GRGR: Todorov and Clendinnen on the Holocaust

[Derek C. Maus]

On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, rj wrote:

> I guess I'll let the reviewer answer this sort of no-content dismissal:

And I guess I'll answer back for this sort of no-elaboration
reaffirmation:

> "*Facing the Extreme* is distinguished by admirable intellectual rigour,
> not by special pleading, or by appealing to abstractions or slogans, or
> indeed by the language of outrage. ...

Again, implying that there's something inherently wrong in applying the
"language of outrage" (whatever the hell that means...are Ida Fink or
Tadeusz Borowski lesser writers for appealing to the "language of
outrage" instead of intellectual rigour when they write about the
Holocaust?) to the Holocaust. 

The not-so-subtle implicit dig that books without "intellectual rigor" (is
_Night_ "intellectually rigorous"? How about _Maus_? How about _The Smell
of Humans_?) are less worthwhile strikes me not only as elitist, but more
importantly dismissive of the value of visceral reaction when faced with
an event that consistently problematizes most every attempt on the part of
participants to rigorously evaluate it. As far as secondary writers go, I
find that books that try to fully intellectualize the Holocaust generally
miss the point entirely. 

Christopher Browning's _Ordinary Men: Reserve Battalion 101 and the Final
Solution in Poland_ is a great example of an intelectually rigorous (by my
standards...I can't vouch for your reviewer)  work that allows itself very
plainly to indulge in the "language of outrage" in order to make some use
of the topic. Browning uses primary source testimony to demonstrate the
way in which Polish reservists became emotionally and physically complicit
in the Holocaust and also discusses the psychological aftermath. Why? So
that people who listen to Pat Buchanan and nod their head in agreement
might some day be able to see the larger problem behind coded
hatemongering about "them rich bankers up there in New York." Sorry if the
"special pleading" is offensive, but so is anti-Semitism.

> "It would be a grave mistake, however, to regard it as merely another
> book about the Holocaust. It is far more than that -- and for that
> reason it is likely to provoke some distress and more than a few
> objections."

Why does the reviewer have to qualify his remarks with the denial that
this is "far more" than "merely another book about the Holocaust"? Have we
exhausted the "intellectual rigour" of American society already, now that
Steven Spielberg has told us all exactly what we're supposed to cry about?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek C. Maus               | "What am I opposed to tell my customers?"
dmaus at email.unc.edu         | Swearingen said. "'Sorry, Washington says
UNC-CH, Dept. of English    | no more fanny packs for you; time to spend
http://www.unc.edu/~dmaus/  | your money on great works of literature'?
                            | It doesn't work that way."   --THE ONION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------