I Try to Out-Snob Someone, Literarily
Hmm...some thoughts I've had checking up on Facebook (shut up, it's part of my study break, and yes, actually a break from studying. As opposed to a break from getting ready to study):
- Saw that Alex had joined a Lancaster High School Alumni group, join because I felt like I should. Even though I'm not sure I'm in line with one of their stated objectives (staying in touch with people from high school). This of course is minus the people I already stay in touch with. I'm so antisocial when it comes to LHS. Also was amused by the fact that all the officers and admins of the group are from SUNY networks or similar. People bitch about Western/Upstate New York so much, and yet no one ever leaves.
-First of all, it's Holocaust Memorial Day, so have a moment of silence/reflection for that. Both for Shoah victims and for other victims of genocide, both retrospective and ongoing. I knew this myself, but was reading a friend's post about Night being a "unreflective, self-centered melodrama". That's a literary opinion, and one I can at least understand from an intellectual standpoint. But claiming that it's worthless (implied by a part of the post not quoted) is a bit strong. I've read trash (and it's called The Da Vinci Code) and Night is certainly above pretty much everything Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Alibris, AbeBooks,and any other online book retailer tells my inbox I'd love. I've also read what I'd consider a fair amount of Holocaust lit and non-fiction (yeah, it's a little weird, I know). He's right: Night is incredibly self-centered for the most part, and fairly unreflective in the standard turn of literary critique. But to me, that's kind of the point. Elie Wiesel was 15/16 years old during the time period in the narrative; he was 25/26 when he wrote Night - there's not a lot of time for perspective. You have a very young person surviving an almost unbearable calamity in every sense of the word (hence the Hebrew term for the Holocaust), lack of perspective seems like the least of concerns, even as a structural argument. Weisel says he wrote Night as a testament, which to me implies not as some great dissection of the Holocaust generally. And in the end, that's all that most Holocaust memoirs amount to: "This is what happened to me. I still don't really understand why, but I must be a witness for the dead nonetheless." Only by knitting each personal anguish together with the anguish of other survivors can one really build any kind of truly reflective lens. There's just too much to encompass, otherwise.
Additionally, I think it's hard to judge Night alone when you're analyzing it from my acquaintance's perspective. If you're looking for less self-centeredness and more reflection, you have to read Night in conjunction with Dawn and The Accident. As Wiesel writes himself:
"...these three narratives were created separately. Though the first [Night] is a testimony, the other two serve only as commentary. However, they are all written in the first person. In "Night," it is the "I" that speaks; in the other two, it is the "I" who listens and questions."
Anyway, that's my literary two cents. And all of you thought that Lit B.A. was useless. I need it when I have to defend my favorite books. Otherwise, we'll just find ourselves smothered in the glittery embrace of Twilight. Next up: why Dostoevsky is not one of the most boring classic authors ever (whatever, Book of Lists).
To end on a lighter note:
Lolcats will save our little plastic tanks!
- Saw that Alex had joined a Lancaster High School Alumni group, join because I felt like I should. Even though I'm not sure I'm in line with one of their stated objectives (staying in touch with people from high school). This of course is minus the people I already stay in touch with. I'm so antisocial when it comes to LHS. Also was amused by the fact that all the officers and admins of the group are from SUNY networks or similar. People bitch about Western/Upstate New York so much, and yet no one ever leaves.
-First of all, it's Holocaust Memorial Day, so have a moment of silence/reflection for that. Both for Shoah victims and for other victims of genocide, both retrospective and ongoing. I knew this myself, but was reading a friend's post about Night being a "unreflective, self-centered melodrama". That's a literary opinion, and one I can at least understand from an intellectual standpoint. But claiming that it's worthless (implied by a part of the post not quoted) is a bit strong. I've read trash (and it's called The Da Vinci Code) and Night is certainly above pretty much everything Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Alibris, AbeBooks,and any other online book retailer tells my inbox I'd love. I've also read what I'd consider a fair amount of Holocaust lit and non-fiction (yeah, it's a little weird, I know). He's right: Night is incredibly self-centered for the most part, and fairly unreflective in the standard turn of literary critique. But to me, that's kind of the point. Elie Wiesel was 15/16 years old during the time period in the narrative; he was 25/26 when he wrote Night - there's not a lot of time for perspective. You have a very young person surviving an almost unbearable calamity in every sense of the word (hence the Hebrew term for the Holocaust), lack of perspective seems like the least of concerns, even as a structural argument. Weisel says he wrote Night as a testament, which to me implies not as some great dissection of the Holocaust generally. And in the end, that's all that most Holocaust memoirs amount to: "This is what happened to me. I still don't really understand why, but I must be a witness for the dead nonetheless." Only by knitting each personal anguish together with the anguish of other survivors can one really build any kind of truly reflective lens. There's just too much to encompass, otherwise.
Additionally, I think it's hard to judge Night alone when you're analyzing it from my acquaintance's perspective. If you're looking for less self-centeredness and more reflection, you have to read Night in conjunction with Dawn and The Accident. As Wiesel writes himself:
"...these three narratives were created separately. Though the first [Night] is a testimony, the other two serve only as commentary. However, they are all written in the first person. In "Night," it is the "I" that speaks; in the other two, it is the "I" who listens and questions."
Anyway, that's my literary two cents. And all of you thought that Lit B.A. was useless. I need it when I have to defend my favorite books. Otherwise, we'll just find ourselves smothered in the glittery embrace of Twilight. Next up: why Dostoevsky is not one of the most boring classic authors ever (whatever, Book of Lists).
To end on a lighter note:
Lolcats will save our little plastic tanks!