Dear Marion,

Thank you for your letter. Not having received an e-mail from
you for some days, I began to ask myself whether some untoward
circumstance might be interfering, - but I infer that you finally
concluded, with respect to our correspondence that enough is
enough. You're probably right.

As usual, you hit the nail on the head, but sometimes with
a glancing blow that bends it slightly out of shape. To begin
with, I'd say you're too easily shocked, writing as you did:

>     I was a bit shocked that you told Helmut
>     that his rejection of your novel for publication
>     resembled the plumber's assessment of the
>     insufficiency of your plumbing job. Even if
>     History proves Helmut to have been mistaken
>     in his judgement, surely you didn't mean to
>     imply that Helmut is incompetent, or even
>     malicious or venal, in his judgement about
>     the commercial viability of your work....
>     ..interpretations that you presumably would
>     entertain for the plumber. I hope Helmut concluded
>     that you meant no more than that you are the
>     eternal amateur bumping up against the
>     professional establishment. 

Helmut didn't tell me his conclusions. I'll buy the explanation
that he thought of me as "the eternal amateur bumping up against
the professional establishment," but consider whether it isn't
insulting to label a man who has spent his life in pursuit of
artistic excellence as a member of the professional establishment.
I thought - and think - that Helmut's inability to integrate me
into his cultural cosmos is of some concern and embarrassment
to him.

On February 11, 2010, Helmut wrote to the Stolperstein hostess,
Renate Haertle, about me: 

"Ich bewundere den Edelmut, wie wir früher gesagt hätten,
die hochherzige Haltung, die Jochen gegenüber der Vergangenheit
und Gegenwart Deutschlands einnimmt. Es ist dies seit eh und je
seine Haltung, nicht etwa nur in den Briefen an Sie und Ihre Schüler.
Und noch ein Hinweis zu seinen Briefen: Jochen ist seiner (geliebten)
deutschen Sprache treu geblieben. Er ist - ich kann das beurteilen
als jemand, der ein Leben lang als Verlags-Lektor gearbeitet hat
und heute noch freiberuflich als Lektor und Übersetzer arbeitet,
zum Beispiel als Lektor von Günter Grass - ein Schriftsteller.
Seine Sprache ist genährt von der Sprache dessen, was wir einst
deutschen Geist nennen durften, von der Sprache der großen
deutschen Dichter - ich erwähne hier als beispielhaft Goethe,
Hölderlin, Kleist, Rilke. Das Seltsame, das, was an ein Wunder
grenzt, ist, dass er nicht nur die Liebe zur deutschen Sprache,
sondern auch die Kenntnis der deutschen Sprache und der großen
deutschen Literatur seinem Sohn Klemens "weitergeben" konnte.
(Klemens hat über Kleist gearbeitet.) Irgendwann werde ich
formulieren können, dass die Vertreibung bei Jochen in gewisser Weise,
innerlich,  immer fortgewirkt hat. Als das fortgewirkt hat,
was wir in den sechziger und siebziger Jahren großspurig Entfremdung
genannt haben, ohne zu wissen, was wirkliche Entfremdung ist. 
Meine Sprache ist der Gegenwart verhaftet, ist mit den deutschen
Entwicklungen in Politik, Literatur und Kultur gröber geworden."
 
The foregoing was not intended as flattery. Helmut never expressed
such sentiments to me directly. Helmut needed to adapt in order to
survive in the competitive environment of literary publications, 
and his rejection of my manuscript was and is an expression of that
adaptation. I still see a close analogy in the plumber's, Mr. Liffey's
rejection of my plumbing. I don't believe Mr. Liffey's rejection is
a consequence of incompetence, dishonesty or hostility. Just as Helmut
needed to adapt to the current German literary ambience, so Mr. Liffey
needs to adapt to the current Nantucket plumbing ambience. I resent
neither Helmut's nor Mr. Liffey's judgment. I've always been grateful
to Helmut for his candor. His rejection proved to be a turning point
in my literary efforts inasmuch as it gave me the liberty to write
what seemed most meaningful to me, and freed me from the constraint
of trying to please the hypothetical reader. In the course of time
that freedom has become progressively more valuable to me.

The significance of Mr. Liffey's rejection will become apparent only
in the context of the advice of the four other plumbers who have
agreed to look at my work, two of whom will come tomorrow, and the
other two whom I will invite to come on January 5. If one or more
of these private inspectors validate my plumbing, Mr. Liffey's judgment
will become irrelevant. If all five opinions coincide, I'll need to
reassess my own opinion and decide whether I should solicit the 
opinion of a sixth plumber - from the mainland. Now that my spirits
are steeled by the Appeals Court decision, the process of extricating
my project from bureaucratic snares seems progressively more interesting.
I'll keep you informed.

Today as you know is the first anniversary of the day that Margrit's
body was discovered in her 16th floor apartment in Detroit. One of
her "friends", Aaron Atkinson, a Partner in the large Canadian firm,
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, wrote to me
inquiring about Margrit's estate. Apparently Margrit's  foster child,
William Nease had approached him about an inheritance. Originally
Margrit had appointed Klemens as executor of her Canadian assets and
me as executor of her U.S. assets. Then, on February 24, 2004, in a
fit of pique, because he wouldn't allow his children's joy rides in
her sports convertible, Margrit replaced Klemens as executor nominee
with Aaron Atkinson. Last May, when Margrit's lawyer Ute Wigley-Mueller
finally returned from Germany and retrieved Margrit's Will and Codicil
from the basement where they had been inaccessibly stored, Ute declined
to send me the originals for probate until Aaron, as co-executor had
given his approval. That approval was never given. I then formally
rescinded my request for the will and codicil and asked Ute to keep
custody of both documents until such time as Aaron and I jointly 
instructed her concerning their disposition. I inferred from Aaron's
inaction that he had declined the executorship. Now he asks me whether
there's enough money in the estate for him to hire a lawyer. The short
answer is: No. There isn't. The estate is some three thousand dollars
in debt. Moreover, on further perusal, I discover the codicil to be
unsuitable for probate because: a) the witnesses whose signatures are
illegible can't be identified from the document, b) the witnesses did
not sign the document in each other's presence, and c) the date of the
signatures was inserted into the document with a typewriter days after
it was signed. I doubt that Aaron Atkinson will have further questions.

Im sympathetic with and much interested in your comments about the
redistribution of wealth. I find it easy and gratifying to give money to
members of my family and to friends, to give my services as a physician
to patients unable - or merely unwilling to pay. But to make it acceptable
to me, the transfer of wealth requires a human relationship. If the
government takes away my earnings without my consent, I will stop working.
If the government takes away my savings without my consent, I will stop
saving and will, if necessary, in order to escape humiliation, waste what
I have saved.  I understand only too well, that my inability to identify
with the society in which I live is deeply offensive to you. I also am much
troubled by the depth of my alienation. But I can overcome it only by
understanding, and I can understand only by confronting the reality of
my experience.

Your letter came just a few minutes ago, as I was writing. I will
answer it Friday or Saturday.  We will try to go to Nantucket tomorrow,
inspite of the bad weather.  Wish us well, and be happy.

Jochen