How do you review books about trauma? I've been thinking about that a
lot the last few days, as I was trying to figure out what I wanted to
say about this book, and also the two I read around the same time. I've said the
universe sometimes throws me books in clumps? Well, this time it was
three about traumatic experiences under authoritarian governments. Two
fiction, one non-fiction.
And the non-fiction is probably the
hardest to review. When someone is relating their life story about
horrific events, as, in this case, the author's story about being
arrested in post-revolution Iran, sent to prison, tortured, sentenced to
death, having that sentence commuted to life, being pressured into
marrying a prison guard to get some semblance of freedom, and so on.
It's not an easy story, and I applaud Nemat's ability to get it down on
the page.
What about literary value? How do you even assess that
in this type of story? In this case, the prose is spare and not
particularly descriptive. Maybe that's the only way to get these words
on the page - you can relive it, but even for that, there's a limit. So
as a literary achievement, it's impossible for me to say good or bad. If
it were a novel, I'd critique it more heavily. As a direct expression
of trauma, it is a difficult read. And that probably should be the
point.
There was some controversy a year or so back, when one of
the panelists on "Canada Reads" accused this book of being untruthful,
but I just did a google search, and I can't find anything specific about
that, no specific accusations or individual claims of untruth. So that
judge may have been talking out of her ass, but it raises what is almost
always with us with nonfiction these days, particularly memoirs. After
James Frey and the Three Cups of Tea controversy, these types of books are under more scrutiny these days, and that has good points and bad points.
But
even if there are inaccuracies, which I'm not sure that there are - at
least I can't find any records of people picking out specific things -
I'm reminded of a story from one of my more theoretical drama classes,
"Geographies of Emergency." The prof told us a story about collecting
testimonials from Holocaust survivors, and in particular, a story one
woman told about Jewish resistance at one of the camps, and her very
clear memory of three of the smokestacks blowing up.
Except that
we know that only one smokestack blew up at that particular camp. So what do we do with her
testimony? It cannot be simply dismissed because, in the middle of
trauma, she didn't get every detail exactly right. For one, it is
testimony to something that we never think of connected with the horrors
of the death camps - active resistance. But yet, obviously, memory is
inherently faulty, and those accumulated during trauma even more so.
It's
a difficulty I continue to struggle with. But I believe these stories
have to be told, and even if some details are wrong (and again, I don't
know that any are), that doesn't immediately invalidate a story.
Everything has to be assessed for what it is, and with understanding of
context and history. I know incredibly little about Iran, and I should
know more.
I feel like I've talked less about the book, and more
about the thoughts that I had to get out of the way before I could
write a review. Somewhere along the way, the two merged. But my final
thought is that this is a good book, not a great one. And I think it
will have done its job if it causes people to explore more, rather than
read one book and stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment