Elie Wiesel's First Person Testimony

I was quite disappointed, actually horrified, when I discovered that Eli Wiesel's Night is listed as "fiction" in the my public library system.   The librarian checked to see how the book is listed in the neighboring library systems and found that it is as "non-fiction."

 

He gave me an email address where I could address my complaint to the person in charge of "collection management."  

I wrote a letter saying Night is a memoir, a Holocaust memoir that is assigned reading to many students. What a shame and, worse, what an undermining of Wiesel's work and life, to have students think the book is "made up." I hope you will rectify this categorization.

 

I received a speedy response which said:

 

I am the lead Hebrew and Yiddish cataloger for BPL.

Your question was forwarded to me. I am taking the liberty of letting you know that it is receiving much attention.

I have emailed a number of Jewish veteran librarians around the system to get their input. 

I appreciate the gravity of the impression that this could make on students, or provide an opening for a Holocaust denier. I don't think personally the great majority of people will get that idea, especially as there are so many other memoirs and history books in the collection.

In fairness to the original decision by someone to consider it fiction:

 

The book is a memoir but was written in novel form. There were changes in the ending from the Yiddish original to the French version which was subsequently translated into English.

Also there were sequels Dawn and Day (the Accident).

 

***

I subsequently found this interesting article: Amazon-recategorizes-Elie-Wiesel-s-Night

Kings and Queens, Princes and Princesses - What do they have to do with us?

When Czar Nicholas II was overthrown in the Russian Revolution, a Chassid by the name of R' Dovid Horodoker was seen crying.  Since life wasn't all that wonderful under the czar, he was asked why he was crying.  He said, because now we've lost a mashal in Chassidic teaching."

It seems to me that the concept of a King is quite important regardless as to what teachings you want to convey, Chassidic or otherwise, because of its centrality in Jewish life.  In our daily brachos we constantly refer to Hashem as "King of the universe." There is Avinu-Malkeinu. What does Hashem as a King mean to us who don't have a human king?

In America there is no king, no royal family, no palace, no ministers.  What is a child who grows up without any concept of royalty whatsoever, to make of a mashal about a king? Why should this be meaningful to him?

If, as in some cases, the mashal can be told just as well about someone who is not a king, then it doesn't matter.  But if you want to convey the majesty and omnipotence of a king, this has no counterpart in real life. And isn't that what a mashal is meant to be, an example taken from a person's daily life which he can readily relate to?

So if there is no royalty in our lives, meshalim that use it as the centerpiece are useless to us.  Which is why I've been thinking about fairy tales.  After reading one mashal about a king after another recently, it occurred to me that perhaps the hours I spent in my childhood reading fairy tales, were not all wasted after all.  

For those who want to provide only Jewish stories in their homes, there are only a few R' Nachman of Breslov tales about royalty.  I haven't looked through fairy tales recently, but I'm sure there are some (if not many) that can be safely read by frum children which will give them an idea of the glory of the royal palace.  It might be an idea to go through the hundreds of fairy tales out there in order to pick those that align with our values.  In this way, children growing up in today's day and age will have an inkling of what Malchus is about.

Truth in Journalism

As a postscript to the previous post, I was dismayed to learn about the liberties taken with the truth by those who write for women's popular magazines.  Naive me actually believes when I'm told a story is true.  In Sybil Exposed it describes how certain journalists presented fiction as fact. 

The author of Sybil had doubts about the veracity of Sybil's abuse stories.  She actually went to the supposed scene of many crimes and discovered no evidence whatsoever for the abuse claims.  Worst of all, she read a letter Sybil had written to her psychiatrist, denying she had multiple personality disorder.  Her doctor, of course, said she was in denial. 

The author didn't know what to do with all this information.  Furthermore, the story as she knew it wasn't much of a story with a plot and dialogue. 

The ultimate solution? Fictionalizing the story and presenting it as the truth.  Subsequent to the book's becoming a major hit, the author and the pyschiatrist appeared on many shows talking about the book.  By that point, they had certainly convinced themselves that the book was true.

Leaves me wondering, what of what I read and think is true, is actually fiction? Some might say, it doesn't matter.  I've heard this before and been astonished as I've written in this post: click to read previous post

This world is described as Olam Ha'Sheker, a world of lies.  Nothing is as it appears to be.  Fiction can be masquerading as truth.

Sybil Exposed

I did not read Sybil but I am reading Sybil Exposed.  Sybil was a book published in 1973 that went on to become a bestseller and a movie.  It was presented as the true story of a woman treated for multiple personality disorder who had been so horribly abused by her mother that she became a psychiatric case.  The book described grotesque rated R scenes that had the public enthralled.  Not surprisingly, huge numbers of people were diagnosed as having a multiple personality disorder after the book became a hit (like anorexia became a "fad diagnosis" in Hong Kong after it was marketed there, see my post "Crazy Like Us"  click here to read post

The lives of three women are intertwined: the patient, her doctor, and the author of Sybil.  The author of Sybil Exposed shows how the patient's illness wasn't an illness, how her treatment was a sham, and how the fictional story Sybil came to be written and presented as the truth. 

As much as the book is an expose of the book Sybil, it is an expose of the quackery of the psychiatric profession.  As anybody who has read previous posts (labels: psychiatry and mental illness) on this blog have seen, I am not impressed by the pseudo-medical specialty of psychiatry.  The so-called treatments given by the doctor in this case as well as her colleagues back in the 50's till the present day, are a horror.  Forget about "first do no harm."  That is far from their guiding principle.  When will the public finally figure out that the emperor has no clothes? That the psychiatric/mental health profession in cahoots with the drug companies are making us into a nation of drugged, incompetent, invalids?

Is It True?

"Fiction can often be the best vehicle for helping us see our behavior objectively and pinpoint our mistakes, especially when it's written with true-to-life characters that are easy to identify with."

This is why mashalim (parables, fables) have long been used by Torah sages.  The most famous are in the book of Mishlei by Shlomo Ha'Melech and many years later, the parables of the Dubna Maggid and the Chofetz Chaim. 

However, when contemporary Jewish authors think that their novels and short stories, works of fiction, will change the world, I think they're deluding themselves as to the importance of their work.  Frum novels, by and large, are for the purpose of kosher entertainment.

I was surprised when, in a discussion about fiction and non-fiction in frum publications, the person I was talking to did not particularly care whether the writing was true or not.  I maintain that just as I have no reason to empathize with make-believe characters, I have no reason to be inspired by characters that are the figment of an author's imagination.  When a real person does something heroic, that can be moving and inspiring.  Why would I want to read about fictional people in the Holocaust, for example? What impact can imaginary characters who do extraordinary acts of chesed or kiddush Hashem have on me? None. 

The parables used by maggidim were tools meant to highlight our foibles in a way that slips under our defensive radar.  The parable Nosson the Navi told Dovid Ha'Melech enabled Dovid to see his error when a direct confrontation would not have worked.  It's important to differentiate between the parable as a tool for improving middos as opposed to a work of fiction that is not primarily a teaching tool.

Dirty Laundry part 2

The author responded with:

Where does the Torah NOT say to hang out our dirty laundry? Have you ever read Sefer Devarim? Even Parashas Bereishis? There is never any attempt in Judaism to hide ourselves from the truth of our condition and, if we are in need of repair, to change.

Yes, I have, baruch Hashem, seen payoffs from the issues that my stories have raised. Read this week's ... for a very poignant letter from a reader about how healing it is for her to read ...[name of book] 

...[name of book] brought about actual social change, which is very gratifying. If you are, indeed, sincerely arguing in favor of NOT hanging out dirty laundry, how do you propose change? How do you suggest introducing healing and developing new paths?

And I'm sorry that you find the line, "If it helps just one person, it's worth it," tiring. Firstly, there's no such thing. People are so interconnected that if one person is helped, the effects can spread to thousands. Secondly, since we are so very much the same it is nearly impossible for something to resonate within one single person.

To which I said:

Let me get this straight - you are comparing a fictionalized serial to our G-d given Torah?! (insert shocked face emoticon)

You have learned from Torah that it is a worthy activity to point out our flaws. Hmmm. Yeshaya said, "And in the midst of an unclean nation I dwell," and he was punished. As the tzaddik and prophet he was, surely he wasn't ch'v gratuitously badmouthing the Jewish people, and still, he was punished.

A new chamber of zechus was created by Rabbi Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev for seeking the good in the Jewish people and highlighting it. As the tzaddik he was, he was well aware of the mitzva of rebuke and surely fulfilled the mitzva, and yet, he teaches us to look with a "good eye" and be sure to speak well of our fellow Jews.

The focus of many laws associated with Shemiras Ha'Lashon is to avoid any derogatory remarks about one another. So indeed, not only is it not recommended that we "air our dirty laundry in public" (defined as publicly discussing personal affairs that could cause embarrassment or distress), we are enjoined to do the opposite.

In today's climate, society finds it laudable when people "tell all." This immodest attitude has crept into frum society so that people address audiences and write articles telling quite personal stories about themselves, their marriages, their lives. It's extremely popular because we find it fascinating to hear about other people and their adventures, especially when they share (too) personal details. And some people become so immersed in even the made-up stories that incredibly, a woman wrote to Mishpacha saying that a particular installment ruined her Shabbos because she was so distressed by the conduct of fictional characters!

The exception to all the above is l'toeles (for positive benefit) as defined by the Torah: to fulfill the mitzva of rebuke, for example.

I have noticed that people seem to think that discussing a problem is practically synonymous with having done something concrete to solve it. Reading about a problem, whether in a fictional or non-fictional article might make people feel good if they are grappling with that problem. Is that a valid t'oeles? I can hear where it would be valid if this person went to consult with someone and part of what they are told is that they are not alone. But I'm not convinced that presenting our foibles (and worse) to a general audience is beneficial. What consideration, if any, is given to the possibility that it will pull people down, that it will expose them to ways of life that they never considered?

There is the chilul Hashem aspect too. Do we need the "outside world" hearing how we "beat our chests" and admit our sins?

I am disappointed that you delegitimize another point of view by denigrating it as "burying heads in the sand" rather than being open to hearing that this view has some merit even if you don't think the merits are sufficiently weighty. It sounds like you think that R' Levi Yitzchok was ch'v a Pollyana.

As to how to make positive changes in our society, what did we see done in the past, over the millenia? We saw great people addressing audiences, in person or in writing, and exhorting them to observe mitzvos and avoid sin, inspiring them to love and fear of G-d. We see movements like Daf Yomi and Shemiras Ha'Lashon promoted by individuals who had the siyata dishmaya to succeed, changing frum society. I know of no positive social change that has resulted from frum fictional serial stories. I'm sure you're convinced they have been the catalyst for change but until I hear what those changes are and am convinced that nothing negative resulted, I view fictional serials for what I think they are: entertainment, diversions and/or kosher soap operas. Some frum writers insert some Torah messages but I believe that the ikar is the story. When the ikar is the Torah message, the writing is usually not particularly entertaining like in the "older mentor-young seeker" literary technique which has been used a number of times, because the writer is focused on the Torah message and not as much (or at all) on developing the story and characters.

P.S. As for non-fictional articles about sensitive issues that are purportedly written for the public welfare, there is reason to be exceedingly cautious. There is evidence that bringing certain issues (anorexia, depression) to the fore has increased harmful behavior, not minimized it.

See a previous post of mine on this subject called "Increase the Light" from Dec. 6
 http://bikores.blogspot.com/2009/12/increase-light.html

About "Hanging Dirty Laundry" in Public

 

I had an interaction with someone who writes popular novels in installments for a frum publication.  She decries what she calls burying heads in the sand rather than facing reality and coming up with solutions and sees nothing wrong with public discussion of frum society's ills.  On the contrary, she thinks that fictional writing is a good way to call attention to problems that ought to be addressed and that it deals with these problems.

My initial response to that was:

My question is, what evidence do you have that writing about our flaws will help remove them? Do you truly think that people with the flaws you write about will read your story and say, "Hey, I better fix that problem in myself!" Have you gotten any feedback over the years from readers who did that? Or have you gotten feedback from readers who told you that after reading about a certain problem (not in themselves) they decided to take action to correct it?

You ask, "Is it scandalous to admit that there are problems in our communities?" My question is, is there virtue in talking about our flaws? Does it say anywhere in our Torah literature that vidui of our collective sins should be broadcast to the public? Or, is it rather, as I have learned, talking about the negative strengthens it and focusing on "light" and the positive, strengthens that.

By calling attention to these issues, are you aware of specific steps that were taken to rectify them that can be credited to fiction? How about that can be credited to non-fictional articles?

If writing about abuse in a fictional story "deals with it" by actually helping anyone I'd like to know about that.

And I hope I'm not going to hear the tired line, "If it helps just one person, it's worth it," because I'm not convinced that's true.