One of
the many nice things about Christmas is that as a family, we often give each
other books for presents. Sometimes we get it wrong; there was one famous year
when great minds thought far too much alike and we all ended up with the same books.
This
year, two of our Christmas books deal with one of the darkest periods of recent history –
the attempted extermination of the Jews in the Second World War.
How do
you write about such things? Does anyone have the right to create fiction about
such a terrible reality? Can the story properly be told by anyone except a
survivor, or an objective academic researcher? Fictionalising the Holocaust is
a very risky thing; someone will almost certainly feel that you’ve got it
wrong. The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas,
for instance, by John Boyne: the viewpoint is that of the young son of a
concentration camp commandant. We are asked to believe that, though he lives on
site, he does not understand the nature of the camp, even when he befriends a
child on the other side of the wire. The book has been very successful, and
I’ve spoken to many children who love it and have been moved and informed by it
– but some adults find it to be an unacceptable sentimentalisation of an appalling
reality.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e76d4/e76d40786318eb3bcccc01af849da023475412ad" alt=""
The only
way the three friends can avoid the ‘work’ is by volunteering to go out and
hunt for Jewish partisans in hiding. This they do. But though they have avoided
the mass killing, they know that if they return without a prisoner, they won’t
be able to use the same dodge again. Emmerich’s observant eye enables him to
spot a hiding place in the woods, and they find their prisoner.
Apart
from a ‘flash forward’ to Emmerich’s death, the rest of the book tells the
story of their journey back to camp – the meal of the title is a meal they
manage to concoct in a tumbledown deserted hovel. It all happens in that one
day. The events are not complicated, but the moral landscape of an ordinary
person tasked with inhuman and abhorrent duties is laid bare. Here, for
instance, is the narrator as he and the others are setting off on their hunt.
My own thoughts didn’t stray far.
I returned to the memory of the previous night’s dream, to my tram. But
already, it seemed far away. That’s just how it is with dreams. Within a week,
it would have vanished into a black hole, where it would remain forever. If
only we could put whatever we wanted into that black hole…
There’s
nothing explicit, but there is power in that last sentence, when we relate it
to our gathering understanding of where these soldiers are and what they’re
doing.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f0c79/f0c792b9af0ca12be1300575f7872cc13882dda8" alt=""
This is a very
different book from A Meal In Winter
– more expansive and conventional in style, perhaps – but part of the territory
it explores is similar: the second half of the book moves away from Mika’s
story to explore what became of the German soldier who exploited but also
befriended him. It asks awkward questions: can there be any kind of redemption
for ordinary soldiers who were required to do appalling things? How did such
men live with their memories for the rest of their lives? How did their
actions, their compromises – their guilt – affect their children, the next
generation? How do people – and countries – heal and reconcile when
unforgivable things have been done, both to them and by them?
Hard
questions, which both of these books take on with courage and artistry.
Difficult issues indeed, but these both sound well worth reading. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThey are, and they do make an interesting pairing. Thanks for commenting, Lydia!
ReplyDeleteJust read The Puppet Boy of Warsaw which moved me to tears when Mara caught up with Mika. Am going to try and chase down a copy of A Meal in Winter - thanks for the recommendation.
ReplyDeleteMargaret
A pleasure!
ReplyDelete