To Sum Up...

[Derek C. Maus]

...my part of this pointless argument.

rj wrote in his original post on this topic:

> Riemer concludes by saying that although many may find the book
> "irresponsible", "disrespectful", "uncomfortable", perhaps even
> "intolerable" ..., "*Facing the Extreme* is a most eloquent
> commemoration of the century's greatest outrages that presents,
> moreover, an unanswerable argument why they must be remembered at all
> costs -- though without hate, rancour, lust for revenge or without an
> arrogance that may render victims' attitudes morally indistinguishable
> from their oppressors'." 

Having *still* not read Todorov's book, I *still* refuse to comment on it
(as I have throughout this) but rather *still* maintain that I
wholeheartedly disagree with the *reviewer's* assertion (which is
apparently also that of Todorov, if his review is an accurate assessment
of the book) that the most accurate interpreters of the Holocaust are
not those who lived through it, but those (like Todorov, apparently) who
apply intellectual rigor in the place of "hate" or "rancour".

I agree with the idea that "lust for revenge" and "arrogance" could damage
the academic objectivity of a book, but I think a book about the Holocaust
that does not contain some element of rancour towards the actions
committed is a rather worthless book. Pynchon ceratinly seems to allow
himself some rancour (even if it takes the form of satire, as in the "it's
not six million, but still pretty good" comment in _V._) about mass
atrocity. By my measure, the loss of rancour about mass atrocity is
precisely what allows it to be repeated and the lassitude with which some
people accept blatant anti-Semitism in this country is an indication of
that lack of rancour.

Lust for revenge leads to reprisals like what we see now in Kosovo as the
Kosovars turn the tables on the Serbs. However, I would also hate to think
these people moved back in with a smile saying "all is forgotten and
forgiven".  

This idea that a survivor whose narrative displays rancour towards his
captors is "morally indistinguishable" from the latter is a load of
bullshit in my eyes, pure and simple. So let's say in summation that I
agree with about 50% of what Riemer is saying that Todorov is saying and
have no opinion on what Todorov is saying, because I haven't read any of
his book. 

I'll spare the list any more of my take on this, as I get the feeling rj
is just in it to have a little sport anyway...

best

Derek "morally indistinguishable from Pat Buchanan" Maus 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------