(no subject)
Feb. 18th, 2010 12:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
The main talking point of the book - the reason it was met with enormous controversy when it was initially published in 1959, and never published again until after the author's death - is the mass rape of German women that occurred when the Russian army conquered Berlin. The author is raped numerous times, and eventually affiliates herself with an officer to try and protect herself from casual rape by other soldiers. Her landlady, a fifty-year-old widow, is raped on the staircase by a sixteen-year-old boy. Some women escape by hiding in crawlspaces or attic lofts for weeks with almost no food or water; a different kind of torture. It becomes an almost casual question when women meet: "How many times . . .?"
And in-between all the brutality, there are the scenes of staggering absurdity, a bizarre kind of normality. When sober, Russian soldiers come to the author's house and discuss politics and architecture over tea. The widow frets over missing stockings and bits of jewelry. One soldier asks the author to help find him a nice girl. Another soldier, one of the ones who raped the author on the second day, comes back and declares eternal love for her; the author sardonicaly dubs him "Romeo." She classifies the Russians she meets: "An entirely new specimen!" She writes about the brutalities the Germans have done, too; they hear reports of German soldiers swinging the heads of Russian babies against the wall, and, towards the end, the stories about the concentration camps start to come out over the radio. This isn't propaganda or a story of victimization. It's a clear and cold-headed account of what happens to women in wartime. And in the aftermath, life continues. As the city slowly runs out of food, people re-open barbershops and movie theaters, and talk about how strange it is not to go to work (except of course on the days when they are sent to forced labor.)
The author was a journalist; her voice is intelligent and often witty, occasionally cruel, and full of black humor, which makes the parts where she lets her bitterness show hit that much harder.
I feel like I'm writing a lot about what's in the book, not what I thought. But I don't know if I can really formulate many of my thoughts. I think, though, that it is worth reading, if you can take it; I have never read anything before that discusses rape so frankly. The author knows this frankness is a temporary commodity, too, writing about how as soon as the soldiers come back, the subject will be taboo; "each one of us will have to act as if she in particular was spared." That's one of, but not the only, thing that makes this book so valuable.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-18 07:18 pm (UTC)For that matter, I'll see if my local library has this book -- it sounds like a difficult but worthwhile read.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-18 07:27 pm (UTC)If you remember identifying details about the other book, definitely let me know.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-18 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-18 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-18 08:49 pm (UTC)I always feel obligated to read war stories when I find them, even if I don't want to. It's something I need to know, regardless of anything else.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-18 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-18 09:58 pm (UTC)Um . . .
I also can't talk so much about it. There are big things in it like hunger and other forms of desperation that speak for themselves--vividly. And then there's politics. And the relations between individuals. The details are sometimes so arresting: like the Russians' obsession with watches (in preference to jewelry or other valuables).
One of my favorite scenes is the one in which the author and a Communist take a kind of comfort in what they've experienced, saying they can survive anything now, even Siberia.
One of my LEAST FAVORITE THINGS is GERD.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-18 10:07 pm (UTC)OH MY GOD GERD. I could not even talk about Gerd. (Aside from the fact that I did not want to because . . . spoilers . . . if you can spoil someone's diary? ANNE FRANK DIES AT THE END.) And I mean, in a way, you can get why he is horrified that, say, the widow is going around joking about her high-larious rape experience . . . AND YET.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-18 10:34 pm (UTC)That's my thoughts on Gerd. Sigh.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-19 01:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-19 06:58 pm (UTC)Thoughts:
1) I don't believe that book ought to have been made into a movie. I don't think it's possible for a 2hr movie to be as complex and full as the book. And losing the diarist's words, which is necessitated by movies not being told through the medium of words, is ... just, I don't think it's right.
2) THAT SAID, the movie does not too poorly by the book.
3) However, it is definitely simpler in a number of ways. The politics are simpler. (In general.) The thing with Andrei is much simpler (almost comes off almost as a kind of love story, which I think is a profound betrayal of the diarist's ambivalence). The diarist comes off even maybe as a Fascist German nationalist, which I also think is a betrayal of her.
4) Russian women have much more presence though.
5) And the movie does much better by Andrei's poor Mongolian bodyguard.
It's also so, so hard to watch sometimes but you anticipated that.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-19 07:12 pm (UTC)I remember going to the amazon.com page for the movie, and being surprised by how much prominence Andrei had - because in the book he is not all that prominent, not really any more than Petka or any of the others.
All the commentary I've read on Wikipedia and even on Amazon takes care to mention that the diariest was a Nazi propagandist. Which: yes, but that is not the point in any way, certainly not for her, and reading the diary I think makes that clear as well.
What kind of role do Russian women play in the film? I remember the mention of women in the army in the book, but that's it.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-19 07:25 pm (UTC)Yes :/ Like I said, I basically think it's just way too simplified. Mrr.
Well, not a big one, but seeing them around is more "there" than when the book says one time "there are some women in the army," you know? There's one nurse who's in love with Andrei who harangues the diarist a lot about how the Germans hanged Andrei's wife and also spends most of her time making puppy-eyes at Andrei. Which. :/
no subject
Date: 2010-02-19 07:28 pm (UTC)Which I don't really think is how she felt about Gerd... by then.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-19 07:37 pm (UTC)She does say that in the book, too - I think it is actually what my edition ended on - though that also felt weird to me . . . for a number of reasons, but especially as a note to end the whole diary on when Gerd is such a non-feature for most of it.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-19 01:22 am (UTC)It's something I'm interested in, but not entirely sure I could stomach.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-19 01:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-19 01:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-19 02:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-19 02:11 am (UTC)