The way Wiesel writes his memoir is almost like it’s written in prose, he is extremely descriptive with his writing, and his sentences flow, but he keeps the plot fast-paced and moving like the greatest poems are. There was one part I read that almost brought me to tears: the uncertainty of it, the questions it left, and the horrifying thought that it was pure hope that was keeping these people alive when there truly was nothing to hope for.
“Take care of your son. He is very weak, very dehydrated. Take care of yourselves, you must avoid selections. Eat! Anything. Anytime. Eat all you can. The weak don’t last very long around here”… And he himself was so thin, so withered, so weak… “The only thing that keeps me alive,” he kept saying, “is to know that Reizel and the little ones are still alive. Were it not for them, I would give up.” One evening, he came to see us, his face radiant. “A transport just arrived from Antwerp. I shall go to see them tomorrow. Surely they will have news…”
He left.
We never saw him again. He had been given the news. The real news.” (45)
Something that I truly admire about Wiesel, a quality that I wish more people had, is his humbleness and modesty throughout the book. The fact that looking back on it, he acknowledges how much Auschwitz changed him, and didn’t change him for the better, really had an impact on me. Many people today don’t have the ability to tell the world that, to write it in a bestselling book, to admit to themselves that the pain in their lives isn’t making them a better person.
The student of Talmud, the child I was, had been consumed by the flames. All that was left was a shape that resembled me. My soul had been invaded- and devoured- by a black flame... I stood petrified. What had happened to me? My father had just been struck, in front of me, and I had not even blinked. I had watched and kept silent. Only yesterday, I would have dug my nails into this criminal’s flesh. Had I changed that much? So fast? (37+39)
Since even before I started reading this book, I wondered why it was called Night. Was it named after Kristellnacht, The Night of Broken Glass? But now I think I know the answer. No, it was not named after Kristellnacht. It was named Night because it only took one night for Elie to become a whole different person, for him to let the fear and pain take over. For some of us, a night is just a time to sleep. But for Eliezer Wiesel and the rest of the Jews in Auschwitz, a night was almost like an eternity. A night was how long it took for them to lose control. “So many events had taken place in just a few hours that I had completely lost all notion of time. When had we left our homes? And the ghetto? And the train? Only a week ago? One night? One single night?” (37)
Aliya,
ReplyDeleteThroughout your post, you continue to return to the points of hope and change. I think this is a brilliant perspective of the reading. You bring to my attention the true importance of hope in a deadly environment, and the consequences of the absence of it. I completely agree with your idea of Wiesel's humbleness in his writing. He is completely, purely honest, and not only retells the events that happened, but the impact they had upon him.
Of everything in your post, the most exceptional part is the way you uncovered the meaning of the title. It is an powerful statement, and rooted in fact. I think that many people (myself included) have not even thought of the meaning of the title, but it is a piece of symbolism in itself. If Wiesel had called this book "Dawn", as he does his sequel, one would expect a darkness that is overcome. But with a title like "Night", is implies an unending, dangerous darkness. Your explanation is utterly incredible, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.
Overall, your post is remarkably well-written, and your content not only on-point, but compelling.
thank you so much Ava, your post was brilliant as well, and I think your comment is better written than my post.
ReplyDelete