eBook - ePub
Quarrel and Quandary
Cynthia Ozick
This is a test
Partager le livre
- English
- ePUB (adapté aux mobiles)
- Disponible sur iOS et Android
eBook - ePub
Quarrel and Quandary
Cynthia Ozick
DĂ©tails du livre
Aperçu du livre
Table des matiĂšres
Citations
Ă propos de ce livre
In this collection of essays, Cynthia Ozick, everywhere acclaimed as a critic, novelist, and storyteller, examines some of the world's most illustrious writers and their work, tackles compelling contemporary literary and moral issues, and looks into the wellsprings of her own lifelong engagement with literature.She writes - quarrelsomely - about Crime and Punishment, about William Styron's Sophie's Choice, about the Book of Job. She inquires into the subterranean dispositions and quandaries of Kafka and Henry James. She discusses the difficulties inherent in the translation of great books, whether into film or into another language.
Foire aux questions
Comment puis-je résilier mon abonnement ?
Il vous suffit de vous rendre dans la section compte dans paramĂštres et de cliquer sur « RĂ©silier lâabonnement ». Câest aussi simple que cela ! Une fois que vous aurez rĂ©siliĂ© votre abonnement, il restera actif pour le reste de la pĂ©riode pour laquelle vous avez payĂ©. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Puis-je / comment puis-je télécharger des livres ?
Pour le moment, tous nos livres en format ePub adaptĂ©s aux mobiles peuvent ĂȘtre tĂ©lĂ©chargĂ©s via lâapplication. La plupart de nos PDF sont Ă©galement disponibles en tĂ©lĂ©chargement et les autres seront tĂ©lĂ©chargeables trĂšs prochainement. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Quelle est la différence entre les formules tarifaires ?
Les deux abonnements vous donnent un accĂšs complet Ă la bibliothĂšque et Ă toutes les fonctionnalitĂ©s de Perlego. Les seules diffĂ©rences sont les tarifs ainsi que la pĂ©riode dâabonnement : avec lâabonnement annuel, vous Ă©conomiserez environ 30 % par rapport Ă 12 mois dâabonnement mensuel.
Quâest-ce que Perlego ?
Nous sommes un service dâabonnement Ă des ouvrages universitaires en ligne, oĂč vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă toute une bibliothĂšque pour un prix infĂ©rieur Ă celui dâun seul livre par mois. Avec plus dâun million de livres sur plus de 1 000 sujets, nous avons ce quâil vous faut ! DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Prenez-vous en charge la synthÚse vocale ?
Recherchez le symbole Ăcouter sur votre prochain livre pour voir si vous pouvez lâĂ©couter. Lâoutil Ăcouter lit le texte Ă haute voix pour vous, en surlignant le passage qui est en cours de lecture. Vous pouvez le mettre sur pause, lâaccĂ©lĂ©rer ou le ralentir. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Est-ce que Quarrel and Quandary est un PDF/ePUB en ligne ?
Oui, vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă Quarrel and Quandary par Cynthia Ozick en format PDF et/ou ePUB ainsi quâĂ dâautres livres populaires dans Letteratura et Letteratura epistolare. Nous disposons de plus dâun million dâouvrages Ă dĂ©couvrir dans notre catalogue.
Informations
Sujet
LetteraturaSous-sujet
Letteratura epistolareWho Owns Anne Frank?
If Anne Frank had not perished in the criminal malevolence of Bergen-Belsen early in 1945, she would have marked her seventieth birthday at the brink of the twenty-first century. And even if she had not kept the extraordinary diary through which we know her, it is likely that we would number her among the famous of the twentiethâthough perhaps not so dramatically as we do now. She was born to be a writer. At thirteen, she felt her power; at fifteen, she was in command of it. It is easy to imagineâhad she been allowed to liveâa long row of novels and essays spilling from her fluent and ripening pen. We can be certain (as certain as one can be of anything hypothetical) that her mature prose would today be noted for its wit and acuity, and almost as certain that the trajectory of her work would be closer to that of Nadine Gordimer, say, than that of Françoise Sagan. Put it that as an international literary presence she would be thick rather than thin. âI want to go on living even after my death!â she exclaimed in the spring of 1944.
This was more than an exaggerated adolescent flourish. She had already intuited what greatness in literature might mean, and she clearly sensed the force of what lay under her hand in the pages of her diary: a conscious literary record of frightened lives in daily peril; an explosive document aimed directly at the future. In her last months she was assiduously polishing phrases and editing passages with an eye to postwar publication. Het Achterhuis, as she called her manuscriptââthe house behind,â often translated as âthe secret annexââwas hardly intended to be Anne Frankâs last word; it was conceived as the forerunner work of a professional woman of letters.
Yet any projection of Anne Frank as a contemporary figure is an unholy speculation: it tampers with history, with reality, with deadly truth. âWhen I write,â she confided, âI can shake off all my cares. My sorrow disappears, my spirits are revived!â But she could not shake off her capture and annihilation, and there are no diary entries to register and memorialize the snuffing of her spirit. Anne Frank was discovered, seized, and deported; she and her mother and sister and millions of others were extinguished in a program calculated to assure the cruelest and most demonically inventive human degradation. The atrocities she endured were ruthlessly and purposefully devised, from indexing by tattoo to systematic starvation to factory-efficient murder. She was designated to be erased from the living, to leave no grave, no sign, no physical trace of any kind. Her faultâher crimeâwas having been born a Jew, and as such she was classified among those who had no right to exist: not as a subject people, not as an inferior breed, not even as usable slaves. The military and civilian apparatus of an entire society was organized to obliterate her as a contaminant, in the way of a noxious and repellent insect. Zyklon B, the lethal fumigant poured into the gas chambers, was, pointedly, a roach poison.
Anne Frank escaped gassing. One month before liberation, not yet sixteen, she died of typhus fever, an acute infectious disease carried by lice. The precise date of her death has never been determined. She and her sister Margot were among 3,659 women transported by cattle car from Auschwitz to the merciless conditions of Bergen-Belsen, a barren tract of mud. In a cold, wet autumn, they suffered through nights on flooded straw in overcrowded tents, without light, surrounded by latrine ditches, until a violent hailstorm tore away what had passed for shelter. Weakened by brutality, chaos, and hunger, fifty thousand men and womenâinsufficiently clothed, tormented by liceâ succumbed, many to the typhus epidemic.
Anne Frankâs final diary entry, written on August 1, 1944, ends introspectivelyâa meditation on a struggle for moral transcendence set down in a mood of wistful gloom. It speaks of âturning my heart inside out, the bad part on the outside and the good part on the inside,â and of âtrying to find a way to become what Iâd like to be and what I could be if . . . if only there were no other people in the world.â Those curiously self-subduing ellipses are the diaristâs own; they are more than merely a literary effectâthey signify a childâs muffled bleat against confinement, the last whimper of a prisoner in a cage. Her circumscribed world had a population of elevenâthe three Dutch protectors who came and went, supplying the necessities of life, and the eight in hiding: the van Daans, their son Peter, Albert Dussel, and the four Franks. Five months earlier, on May 26, 1944, she had railed against the stress of living invisiblyâa tension never relieved, she asserted, ânot once in the two years weâve been here. How much longer will this increasingly oppressive, unbearable weight press down on us?â And, several paragraphs on, âWhat will we do if weâre ever . . . no, I mustnât write that down. But the question wonât let itself be pushed to the back of my mind today; on the contrary, all the fear Iâve ever felt is looming before me in all its horror. . . . Iâve asked myself again and again whether it wouldnât have been better if we hadnât gone into hiding, if we were dead now and didnât have to go through this misery. . . . Let something happen soon. . . . Nothing can be more crushing than this anxiety. Let the end come, however cruel.â And on April 11, 1944: âWe are Jews in chains.â
The diary is not a genial document, despite its authorâs often vividly satiric exposure of what she shrewdly saw as âthe comical side of life in hiding.â Its reputation for uplift is, to say it plainly, nonsensical. Anne Frankâs written narrative, moreover, is not the story of Anne Frank, and never has been. That the diary is miraculous, a self-aware work of youthful genius, is not in question. Variety of pace and tone, insightful humor, insupportable suspense, adolescent love-pangs and disappointments, sexual curiosity, moments of terror, moments of elation, flights of idealism and prayer and psychological acumenâall these elements of mind and feeling and skill brilliantly enliven its pages. There is, besides, a startlingly precocious comprehension of the progress of the war on all fronts. The survival of the little group in hiding is crucially linked to the timing of the Allied invasion; overhead the bombers, roaring to their destinations, make the house quake. Sometimes the bombs fall terrifyingly close. All in all, the diary is a chronicle of trepidation, turmoil, alarm. Even its report of quieter periods of reading and study express the hush of imprisonment. Meals are boiled lettuce and rotted potatoes; flushing the single toilet is forbidden for ten hours at a time. There is shooting at night. Betrayal and arrest always threaten. Anxiety and immobility rule. It is a story of fear.
But the diary in itself, richly crammed though it is with incident and passion, cannot count as Anne Frankâs story. A story may not be said to be a story if the end is missing. And because the end is missing, the story of Anne Frank in the fifty years since The Diary of a Young Girl was first published has been bowdlerized, distorted, transmuted, traduced, reduced; it has been infantilized, Americanized, homogenized, sentimentalized; falsified, kitschified, and, in fact, blatantly and arrogantly denied. Among the falsifiers and bowdlerizers have been dramatists and directors, translators and litigators,Anne Frankâs own father, and evenâor especiallyâthe public, both readers and theatergoers, all over the world. A deeply truth-telling work has been turned into an instrument of partial truth, surrogate truth, or anti-truth. The pure has been made impureâsometimes in the name of the reverse. Almost every hand that has approached the diary with the well-meaning intention of publicizing it has contributed to the subversion of history.
The diary is taken to be a Holocaust document; that is overridingly what it is not. Nearly every editionâand there have been innumerable editionsâis emblazoned with words like âa song to life,â âa poignant delight in the infinite human spirit.â Such characterizations rise up in the bitter perfume of mockery. A song to life? The diary is incomplete, truncated, broken off; or, rather, it is completed by Westerbork (the hellish transit camp in Holland from which Dutch Jews were deported), and by Auschwitz, and by the fatal winds of Bergen-Belsen. It is here, and not in the âsecret annex,â that the crimes we have come to call the Holocaust were enacted. Our entry into those crimes begins with columns of numbers: the meticulous lists of deportations, in handsome bookkeepersâ handwriting, starkly set down in German âtransport books.â From these columnsâheaded, like goods for export, âAusgange-Transporte nach Ostenâ (outgoing shipments to the east)âit is possible to learn that Anne Frank and the others were moved to Auschwitz on the night of September 6, 1944, in a collection of 1,019 StĂŒcke (or âpieces,â another commodities term). That same night, 549 persons were gassed, including one from the Frank group (the father of Peter van Daan), and every child under fifteen. Anne, at fifteen, and seventeen-year-old Margot were spared, apparently for labor. The end of October, from the twentieth to the twenty-eighth, saw the gassing of more than 6,000 human beings within two hours of their arrival, including a thousand boys eighteen and under. In December, 2,093 female prisoners perished, from starvation and exhaustion, in the womenâs camp; early in January, Edith Frank expired.
But Soviet forces were hurtling toward Auschwitz, and in November the order went out to conceal all evidences of gassing and to blow up the crematoria. Tens of thousands of inmates, debilitated and already near extinction, were driven out in bitter cold on death marches. Many were shot. In an evacuation that occurred either on October 28 or November 2,Anne and Margot were dispatched to Bergen-Belsen. Margot was the first to succumb. A survivor recalled that she fell dead to the ground from the wooden slab on which she lay, eaten by lice, and that Anne, heartbroken and skeletal, naked under a bit of rag, died a day or two later.
To come to the diary without having earlier assimilated Elie Wieselâs Night and Primo Leviâs The Drowned and the Saved (to mention two accounts only), or the columns of figures in the transport books, is to allow oneself to stew in an implausible and ugly innocence. The litany of blurbsââa lasting testimony to the indestructible nobility of the human spirit,â âan everlasting source of courage and inspirationââis no more substantial than any other display of self-delusion. The successâthe triumphâ of Bergen-Belsen was precisely that it blotted out the possibility of courage, that it proved to be a lasting testament to the human spiritâs easy destructibility. âHier ist kein warum,â a guard at Auschwitz warned Primo Levi: here there is no âwhy,â neither question nor answer, only the dark of unreason. Anne Frankâs story, truthfully told, is unredeemed and unredeemable.
These are notions that are hard to swallowâso they have not been swallowed. There are some, bored beyond toleration and callous enough to admit it, who are sick of hearingâyet again!âabout depredations fifty years gone. âThese old events,â one of these fellows may complain, âcan rake you over only so much. . . . If Iâm going to be lashed, I might as well save my skin for more recent troubles in the world.â (I quote from a private letter from a distinguished author.) This may be a popular, if mostly unexpressed, point of view, but it is not socially representative. The more common response respectfully discharges an obligation to pity: it is dutiful. Or it is sometimes less than dutiful. It is sometimes frivolous, or indifferent, or presumptuous. But what even the most exemplary sympathies are likely to evade is the implacable recognition that Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, however sacramentally prodded, can never yield light.
And the vehicle that has most powerfully accomplished this almost universal obtuseness is Anne Frankâs diary. In celebrating Anne Frankâs years in the secret annex, the nature and meaning of her death has been, in effect, forestalled. The diaryâs keen lens is helplessly opaque to the diaristâs explicit doomâand this opacity, replicated in young readers in particular, has led to shamelessness.
It is the shamelessness of appropriation. Who owns Anne Frank? The children of the world, say the sentimentalists. A case in point, then, is the astonishing correspondence, published in 1995 under the title Love, Otto, between Cara Wilson, a Californian born in 1944, and Otto Frank, the father of Anne Frank. Wilson, then twelve-year-old Cara Weiss, was invited by Twentieth Century-Fox to audition for the part of Anne in a projected film version of the diary. âI didnât get the part,â the middle-aged Wilson writes, âbut by now I had found a whole new world. Anne Frankâs diary, which I read and reread, spoke to me and my dilemmas, my anxieties, my secret passions. She felt the way I did. . . . I identified so strongly with this eloquent girl of my own age, that I now think I sort of became her in my own mind.âAnd on what similarities does Wilson rest her acute sense of identification with a hunted child in hiding?
I was miserable being me. . . . I was on the brink of that awful abyss of teenagedom and I, too, needed someone to talk to. . . . (Ironically, Anne, too, expressed a longing for more attention from her father.) . . . Dadâs whole life was a series of meetings. At home, he was too tired or too frustrated to unload on. I had something else in common with Anne. We both had to share with sisters who were prettier and smarter than we felt we were. . . . Despite the monumental difference in our situations, to this day I feel that Anne helped me get through the teens with a sense of inner focus. She spoke for me. She was strong for me. She had so much hope when I was ready to call it quits.
A sampling of Wilsonâs concerns as she matured appears in the interstices of her exchanges with Otto Frankâwhich, remarkably, date from 1959 until his death in 1980. For instance: âThe year was 1968âetched in my mind. I canât ever forget it. Otis Redding was âSittinâ on the Dock of the Bayâ . . . while we hummed along to âHey Judeâ by the Beatles.â Or again: âWhat a year 1972 was! That was when I saw one of my all-time favorite movies, Harold and Maude, to the tune of Cat Stevensâ incredible sound track. . . . I remember singing along to Don McLeanâs âAmerican Pieâ and daydreaming to Roberta Flackâs exquisite âThe First Time Ever I Saw Your Face,ââ and so on. âIn 1973-74,â she reports, âI was wearing headbands, pukka-shell necklaces, and American Indian anything. Tattoos were a rageââ but enough. Tattoos were the rage, she neglects to recall, in Auschwitz; and of the Auschwitz survivor who was her patient correspondent for more than two decades, Wilson remarks: âWell, what choice did the poor man have? Whenever an attack of âI-canât-take-this-any-longerâ would hit me, Iâd put it all into lengthy diatribes to my distant guru, Otto Frank.â
That the designated guru replied, year after year, to embarrassing and shabby effusions like these may open a new pathway into our generally obscure understanding of the character of Otto Frank. His responsesâfrom Basel, where he had settled with his second wifeâwere consistently attentive, formal, kindly. When Wilson gave birth, he sent her a musical toy, and he faithfully offered a personal word about her excitements as she supplied them: her baby sons, her dance lessons, her husbandâs work on commercials, her freelance writing. But his letters were also political and serious: it is good, he wrote in October 1970, to take âan active part in trying to abolish injustices and all sorts of grievances, but we cannot follow your views regarding the Black Panthers.â And in December 1973, âAs you can imagine, we were highly shocked about the unexpected attack of the Arabs on Israel on Yom Kippur and are now mourning with all those who lost their families.â Presumably he knew something about losing a family. Wilson, insouciantly sliding past these faraway matters, was otherwise preoccupied, âfinding our little guys sooo much fun.â
The unabashed triflings of Cara Wilsonâwhose âidentificationâ with Anne Frank can be duplicated by the thousand, though she may be more audacious than mostâpoint to a conundrum. Never mind that the intellectual distance between Wilson and Anne Frank is immeasurable; not every self-conscious young girl will be a prodigy. Did Otto Frank not comprehend that Cara Wilson was deaf to everything the loss of his daughter represented? Did he not see, in Wilsonâs letters alone, how a denatured approach to the diary might serve to promote amnesia of what was rapidly turning into history? A protected domestic space, however threatened and endangered, can, from time to time, mimic ordinary life. The young who are encouraged to embrace the diary cannot always be expected to feel the difference between the mimicry and the threat. And (like Cara Wilson) most do not. Natalie Portman, then sixteen years old, who in December 1997 dĂ©buted as Anne Frank in the Broadway revival of the famous play based on the diaryâa play that has itself influenced the way the diary is readâwas reported to have concluded from her own reading that âitâs funny, itâs hopeful, and sheâs a happy person.â
Otto Frank, it turns out, is complicit in this shallowly upbeat view. Again and again, in every conceivable context, he had it as his aim to emphasize âAnneâs idealism,â âAnneâs spirit,â almost never calling attention to how and why that idealism and spirit were smothered, and unfailingly generalizing the sources of hatred. If the child is father of the manâif childhood shapes future sensibilityâthen Otto Frank, despite his sufferings in Auschwitz, may have had less in common with his own daughter than he was ready to recognize. As the diary gained publication in country after country, its renown accelerating year by year, he spoke not merely about but for its authorâand who, after all, would have a greater right? The surviving father stood in for the dead child, believing that his words would honestly represent hers. He was not entitled to such certainty: fatherhood does not confer surrogacy. His own childhood, in Frankfurt, Germany, was wholly unclouded. A ...