One thought ... if a generic "first reaction" is hard to get your head around, consider posting the most memorable moment in the book so far, and why you think it's important. Have fun!
In reading the beginning of After Long Silence, something that stuck with me was the repetitiveness of “American” living. At the beginning of the book when Helen and Lara are still young children, Helen describes many situations of controversy of being an American. Their mother is a very strong character who emphasizes this idea of America. Their mother’s security comes from her children acting as Americans: “My mother never really paid attention to what I watched; she was under the spell of America, and everything American, she believed, must be good for me” (13). The mother believes that her children’s safety comes from them having a completely American identity. Because the mother feels that the family’s past is dangerous, she put her family under a different image, “it was an image that we all worked hard to achieve” (14). So, the actions of the mother really encompass the idea that the family is living a lie because of the trauma of the parents. At times, the mother seems uptight and she often lashes out when she gets nervous. I believe that living this lie has taken a toll on her because she knows the truth, and the children feel as though there is something not right in their lives.
I agree with the idea that the mother is becoming more nervous as her daughters get closer to discovering their true identity. However, I believe that their curiosity to this "new" heritage may be dangerous and that is why the mother is hesitating with Helen's suggestion of being Jewish. Helen finds that although she was raised a Catholic, the danger of her Jewish heritage was always there: "I had been living my life with flawed vision, stumbling in the dark, bumping into things I hadn't realized were there...each time I walked into my parents' house, I fell over something, or dropped into something, a cavernous silence, an unspoken, invisible danger" (31). Helen and Lara's discovery my not only destroy their mother, but may bring about a danger that has been hidden for many years.
Although I would agree that uncovering the religion of both of the parents may create some adverse effects, I’m going predict that these effects will only be short term. When a person has to hide who they truly are, it is often very painful for them. To try to cover up this pain they feel, both of the parents vehemently deny their past identities. When they were questioned about the details of their Jewish upbringings, the mother claims that “we weren’t the least bit religious,” which regardless of whether it’s true or not implies how she wants to distance herself from the religion (50). At this point in the book, I agree with Tina that both the mother and father are in very fragile states, and could be damaged if they are reminded about their pasts too forcefully. However, I think that if the children do it in a slow and cautious manner, there will ultimately be a positive outcome. I believe that once the parents overcome the denial that they have, they will be able to embrace Judaism and have pride in who they were and still are.
My first impression about the book was positive. I really liked the style of writing that the author was using. It reminded me of Anton Chekhov’s writing style were he uses little details to describe various life situations. A good example of it can be represented by the following quotation “Like most little kids, I considered my parents perfect. That is, I twisted in any direction necessary so that they always remained absolutely perfect in my mind.” (12) It shows how kids think and then explains it in a detail. This is just one of the examples; however there were a lot more. I enjoyed reading all of them. One of my favorite characters so far is Lara’s and Helen’s mother. On page 9 author describes their mother, saying she “was a more slippery figure. Slender and supple, she was half” her husband’s “size and twice as elusive”. Later on I read about how religious she was and how meticulously she was teaching her children about religion. One of my favorite lessons that she taught her kids was that “one’s relationship with God was personal” (13) she was the first character who I liked the most because she had many virtues that other characters did not have or maybe the author did not talk about them yet. Their mother was an honest, hardworking and caring woman and those were the human qualities that made her my favorite character. Her kids Helen and Lara are very nice and understand kids. They know a lot about religion and life because of their mother. Reading about their father did not really appealed to me that much because he was an ordinary man and did not have anything special about him which could made him stick out and be a unique character in the book.
Though Jon makes an interesting point, I have to respectfully disagree. Helen's parents made the choice to hide their Jewish religion and live their lives—even raising their daughters—as Catholics. The trauma they must have been through during the Holocaust and while at the concentration camps clearly damaged them in one way or another. Helen's mother became so upset when Helen first mentioned the fact that she thought she may be Jewish. In response to her belief, her mother “snorted with disgust” and then began crying that she had “failed as a mother!” (25, 26). Just that news alone unlatched hidden emotions that she had bottled up from years before. Even after Helen and Lara visit the Ukraine, the mother is still having a hard time accepting the truth her daughters uncovered. I think it will be extremely difficult for Helen's parents to once again accept the fact that they are Jewish; especially after hiding it and living a life of Catholicism for so long.
At the beginning of After Long Silence, the father remained a mysterious character, with little focus on his story. After reading on, the book delves more deeply into his past, revealing much more about his character and who he is as a person. As we learn how Helen’s mother and father met, we also learn of her father’s past life. He grew up in an extremely poor family and “owned one pair of pants, which his mother patched and mended year after year, adding pieces to the legs as he grew in great gulps” (84). The father’s passion for pursuing a medical degree demonstrates his will and determination as an individual during his past. The father went through extremely hard times during the war, especially while he was kept in a prison cell with other men. The father would not let his guard down when it came to protecting himself during the war: “Still my father continued to stare at the man with unblinking intensity” (153). I believe that the father’s will to survive and to respect others was fueled by his love for Batya. After learning of his struggles in the past and seeing how the father lives in the present, it is clear that the war has taken a toll on him. He has become a very simple man and has lost the fire that was once inside of him: “He sips his coffee and eats his coffee cake. The crumbs tumble down his shirt, but he is too tired to notice” (133). His struggles in the past have slowly put out his fire as he developed into a man of simplicity.
The relationship between Helen's mother, Batya, and her sister, Zosia, is that of a very close and trusting sisterhood. However, when they were growing up during the war, their relationship was not the same. Zosia had moved to Rome to be with the man she loved and “had thrown her family away” (104). Over time, Zosia and Batya became closer: “Their bond was sealed with a fifty-year vow to keep secret their true identity” (106). Keeping their Jewish faith a secret from the rest of the world brought the two sisters closer together. After losing their parents in the war—and assuming the death of the rest of their relatives—all they had was each other, which made their family bond much stronger. Much like their mother, Helen and her sister, Lara also became very close. Growing up, they were “opposites in every way possible” and did not become as close as their mother and aunt until they were much older. Ironically, Helen and Lara were brought together by the uncovering of the secret their mother had tried to hide: “[they] became tied together. . . on a voyage of discovery” (106). Batya and Zosia's past—growing up during the war—shaped their lives and their bond as sisters. Helen and Lara's curiosity and determination throughout their lives brought them closer as sisters in their path to discovering their family's history.
As the book progresses, the mother is becoming more and more willing to talk about her past. Originally, the mother could not talk about certain events that happened during the Holocaust, as the children “were not meant to understand it” (146). As time went on though, the mother was able to open up more about what occured. She goes into great detail about the “rampage, looting, and raping of women right in the streets” (147), and how she ran through live battles in order to see her family that lived on the other side of town. However, she is still not ready to directly reveal her identity as a Jewish person. This is evident when Helen talks about the bond between Zosia and her mother, and how it was “sealed with a fifty-year vow to keep secret their true identity” (106). I interpret her steadfast refusal to acknowledge her Jewish identity as a way to cope with the fact that she and Zosia made it out of Europe alive while great numbers of Jews did not. Although she is able to share with her children some of the hardships that she endured, labeling herself as a Jewish survivor is not something she is prepared to do yet.
I totally agree with John's idea that their mother really is telling us about her past more and more as the book progresses. One of the most important things that she reveals to us is that she had "no numbers" (58) as she said she was "not a survivor", "she was not in camps"(58). However I would also like to add that their father's past is being revealed as well. "As a youngster" their "father fell ill with TB, a common killer at the time",(83) however due to his parents' support and care he got well and survived. Both the mother and the father did not have easy lives, it was all about struggle. Struggle through life made them both strong, independent and dominant. Therefore in my opinion when they have found each other and got engaged their past affected their marriage because throughout their marriage each was "trying to deprive the other of the satisfaction of supremacy"(91).
As of page 179, we have developed a newer outlook on the father’s identity and how his past has shaped him. In the beginning, the author does not seem to get into too much detail about the father and his past, but tends to focus more on the mother’s influence on the family. The mother was the one more concerned as to why her children were becoming more curious about their Jewish identity as the father sat discretely in the background of the action. However, as the novel progresses, we learn why the father minds his own business and his only concern is to make sure that the family is intact. Growing up in the difficult time of the German occupation, the father’s main goal was to earn a medical degree; but because of the unexpected closing of his school, he is forever one test away from achieving his dream. We learn that the father was dedicated to his education and as times became more harsh, took the responsibility of caring for his beloved wife: “He wondered when she would hear that he had been arrested, how she would hear it, what she would do. He had promised her mother he would take care of her” (132). The father was arrested, tortured by the inhumanity of his fellow cellmates, and left with a burden of fault because he was not able to fulfill his promise to his mother-in-law at the time. It is no wonder that the father is so quiet and full of innocence when the story first begins; his past was full of horror and not that everything is put behind him, peace is the most appealing way to live his life now.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #3: If it hasn't occurred already, how do you think Helen's parents will react to her secret? If Helen has told her parents her secret, what do you think of their reaction?
Helen’s decision to tell her mother that she is gay came up very suddenly in the reading. I would like to point out that Helen is only shown telling her mother of her secret, and not her father. I wonder if her father ever finds out about it. Her mother’s reaction to the secret was not that surprising to me. I believed that the mother would react somewhat negatively to Helen’s news, but I was not sure if it would anger her or not. I believe that the mother’s reaction makes perfect sense as it relates directly to who she is as a person and her past. Her mother is very stubborn, and she brushes the news off saying “Boys have always liked you. It takes tie. You’ll see, give it time” (257). The mother does not fully accept the statement that is presented to her by her daughter, and by learning of the times that she went through, it fits her character well. She is not able to process the information because she is a person of her own will. As Helen said, “she only wanted for me what she thought was best” (257). Although Helen’s mother kept secrets from her during her whole life, it is still difficult for her to come to terms with very abrupt news. Her past shaped her to just do enough to survive and have the will power to keep going. Her past events influenced her to block things out that may seem threatening and go with what she feels is the best for her and her family. This is very much related to how she changed the family’s identity. She manipulates the truth in order to keep herself safe.
In agreement with Leah's thoughts, I found that the mother's reaction to Helen's true identity was similar to the way she acted when the girl's first brought up their mother's Jewish background; she brushed it off and refused to believe it. I find it interesting how the mother always seems to deny the truth because she was so used to it while posing as a different identity during the war. Her isntincts automatically force her to not fully see the truth and find some sort of escape for Batya to have as comfort. Her daughter coming out may have took her by surprise, but her denying it and telling Helen that, "You've always had boyfriends", attempting to prove her wrong, just shows how she couldn't beleive things about her true self in her life because of the affect of the war (257). My only question to this reading is if the father will take the news as passive as the mother did, or if it will completely destroy him and their relationship as father and daughter.
I had been interested to see how Helen's coming out would be taken by her mother. Like Leah, I also thought that Batya would act somewhat negatively towards Helen's news, but I didn't anticipate her to be angry. Christina brings up an interesting point that I had not yet thought of: Batya's reaction to Helen telling her that she is gay is quite similar to the reaction she had when Lara and Helen told her they knew they were Jewish. In both circumstances, she brushed off the news, trying to deny and escape it. So far throughout the novel, one of Batya's most prominent characteristics is her stubborn nature. Helen made a point towards the beginning of the book that no one should "underestimate her [mother's] stubborn resolve" (90). Continuously that has proved true. When Helen "finally screwed up the courage" to tell her mother she was gay, all that Batya could do was "offer scores of reasons" as to why this could not be true (256, 257). I believe that a point that Leah had made could explain Batya's stubborn nature with this issue: everything that Batya experienced during the war made her into a stronger person, and taught her to conceal or block out things that may be seen as threatening or dangerous towards herself or her family. Perhaps she fears Helen's decision; after all, gays were persecuted along side of the Jews during the Holocaust. I'm interested to see how Batya's opinion changes as the book progresses. Perhaps we can also find out the true reasoning behind her reaction to Helen's news.
I was very surprised when I found out that Helen was a lesbian and liked women. I was more surprised when she decided to talk about it to her mother and reveal her secret to her. I agree with Leah it came up very suddenly. When Helen finally said to her mother that she was gay her mother could not believe her (or did not want to believe her), she tried to assure her daughter that she was just confused about what she felt and said “you don’t know” (257). As hard as her daughter tried to convince her that she did know what she was talking about her mother protested and did not want to believe her. “You’ve always had boyfriends” (257) said her mother trying to convince Helen wrong. However, after some time Helen “let her have her way” (257). Even though her mother was kind of upset she was not mad at her daughter and in my opinion that will not affect on Helen’s and her mother’s relationship. Even though at first I think that Helen will feel awkward around her mother and will have a hard time looking at her eyes. However, in my opinion time will alleviate the shocking news.
When Helen comes out as gay to her mother, I was not surprised that Batya reverted to denial in order to cope with the situation. As Leah pointed out, the mother is made up of stubborn convictions, and at least at this point is not ready to accept the true identity of her daughter. I was very intrigued by Nell’s comment, when she talked about how it is possible that Batya’s reluctance to talk about her Jewish background is directly related to how she responds to Helen’s secret. As a result of her experiences from the Holocaust, the mother may have adopted the point of view that if one’s true identity has the potential to cause them persecution, it should be concealed and forgotten about in order to survive. Helen even narrates that “I knew she only wanted for me what she thought was best. The extraordinary will she developed to survive she couldn’t help using in love,” which further supports the point that Batya’s refusal to accept Helen as gay is a programmed response that stems from her own experiences (257). I also thought it was interesting, and quite telling, that Helen chose to write so little about the conversation between her and her mother. Though Helen’s struggle with her own identity parallels nicely with her mother’s, I think that she doesn’t want to take the focus off of her parent’s story. It will be interesting to see if Helen adds anything further about her sexuality as the book progresses.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #4: Was it a mistake for Helen to confront Zosia about her Jewish background? Where does one draw the line between deceit and good intentions as portrayed in the book?
P.S. Your handwriting is very hard to read, author of this prompt!
I believe that it was a mistake for Helen to confront Zosia about her Jewish background because of her promise to her mother about keeping her mouth shut infront of her aunt. Batya requested that the girls do not mention anything about their knowledge of being Jewish because she knew it would hurt Zosia and the consequences would not end well. In my opinion, i found that it wasn't completely right for the family to hide their true identity from the girls, but their intentions were well defined. Coming from such a harsh and dangerous life in the past, it only helped hide the pain for themselves; and when Helen uncovered the truth to Zosia, the pain and anger was released: "You have no right to interfere in my pricate life!.. You have no right! You are obsessed! We have nothing in common. You are a stranger" (337). What Helen did to Zosia seemed like a betrayal. Helen knew about her family's past, she found out who she really was, and the moment she confronted Zosia, I find that, that is where she crossed the line. Her good intentions of helping her and her sister find their true identity was not all about them anymore, and had become a deeper investigation of the truth. Helen should have drawn the line after they had the whole story from her parents and other sources, and not have contacted their aunt in a way to get more out of it.
Like Christina, I believe that it was a mistake for Helen to confront Zosia about her Jewish background. Helen did promise her mother that she would not confront Zosia, but she did it anyway. I believe that it was a mistake for her to do so because of the consequences that went along with her actions. After confronting Zosia, Helen completely abolishes the trust that her and her aunt had shared. Helen’s action completely destroyed their family and split them up rather than bringing them closer together: “It was surreal to be treated as formal guests by our aunt; the leap was too much for Lara” (340). The family drifted apart after Helen had taken the risk of confronting Zosia about the past, and I believe that it was not a risk worth taking. Also, Helen knew how Zosia would react if confronted; she would have a lot of trouble dealing with the fact that Helen knows about the past. Since Helen knew that Zosia would probably have a strong negative reaction, it was a mistake for her to try and make something else out of the situation for herself. A rabbi had sent Helen a letter saying “Be careful…there is definitely a deep=seated need on your aunt’s part to protect her offspring from the ‘next edition’ of racial-purity laws or genocide as well as survivor guilt. Be careful” (333). Since Helen was completely aware of how her aunt would react, it was a mistake for her to confront her. I believe that a line must be drawn when the known consequences outweigh the good intentions in taking a risk. For example, in Helen’s case, she was aware that confronting Zosia could tear her family apart, or comfort her. In her case, the consequences drastically outweigh her wishes and she makes the mistake that tears her family apart. I believe Helen was searching too much for herself, rather than her family and this caused the family to stray away from each other. So, although you may have good intentions, it is still possible that a risk might hurt others.
Although I believe that Helen was not acting selfishly when she confronted Zosia about her religion, the way in which she did it was reckless and poorly thought out. I differ slightly with the opinions of Tina and Leah, as I believe that it wasn’t necessarily a mistake to confront Zosia about her religion. The true error made by Helen was to tell Renzo about the discoveries that both she and Lara had made. When Zosia tells Helen that “you went behind my back…you had no right to talk to my son about this”, I have to take Zosia’s side on the issue, as Helen had no right to tell her mother’s and aunt’s secret to anyone who already didn’t know (333). This is because both Batya and Zosia understandably feel very protective about their pasts, and therefore should have the exclusive authority to divulge or not divulge their secret. If Helen had only talked to Zosia about what she knew, it would have been less deceitful. Zosia is not even upset when Helen talks to her initially, implying that her niece could be helping the pain because “[Zosia has] no roots, they are wiped out” (323). However, regardless of her good intentions, Helen crossed a boundary when she told other people the secret without Zosia’s and Batya’s consent. This was an egregious mistake on her part, as she should have thought out the consequences of telling Renzo his mother’s secret.
Though Leah and Christina make excellent points, I have to respectfully disagree. I do not think that it was a mistake for Helen to confront Zosia about her past and I am extremely glad that she finally made the decision to do so. Though Helen had promised her mother that she would not do this, she soon realized that it seemed “absurd . . . to protect [Zosia] from her own secret” (315). I know that it would have been painful for me to finish this book if Helen had remained oblivious to her family’s past around Zosia and had not told her everything she knew. I do not think that Helen’s actions could exactly be classified as “deceit.” Prior to speaking to Zosia, Helen wondered whether it was “dishonest . . . to pretend that [she] didn’t know the truth” about her family’s past (307). I think that Helen’s decision to speak to Zosia was merely based on good intentions. Yes, she did betray a promise she made to her mother, but I believe that Zosia had every right to know the truth. Especially since everyone else already knew. However, I do agree with Jon’s point that Helen did make a mistake of telling Renzo of his mother’s past before she spoke to Zosia about it. I think that one of Zosia’s main concerns is looking out for the safety of her children and protecting them from “the ‘next edition’ of racial-purity laws or [another] genocide” (333). Zosia most likely feels betrayed by Helen’s decision to speak to her son before confronting her, which I believe was a mistake made on her part. However, I still think that her intentions—of telling Zosia her knowledge of their family’s past—were good and I do not think it was a mistake.
Christina and Leah I have to respectfully disagree with you both and say that it was not a mistake for Helen to confront Zosia about her Jewish background. Yes, she lied. Yes, she promised to her mother about keeping her mouth shut in front of her aunt and everybody in general. Yes, it was not a loyal move when she broke her promise and told everything to Bea, Renzo and Zosia. However, firstly those erroneous moves erased the whole chain of lies which was there for years and years. After knowing the truth everybody could finally make sense of their family history. Secondly Helen showed that she is courageous because one has to have courage to go to someone else and tell that person the sad truth which can really hurt. It really is hard because Helen knew that by telling the secret to Zosia she might very well make her upset and angry. She also realized that if she makes her upset then Zosia might call her mother and tell her about everything that Helen told her, which would make Helen’s mother angry. Despite all f those conditions Helen still told Zosia about the whole thing, which surely made her upset and angry. Zosia called her a “Nazi” (333), “a beast” (333) and claimed that she was “worse then Hitler” (333). I agree with John’s point though that it was wrong of Helen to go to Renzo and tell him about the secret first. He really did not have a right to open up the secret for those who did not know about it. In my opinion one has to draw a line between deceit and good intentions so that one does not hurt others, because if it hurts others then even thought if the intentions are good the result want be the same. For example when Helen told Renzo about the secret her intentions were good and she only wanted to find the missing pieces that she needed in order to better understand her family history and clarify the falseness, however when Zosia found out about it she got mad and she was very hurt by it. Therein as I already mentioned above one has to draw the line between deceit and good intentions so that one does not harm others
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.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #1: What are your first reactions to the book, characters, etc?
ReplyDeleteOne thought ... if a generic "first reaction" is hard to get your head around, consider posting the most memorable moment in the book so far, and why you think it's important. Have fun!
ReplyDeleteIn reading the beginning of After Long Silence, something that stuck with me was the repetitiveness of “American” living. At the beginning of the book when Helen and Lara are still young children, Helen describes many situations of controversy of being an American. Their mother is a very strong character who emphasizes this idea of America. Their mother’s security comes from her children acting as Americans: “My mother never really paid attention to what I watched; she was under the spell of America, and everything American, she believed, must be good for me” (13). The mother believes that her children’s safety comes from them having a completely American identity. Because the mother feels that the family’s past is dangerous, she put her family under a different image, “it was an image that we all worked hard to achieve” (14). So, the actions of the mother really encompass the idea that the family is living a lie because of the trauma of the parents. At times, the mother seems uptight and she often lashes out when she gets nervous. I believe that living this lie has taken a toll on her because she knows the truth, and the children feel as though there is something not right in their lives.
ReplyDeleteLeah
I agree with the idea that the mother is becoming more nervous as her daughters get closer to discovering their true identity. However, I believe that their curiosity to this "new" heritage may be dangerous and that is why the mother is hesitating with Helen's suggestion of being Jewish. Helen finds that although she was raised a Catholic, the danger of her Jewish heritage was always there:
ReplyDelete"I had been living my life with flawed vision, stumbling in the dark, bumping into things I hadn't realized were there...each time I walked into my parents' house, I fell over something, or dropped into something, a cavernous silence, an unspoken, invisible danger" (31). Helen and Lara's discovery my not only destroy their mother, but may bring about a danger that has been hidden for many years.
- Christina
Although I would agree that uncovering the religion of both of the parents may create some adverse effects, I’m going predict that these effects will only be short term. When a person has to hide who they truly are, it is often very painful for them. To try to cover up this pain they feel, both of the parents vehemently deny their past identities. When they were questioned about the details of their Jewish upbringings, the mother claims that “we weren’t the least bit religious,” which regardless of whether it’s true or not implies how she wants to distance herself from the religion (50). At this point in the book, I agree with Tina that both the mother and father are in very fragile states, and could be damaged if they are reminded about their pasts too forcefully. However, I think that if the children do it in a slow and cautious manner, there will ultimately be a positive outcome. I believe that once the parents overcome the denial that they have, they will be able to embrace Judaism and have pride in who they were and still are.
ReplyDeleteMy first impression about the book was positive. I really liked the style of writing that the author was using. It reminded me of Anton Chekhov’s writing style were he uses little details to describe various life situations. A good example of it can be represented by the following quotation “Like most little kids, I considered my parents perfect. That is, I twisted in any direction necessary so that they always remained absolutely perfect in my mind.” (12) It shows how kids think and then explains it in a detail. This is just one of the examples; however there were a lot more. I enjoyed reading all of them.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite characters so far is Lara’s and Helen’s mother. On page 9 author describes their mother, saying she “was a more slippery figure. Slender and supple, she was half” her husband’s “size and twice as elusive”. Later on I read about how religious she was and how meticulously she was teaching her children about religion. One of my favorite lessons that she taught her kids was that “one’s relationship with God was personal” (13) she was the first character who I liked the most because she had many virtues that other characters did not have or maybe the author did not talk about them yet. Their mother was an honest, hardworking and caring woman and those were the human qualities that made her my favorite character. Her kids Helen and Lara are very nice and understand kids. They know a lot about religion and life because of their mother. Reading about their father did not really appealed to me that much because he was an ordinary man and did not have anything special about him which could made him stick out and be a unique character in the book.
- Avetis
Though Jon makes an interesting point, I have to respectfully disagree. Helen's parents made the choice to hide their Jewish religion and live their lives—even raising their daughters—as Catholics. The trauma they must have been through during the Holocaust and while at the concentration camps clearly damaged them in one way or another. Helen's mother became so upset when Helen first mentioned the fact that she thought she may be Jewish. In response to her belief, her mother “snorted with disgust” and then began crying that she had “failed as a mother!” (25, 26). Just that news alone unlatched hidden emotions that she had bottled up from years before. Even after Helen and Lara visit the Ukraine, the mother is still having a hard time accepting the truth her daughters uncovered. I think it will be extremely difficult for Helen's parents to once again accept the fact that they are Jewish; especially after hiding it and living a life of Catholicism for so long.
ReplyDeleteNell.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #2:
ReplyDeleteChoose one of the following to answer:
(1) As of page 179, how is Mother coming to terms with her own identity?
(2) Choose a character. How does his or her past shape this person into who he or she is now?
At the beginning of After Long Silence, the father remained a mysterious character, with little focus on his story. After reading on, the book delves more deeply into his past, revealing much more about his character and who he is as a person. As we learn how Helen’s mother and father met, we also learn of her father’s past life. He grew up in an extremely poor family and “owned one pair of pants, which his mother patched and mended year after year, adding pieces to the legs as he grew in great gulps” (84). The father’s passion for pursuing a medical degree demonstrates his will and determination as an individual during his past. The father went through extremely hard times during the war, especially while he was kept in a prison cell with other men. The father would not let his guard down when it came to protecting himself during the war: “Still my father continued to stare at the man with unblinking intensity” (153). I believe that the father’s will to survive and to respect others was fueled by his love for Batya. After learning of his struggles in the past and seeing how the father lives in the present, it is clear that the war has taken a toll on him. He has become a very simple man and has lost the fire that was once inside of him: “He sips his coffee and eats his coffee cake. The crumbs tumble down his shirt, but he is too tired to notice” (133). His struggles in the past have slowly put out his fire as he developed into a man of simplicity.
ReplyDeleteLeah
The relationship between Helen's mother, Batya, and her sister, Zosia, is that of a very close and trusting sisterhood. However, when they were growing up during the war, their relationship was not the same. Zosia had moved to Rome to be with the man she loved and “had thrown her family away” (104). Over time, Zosia and Batya became closer: “Their bond was sealed with a fifty-year vow to keep secret their true identity” (106). Keeping their Jewish faith a secret from the rest of the world brought the two sisters closer together. After losing their parents in the war—and assuming the death of the rest of their relatives—all they had was each other, which made their family bond much stronger. Much like their mother, Helen and her sister, Lara also became very close. Growing up, they were “opposites in every way possible” and did not become as close as their mother and aunt until they were much older. Ironically, Helen and Lara were brought together by the uncovering of the secret their mother had tried to hide: “[they] became tied together. . . on a voyage of discovery” (106). Batya and Zosia's past—growing up during the war—shaped their lives and their bond as sisters. Helen and Lara's curiosity and determination throughout their lives brought them closer as sisters in their path to discovering their family's history.
ReplyDeleteAs the book progresses, the mother is becoming more and more willing to talk about her past. Originally, the mother could not talk about certain events that happened during the Holocaust, as the children “were not meant to understand it” (146). As time went on though, the mother was able to open up more about what occured. She goes into great detail about the “rampage, looting, and raping of women right in the streets” (147), and how she ran through live battles in order to see her family that lived on the other side of town. However, she is still not ready to directly reveal her identity as a Jewish person. This is evident when Helen talks about the bond between Zosia and her mother, and how it was “sealed with a fifty-year vow to keep secret their true identity” (106). I interpret her steadfast refusal to acknowledge her Jewish identity as a way to cope with the fact that she and Zosia made it out of Europe alive while great numbers of Jews did not. Although she is able to share with her children some of the hardships that she endured, labeling herself as a Jewish survivor is not something she is prepared to do yet.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with John's idea that their mother really is telling us about her past more and more as the book progresses. One of the most important things that she reveals to us is that she had "no numbers" (58) as she said she was "not a survivor", "she was not in camps"(58). However I would also like to add that their father's past is being revealed as well. "As a youngster" their "father fell ill with TB, a common killer at the time",(83) however due to his parents' support and care he got well and survived. Both the mother and the father did not have easy lives, it was all about struggle. Struggle through life made them both strong, independent and dominant. Therefore in my opinion when they have found each other and got engaged their past affected their marriage because throughout their marriage each was "trying to deprive the other of the satisfaction of supremacy"(91).
ReplyDelete- Avetis OR Avo
As of page 179, we have developed a newer outlook on the father’s identity and how his past has shaped him. In the beginning, the author does not seem to get into too much detail about the father and his past, but tends to focus more on the mother’s influence on the family. The mother was the one more concerned as to why her children were becoming more curious about their Jewish identity as the father sat discretely in the background of the action. However, as the novel progresses, we learn why the father minds his own business and his only concern is to make sure that the family is intact. Growing up in the difficult time of the German occupation, the father’s main goal was to earn a medical degree; but because of the unexpected closing of his school, he is forever one test away from achieving his dream. We learn that the father was dedicated to his education and as times became more harsh, took the responsibility of caring for his beloved wife: “He wondered when she would hear that he had been arrested, how she would hear it, what she would do. He had promised her mother he would take care of her” (132). The father was arrested, tortured by the inhumanity of his fellow cellmates, and left with a burden of fault because he was not able to fulfill his promise to his mother-in-law at the time. It is no wonder that the father is so quiet and full of innocence when the story first begins; his past was full of horror and not that everything is put behind him, peace is the most appealing way to live his life now.
ReplyDelete-christina
DISCUSSION PROMPT #3: If it hasn't occurred already, how do you think Helen's parents will react to her secret? If Helen has told her parents her secret, what do you think of their reaction?
ReplyDeleteHelen’s decision to tell her mother that she is gay came up very suddenly in the reading. I would like to point out that Helen is only shown telling her mother of her secret, and not her father. I wonder if her father ever finds out about it. Her mother’s reaction to the secret was not that surprising to me. I believed that the mother would react somewhat negatively to Helen’s news, but I was not sure if it would anger her or not. I believe that the mother’s reaction makes perfect sense as it relates directly to who she is as a person and her past. Her mother is very stubborn, and she brushes the news off saying “Boys have always liked you. It takes tie. You’ll see, give it time” (257). The mother does not fully accept the statement that is presented to her by her daughter, and by learning of the times that she went through, it fits her character well. She is not able to process the information because she is a person of her own will. As Helen said, “she only wanted for me what she thought was best” (257). Although Helen’s mother kept secrets from her during her whole life, it is still difficult for her to come to terms with very abrupt news. Her past shaped her to just do enough to survive and have the will power to keep going. Her past events influenced her to block things out that may seem threatening and go with what she feels is the best for her and her family. This is very much related to how she changed the family’s identity. She manipulates the truth in order to keep herself safe.
ReplyDeleteLeah
In agreement with Leah's thoughts, I found that the mother's reaction to Helen's true identity was similar to the way she acted when the girl's first brought up their mother's Jewish background; she brushed it off and refused to believe it. I find it interesting how the mother always seems to deny the truth because she was so used to it while posing as a different identity during the war. Her isntincts automatically force her to not fully see the truth and find some sort of escape for Batya to have as comfort. Her daughter coming out may have took her by surprise, but her denying it and telling Helen that, "You've always had boyfriends", attempting to prove her wrong, just shows how she couldn't beleive things about her true self in her life because of the affect of the war (257). My only question to this reading is if the father will take the news as passive as the mother did, or if it will completely destroy him and their relationship as father and daughter.
ReplyDeleteChristina
I had been interested to see how Helen's coming out would be taken by her mother. Like Leah, I also thought that Batya would act somewhat negatively towards Helen's news, but I didn't anticipate her to be angry. Christina brings up an interesting point that I had not yet thought of: Batya's reaction to Helen telling her that she is gay is quite similar to the reaction she had when Lara and Helen told her they knew they were Jewish. In both circumstances, she brushed off the news, trying to deny and escape it. So far throughout the novel, one of Batya's most prominent characteristics is her stubborn nature. Helen made a point towards the beginning of the book that no one should "underestimate her [mother's] stubborn resolve" (90). Continuously that has proved true. When Helen "finally screwed up the courage" to tell her mother she was gay, all that Batya could do was "offer scores of reasons" as to why this could not be true (256, 257). I believe that a point that Leah had made could explain Batya's stubborn nature with this issue: everything that Batya experienced during the war made her into a stronger person, and taught her to conceal or block out things that may be seen as threatening or dangerous towards herself or her family. Perhaps she fears Helen's decision; after all, gays were persecuted along side of the Jews during the Holocaust. I'm interested to see how Batya's opinion changes as the book progresses. Perhaps we can also find out the true reasoning behind her reaction to Helen's news.
ReplyDeleteI was very surprised when I found out that Helen was a lesbian and liked women. I was more surprised when she decided to talk about it to her mother and reveal her secret to her. I agree with Leah it came up very suddenly. When Helen finally said to her mother that she was gay her mother could not believe her (or did not want to believe her), she tried to assure her daughter that she was just confused about what she felt and said “you don’t know” (257). As hard as her daughter tried to convince her that she did know what she was talking about her mother protested and did not want to believe her. “You’ve always had boyfriends” (257) said her mother trying to convince Helen wrong. However, after some time Helen “let her have her way” (257). Even though her mother was kind of upset she was not mad at her daughter and in my opinion that will not affect on Helen’s and her mother’s relationship. Even though at first I think that Helen will feel awkward around her mother and will have a hard time looking at her eyes. However, in my opinion time will alleviate the shocking news.
ReplyDeleteAvetis
When Helen comes out as gay to her mother, I was not surprised that Batya reverted to denial in order to cope with the situation. As Leah pointed out, the mother is made up of stubborn convictions, and at least at this point is not ready to accept the true identity of her daughter. I was very intrigued by Nell’s comment, when she talked about how it is possible that Batya’s reluctance to talk about her Jewish background is directly related to how she responds to Helen’s secret. As a result of her experiences from the Holocaust, the mother may have adopted the point of view that if one’s true identity has the potential to cause them persecution, it should be concealed and forgotten about in order to survive. Helen even narrates that “I knew she only wanted for me what she thought was best. The extraordinary will she developed to survive she couldn’t help using in love,” which further supports the point that Batya’s refusal to accept Helen as gay is a programmed response that stems from her own experiences (257). I also thought it was interesting, and quite telling, that Helen chose to write so little about the conversation between her and her mother. Though Helen’s struggle with her own identity parallels nicely with her mother’s, I think that she doesn’t want to take the focus off of her parent’s story. It will be interesting to see if Helen adds anything further about her sexuality as the book progresses.
ReplyDeleteDISCUSSION PROMPT #4: Was it a mistake for Helen to confront Zosia about her Jewish background? Where does one draw the line between deceit and good intentions as portrayed in the book?
ReplyDeleteP.S. Your handwriting is very hard to read, author of this prompt!
I believe that it was a mistake for Helen to confront Zosia about her Jewish background because of her promise to her mother about keeping her mouth shut infront of her aunt. Batya requested that the girls do not mention anything about their knowledge of being Jewish because she knew it would hurt Zosia and the consequences would not end well. In my opinion, i found that it wasn't completely right for the family to hide their true identity from the girls, but their intentions were well defined. Coming from such a harsh and dangerous life in the past, it only helped hide the pain for themselves; and when Helen uncovered the truth to Zosia, the pain and anger was released: "You have no right to interfere in my pricate life!.. You have no right! You are obsessed! We have nothing in common. You are a stranger" (337). What Helen did to Zosia seemed like a betrayal. Helen knew about her family's past, she found out who she really was, and the moment she confronted Zosia, I find that, that is where she crossed the line. Her good intentions of helping her and her sister find their true identity was not all about them anymore, and had become a deeper investigation of the truth. Helen should have drawn the line after they had the whole story from her parents and other sources, and not have contacted their aunt in a way to get more out of it.
ReplyDeleteChristina
Like Christina, I believe that it was a mistake for Helen to confront Zosia about her Jewish background. Helen did promise her mother that she would not confront Zosia, but she did it anyway. I believe that it was a mistake for her to do so because of the consequences that went along with her actions. After confronting Zosia, Helen completely abolishes the trust that her and her aunt had shared. Helen’s action completely destroyed their family and split them up rather than bringing them closer together: “It was surreal to be treated as formal guests by our aunt; the leap was too much for Lara” (340). The family drifted apart after Helen had taken the risk of confronting Zosia about the past, and I believe that it was not a risk worth taking. Also, Helen knew how Zosia would react if confronted; she would have a lot of trouble dealing with the fact that Helen knows about the past. Since Helen knew that Zosia would probably have a strong negative reaction, it was a mistake for her to try and make something else out of the situation for herself. A rabbi had sent Helen a letter saying “Be careful…there is definitely a deep=seated need on your aunt’s part to protect her offspring from the ‘next edition’ of racial-purity laws or genocide as well as survivor guilt. Be careful” (333). Since Helen was completely aware of how her aunt would react, it was a mistake for her to confront her.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a line must be drawn when the known consequences outweigh the good intentions in taking a risk. For example, in Helen’s case, she was aware that confronting Zosia could tear her family apart, or comfort her. In her case, the consequences drastically outweigh her wishes and she makes the mistake that tears her family apart. I believe Helen was searching too much for herself, rather than her family and this caused the family to stray away from each other. So, although you may have good intentions, it is still possible that a risk might hurt others.
Leah
Although I believe that Helen was not acting selfishly when she confronted Zosia about her religion, the way in which she did it was reckless and poorly thought out. I differ slightly with the opinions of Tina and Leah, as I believe that it wasn’t necessarily a mistake to confront Zosia about her religion. The true error made by Helen was to tell Renzo about the discoveries that both she and Lara had made. When Zosia tells Helen that “you went behind my back…you had no right to talk to my son about this”, I have to take Zosia’s side on the issue, as Helen had no right to tell her mother’s and aunt’s secret to anyone who already didn’t know (333). This is because both Batya and Zosia understandably feel very protective about their pasts, and therefore should have the exclusive authority to divulge or not divulge their secret. If Helen had only talked to Zosia about what she knew, it would have been less deceitful. Zosia is not even upset when Helen talks to her initially, implying that her niece could be helping the pain because “[Zosia has] no roots, they are wiped out” (323). However, regardless of her good intentions, Helen crossed a boundary when she told other people the secret without Zosia’s and Batya’s consent. This was an egregious mistake on her part, as she should have thought out the consequences of telling Renzo his mother’s secret.
ReplyDeleteThough Leah and Christina make excellent points, I have to respectfully disagree. I do not think that it was a mistake for Helen to confront Zosia about her past and I am extremely glad that she finally made the decision to do so. Though Helen had promised her mother that she would not do this, she soon realized that it seemed “absurd . . . to protect [Zosia] from her own secret” (315). I know that it would have been painful for me to finish this book if Helen had remained oblivious to her family’s past around Zosia and had not told her everything she knew. I do not think that Helen’s actions could exactly be classified as “deceit.” Prior to speaking to Zosia, Helen wondered whether it was “dishonest . . . to pretend that [she] didn’t know the truth” about her family’s past (307). I think that Helen’s decision to speak to Zosia was merely based on good intentions. Yes, she did betray a promise she made to her mother, but I believe that Zosia had every right to know the truth. Especially since everyone else already knew. However, I do agree with Jon’s point that Helen did make a mistake of telling Renzo of his mother’s past before she spoke to Zosia about it. I think that one of Zosia’s main concerns is looking out for the safety of her children and protecting them from “the ‘next edition’ of racial-purity laws or [another] genocide” (333). Zosia most likely feels betrayed by Helen’s decision to speak to her son before confronting her, which I believe was a mistake made on her part. However, I still think that her intentions—of telling Zosia her knowledge of their family’s past—were good and I do not think it was a mistake.
ReplyDeleteChristina and Leah I have to respectfully disagree with you both and say that it was not a mistake for Helen to confront Zosia about her Jewish background. Yes, she lied. Yes, she promised to her mother about keeping her mouth shut in front of her aunt and everybody in general. Yes, it was not a loyal move when she broke her promise and told everything to Bea, Renzo and Zosia. However, firstly those erroneous moves erased the whole chain of lies which was there for years and years. After knowing the truth everybody could finally make sense of their family history. Secondly Helen showed that she is courageous because one has to have courage to go to someone else and tell that person the sad truth which can really hurt. It really is hard because Helen knew that by telling the secret to Zosia she might very well make her upset and angry. She also realized that if she makes her upset then Zosia might call her mother and tell her about everything that Helen told her, which would make Helen’s mother angry. Despite all f those conditions Helen still told Zosia about the whole thing, which surely made her upset and angry. Zosia called her a “Nazi” (333), “a beast” (333) and claimed that she was “worse then Hitler” (333).
ReplyDeleteI agree with John’s point though that it was wrong of Helen to go to Renzo and tell him about the secret first. He really did not have a right to open up the secret for those who did not know about it.
In my opinion one has to draw a line between deceit and good intentions so that one does not hurt others, because if it hurts others then even thought if the intentions are good the result want be the same. For example when Helen told Renzo about the secret her intentions were good and she only wanted to find the missing pieces that she needed in order to better understand her family history and clarify the falseness, however when Zosia found out about it she got mad and she was very hurt by it. Therein as I already mentioned above one has to draw the line between deceit and good intentions so that one does not harm others
- Avetis