polemic ā€” the characters were too vivid to allow us to forget we were reading fiction ā€” but it was conjecturally high-risk in a way that other novels werenā€™t. Laughter and Forgetting: the very concatenation of those words promised an original ride. So we hung on, rubbing our eyes as though waking from a long sleep, curious to read whatever Kundera had written earlier and impatient to read whatever he would write next. Today, the laughter has fallen silent and, except among a few aficionados and readers without an axe to grind, Kundera himself is all but forgotten.

The forgetting of Kunderaā€™s title is the state-sponsored forgetting essential to totalitarianism, allowing that totalitarianism insinuates its way into the most private corners of our lives. The novelā€™s opening reads like a fairy tale told by a historian. ā€œIn February 1948, the Communist leader Klement Gottwald stepped out on the balcony of a Baroque palace…ā€ Next to Gottwald on the balcony is the Foreign Minister, Vladimir Clementis. It is cold and, noting that Gottwald is bareheaded, Clementis takes the fur hat off his head and puts it on his leaderā€™s. Four years later Clementis is hanged for treason and ā€œimmediately airbrushed out of historyā€, which means being airbrushed out of this and all other photographs as well. Inspect the photograph today and the only evidence that Clementis was ever on that balcony is the fur hat on Gottwaldā€™s head. So tellingly comic is the image that one wants to push it further into surrealism and remove Gottwald too, leaving only the hat to hover Magritte-like in the snow.

We have our own vocabulary to describe what the Czech Communist party did to Clementis 70 years ago. We say it ā€œcancelledā€ him. It is, I think, instructive to trace cancel cultureā€™s political origins in the mindset of totalitarianism. The cruel irony is that Kunderaā€™s novel has itself become the object of the very cancelling it describes. Little by little, whether by malevolent design (which is hard to prove) or by subtle changes in the literary/political zeitgeist (also hard to chart) Kundera and his novels fell out of favour.

He had left Czechoslovakia for France in 1975 and never returned when it was safe to do so. Why was that, some wondered. A willing exile is not the same as a forced one: did he remain in France in order to keep his distance from people who could reveal a secret? Rumours of his having earlier sold out a colleague to the Communist authorities began to circulate. Vehemently denied and never proved though this accusation was, a whiff of deception, not to say betrayal, remained. Not impossibly, some people wanted it to remain in order better to sell or explain a disaffection that had other causes. A Kundera who forged his own biography was a Kundera whose books might also lie to us.

The world was changing; subtle re-evaluations of the contributions of Soviet Communism among those very intellectuals who would once have been Kunderaā€™s admirers, compelled them to think again about him or, as was more convenient, to forget about him altogether. Ideological enemies of the Left were no longer automatically embraced. New sorts of crime, more insidious but not necessarily any less terrible than those which Kundera had made his reputation excoriating, required new and no less vigilant policing. Universities began to take on the aspect of commissariats. You might say that Kunderaā€™s ironic tone, once so bracing, now sounded stale, tactlessly assertive and masculinist. No one was going to ask this question in so many words, but did irony even have a place in literature any longer?

In a marvellous flight of inspirational fancy in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting Kundera describes two kinds of laughter: the Devilā€™s, which denies ā€œall rational meaning to Godā€™s worldā€, and which by its very maliciousness permits ā€œa greater latitude in livingā€; and the Angelā€™s, which is no laughter at all, but a horrible fabrication of it, declaring the beauty and goodness of everything on earth.

Once a longing for unitary meaning turns into a cult or ideology of that meaning ā€” as Soviet Communism was ā€” any dissenter from that cult becomes its enemy. To cancel, in our culture, is to deny such dissent the space to breath in.

ā€œI too danced in a ring,ā€ Kundera writes. ā€œIt was the spring of 1948.ā€ That has the wistful tone of a confession ā€” an allowance that the yearning to join such a dance is inescapable if you are young ā€” albeit the confession of someone who dances in a ring no longer. 1948 was the year of the Communist coup dā€™etat in Czechoslovakia. A time of victorious celebration if you were of the Angelā€™s party, and for that short time, who wasnā€™t?

You held hands, your hearts overflowing with joy, and danced in a ring of perfect unanimity. It might remind us of the rapturous welcome Jeremy Corbyn was given in Glastonbury by thousands upon thousands of popular music orgiasts, already gathered to dance in a giant ring, and for whom adding Corbyn to their objects of unquestioning worship was a small step. Kunderaā€™s dancers, ā€œfleeing rest and sleep, outstripping timeā€, finally grow wings and soar above the earthly Prague. The fantasy that buoys them is the same fantasy that briefly enabled Corbynā€™s supporters to believe they were flying.

Discussing the surprising omission of Kundera and his long-time admirer Philip Roth from the list of Nobel Prize winners, the French Philosopher Alain Finkielkraut speculates that the charge of misogyny levelled at both writers has something to do with it. ā€œThe Stockholm jury was ā€˜wokeā€™ before the word appeared,ā€ he says. I wish to stay out of using ā€˜wokeā€™. Words when they come with poisoned tips promote hostility, not accommodation. We all have our sore spots.

Myself, I bridle at expressions of anti-Semitism. On the other hand, I donā€™t think even the clearest evidence of it in this or that novelistā€™s work disqualifies them as novelists. A ferocious, convicted anti-Semite the French writer CĆ©line might have been, but he wrote a couple of fine novels. He made us see the world as we previously had not. Sometimes, in the discomfort we feel reading or looking, is to be found artā€™s true purpose.

The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia weakened itself when it airbrushed out Valdimir Clementis but kept his hat. To cancel is to forget, and to forget diminishes not only the forgotten but the forgetter. It is also, as Kunderaā€™s great novel demonstrates, to forgo the liberation there is in laughter ā€” laughter not as the Angels understood it but as the all-disparaging Devil did ā€” the power to question and criticise and scorn, to leave the dance of shared conviction and refuse the ecstatic fantasy of flight.

This essay was originally published on 20 December, 2021


Howard JacobsonĀ is a Booker Prize-winning novelist.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

5 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago

Any comment on this magnificent article is a sort of impertinence – it has, after all, said everything; but one has to commit the impertinence in order to register one’s admiration – although this, no doubt, is to sound rather too like an “angel”…

Last edited 1 year ago by Simon Denis
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Worth remembering that as a repeated article (from 2021) the original comments have been deleted, but i agree about the quality of Jacobsen’s writing. I slightly disagree with him in that i don’t think Kundera has been “cancelled”, rather that history has moved on – a point Jacobsen alludes to. It may well be that the Czech author’s work has a renaissance at some point, as happens with many writers/artists.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Yes, he writes beautifully. His own works have the very quality he (rightly) ascribes to M.K – of appearing to speak to the reader in confidence, with the promise of extraordinary insights and revelations to come. Better still, he doesn’t disappoint. Only the greatest masters can draw one in like this.

Last edited 1 year ago by Simon Denis
Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Yes, he writes beautifully. His own works have the very quality he (rightly) ascribes to M.K – of appearing to speak to the reader in confidence, with the promise of extraordinary insights and revelations to come. Better still, he doesn’t disappoint. Only the greatest masters can draw one in like this.

Last edited 1 year ago by Simon Denis
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Worth remembering that as a repeated article (from 2021) the original comments have been deleted, but i agree about the quality of Jacobsen’s writing. I slightly disagree with him in that i don’t think Kundera has been “cancelled”, rather that history has moved on – a point Jacobsen alludes to. It may well be that the Czech author’s work has a renaissance at some point, as happens with many writers/artists.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago

Any comment on this magnificent article is a sort of impertinence – it has, after all, said everything; but one has to commit the impertinence in order to register one’s admiration – although this, no doubt, is to sound rather too like an “angel”…

Last edited 1 year ago by Simon Denis
Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago

Never read The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. I read Immortality some years ago and have been through The Unbearable Lightness of Being at least 3 times. Each time I would be taken by something different in it: first it was how Tomas left his first wife. Then it was the scene with Theresa and the bowler hat. And what did all that stuff about kitsch mean, actually?
It was so different to anything I ever read before and seemed like some kind of key to the mysterious world of the former Eastern bloc…which fascinated me so much I went to live in Vienna to be physically THERE as all these countries transitioned to EU membership.
Over the years I’ve read other authors from the region and was always captivated by this pervading sense in the writing that reality was suspect: at any moment, it could just crumble, exposing itself as a mere facade. Not surprising considering the turbulence and shifting circumstances that these countries and peoples have lived through. Bruno Schulz is the best example of this that I can think of. Quite fascinating…if challenging and dense.

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
fenahy
fenahy
2 months ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

hello

fenahy
fenahy
2 months ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

hello

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago

Never read The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. I read Immortality some years ago and have been through The Unbearable Lightness of Being at least 3 times. Each time I would be taken by something different in it: first it was how Tomas left his first wife. Then it was the scene with Theresa and the bowler hat. And what did all that stuff about kitsch mean, actually?
It was so different to anything I ever read before and seemed like some kind of key to the mysterious world of the former Eastern bloc…which fascinated me so much I went to live in Vienna to be physically THERE as all these countries transitioned to EU membership.
Over the years I’ve read other authors from the region and was always captivated by this pervading sense in the writing that reality was suspect: at any moment, it could just crumble, exposing itself as a mere facade. Not surprising considering the turbulence and shifting circumstances that these countries and peoples have lived through. Bruno Schulz is the best example of this that I can think of. Quite fascinating…if challenging and dense.

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre