Speaker A
I will switch to German. And from now on, the conversation will be only in German. Good day. My name is Yurko Prokhasko, and I cordially welcome you to the next event of the 33rd International Book Forum in Lviv,
Daniel Kehlmann discusses literature, politics, and the uncertain future at the 33rd International Book Forum in Lviv.
Key Takeaways
- The world is in a state of significant flux and uncertainty, making predictions difficult.
- Literature remains a vital tool for grappling with large societal and political questions.
- Historical parallels help contextualize current political and social upheavals but do not offer definitive answers.
- The future of professions and stability for younger generations is deeply uncertain.
- Support for Ukraine is crucial amid ongoing conflict and geopolitical tensions.
What the video covers
- Daniel Kehlmann participates remotely in the 33rd International Book Forum in Lviv due to travel constraints.
- The conversation highlights Kehlmann's literary significance, referencing his novels 'Measuring the World,' 'Tyll,' and 'Light Play.'
- Kehlmann reflects on the destruction of book warehouses in Ukraine due to Russian missile attacks.
- He discusses the current global political turbulence, comparing it to historical periods such as 1933, 1913, and the fall of the Roman Empire.
- Kehlmann expresses uncertainty about the future, especially regarding professions for the younger generation amid rapid change.
- He comments on the rise of right-wing forces and the challenges facing Western democracies.
- The dialogue touches on the role of literature and intellectual discourse in understanding and responding to global crises.
- Kehlmann shares his views on Ukraine's situation and the international debate about supporting the country.
- He emphasizes the importance of preserving cultural heritage and knowledge in times of instability.
- The conversation concludes with personal reflections and hopes for future in-person meetings.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Welcome
- 05:16Kehlmann's Recent Novels and Impact of War
- 08:24Reflections on the Current State of the World
- 10:42Political Turbulence and Historical Comparisons
- 13:15Preserving Knowledge and Cultural Heritage
- 16:23Geopolitical Events and Their Consequences
- 19:13Challenges Facing Western Democracies
- 23:00Closing Thoughts and Personal Reflections
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
within the framework of our "New Measuring of the World" program. And today, we are speaking with the very person who gave us this slogan. The one who gave us this slogan, which is contained in the title of his novel,
Speaker A
his older novel, which is almost 20 years old, called "Measuring the World." Welcome, Daniel Kehlmann. Kehlmann.
Speaker A
From where are you speaking, where are you right now, Mr. Kehlmann? Where are you speaking from? I am currently just arrived in Vienna from Hamburg, where I gave a speech about the Austrian writer Schrenk, who received an award. And that is why I
Speaker A
couldn't come to Lviv in person, only electronically. So Norbert Gstrein was also supposed to be here this summer but couldn't come. You are in good company, but the city of Hamburg, er the city of Magdeburg law, Lviv-Lemberg. Although Magdeburg now has a somewhat
Speaker A
ambiguous meaning as the capital of a federal state where a force has come to power that worries us a bit, causing us trouble and fear. Er, dear Daniel Kehlmann, I really wanted to speak with you. I wanted to speak with you for
Speaker A
many reasons. Firstly, because you are one of the leading authors of our time. And this applies not only to the German-speaking world. Your books are presented in Ukraine, they are translated, they are being translated.
Speaker A
They are being read. You are an author who is widely read and appreciated in Ukraine and beyond. Older books, such as "Me and the Kaminskis" and "Measuring the World," but two books were released recently, quite fresh, despite the war. I am talking about the
Speaker A
book "Tyll" and the book "Light Play." Er, your two newest novels, which, er, once again confirmed and strengthened your significance, your place in literature. Er, the warehouses of the publisher that released these books were recently burned by Russian
Speaker A
missiles. And that is why we could not, for example, present the new edition of "Measuring the World," because these books, this new edition, the new print run was destroyed. That is one reason.
Speaker A
Another reason why I wanted to speak with you is that, whether you know it or not, you are the one who gave us the slogan for this section of our forum, because this section is called "New Measuring of the World." And I, as the
Speaker A
curator of this section, naturally refer to your books, to that very measuring of the world that was meant there. But finally, and not least, I would like to talk to you, because you are known for willingly answering questions when you are asked. You have
Speaker A
said in other interviews that I don't always have to express my position on politics, but if I am asked, I feel obligated to try to give an answer. And accordingly, here is a question for you. All these questions, they are
Speaker A
important and very much so, because the world is a very big, broad concept, and so the questions will be very big and broad. You are also a very famous public intellectual. You were born in Munich, in Vienna. In general, you grew
Speaker A
up in Austria, and now you live, some say, in Berlin. In Berlin and in New York. Some say between Berlin and New York. Susan Neiman, the head of the Einstein Forum in Berlin, noted your excellent knowledge of American
Speaker A
politics. My first big question: what kind of world do we live in now? Well yes, thank you. We are trying, we will try to answer this big question.
Speaker A
Well, not answer, but I don't have final answers, but at least I can say what comes to my mind regarding this.
Speaker A
For every big question, something comes to our mind, we think about them. I think that we need not to try to hide from answering these questions. We need to talk about these big questions. One could say that this is all just
Speaker A
literature, and in literature, we can allow ourselves a lot. But I can say to your first question, I don't know either. I don't know what world we live in, because at the moment everything is changing so much, flowing, shifting,
Speaker A
that one doesn't even dare to make any predictions. We all would like to have some predictions. I too, when I meet intelligent, wise people, want to say: "What do you think will happen next?
Speaker A
Where are we heading?" And and of course, not just for philosophical reasons, but we really have a feeling that in those storms, in those gales, we need to somehow orient ourselves, we need to somehow react to what is
Speaker A
approaching. We are trying, we are attempting. I have a 17-year-old son, and I think about what profession someone from this entire generation should choose. A generation, what can be recommended to him, what profession?
Speaker A
I don't know of any profession right now that one can be sure will exist in 20 years in the same form as it is now.
Speaker A
I also don't know, when we look at those incredible, terrible political storms. I don't have to explain to people in Ukraine what is happening. It is the constant victory of right-wing forces in elections everywhere. It is, so to speak, a moment of confusion and
Speaker A
turbulence. It disappears and we think that everything will work out. I really hope so. Or perhaps it is something like a loss of stability and reason, and sense, common sense, that might never return. That is, we, some people
Speaker A
believe that we are now living in a year where those issues that concern us, when people or the patterns that those who lived in 1933 had, that was when patterns were changing, different people emerged and held different views.
Speaker A
Some believe that we need to view what is happening now as it was in '33.
Speaker A
And others say: "No, we cannot. We need to look at how it was in 1913 and think about what was happening then. For example, there is a debate in the West on how Ukraine should be supported, for instance, with the supply of weapons.
Speaker A
Well, we, I am for supporting Ukraine, but there are people who say: "We must be cautious." But those are the people who didn't think in terms of '33 or '33, but of '13, who were as if losing
Speaker A
control by doing so. Well, these aren't necessarily people who stood on Putin's side. But then I also ask myself the question: well, what is happening with reading and what, perhaps, is happening to our political systems in the West.
Speaker A
There are a few people who are pulling all the power to themselves. And there are fewer and fewer people capable of processing information at all, who simply look at what is there and cannot make use of it. I think we might have
Speaker A
reached a moment like the end of the Roman Empire. Perhaps we are standing before a moment like the beginning of the Early Middle Ages, like those Romans standing and watching the Early Middle Ages begin. We don't know this
Speaker A
for sure yet, but it might turn out that some monasteries will be the only ones to save the knowledge that humanity has gathered over that time.
Speaker A
Western European people, who for 800 years preserved it in this way. I do not know where we are. Maybe we are in the year 500, or '33, or 1913, or perhaps we cannot compare our time with the past at all, I don't know. Yes,
Speaker A
there are many such signs of the times, many eras from the Ukrainian point of view. It wouldn't be bad to be in the year 2013, that is, before the moment everything started, after the Revolution of Dignity, but from the
Speaker A
perspective of San Georgin, it would probably be nice to be in 2008, when the world was still in order. If someone has a 17-year-old son, then of course there are very, very deep worries and concerns about how to
Speaker A
protect these sons, how to raise them in safety, or even just keep them safe in general. And if you add to that, which professions will still make sense in the future? These are such important thoughts in the new novel about the
Speaker A
play of light. Uh, this is the 14-year-old, uh, son of Pabst, the main character of your novel. I am also an associate professor at the Lviv Psychoanalytic Institute. And when we talk with students about the past times
Speaker A
of psychoanal...
Speaker A
there and becomes a convinced national socialist, such a fiery Nazi. And uh, his wife, Pabst's wife, says:" This is the only thing, this is what I will never forgive you for. Uh, what happened to our son. "Yesterday was
Speaker A
September 11th. Yesterday, 25 years ago on this day, an event took place that many consider a turning point. Uh this short time of Fukuyama's declared end of history comes to an end between the fall of the Berlin Wall and between the
Speaker A
attack on the twin towers. Do you also think that this was the last such peaceful world, or was it not so peaceful either? Uh, do you think that it was truly also a great turning point that changed the world? Or do you
Speaker A
perhaps have any other milestones, any other turning points? So, I think, well , the world was not holy before September 11th, but on September 11th, those catastrophes that seemed to be lurking in the background, somehow forming surreptitiously, they simply
Speaker A
manifested themselves on September 11th . On one hand, of course, through radical Islamism, but on the other hand , it also showed the United States as radical, those who do not respect human rights, to September 11th also belong
Speaker A
things like the establishment of Guantanamo. Absolutely trampled, well, human rights were trampled and violated . And the United States in such a way in such, in such, in such hysteria, we can say, also got carried away, we can
Speaker A
say more important things than the law. Human rights were violated, but nothing can stand above the law, above human rights, human rights. Because then, if we cross this line once, then there comes a moment when we very much regret
Speaker A
it. But on the other hand, we saw this in Islamic fundamentalism and what happened in 1980, it was a huge event of radical Islam, where Islam showed its brutal face on the world political stage, Islamism, fundamen- fundamentalism. Essentially, one should
Speaker A
have guessed about this great danger back then. I could certainly say that if you compare such a pause, well, such a gap in time dimensions, if you look at September 11th, you can see something happened more quietly, not as
Speaker A
loudly. And I am not the one who should be telling you this. It is the moment when Vladimir Putin came to power. This is a contribution to everything catastrophic that has occurred, happened, and taken place over the last
Speaker A
decades. His contribution as the individual Vladimir Putin is phenomenally large, including the choice of Trump, the elections when Trump was chosen, as we know. That the investigations conducted regarding interference, eh, nothing much came of Robert Mueller's investigation later
Speaker A
because he sort of gave up, well, he couldn't present the results of those investigations, but we know that behind the Trump elections there was and remains Putin's influence. Therefore, the fact that the AfD party won in Germany and the FPO in Austria, these
Speaker A
right-wing parties, also without the constant disinformation, constantly from Russia's side, these propaganda campaigns, they would not have had such a number of votes. And behind all this stands he with his fury, anger, his confusion. And I think that, how should
Speaker A
I put it, this is a kind of hellish distortion, eh, that we are observing.
Speaker A
Everything, all those huge events, terrible, the most terrible events. Behind all this stands one person who is also intellectually, yes, quite a mediocre person, well over 70. And it is very striking, Putin's power and Putin's rise to power was perhaps a
Speaker A
greater break in history than September 11th. Eh, and regarding Putin, few people knew, some knew everything, but yes, here our motives are condensing, eh, ever more strongly. That is, this, eh, anti-modernity, non-rationality, eh , charismatic personality with authoritarian dictatorial traits and
Speaker A
the role of faith. Timothy Snyder published an article yesterday in which he sees this very interconnection between the attack on the twin towers in New York and the start of the great war, the full-scale war, the attack on
Speaker A
Ukraine. These interconnections, they are not explicit, but rather very, very complex, but their, his reactions, they actually lie in the reaction. He says that the USA allowed itself to be provoked and went into the trap that was set for them. That is, they did
Speaker A
exactly what the provocateurs expected from them, eh, measuring the world. In this novel, two very complex personalities operate, very different personalities who actually existed, but they are in a fictional world in the novel. This is Alexander von Humboldt.
Speaker A
He is an empiricist, he wants to know everything, wants to travel everywhere, see all spaces, research and measure everything. Even, in fact, this measuring. And the mathematician Gauss, he wants to translate everything into mathematics, he wants to model
Speaker A
everything. And this tension between understanding or measuring the world as empirical knowledge and understanding as modeling. And this is the main engine of this wonderful novel. But both of them are representatives of the modern world. They are both very much
Speaker A
either empirical or logical-rationalistic. model-based. They are great representatives of modernity. Uh, or do you think our world today is afraid, retreating from this modern world, or turning away from it?
Speaker A
I think it is a dialectical movement. If you mean by modern, if, if I understand you correctly, if you mean enlightenment, science, rational thinking, then of course modernism in that sense also has another side, for example, National Socialism. That is
Speaker A
also where I wanted to head, that the Enlightenment is one thing, and Bolshevism and National Socialism are like masked anti-modernity, which disguises itself as...
Speaker A
But that is how it looks in reality. And, of course, I will answer your question right away:" Yes, we are seeing a turning away from modernism. " We see everywhere that people are more inclined toward the irrational or allow
Speaker A
themselves to be seduced in an irrational direction. Propaganda and nationalism seduce them into this. And belonging, the feeling of belonging, and hatred, and all of that. And now, of course, one might ask, how can it be that on one hand there is such progress
Speaker A
in science, such progress in medicine, and precisely AI—people have different attitudes toward it, but AI offers opportunities for a great revolution, it gives a chance to the scientific world. But on the other hand , people are being overcome by some
Speaker A
sort of paranoid things. People choose irrationally, except for Russia, where elections are ridiculous, but, well, people publicly make decisions in elections of a very irrational nature.
Speaker A
I recently read with great admiration Adorno, Adorno's lectures on philosophical terminology. He gave these lectures in the 60s, and he said something that helped me a lot. He is talking about National Socialism, but these theses can be applied to many
Speaker A
other things as well. They, he says, one is connected to the other, they go side by side. Uh, anti-progress is always the dialectical opposite of progress, of advancement. There is always anti-advancement. He was telling this to his students back in the 60s.
Speaker A
He said:" Do not be surprised how it is possible that we are experiencing these two things at once, because they belong to one another, they are linked. "And one follows from the other. And I don't know about in practice, but in theory,
Speaker A
when I think about it, it could be that various satellites in the world are advancing, telescopes see various isotopes, and telescopes can study the universe at a molecular level. We can set up those telescopes everywhere on one side, but on the other side there
Speaker A
are people who cannot live without a dictatorship and who need Donald Trump and choose him regardless of what he says or what he does. And they have a feeling that Democrats are communists and are killing children. How can it be
Speaker A
that these people live in the same country? But, probably, one somehow belongs to the other. Scientific progress brings with it both fears, anxieties, and this ultra-nationalism.
Speaker A
What to do about it, I also don't know. Yes, I recall the words of Mr. Morse, Professor Chuck Morse from Vienna. He said that every, uh, every modern movement, uh, is immediately accompanied by an anti-modern movement.
Speaker A
They are a dialectical pair that belong together. And one could also say, like Hegel, that every claim contains within itself resentment. Uh, or was Nietzsche right that we live in a world of resentment?
Speaker A
I think with that analysis, that we live in a world of resentment, Nietzsche may have been right, but at the same time, he was wrong that we live in a world where there are no values beyond that. And not only for
Speaker A
that reason, I don't mean values in an abstract sense, but I at least believe, and world history also shows us this, that which Hegel explained to us quite convincingly: that progress, indeed, prevails; it wins out. A new movement,
Speaker A
new knowledge, a new breakthrough in knowledge brings along, in fact, it causes that other thing, but on the whole, well, it triggers its antithesis . But on the whole, through storms, individual sacrifices—unfortunately, Hegel is right that the individual is
Speaker A
lost, well, is threatened—but on the whole, my hope is also linked, including with artificial intelligence: that on the whole the potential for progress overcomes the destructive potential. I believe in that. I said that these consequences of right-wing radicalism, of course, are influenced
Speaker A
by—there is a huge influence of the information field and propaganda. It is because people—if there were no internet, I believe there wouldn't be, people wouldn't choose these right-wing parties. Like they chose fewer in '95.
Speaker A
But I hope, perhaps I am wrong, it is not a very strong statement of mine, but the hope that, well, in the context of the internet, progressive action will nevertheless win. Progress will win, but one could say that we only
Speaker A
know when we look back into the past how and what won. We cannot make statements about the future. Alexander von Humboldt wants to know the world through space by means of travel.
Speaker A
graphic research and not for colonization, although it was a time of colonization when it was taking place.
Speaker A
But subconsciously, in Humboldt's subconscious today, er, Trump declares that he wants to seize Greenland, Canada, Putin Ukraine, everything. all of Europe. China wants Russia and Europe. And then, perhaps, the whole world, at least to dominate it. Er, yes
Speaker A
, because they want to seize exotic planets. That is, the category of space is once again in the foreground. What does this mean for our current concept of the world? Well, that we are currently experiencing a regression to
Speaker A
that century. And I really think that the late 19th, excuse me, century, can be a comparative value. We have already spoken about those comparative values.
Speaker A
The late 19th century is more helpful for us to understand than a comparison with the 30s of the 20th, for example.
Speaker A
Er, these new formations of different spheres of influence. The fact that Elon Musk now says that the universe now belongs to these spheres of influence, of course, it emerges from that attack on international law, the attack on international law that we are
Speaker A
experiencing. And the United States of America also, er, has this international, they have sanctions from the international court, the tribunal.
Speaker A
At the same time, er, Mladic almost a state funeral, the funeral was on a state level, how he was buried. This is a very strong demonstration of an attack on international law, because he died. The person died in prison. This
Speaker A
is a small example. That we have made great progress with international law between countries and Ukraine above statehood, how law stands above states, international law. But now the world is being shown that this should not be the case for many powers. I remain of the
Speaker A
opinion that I hope, I hope in such a Hegelian style, that common sense will not be lost and there will be an international tribunal and that it will not be impossible, perhaps not so likely, but not impossible, that Putin
Speaker A
will stand before the International Tribunal. There is a tribunal that was specifically created for violations of rights against humanity. There is international law and the starting of a war contradicts it. And this tribunal is already ready. It is, as it were,
Speaker A
assembled. And this is a bit of a utopia. It is possible to create such a tribunal under current conditions. It sounds utopian, but it was also utopian back then, when the international court was created. And Irving Fry wrote that
Speaker A
later utopias lead to the united ones and the UN were founded, and the United Nations. That is, we have, I hope, progress, advancement. And when we see that suddenly now the 19th century is reigning everywhere around us and we
Speaker A
are seizing the world, then we must speak more openly about it than in that lawless Nietzschean world. The fight is not yet lost, I would say so. It is too early to give up and we shall see. And
Speaker A
the immense hatred that Trump's people have for that International Court means that they are afraid that someday, under certain circumstances, they might have to stand before that international court, which is why they hate it so much. So, despite such a departure from
Speaker A
the principles of Enlightenment, your two heroes, Humboldt and Gauss, were clearly representatives of rationality in the Kantian sense of universal rights. Despite all this, do you think that humanity, a solidaristic humanity, still has a chance? Well, I have to
Speaker A
believe in it. I have to believe in it, because it would be too terrible if we —if I didn't believe in it and couldn't believe in it. And so far, nothing has happened, aside from the terrible things that have occurred,
Speaker A
which has caused me to lose this faith. That hasn't happened yet. We will see what happens with artificial intelligence. The potential that exists for catastrophes. It will either be a destructive force, where a person becomes a slave. A philosopher friend
Speaker A
says:" In the worst-case scenario, AI makes us all babysitters for a self-created God. "Then people will live in an illusion, a world of illusion, with nice entertainment, and will simply exist to serve and maintain data centers so that AI keeps working
Speaker A
and running. That would be the worst danger. that the Enlightenment project faces today. But on the other hand, if one is being very utopian, or it might sound almost like science fiction.
Speaker A
But are you a fictionalist? Yes, I am. But I hope that people might laugh at me, but I always believe that AI has read everything. People are reading less and less. But AI is reading more and more. And it has read
Speaker A
Spinoza, and Kant, and everything else in the world. If it becomes wiser and wiser, this AI or these AIs, they will notice that Spinoza and Kant were more convincing than Carl Schmitt, for example, or Steve Bannon, or Stephen
Speaker A
Miller, or other governments. This means it is possible that we are in a time now where we have neglected our cultural heritage, and perhaps this cultural heritage will be used by the next generation of wise beings. It's almost science fiction what I'm talking
Speaker A
about. Perhaps it sounds funny, but it is a good thought that I do not want to give up or consider absurd. But this brings me to the core of my question to you. Until now, you have been known for
Speaker A
very clearly separating these two spheres: fictional storytelling and criticism or a critical attitude toward events. it was one thing in your writing, another in your other writing, in your journalism, in your essays, but also in your public speeches, like, for
Speaker A
example, today with us. But if we assume that you would write a novel or would want to write a novel titled" A New Dimension of the World, "how would you go about it? How would you proceed?
Speaker A
Would you would you even find it interesting, such a thought, such an idea to write such a novel? Do you have the feeling that today's world needs a new dimension? Uh, perhaps as some kind of orientation, or as a model, or as a
Speaker A
description, uh, actually, as cognition . Uh, if you were to write such a novel , where would you set it? In what time would you place the action and what characters would you choose for it?
Speaker A
Would it be Musk, for example, to write , perhaps yes. I think that a billionaire, a super-super wealthy person and someone who is such a very defining figure of our time. This is not because all billionaires are evil
Speaker A
or bad, but simply, in a system of justice, there shouldn't be billionaires. I am not calling for them to be overthrown, but, uh, in the law, in the economic system, it should not be possible for one person to have so
Speaker A
much more material wealth than others. That kind of accumulation, but that is how it is. And I think that is interesting. It would be truly, very deeply interesting if we were telling the story of this modern world. What it
Speaker A
is like to be a billionaire, I would write. And indeed, I have a novel, a novel project. I have been harboring the idea for a long time, but I haven't quite grasped that idea yet. But indeed , oh, really, yes,
Speaker A
yes, I haven't caught it, haven't grasped it yet. But this idea is connected to the fact that the most epochal thing happening in the world right now, in the current history of humanity, is that we have summoned information blocks of information that
Speaker A
speak with us, that interact with us, that we talk about, that we learn from, that we ask questions, and we wonder: are they conscious, do they have consciousness? If they don't have consciousness, then it is actually very , well, it's frighteningly romantic
Speaker A
that the dead speak with us. It is something so eerie, something so, it is deeply eerie. It is almost more comforting to think that they do not have that consciousness. That would be easier to think. I don't know, uh,
Speaker A
fundamentally, if we were looking at the present and wanted to look at this present as artists, we would have to write about it, and I would like to do that. Maybe I will do it, write it in the form of a novel. Uh, I told you
Speaker A
already, I haven't quite grasped what I want to write yet. And I don't know if I will succeed. I don't know if I'll succeed, or if I can do it, if I'll manage, find that path. I'm not saying
Speaker A
no, I don't want to rule it out, but I if we are talking about a new way of rethinking the world, it is impossible to do without considering that we are not the only thinking beings on this planet, not the only ones who can think
Speaker A
. They are signaling to me here that we only have 5 minutes left. And this time is very, very valuable to me, very precious. That’s why my question is personal. And then, another question as an opportunity. My question was your
Speaker A
first novel, which would be which would truly be about now? No, that's not it. I already wrote a book, there is a novel about recent history. The book was released in 2009.
Speaker A
I also tried there to describe a new phenomenon for myself. Uh, specifically mobile phones. I tried to tell what they say about us. The fact that we all have mobile phones, suddenly received them. It was an attempt, uh, to be very
Speaker A
modern. More of an experimental novel. And there is also an SF novel, also taking place in the present. It's a kind of small horror story, so to speak . I tried, I made attempts, and still, I kept returning to a historical
Speaker A
narrative description. It seems that those books of mine that are most historical, those that have passed, find the most resonance. But I have done other things too, but I haven't quite mastered and times, times. Your first books change so quickly. I read
Speaker A
them in German, uh, in the early 2000s. Then I read the Ukrainian translations from 2011. I read" Tyll, "uh, on vacation in 2018, when, as a Ukrainian man, I could still be on vacation abroad. Uh, and now, I don't know if
Speaker A
you can see them here, absolutely two fresh books, your translations that I am relying on here, and I just received them from the publisher, from the publisher, and will take them home. And my last question: is there anything
Speaker A
else, dear Daniel Kehlmann, that I haven't asked you, but that you want to tell us? Well, in principle, this was a wonderful conversation. Nothing spontaneous comes to mind right now.
Speaker A
Except maybe just once more. I am very sorry, uh, that I, as a person, did not come, could not be there with you. And I really hope that we will both meet, personally, that there will be such an
Speaker A
opportunity, and we will be able to continue such a good conversation in person. Uh, and your German is impressive. I think that you are bilingual. Eh, no, I am not bilingual.
Speaker A
I, uh, grew up, but not bilingual. I am just a Germanist. I also really hope for both of us, for me and for all of us. I thank you very much, dear Daniel Kehlmann, that you still found the opportunity to speak with us. Yes,
Speaker A
we thank you heartily. Thank you. Goodbye.
Topics:Daniel KehlmannInternational Book ForumLvivMeasuring the WorldTyllLight PlayliteraturepoliticsUkraineglobal uncertainty
