{"id":99995,"date":"2016-07-03T07:38:03","date_gmt":"2016-07-03T15:38:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=99995"},"modified":"2016-07-03T07:38:03","modified_gmt":"2016-07-03T15:38:03","slug":"truth-and-fiction-in-elie-wiesels-night","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=99995","title":{"rendered":"Truth and Fiction in Elie Wiesel\u2019s \u201cNight\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Alexander Cockburn writes<\/a>: When in trouble, head for Auschwitz, preferably in the company of Elie Wiesel. It\u2019s as foolproof a character reference as is available today, at least within the Judeo-Christian sphere of moral influence. One can easily see why Oprah Winfrey and her advisers saw an Auschwitz excursion in the company of Wiesel as a sure-fire antidote to salve the wounds sustained by Oprah\u2019s Book Club when it turned out that James Frey had faked significant slabs of his own supposedly autobiographical saga of moral regeneration, A Million Little Pieces.<\/p>\n

Published in 2003, Frey\u2019s irksome book swiftly became a cult classic. (The present author was offered it in the summer of 2004 by a young relative, presumably to assist in his moral regeneration, but after glancing through a few pages returned it, on the grounds that it wasn\u2019t his kind of thing.) Winfrey picked it for her Book Club in September 2005, and it rocketed to the top of the bestseller lists.<\/p>\n

For Frey the sky fell in when, on January 7, 2006, the Smoking Gun website published documents showing that Frey had fabricated many facts about himself, including a criminal record. There were later charges of plagiarism. Frey ran through a benign gauntlet of trial-by-Larry King on January 11, and Oprah called in to stand by her Pick of the Month. She said that what mattered was not whether Frey\u2019s book was true (the Fundamentalist claim for the Holy Bible) but its value as a therapeutic tool (the modern Anglican position on the Good Book).<\/p>\n

But by now every columnist and books page editor in America was wrestling the truth-or-fiction issue to the ground. Oprah turned on Frey. On her show on January 26, he clung to the ropes, offering the excuse that the \u201cdemons\u201d that had driven him to drink and drugs had also driven him into claiming that everything he wrote about himself was true. Publishers including Random House, which has made millions off him, had rejected the book when he\u2019d initially offered it as a \u201cfiction novel\u201d. Oprah brushed this aside.<\/p>\n

\u201cSay it\u2019s all true\u201d is what demons often whisper in an author\u2019s ear. Ask T.E. Lawrence. Did the Bey of Deraa really rape him? Lawrence suggests it in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom in paragraphs of fervent masochistic reminiscence. This and other adventures in Lawrence\u2019s account of British scheming in Mesopotamia against the Ottomans met with the ecstatic admiration of the Oxford-based equivalent of Oprah\u2019s Book Club back in the early 1920s, after Lawrence had the 350,000-word \u201cmemoir\u201d privately printed and circulated. He\u2019d written an earlier version in 1919 but claimed this had been stolen while he was changing trains in Reading, on the way to Oxford from London. (Reading has surely been the site of more supposed thefts and losses of \u201ccompleted manuscripts\u201d and PhD dissertations \u2014 \u201cI didn\u2019t make a copy!\u201d \u2014 than any railway station in the world.)<\/p>\n

Half a century later it occurred to Colin Simpson and Phillip Knightley of the London Sunday Times to ask the supposed rapist for his side of the story. They hurried off to Turkey and tracked down the town to which the Bey had retired, arriving at his home only to learn he\u2019d died not long before. Relatives told the British reporters that the Bey would not have found Lawrence appetizing prey. The Turk was a noted womanizer, and when in Mesopotamia was always getting the clap from consorting with whores on his excursions to Damascus.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s fun to think of Oprah grilling Lawrence about his claims, freshly exposed on Smoking Gun, telling him she felt \u201creally duped\u201d but that, \u201cmore importantly, I feel that you betrayed millions of Orientalizing masochists who believed you\u201d.<\/p>\n

But hardly had Frey been cast down from the eminence of Amazon.com\u2019s top bestseller before he was replaced at number one by the new pick of Oprah\u2019s Book Club, Elie Wiesel\u2019s Night, which had the good fortune to see republication at this fraught moment in Oprah\u2019s literary affairs. Simultaneous with the Night selection came news that Oprah Winfrey and Elie Wiesel would shortly be visiting Auschwitz together, from which vantage point Oprah, with the lugubrious Wiesel at her side, could emphasize for her ABC-TV audience that there is truth and there is fiction, that Auschwitz is historical truth at its bleakest and most terrifying, that Night is a truthful account and that Wiesel is the human embodiment of truthful witness.<\/p>\n

The trouble here is that in its central, most crucial scene, Night isn\u2019t historically true, and at least two other important episodes are almost certainly fiction. Below, I cite views, vigorously expressed to me in recent weeks by a concentration camp survivor, Eli Pfefferkorn, who worked with Wiesel for many years; also by Raul Hilberg. Hilberg is the world\u2019s leading authority on the Nazi Holocaust. An expanded version of his classic three-volume study, The Destruction of the European Jews, was recently reissued by Yale University Press. Wiesel personally enlisted Hilberg to be the historical expert on the United States Holocaust Commission.<\/p>\n

If absolute truth to history is the standard, Pfefferkorn says, then Night doesn\u2019t make the grade. Wiesel made things up, in a way that his many subsequent detractors could identify as not untypical of his modus operandi: grasping with deft assurance what people important to his future would want to hear and, by the same token, would not want to hear.<\/p>\n

The book that became Night was originally a much longer account, published in Yiddish in 1956, under the title Un di Velt Hot Geshvign (And the World Remained Silent). Wiesel was living in Paris at the time. By 1958 he had translated his book from Yiddish into French, publishing it in that year under the title La Nuit. Wiesel says it was severely cut down in length by Jerome Lindon, the chief editor at Editions de Minuit. In 1960 came the English translation, Night, published by Hill & Wang. The 2006 edition of Night is translated from the 1958 French version by Wiesel\u2019s wife, Marion, and in the introduction Wiesel says he has \u201cbeen able to correct and revise a number of important details\u201d.<\/p>\n

In the New York Times for January 17, Michiko Kakutani wrote in her usual plodding prose, with her usual aversion to any unconventional thought, that \u201cMr. Frey\u2019s embellishments of the truth, his cavalier assertion that the \u2018writer of a memoir is retailing a subjective story,\u2019 his casual attitude about how people remember the past \u2014 all stand in shocking contrast to the apprehension of memory as a sacred act that is embodied in Oprah Winfrey\u2019s new selection for her book club, announced yesterday: Night, Elie Wiesel\u2019s devastating 1960 account of his experiences in Auschwitz and Buchenwald.\u201d<\/p>\n

Amazon.com got the message quickly enough. The site had been categorizing the new edition of Night under \u201cfiction and literature\u201d but, under the categorical imperative of Kakutani\u2019s \u201cmemory as a sacred act\u201d or a phone call from Wiesel\u2019s publisher, hastily switched it to \u201cbiography and memoir\u201d. Within hours it had reached number 3 on Amazon\u2019s bestseller list. That same evening, January 17, Night topped both the \u201cbiography\u201d and \u201cfiction\u201d bestseller lists on BarnesandNoble.com.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, over the next few days there were articles in the Jewish Forward and in the New York Times, also a piece on NPR, saying that Night should not be taken as unvarnished documentary. In the Forward article, published January 20, challengingly titled \u201cSix Million Little Pieces?\u201d, Joshua Cohen reminded Forward readers that in 1996, Naomi Seidman, a Jewish Studies professor at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, had compared the original 1956 Yiddish version of the book with the subsequent, drastically edited translation.<\/p>\n

\u201cAccording to Seidman\u2019s account, published in the scholarly journal Jewish Social Studies\u201d, Cohen wrote, \u201cWiesel substantially rewrote the work between editions \u2014 suggesting that the strident and vengeful tone of the Yiddish original was converted into a continental, angst-ridden existentialism more fitting to Wiesel\u2019s emerging role as an ambassador of culture and conscience. Most important, Seidman wrote that Wiesel altered several facts in the later edition, in some cases offering accounts of pivotal moments that conflicted with the earlier version. (For example, in the French, the young Wiesel, having been liberated from Buchenwald, is recuperating in a hospital; he looks into a mirror and writes that he saw a corpse staring back at him. In the earlier Yiddish, Wiesel holds that upon seeing his reflection he smashed the mirror and then passed out, after which \u2018my health began to improve.\u2019)\u201d<\/p>\n

That said, Cohen emphasized that whereas \u201cFrey, for one, seems to have falsified the facts of his life in order to satisfy ego and the demands of the market, Wiesel\u2019s liberties seem more like reconsiderations, his process less revision than interpretation. Reading Night, one encounters the birth of thought about the Holocaust \u2013 the future of history, concomitant with its study. In both versions, the book\u2019s intent is to engage not the undeniability of the Holocaust, but the man who has undeniably emerged from its horror.\u201d<\/p>\n

This reverent tone about Wiesel and his work is customary. People mostly write about him and his work with the muted awe of British tourists reading guidebooks to each other in a French cathedral. In The Jewish Press for February 1, Andrew Silow Carroll was a bit friskier. He cited Wiesel as declaring to the New York Times that Night \u201cis not a novel at all. All the people I describe were with me there. I object angrily if someone mentions it as a novel.\u201d And yet, Silow Carroll went on, \u201cin the past, Wiesel hasn\u2019t helped matters in this regard. In 1972, Hill & Wang packaged Night with two other books, Dawn and The Accident, which Wiesel clearly identified as novels. The set\u2019s cover refers to the works as \u2018Three Tales by Elie Wiesel.\u2019 In a later edition of the same volume, Wiesel refers to all three books as \u2018narratives,\u2019 although he calls Night a \u2018testimony,\u2019 and the other two \u2018commentaries.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

There are some rather comical instances of Wiesel\u2019s relaxed attitude to autobiographical truth, as excavated in Norman Finkelstein\u2019s book, The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth. Wiesel was one of Goldhagen\u2019s main supporters. In his 1995 memoir, All Rivers Run to the Sea Wiesel writes that at the age of 18, recently liberated from Auschwitz, \u201cI read The Critique of Pure Reason don\u2019t laugh! \u00ad in Yiddish.\u201d Finkelstein comments, \u201cLeaving aside Wiesel\u2019s acknowledgement that at the time \u2018I was wholly ignorant of Yiddish grammar\u2019 The Critique of Pure Reason was never translated into Yiddish.\u201d Imagine the lacerations Frey would have endured for making that sort of empty boast.<\/p>\n

Though sales have now soared, I\u2019m not sure how many people will read Night now, beyond buying the new edition as a gesture of solidarity with Oprah and survivors of the Holocaust. It doesn\u2019t take a background in literary criticism to see that Night is artfully fashioned as a kind of symbolic narrative about the relationship between sons and fathers (there are four such portraits in the short book) and, crucially, between the Christian God (the Father) and his Son. The style seems influenced by Albert Camus, particularly L\u2019Etranger. Camus won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1957, one of the youngest recipients ever. This was the time during which Wiesel was reworking his Yiddish narrative into the far more terse, Camusian work, with its Camusian title.<\/p>\n

As a piece of historical witness to the experience of the inmates, the doomed and those who survived inside Auschwitz and Buchenwald, there are books far superior to Night, starting with Primo Levi\u2019s writings, or the late Ella Lingens-Reiner\u2019s extraordinary memoir of Auschwitz, Prisoners of Fear, published in 1948. Night\u2019s focus is extremely narrow, primarily on the main character, Eliezer, and his father. One learns with a certain surprise that though Wiesel\u2019s sister Tzipora died in the camps, two other sisters survived. In the new edition, Wiesel doesn\u2019t mention them. Read on.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Alexander Cockburn writes: When in trouble, head for Auschwitz, preferably in the company of Elie Wiesel. It\u2019s as foolproof a character reference as is available today, at least within the Judeo-Christian sphere of moral influence. One can easily see why … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[196],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-holocaust"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99995","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=99995"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99995\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":99996,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99995\/revisions\/99996"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=99995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=99995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=99995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}