Hey there, if anyone would be able to give me some feedback on this Stasiland text response I've written that would be phenomenal! Link me to a piece of your work and I'll do the same
___________________________________________________________________
Stasiland shows us that it is not possible to determine objective Truth. People must decide the Truth for their own individual selves. Do you agree?
In Anna Funder’s historical narrative “Stasiland”, hardship and lies are portrayed as abundant in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). The controlling and knowledge-hungry Stasi, whom were the powerhouse of the socialist government, led to a country full of deceit, confusion, and copious amounts of pain. As Funder examines the newly-set-free lives of its citizens, she demonstrates that, due to the wildly different opinions of what occurred in this “land gone wrong”, it is impossible to determine objective truth irrespective of whether it exists or not. Funder highlights the rampant trauma in the GDR to demonstrate that not only should truth be determined on a personal level for victims to achieve closure, but that this truth should be refreshed and remain unforgotten in the country as a sense of “Ostalgie” sweeps the united Germany.
Although Funder attempts to undercover the truth of what occurred behind “der Mauer”, Stasiland ultimately highlights the extremely subjective nature of truth. Funder interviews such a vast range of people, whom tell even more vastly ranging stories. In the midst of these, one thing can be said about almost all of the characters, including ex-Stasi men - most are claiming to be the victim. Despite the legitimate victim stories of characters such as Miriam and Julia, Herr Winz claims to be currently fighting in a new war against “the lies and misrepresentation in the western media”. Heinz and Hagen Koch both wanted an escape from the GDR and its lies, while Professor Mushroom believes that “it was so much better” in socialist East Germany. These wild juxtapositions lead one to believe that Funder, through her investigating, has resigned herself to the fact that an objective truth of the GDR and Stasi, whether actually existing or not, is not possible to determine. Whether concluding this before writing Stasiland, or discovering this throughout its writing, Funder recognises that her view too is subjective. Julia retells of her sitting a “political exam” for a “translating and interpreting course”, and although Funder knows this is also “standard practice in the west”, Funder is outraged. She later admits that she is “just oversensitised”. As a result of Funder’s own admission of bias is unique, as non-fictious historical stories are usually completely objective in nature. This only acts to intensify her position on the impossibility of objective truth.
Funder alludes multiple times to the importance of subjective, personal determination of the truth, as this is necessary to provide closure for victims of the Stasi. Although some characters have left the past behind them without much thought, such as Klaus, other characters have been actively seeking the truth. Julia finds herself in contact with a “psychotherapist” with whom she is coming to terms with her past. Although she feels “violated all over again” when revisiting her past, and a physical moving on with her life was required, she was able to deal with her demons and, as we last hear from her, she is “doing great”. Although Funder was hesitant of Miriam’s investigating of Charlie’s death as a way of being “released into a new life”, Funder emphasises that through Miriam’s pursuits of truth, and through time itself, Miriam has been able to subjectively establish the truth in her past life, and have her “strings cut”. Funder also shows the importance of this determination of truth for each individual through Klaus, as although he claims he did not and does not let the Stasi “eat [him] up” and “make [him] bitter”, his lack of dealing with his past through failing to seek his own subjective truth has turned him into a victim a second time, of nicotine and alcohol. Perhaps those like Klaus believe they are “happier and healthier in their unreal worlds”. Alongside personal closure, without the truth being sought, Funder also fears history repeating itself.
“To remember or forget - which is healthier?”. Funder finds herself battling this concept for most of Stasiland, however, due to the fact she wrote the book, leans towards remembering because of “the risk of doing it all again”. In a world where the East Germans are keen to erase every reminder of their Nazi and Communist histories, Funder as a character actively seeks out the stories of the GDR’s people, and the objective documents of the Stasi. In this way she is trying to play a small part in the battle against this past “cheap and nasty world” being coloured “golden” with “Ostalgie”. Julia believes Funder’s documentation of “normal people” and their “pasts” is “important”, although it can drive Funder herself to the bar to attempt to numb the trauma she is documenting. This documentation allows Stasiland to take the reader on a journey to allow them to experience the many subjective truths of the Stasi and GDR for themselves, as is essential for a world that is slowly eradicating the controlling and ruthless power of communism.
“Stasiland”, a story of personal experiences from the citizens of the former German Democratic Republic acts as a gateway to understanding that although no definitive objective truth of the events that happened in East Germany can be ascertained among all people, the determination of the subjective truth for each individual is extremely important. Without these individuals actively seeking the truth, they may struggle with their pain-ridden pasts, from which they could never truly separate. Additionally, if people are not reminded of the truth, over time, their views of the past may become distorted, fueling the possibility of history repeating itself again.
Home
Help
Search
Login
