So I'm guessing this is just an open discussion space? So I'll start our books discussion. (haha)
I think Primo Levi has an interesting approach to evaluating the situation in Auschwitz. It seems like he is only observing what is happening around him, and other peoples' lives. I noticed that he starts off the book with getting acquainted with his surroundings, and then later he digs more into personal lives of those around him. What is most interesting, to me, is that he never dwells on his own personal story and how he is (or was) being effected by his stay in Auschwitz. For example, he says in chapter six, "to have a bed companion of tall stature is a misfortune and means losing hours of sleep; I always have tall companions as I am small and two tall ones cannot sleep together" (65). He never shows any emotion about how he feels sleeping next to someone tall, Levi just states that it's misfortunate, and he happens to be misfortunate because he is short. I'm wondering why he chooses to write this way? Perhaps it's too painful to talk about his feelings, and feels it is more necessary to inform people about what happened without emotional attachment? So far I wish the book had more feeling, but Ms.Kitsis did warn us, so I won't complain. It's still fascinating how someone who survived Auschwitz can show such little emotion.
I agree with Rachel that Primo Levi does write in a more distant style of writing. It is difficult to infer his emotion from his writing, but what clear are his careful observation and deep analysis of the situation he was in. There are many powerful sentences dispersed throughout the book. One sentence that I particularly like is: “Sooner or later in life everyone discovers that perfect happiness is unrealizable, but there are few who pause to consider the antithesis: that perfect unhappiness is equally unattainable” (17). Optimist thinking can alleviate stressful situation. When one feels self-conscious, an adaptive attitude would be to think that “oh well, nobody is perfect anyway” or “well, I can’t be the worst person in the world.” These are defense mechanisms stemmed from two opposite poles of perfection, but the negative perfection is less likely to be realized. There are many other random philosophical observations about the world like this in the book. Even though Levi’s writing style is extraordinary for a holocaust survivor who had gone through such traumatic experience, it is an indication that he still managed to maintain his identity as a scientist. As a chemist, he was trained to make careful observations, think critically and propose a theory or a conclusion. His recollection of the experience no doubt contains many qualities of a good scientist.
And I'm also going to say I agree with both Paul and Rachel. It feels like he is talking about what is happening (sometimes in too much detail)from the other side of the barbed wire, rather then in all of the mess. It can sometimes be tough to understand how he feels about the whole thing, since he never really shows emotion based on the style of his writing. Right when I started reading, his style of writing was a little confusing. He also uses a lot of semi-colons, which can be annoying.
While reading, I learned that criminals were actually treated better and were top of the "food chain" in the prison when he said, "Our effective masters in practice are the green triangles [criminals], who have free hand over us" (33). He was part of the politcals, and below that were all of the completely innocent Jews, which doesn't make sense.. It was also sad to hear that Primo and his Italian friends met to talk every Sunday, but they had to stop because it was too depressing to see them disappear.
Primo Levi’s writing style, as has been mentioned, has a distinctly reporting tone and comes across as almost emotionless. I think that this writing style allows the reader to observe and digest the events Levi writes about without being as emotionally involved. As Paul mentioned, there are certain sentences that break through the author’s stoic exterior. An example of this is the first sentence of chapter seven, where Levi states, “the conviction that life has a purpose is rooted in ever fibre of man, it is a property of the human substance” (71). In this instance we see how deeply Levi was affected by what happened to him, even if he doesn’t put his emotions on display. Rachel asked why Levi chose to write in such a matter-of-fact way. I think that the way he writes shows a lot about Levi as a man. I think his nature is innately scientific, and this is what leads him to simply state what was happening around him, such as when he says, “but destiny ordained that I was soon to understand, and at the expense of Schmulek himself” (53). It’s almost as if Levi doesn’t want his account of what happened to be tainted by his personal opinions or feelings. He leaves it up to the reader’s interpretation.
As repeated in many of the comments here, noting Tom's specifically, "it feels like he is talking about what is happening...from the other side of the barbed wire." While reading the last assigned pages, I still felt the way Tom felt. With no emotion attached to any of the brutal things he experienced, I felt the book lacked meaning. I felt like I was reading more a textbook, or something someone would write to help direct a play, but without the actors personalities to reenact the characters emotions. The ending of the book was most fascinating because Primo still shows no emotion when him and the others realizes that they are once again free men.
However, as I type, I think it was clever for Primo Levi to write the way he did. I believe he mentions at some point that near the beginning of his enslavement in the concentration camp, that he went from man, to just a thing with no emotion. All the “Haftlinge” ever thought about was the basic survival needs: food, shelter, water. There was no reason to dwell on their past lives because their lives were only this now. And there was no reason to dwell on their feelings inside the camp, because to them, there was no future outside of the concentration camps, where they would be able to freely tell their story, and the horrors that they may have felt.
I agree with both Rachel and Paul that Primo Levi has a different way of writing that can make the reading more of a description of what happened but not really enough of the emotional aspect of things. After finishing the book, I realized that throughout the book, Primo Levi seemed to explain death in a different manner than other survivors. He for example, stated, "Someone came later and moved the body about a yard, so freeing the hole" ( 168). After Primo Levi states this he quickly moves on to another subject, showing that death was like an incident that happened and then life went on. He did not seem to express any emotion or explain if he felt sad or worried about the deaths of other people. I thought that this might have to do with the fact that by this point in time, people were only worried about satisfying their biological needs of hunger and pretty much just staying alive.
Also after finishing the book, I think that it was worth reading in the fact that it was interesting to see a perspective that is not often portrayed in most Holocaust survivor testimonies. Usually, it is expected that people tell their emotional stories of how they were separated from their families and how they fought for their lives. Primo Levi, on the other hand, wrote his book on the things he noticed and the few various thoughts that went on in his mind. For example, I have never read a Holocaust book that mentions that there were marketplaces that took place inside the concentration camps. I had no idea that prisoners actually traded objects such as spoons and knives in turn for extra rations of bread or even soup. I also had never heard of the fact that the Nazis officers gave prisoners who were sectioned off to be gassed to get an extra ration of food. I found this idea very controversial. How could Nazi officers put these people into camps aiming to kill them all and yet still attempt to have pity and give them an extra ration of food? However distant the Primo Levi might have been throught the book, I think that he still presented some interesting facts that few other Holocaust survivors have explained.
So my thoughts before finishing the book were similar to everyone elses, he usually omits emotions and writes very matter-of-factly. On p.49, Levi describes a non-Jewish Pole who snickers with a nurse about the Italian Jew. Levi discusses the different stereotypes of the inmates based on what country they are from as well as describing his distaste for the Pole. "He stoops to press on my tibia with his thumb, and shows the [nurse] the deep impression that his finger leaves in the pale flesh...I wish I had never spoken to the Pole: I feel as if I had never in all my life undergone an affront worse than this."(49) This is a powerful quote to me because he shows the reader his emotion. In this scene, the Pole and the nurse were poking and prodding his body and talking in a language Levi couldn't understand. Obviously, this humiliated Levi, he had no idea what they were saying and he felt regret for trying to talk to the Pole. I'd also like to express my opinion to Rachel's thought about how difficult it is for her to imagine someone living through Auschwitz and showing so little emotion. I find it completely understandable that a survivor wouldn't show emotion. He probably adopted a stoic expression in the concentration camps because if he showed his misery, the guards would feel proud of themselves. They would feel like they were doing their job, since they obviously didn't care about the prisoners feelings.
Now, for my second comment, I am glad I read this book, it was very informative and a good contrast from Night. Both books are traumatic and worth-reading, they just are told in different perspectives so reading both gives one a full understanding of the experience of an Auschwitz survivor. I liked learning about the different characters in the prison, Jean is very friendly. Kraus represents an ordinary man who is doing all he can to follow the rules in the prison and hopefully escape. Then of course the super cruel Pole that embarassed Primo Levi, they all represent different characters in everyday life. Jean is the guy who would get the "Most Friendly" superlative, Kraus maybe "Most Likely to Succeed," and the Pole is the bully. I hope I didn't disrespect the situation by relating the characters to high school superlatives, I'm just trying to say that Levi describes most things in a way that is easily understandable for the reader.
I was born and raised in Saint Louis, Missouri and first moved to Massachusetts to attend Amherst College, where I majored in both English and Russian literature. After graduation, I accepted a Fulbright Scholarship to the University of Tartu in Estonia, where I studied children's literature and semiotics ("the study of signs and symbols"). I returned to the United States to spend a few years exploring the wide world of business, but the classroom kept calling. It was high time to earn my Masters in Education from Tufts University and join the staff at Arlington High School.
Please don't hesitate to email me; I love to hear from my students and their caregivers. I look forward to getting to know you!
Just a friendly reminder that class calendars are subject to change. Sometimes I make mistakes (it's true!) and sometimes we just move a little more or less quickly than predicted. I will announce any changes in class and try to post them as quickly as possible on the blog. You are responsible for any updates made in class.
So I'm guessing this is just an open discussion space? So I'll start our books discussion. (haha)
ReplyDeleteI think Primo Levi has an interesting approach to evaluating the situation in Auschwitz. It seems like he is only observing what is happening around him, and other peoples' lives. I noticed that he starts off the book with getting acquainted with his surroundings, and then later he digs more into personal lives of those around him. What is most interesting, to me, is that he never dwells on his own personal story and how he is (or was) being effected by his stay in Auschwitz. For example, he says in chapter six, "to have a bed companion of tall stature is a misfortune and means losing hours of sleep; I always have tall companions as I am small and two tall ones cannot sleep together" (65). He never shows any emotion about how he feels sleeping next to someone tall, Levi just states that it's misfortunate, and he happens to be misfortunate because he is short. I'm wondering why he chooses to write this way? Perhaps it's too painful to talk about his feelings, and feels it is more necessary to inform people about what happened without emotional attachment? So far I wish the book had more feeling, but Ms.Kitsis did warn us, so I won't complain. It's still fascinating how someone who survived Auschwitz can show such little emotion.
-Rachel G
I agree with Rachel that Primo Levi does write in a more distant style of writing. It is difficult to infer his emotion from his writing, but what clear are his careful observation and deep analysis of the situation he was in. There are many powerful sentences dispersed throughout the book. One sentence that I particularly like is: “Sooner or later in life everyone discovers that perfect happiness is unrealizable, but there are few who pause to consider the antithesis: that perfect unhappiness is equally unattainable” (17). Optimist thinking can alleviate stressful situation. When one feels self-conscious, an adaptive attitude would be to think that “oh well, nobody is perfect anyway” or “well, I can’t be the worst person in the world.” These are defense mechanisms stemmed from two opposite poles of perfection, but the negative perfection is less likely to be realized. There are many other random philosophical observations about the world like this in the book. Even though Levi’s writing style is extraordinary for a holocaust survivor who had gone through such traumatic experience, it is an indication that he still managed to maintain his identity as a scientist. As a chemist, he was trained to make careful observations, think critically and propose a theory or a conclusion. His recollection of the experience no doubt contains many qualities of a good scientist.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm also going to say I agree with both Paul and Rachel. It feels like he is talking about what is happening (sometimes in too much detail)from the other side of the barbed wire, rather then in all of the mess. It can sometimes be tough to understand how he feels about the whole thing, since he never really shows emotion based on the style of his writing. Right when I started reading, his style of writing was a little confusing. He also uses a lot of semi-colons, which can be annoying.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading, I learned that criminals were actually treated better and were top of the "food chain" in the prison when he said, "Our effective masters in practice are the green triangles [criminals], who have free hand over us" (33). He was part of the politcals, and below that were all of the completely innocent Jews, which doesn't make sense..
It was also sad to hear that Primo and his Italian friends met to talk every Sunday, but they had to stop because it was too depressing to see them disappear.
Primo Levi’s writing style, as has been mentioned, has a distinctly reporting tone and comes across as almost emotionless. I think that this writing style allows the reader to observe and digest the events Levi writes about without being as emotionally involved. As Paul mentioned, there are certain sentences that break through the author’s stoic exterior. An example of this is the first sentence of chapter seven, where Levi states, “the conviction that life has a purpose is rooted in ever fibre of man, it is a property of the human substance” (71). In this instance we see how deeply Levi was affected by what happened to him, even if he doesn’t put his emotions on display. Rachel asked why Levi chose to write in such a matter-of-fact way. I think that the way he writes shows a lot about Levi as a man. I think his nature is innately scientific, and this is what leads him to simply state what was happening around him, such as when he says, “but destiny ordained that I was soon to understand, and at the expense of Schmulek himself” (53). It’s almost as if Levi doesn’t want his account of what happened to be tainted by his personal opinions or feelings. He leaves it up to the reader’s interpretation.
ReplyDeleteAs repeated in many of the comments here, noting Tom's specifically, "it feels like he is talking about what is happening...from the other side of the barbed wire." While reading the last assigned pages, I still felt the way Tom felt. With no emotion attached to any of the brutal things he experienced, I felt the book lacked meaning. I felt like I was reading more a textbook, or something someone would write to help direct a play, but without the actors personalities to reenact the characters emotions. The ending of the book was most fascinating because Primo still shows no emotion when him and the others realizes that they are once again free men.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as I type, I think it was clever for Primo Levi to write the way he did. I believe he mentions at some point that near the beginning of his enslavement in the concentration camp, that he went from man, to just a thing with no emotion. All the “Haftlinge” ever thought about was the basic survival needs: food, shelter, water. There was no reason to dwell on their past lives because their lives were only this now. And there was no reason to dwell on their feelings inside the camp, because to them, there was no future outside of the concentration camps, where they would be able to freely tell their story, and the horrors that they may have felt.
I agree with both Rachel and Paul that Primo Levi has a different way of writing that can make the reading more of a description of what happened but not really enough of the emotional aspect of things. After finishing the book, I realized that throughout the book, Primo Levi seemed to explain death in a different manner than other survivors. He for example, stated, "Someone came later and moved the body about a yard, so freeing the hole" ( 168). After Primo Levi states this he quickly moves on to another subject, showing that death was like an incident that happened and then life went on. He did not seem to express any emotion or explain if he felt sad or worried about the deaths of other people. I thought that this might have to do with the fact that by this point in time, people were only worried about satisfying their biological needs of hunger and pretty much just staying alive.
ReplyDelete-Sandhya
Also after finishing the book, I think that it was worth reading in the fact that it was interesting to see a perspective that is not often portrayed in most Holocaust survivor testimonies. Usually, it is expected that people tell their emotional stories of how they were separated from their families and how they fought for their lives. Primo Levi, on the other hand, wrote his book on the things he noticed and the few various thoughts that went on in his mind. For example, I have never read a Holocaust book that mentions that there were marketplaces that took place inside the concentration camps. I had no idea that prisoners actually traded objects such as spoons and knives in turn for extra rations of bread or even soup. I also had never heard of the fact that the Nazis officers gave prisoners who were sectioned off to be gassed to get an extra ration of food. I found this idea very controversial. How could Nazi officers put these people into camps aiming to kill them all and yet still attempt to have pity and give them an extra ration of food? However distant the Primo Levi might have been throught the book, I think that he still presented some interesting facts that few other Holocaust survivors have explained.
ReplyDelete-Sandhya
So my thoughts before finishing the book were similar to everyone elses, he usually omits emotions and writes very matter-of-factly. On p.49, Levi describes a non-Jewish Pole who snickers with a nurse about the Italian Jew. Levi discusses the different stereotypes of the inmates based on what country they are from as well as describing his distaste for the Pole. "He stoops to press on my tibia with his thumb, and shows the [nurse] the deep impression that his finger leaves in the pale flesh...I wish I had never spoken to the Pole: I feel as if I had never in all my life undergone an affront worse than this."(49) This is a powerful quote to me because he shows the reader his emotion. In this scene, the Pole and the nurse were poking and prodding his body and talking in a language Levi couldn't understand. Obviously, this humiliated Levi, he had no idea what they were saying and he felt regret for trying to talk to the Pole.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to express my opinion to Rachel's thought about how difficult it is for her to imagine someone living through Auschwitz and showing so little emotion. I find it completely understandable that a survivor wouldn't show emotion. He probably adopted a stoic expression in the concentration camps because if he showed his misery, the guards would feel proud of themselves. They would feel like they were doing their job, since they obviously didn't care about the prisoners feelings.
-Michelle
Now, for my second comment, I am glad I read this book, it was very informative and a good contrast from Night. Both books are traumatic and worth-reading, they just are told in different perspectives so reading both gives one a full understanding of the experience of an Auschwitz survivor. I liked learning about the different characters in the prison, Jean is very friendly. Kraus represents an ordinary man who is doing all he can to follow the rules in the prison and hopefully escape. Then of course the super cruel Pole that embarassed Primo Levi, they all represent different characters in everyday life. Jean is the guy who would get the "Most Friendly" superlative, Kraus maybe "Most Likely to Succeed," and the Pole is the bully. I hope I didn't disrespect the situation by relating the characters to high school superlatives, I'm just trying to say that Levi describes most things in a way that is easily understandable for the reader.
ReplyDelete-Michelle