Author Topic: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books  (Read 109747 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Sarushka

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
  • May I interest you in a grain of salt?
    • View Profile
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #225 on: April 03, 2008, 09:08:18 PM »
So yes, I would agree with Wiesel that there are some events which should not be approached. Perhaps not forever, but not while they are raw.


I think that's fair.

Puppylove

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #226 on: April 04, 2008, 12:58:56 PM »

I don't have any personal restrictions regarding subject matter. I believe you should write with respect toward your subject, but I don't think there are subjects that shouldn't be touched. Keep in mind though, that I've led a relatively short, sheltered life. If I'd led a life parallel to Wiesel's I might well feel differently.

I interpret Wiesel's comment to mean that no novelist can convey the depth and breadth of the holocaust experience. He's probably right. However, if even what Wiesel would regard as a feeble representation can affect a change or create understanding in a reader, I think it's still worth writing. We may not be able to make people fully understand, but we can perhaps make them want to prevent history from repeating itself.


Incidentally, IMO non-fiction and memoir fall within the realm of art. Anything that is written to express or evoke emotion or empathy is art, even if it consists entirely of facts.

Interesting! And I like your suggestion that one's life experience might well define what's acceptable subject matter. Would you extend your open-mindedness re subject matter to all art forms? Do you draw a definite line for yourself in determining obscenity, exploitation etc?

Puppylove

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #227 on: April 04, 2008, 01:22:41 PM »
I also think that during the 20th century we were too close to the event itself to gain anything like perspective (which IMO is a component of art). Holocaust studies and literature didn't really appear in large numbers until the 1960s, and even then there were problems with it, since the immensity of the event made it difficult to approach. I am thinking of the alterations to Anne Frank's diary in its' published form, to say nothing of the dramatic shaping given it by the play and subsequent movie.

So yes, I would agree with Wiesel that there are some events which should not be approached. Perhaps not forever, but not while they are raw.

Simon

You've made good points. I also believe novels that take on this kind of grand-scale subject matter are almost doomed to fail by comparison to the real event. To me, the fiction in Suite Francaise rings hollow compared to Klemperer's diary, even though both writers experienced the war firsthand. And although it's a screenplay, I found the fictionalized Jack and Rose story in Titanic completely pointless and even insulting; when you have 3000 stories aboard a ship do you really need to invent a romance?

Would you please elaborate on Anne Frank's diary? I'm not familiar with the alterations.

Thanks, Jenn

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #228 on: April 04, 2008, 02:06:55 PM »
I liked The Titanic very much. The whole point of a movie is entertainment, after all. It was not meant to be a documentary was it?  If you disliked that, you should have seen the musical [awful, took longer to sink that sucker than the real thing!] There have been several films made about the Titantic, all based on fictional characters in a real setting.
 I also disagree that the Holocaust is sacrosanct and not to be touched with fiction.  It is a subject, like any other that should be free to be explored.  An author should be free to  put forward any story he or she wishes.  Whether anyone buys it is another matter. Fiction is a far different standard than non-fiction, after all.

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #229 on: April 04, 2008, 02:10:34 PM »
I also disagree that the Holocaust is sacrosanct and not to be touched with fiction.  It is a subject, like any other that should be free to be explored. 

I agree, but want to add that some subjects have to be treated with more sensitivity than others. But I don't think any should be avoided completely.

Fiction is a far different standard than non-fiction, after all.

Absolutely!

Puppylove

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #230 on: April 04, 2008, 02:43:05 PM »
I liked The Titanic very much. The whole point of a movie is entertainment, after all. It was not meant to be a documentary was it?  If you disliked that, you should have seen the musical [awful, took longer to sink that sucker than the real thing!] There have been several films made about the Titantic, all based on fictional characters in a real setting.
 I also disagree that the Holocaust is sacrosanct and not to be touched with fiction.  It is a subject, like any other that should be free to be explored.  An author should be free to  put forward any story he or she wishes.  Whether anyone buys it is another matter. Fiction is a far different standard than non-fiction, after all.


Re Titanic, I enjoyed the movie very much; it was thoroughly entertaining and some of those special effects were out of this world. (I preferred the stripped down version of A Night to Remember however). It's just my opinion that the romance took away from, rather than added to, the film. To me it would be the equivalent of putting a couple of lovestruck teens on the doomed aircraft in United 93.

Do you think victims' or surviviors' wishes should play any part in whether or not a subject receives artistic treatment?

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #231 on: April 04, 2008, 02:53:31 PM »
Do you think victims' or surviviors' wishes should play any part in whether or not a subject receives artistic treatment?

That's an excellent question! I think it probably depends... The more removed we are from the situation chronologically, the less it would be necessary to consult the victims I suppose (not to mention the fact that all survivors/victims would be deceased after some time). Of course that doesn't mean that it still would not be a sensitive subject to their families... For a something like like 9/11 - because of the fact that it was so recent - and the feelings are still very raw, it would be an extremely delicate matter. I am not sure if anyone should even go there at this time... A little too soon. For something like the Holocaust or the Titanic, it may be somewhat different. Perhaps if they invent a completely fictitious character, not someone who actually existed, it would be easier to handle than if the names of real people are used, and in the latter situation of course the surviving families should be consulted...

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #232 on: April 04, 2008, 04:32:25 PM »
9/11 is probably still to raw, to Americans,  just as the London bombings are to  them.  But, they are free subjects for writers to explore. I did not see the  United 93 film.  Thought the idea tacky. Hit too close to home [same as the July bombings in London]  Do the survovors of these events,  have a say in how they are depicted?   Well, that is why there is why a disclaimer is in  all films.  Unless there is a portrayal of a real person,  it is simply fiction.  The events may be real, but the people are  just actors, after all.
 There was a brilliant film  DOWNFALL based on the memories of one of Hitler's secretaries that was  widely acclaimed, yet some protested it because it was "sort of" sympathetic.. Well, that is the screenwriters craft, to write a story and out it on film. That is different than  a book, isn't it?  Unfortunately, more people see films now, than read books, it seems.

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #233 on: April 04, 2008, 05:00:56 PM »
The fact that DOWNFALL was based upon Traudl Junge's memoirs of her life as Hitler's secretary is why there were sympathetic overtones in the depiction of Hitler. Junge said many times that the man she knew was not a monster --- that in some ways, she did not see that Hitler until she began taking down the dictation of his last political will and testament. There is an interesting documentary in which Junge is a talking head for ninety minutes, speaking of her experiences. That might sound boring, but think of her experiences! Anyway, after the war she passed a monument to Sophie Scholl and was struck by the fact that the two of them were the same age. And yet Scholl recognized the intrinsic evil of the Hitler regime enough to die opposing it. Junge said it was only then --- after the war --- that she realized that she could have known that which she did not know.

A lot of Titanic afficiandos (a description that fits me!) objected to Jack and Rose running buckety-buckety in front of the truly wonderful recreation of the ship, but in fact they were necessary. It was the love story that attracted the target audience, i.e. young girls. The movie isn't about the sinking, it is about a 17 year-old girl's journey to self-actualization. And the fact that she got to canoodle with Leonardo as part of the process didn't hurt box office. Witness the difference between cash intake between Cameron's Titanic and A Night to Remember.

For the small group of viewers who truly cared about the actual Titanic, let's face it. During the Jack/Rose dialogue (excruciating, although I thought Winslet and DiCaprio were excellent), we were looking past them to groove on how just right they'd done the paneling, or the clock on the Grand Staircase or . . . well, you get the idea. But if it hadn't been for the Rose character, the movie wouldn't have a titanic commercial success.

9/11 . . . we have a family friend who is 94, sharp as a tack. During World War II she was trapped behind German lines in the Ardennes, during the Battle of the Bulge. She was a nurse in what I suppose was a M*A*S*H unit, and she spent the time dealing with wounded soldiers while the battle raged around the hospital tents. In brief, Mary Lou was not morbid, or sheltered. Unlike most of us, she had personal experience of graphic violence.

Her grandson worked for one of the financial firms in the Trade Center, and died on 9/11. She also lost a son-in-law.  Mary Lou was sharply critical of the image projected by the early rescue workers, or more precisely the television reporters. "As though they will find the bodies sitting at their desks. Those people were pulverized, limbs will be everywhere, they will be pulling small human remnants out of that rubble. Show them that, but don't leave them with the idea that this was anything other than horrific." No swelling music, no resolution of their grief at the end of the picture. Ands to be fair to the reporters, they wanted what everyone else wanted, i.e an easy way to comprehend this horrific event.

I think film by its nature is too shallow a medium to do justice to major historical events, which by their nature are large, messy experiences that defy easy categorization. In a good historical novel we can enter imaginatively into the event --- a film simply shows us pictures, thereby limiting our imagination to what we actually see.

About Anne Frank's diary --- an unexpurgated version has been released, but only since the death of Otto Frank, who controlled the diary. The tag line from the play and movie is something that Anne wrote: "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are basically good." But it is not all that she wrote, and there is serious questioning of the use of this sentiment as a valedictory for her entire life. There was a need for a survivor (sound familiar?) and at least part of that need was satisfied by the Anne Frank of the play. The plucky little girl who made lemonade out of the lemons that were dealt to her. And yes, that is a part of Anne, but not all. She was a human being, and more complicated than the Anne displayed in the play and movie. Other characters were also presented in their best light. There is an interesting take on this in Philip Roth's The Ghost Writer, which uses the distasteful (to me) premise that Anne survived, but could not reveal this because of the impact her diary had. I don't like the novel, but it's pretty damned brilliant.

Simon



« Last Edit: April 04, 2008, 05:09:40 PM by Louis_Charles »
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline Sarushka

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
  • May I interest you in a grain of salt?
    • View Profile
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #234 on: April 04, 2008, 05:45:48 PM »
Would you please elaborate on Anne Frank's diary? I'm not familiar with the alterations.


There are essentially three versions of Anne Frank's diary. Version A is the original she-wrote-it-as-it-happened diary (sections of this version are lost/missing). Version B is a revised edition Anne worked on herself in captivity, with a view toward publication (this fills in the gaps in Version A). Version C is the edition published under the name "The Diary of a Young Girl." Otto Frank used parts of both the A and B versions to create Version C. He also omitted a handful of entries entirely. Version C is the edition most readers are familiar with.

The Definitive Edition was published in the 1990's and contains 30% more material -- most of which was deemed too sensitive for publication by Otto Frank in the 1947. It's also a fresh translation. Some entries are still missing from this version.

If you want to see a side-by-side comparison of all three versions, as well as the previously omitted entries, get ahold of a copy of The Revised Critical Edition. It's the whole shebang.

Puppylove

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #235 on: April 05, 2008, 11:52:47 AM »
9/11 is probably still to raw, to Americans,  just as the London bombings are to  them.  But, they are free subjects for writers to explore. I did not see the  United 93 film.  Thought the idea tacky.

Speaking as someone with no connection to Sept 11 other than as an American, I own the United 93 dvd and regard it as a masterpiece of docudrama. I appreciate your decision not to see it and respect your reasoning, but would you feel more comfortable knowing that most family members supported the film? From what I've read, controversy among those directly involved focused primarily on whether or not to portray passenger heroism collectively or case by case. A touchy subject to be sure. Unfortunately, short attention spans being what they are, film, books, annual ceremonies etc. are often the only means of reconnecting to that unforgettable day for the public at large.

Puppylove

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #236 on: April 05, 2008, 12:04:43 PM »
The fact that DOWNFALL was based upon Traudl Junge's memoirs of her life as Hitler's secretary is why there were sympathetic overtones in the depiction of Hitler. Junge said many times that the man she knew was not a monster --- that in some ways, she did not see that Hitler until she began taking down the dictation of his last political will and testament. There is an interesting documentary in which Junge is a talking head for ninety minutes, speaking of her experiences. That might sound boring, but think of her experiences! Anyway, after the war she passed a monument to Sophie Scholl and was struck by the fact that the two of them were the same age. And yet Scholl recognized the intrinsic evil of the Hitler regime enough to die opposing it. Junge said it was only then --- after the war --- that she realized that she could have known that which she did not know.


Ah Downfall, a brilliant film on so many levels! I don't have a problem with the "sympathetic" portrayal of Hitler and entourage; enough of their cold-bloodedness, warped thought processes and detachment from reality still came through to chill the soul. In any case, even the vilest, most evil man has some remnant of humanity within, Hitler's affection for Blondi, for example. (And no I'm not suggesting this redeems him in any way)!

My question: do you take Junge's memoirs at face value?

Puppylove

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #237 on: April 05, 2008, 12:22:47 PM »
A lot of Titanic afficiandos (a description that fits me!) objected to Jack and Rose running buckety-buckety in front of the truly wonderful recreation of the ship, but in fact they were necessary. It was the love story that attracted the target audience, i.e. young girls. The movie isn't about the sinking, it is about a 17 year-old girl's journey to self-actualization. And the fact that she got to canoodle with Leonardo as part of the process didn't hurt box office. Witness the difference between cash intake between Cameron's Titanic and A Night to Remember.

For the small group of viewers who truly cared about the actual Titanic, let's face it. During the Jack/Rose dialogue (excruciating, although I thought Winslet and DiCaprio were excellent), we were looking past them to groove on how just right they'd done the paneling, or the clock on the Grand Staircase or . . . well, you get the idea. But if it hadn't been for the Rose character, the movie wouldn't have a titanic commercial success.


So in this case commercial interests trumped reality. Of course there will always be commercial concerns and a target audience. I just can't get over the feeling there were 3000 possible stories and enough source material that this could have been an excellent docudrama. Oh, and I loathed the lead actors! (Maybe that has something to do with it?)

Puppylove

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #238 on: April 05, 2008, 12:26:53 PM »
Thank you Sarushka and Simon for the backstory on Anne Frank. It's been a long time but now I feel compelled to revisit this book.

Sarushka, what do you think of the Helen Keller photo making the rounds recently? It was the most poignant pic I've seen in ages.

Offline Sarushka

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
  • May I interest you in a grain of salt?
    • View Profile
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #239 on: April 05, 2008, 12:32:32 PM »
Thank you Sarushka and Simon for the backstory on Anne Frank. It's been a long time but now I feel compelled to revisit this book.

Aside from the insight into Anne herself, the Critical Edition of the diary is a fascinating look inside the writing/editing process.


Quote
Sarushka, what do you think of the Helen Keller photo making the rounds recently? It was the most poignant pic I've seen in ages.

I think you probably could have heard my jaw drop coast-to-coast when I saw that photo. Honestly, I was dumbfounded and gibbering for nearly 2 hours. It's an astonishingly perfect portrait of the way I portray Annie & Helen in Miss Spitfire.