Yann Martel and The Holocaust as genre
You may have heard that Life of Pi author Yann Martel was given a rather huge contract for his next book. And that the book is being described as an allegory about the Holocaust with animals.
Seattle writer Matt Briggs, in a post on his blog, reacted with this:
It disturbs me that the Holocaust is or has become a genre, just as there is a British tea cozy mystery. Is this an inevitable progression, that a collective trauma becomes shtick? Is the pot boiler Western the equivalent reduction of the genocide of Native Americans?…Three million dollars seems like a lot of money to pay for anything besides a bridge or highway or something.
Intrigued, I asked Briggs to elaborate.
Can you expand on the idea of The Holocaust as genre? Schtick?
I mean specifically a genre like the type of label that is put on a book by a publisher and means certain things to readers, like fantasy, murder mystery, or Western. These stories fit into a kind of template with a certain sequence of events, a cast of characters, and a pay off. And so we have in a murder mystery, a body, our suspects, and the intrepid investigator who untangles the mystery, is not fooled by the red herrings, and eventually “unmasks” the killer. The Holocaust in its telling and retelling has become a similar story containing a similar rigid sequence and caste of characters. There is the history of antisemitism in Germany (and elsewhere), the gradual rise of the Nazi’s to power and gradual decrease in liberties in Germany. The Jewish families who remember previous pogroms leave the country. Those who cannot afford to leave or do want to leave their homes stay, and then there is the sequence of restrictions leading finally to the actual transportation, starvation, and destruction in the death camps. Both Maus and Schindler’s List can be seen as key works defining decoration, the tone, sequence, and types in the story, in the way that Arthur Conan Doyle’s defines the detective story or Tolkein defines the dominant strain of fantasy story.
I don’t see anything particularly wrong with this, although it makes the reality of what happened less and less accessible and more and more not necessarily mythological but “packaged” guess. At this point it is packaged such that you can hear a title such as “The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas” and know pretty much goes down. I think a movie such as “Life is Beautiful” is not really possible without the machinery of this genre in place.
By “schtick” I mean really the set pieces in the genre story. There is something comic, even if it is a really dark comedy, in repetition, and doubling. And so reading other stories of genocide, The Holocaust genre is evoked, such as “The Hotel Rwanda.”
In contrast, some of the direct coverage of what happened in Germany in the 30s and 40s is very different from what we have come to expect from a story in The Holocaust section of the bookstore. Hannah Arendt’s book “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” is, well, kind of boring and really about a middle-manager who just wanted to get recognized for his efficiency and get a promotion, but in reading it you know he is never going to get that promotion. He never does.
So there is (again a sick and wrong) irony in retrospect of the call, “Never again,” mostly because genocide has become such a persistent fact of the behavior of countries, but also because even the specific narrative that this phrase “never again” was meant to apply to has become a genre, that is an endlessly repeatable story.
How does one avoid this? Is there a window, say? Something tragic happens. A little time passes. A window opens. Art is created in reaction to the tragedy. Time passes. The window shuts. More people write, but tend only to produce schtick? To follow story patterns? Unless you have a key to unlock the window, maybe—like Spiegelman had with Maus with his family connection?
I have no idea! It only occurred to me that maybe there is some possibility that collective trauma causes this to happen because of the weird similarities between the Western (about the genocide of Native Americans and their displacement by homesteaders) and the Tolkein Fantasy genre (about the ethnic warfare between light skinned and light people). Maybe history is written by the victors and genre stories are written by its victims? A key difference between Spiegelmann and Yann Martel is that Spiegelmann was the child of survivors and writing Maus in the way that he did was a way of approaching this material. He could make it strange enough to himself to write it down. Martel is refining a second or third hand story. Maybe genre is this ossification of supposed “real experience” into a rigid code and this ossification occurs by handing the story from one person to the next?
I say “supposed real experience” here because some writers think all experience is mediated through language, and so soon as something happens and you tell yourself what happened, it is no longer “real” but a made up thing, and this made up thing is what you think of as a “real experience.” I agree with this, even thought I think things actually happen in the physical world and they can be tested and verified. Columbus visited the Caribbean. This event happened. Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.
I also think that Spiegelman’s dad is probably a better source about the events of The Holocaust than Spiegelman, and in turn Spiegelman is a better source than Yann Martel. But I don’t think “reality” is of any concern to Martel. He is thinking about something else, maybe, some kind of refinement, an industrial process of ingesting existing stories, parsing them, and producing a transparent, delicious, deeply moving substance known as The Holocaust Genre that will sell three million dollars worth of quality paperbacks.
***
Thanks, Matt.
Watch me face off against Matt in Seattle’s first Literary Death Match on August 13 in The Rendevous’s Jewelbox Theater.
Matt is also a part of Reading Local Seattle.
“I’ve noticed over the years of reading books on the Holocaust and seeing movies that it’s always represented in the same way, which is historical or social realism,” Mr. Martel, 46, said in a telephone interview from his home in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. “I was thinking that it was interesting that you don’t have many imaginative takes on it, like George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ and its take on Stalinism.” Mr. Martel said that although there had been a few works like “Life is Beautiful” in film or the “Maus” books by Art Spiegelman that had been more metaphorical, artists were generally “fearful of letting the imagination loose on the Holocaust.”
“So my novel is an attempt to get a distillation on it and see if there is a way of talking about the Holocaust without talking about it literally,” Mr. Martel said.
“I’ve noticed over the years of reading books on the Holocaust and seeing movies that it’s always represented in the same way, which is historical or social realism,” Mr. Martel, 46, said in a telephone interview from his home in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. “I was thinking that it was interesting that you don’t have many imaginative takes on it, like George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ and its take on Stalinism.” Mr. Martel said that although there had been a few works like “Life is Beautiful” in film or the “Maus” books by Art Spiegelman that had been more metaphorical, artists were generally “fearful of letting the imagination loose on the Holocaust.”
“So my novel is an attempt to get a distillation on it and see if there is a way of talking about the Holocaust without talking about it literally,” Mr. Martel said.
This is interesting information that this is Martel’s statement about it. I have trouble believing any writer is as naive or under read as this: similar questions were raised in fact about Life of Pi. By citing a nonexistent John Updike in the New York Review of Books, review, Martel created a kind of puzzle that lead no where. It just not true that the Holocaust has been treated only in historical or social realism. Maus of course is the most immediate and glaring example of where this isn’t true, and I don’t think it is a small or negligible one. Neither in fact is Animal Farm, which is more an allegory directed at Stalin, but I think can by applied to any totalitarian regime.Off the top of my head I can think of a several allegorical books about the Holocaust: some of the stories in For the Relief of Unbearable Urges by Nathan Englander, The Final Solution by Michael Chabon, A Blessing on the Moon by Joseph Skibell, the Painted Bird (although not specifically about the camps). In fact critic David Danow coined the phrase, “grotesque realism” (from Lies that Tell the Truth): “In contrast to ‘magic realism’ the term is to indicate that Holocaust literature explores the ‘dark, death-embracing, horrific aspect’ of an essentially dualistic carnivalesque-grotesque.”
This is interesting information that this is Martel’s statement about it. I have trouble believing any writer is as naive or under read as this: similar questions were raised in fact about Life of Pi. By citing a nonexistent John Updike in the New York Review of Books, review, Martel created a kind of puzzle that lead no where. It just not true that the Holocaust has been treated only in historical or social realism. Maus of course is the most immediate and glaring example of where this isn’t true, and I don’t think it is a small or negligible one. Neither in fact is Animal Farm, which is more an allegory directed at Stalin, but I think can by applied to any totalitarian regime.Off the top of my head I can think of a several allegorical books about the Holocaust: some of the stories in For the Relief of Unbearable Urges by Nathan Englander, The Final Solution by Michael Chabon, A Blessing on the Moon by Joseph Skibell, the Painted Bird (although not specifically about the camps). In fact critic David Danow coined the phrase, “grotesque realism” (from Lies that Tell the Truth): “In contrast to ‘magic realism’ the term is to indicate that Holocaust literature explores the ‘dark, death-embracing, horrific aspect’ of an essentially dualistic carnivalesque-grotesque.”
What Martel says makes my head hurt a bit.
I read Life of Pi and enjoyed it. It’s not particularly interesting. I don’t think he is going to write something that I will want to read and think about and share and tell other people to read.
It seems unfair of him to dismiss the various interpretations of the Holocaust that Matt mentions below. Has he actually read them? Perhaps he has been misquoted. It should not be the case that he is not *allowed* to write his book. But there is something that feels wrong about this.
I am happy that he has sold the UK rights to Canongate. This will help independent publishing in Scotland/the UK.
What Martel says makes my head hurt a bit.
I read Life of Pi and enjoyed it. It’s not particularly interesting. I don’t think he is going to write something that I will want to read and think about and share and tell other people to read.
It seems unfair of him to dismiss the various interpretations of the Holocaust that Matt mentions below. Has he actually read them? Perhaps he has been misquoted. It should not be the case that he is not *allowed* to write his book. But there is something that feels wrong about this.
I am happy that he has sold the UK rights to Canongate. This will help independent publishing in Scotland/the UK.
I thought live of Pi was shit. A professor of mine described it as “tourist literature; written by a tourist for tourists”. And the introduction, and it’s implications regarding cultural appropriation (visit, eat the food, write authentically) are disturbing.
The greatest writer of the holocaust is Paul Celan.
I thought live of Pi was shit. A professor of mine described it as “tourist literature; written by a tourist for tourists”. And the introduction, and it’s implications regarding cultural appropriation (visit, eat the food, write authentically) are disturbing.
The greatest writer of the holocaust is Paul Celan.
[…] Is the Holocaust a genre? […]
I think it is brave of Mr. Briggs to tackle this subject, and applaud him for doing so.
I think it is brave of Mr. Briggs to tackle this subject, and applaud him for doing so.
sadly, holocausts (note the plural) ARE a genre. A genre of human activity that is not limited to the Holocaust of WWII despite it’s notoriety. Having said that, i don’t think enough attention can be given to either. Humans continue to behave in this way because it is too easy to forget, ignore and justify their actions. Maybe if we all wrote something reminding ourselves of how easy violence creeps in through injustice, racism, ignorance and complacency the tide could stop or slow. Write it I say, and make it great so more people pay attention.
sadly, holocausts (note the plural) ARE a genre. A genre of human activity that is not limited to the Holocaust of WWII despite it’s notoriety. Having said that, i don’t think enough attention can be given to either. Humans continue to behave in this way because it is too easy to forget, ignore and justify their actions. Maybe if we all wrote something reminding ourselves of how easy violence creeps in through injustice, racism, ignorance and complacency the tide could stop or slow. Write it I say, and make it great so more people pay attention.
I don’t think ‘holocausts’ being a genre necessarily equates to the Holocaust as a genre – if that makes sense. It’s too stand-alone.
The whole notion of ‘Holocaust as genre’ made me feel incredibly uncomfortable, though I appreciate that Briggs is commenting on what he perceives, not creating it himself.
My knee-jerk reaction to this as Martel’s new book was a wince. I suppose it will be interesting to see how he tackles it. Or maybe it won’t.
Aside from actual emotive stuff – and I liked Life of Pi – isn’t one animals as allegory novel by an author enough, really?
I’m also not convinced by the notion of various portrayals of the Holocaust as a ‘similar story.’ Perhaps the most mainstream parts that have entered the media – but read something like ‘Castles Burning’ and it gives you a different part of the story.
There is – and I’m not sure how relevant this is or not – one thing that bothers me about this as a project, as opposed to Spielberg doing Schlinder’s List, say. I really, really hope Martel’s tackling of this will be sensitive. And the thing was? Spielberg in going into production actually had a vested interest in the reality of the events. Entirely separately to the making of the film, he filmed his collection of survivors archives. And perhaps that counteracts notions of the Holocaust as a genre, somewhat: when you get to the actual reality of events as told by real people.
I’m certain it’s much much too recent an event in the world’s history for it to be mythologised or fictionalised yet, but perhaps it’s inevitable – and perhaps it is with most things. Real events turned into bestsellers do tend to become more a story than a conceivable reality. And perhaps it’s partly necessary as a disassociative (sp?) measure.
But my feeling would be that for now literalness is still important.
I don’t think ‘holocausts’ being a genre necessarily equates to the Holocaust as a genre – if that makes sense. It’s too stand-alone.
The whole notion of ‘Holocaust as genre’ made me feel incredibly uncomfortable, though I appreciate that Briggs is commenting on what he perceives, not creating it himself.
My knee-jerk reaction to this as Martel’s new book was a wince. I suppose it will be interesting to see how he tackles it. Or maybe it won’t.
Aside from actual emotive stuff – and I liked Life of Pi – isn’t one animals as allegory novel by an author enough, really?
I’m also not convinced by the notion of various portrayals of the Holocaust as a ‘similar story.’ Perhaps the most mainstream parts that have entered the media – but read something like ‘Castles Burning’ and it gives you a different part of the story.
There is – and I’m not sure how relevant this is or not – one thing that bothers me about this as a project, as opposed to Spielberg doing Schlinder’s List, say. I really, really hope Martel’s tackling of this will be sensitive. And the thing was? Spielberg in going into production actually had a vested interest in the reality of the events. Entirely separately to the making of the film, he filmed his collection of survivors archives. And perhaps that counteracts notions of the Holocaust as a genre, somewhat: when you get to the actual reality of events as told by real people.
I’m certain it’s much much too recent an event in the world’s history for it to be mythologised or fictionalised yet, but perhaps it’s inevitable – and perhaps it is with most things. Real events turned into bestsellers do tend to become more a story than a conceivable reality. And perhaps it’s partly necessary as a disassociative (sp?) measure.
But my feeling would be that for now literalness is still important.
I agree with all of what you have said.
I agree with all of what you have said.
[…] Yann Martel is publishing a book on the Holocaust told via animals. This seems a strange decision given the fact that Maus exists. Some people talked about this. […]