Comments on: Strength to Cry

By: Kate Orland Bere

Kate Orland Bere — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 03:55:57 +0000

I agree with Elaine Kalman above, on the art of reviewing, although if a competent reviewer has done an honest, thoughtful, & thorough job, this can also be a great asset to a writer as well as to any reader. If a review is merely a trashing of the work, it probably is not a thorough, or a fair, review. Which is why it probably is not fair here, perhaps, to cobble four “mini-reviews” into a 500 word piece, simply because they all (sort-of) seem to have a common theme. An author and their book deserves a full 500 words, if chosen for review.

By: Merrily Weisbord

Merrily Weisbord — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:45:38 +0000

I read Distantly Related to Freud and did not distantly relate to it as a holocaust book. The main character’s journey toward becoming a writer and becoming her own person were the operative narrative. Ellen´s hilarious first sex somewhat echoed my own, but her life after immigrating to 50’s Montreal was a revelation of formative experiences and perceptions.
For me, the beauty of the novel is that it provokes thoughts and questions about profound themes — native/immigrant gestalt, the past in the present, family ties/binds – which made me consider not only how Ellen, the main character developed, but about how I developed too.

By: Peter McFarllane

Peter McFarllane — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 02:58:23 +0000

The minimum that we should expect from reviewers is that they review the book that the writer has actually written. The B.A. Markus review of Ann Charney’s Distantly Related to Freud missed the minimum by a wide margin. For some not easily discernable reason, the reviewer included the novel in her survey of recent Holocaust literature in the subcategory of books “on the theme of Holocaust survival.” What follows is a twisted view of a novel that the author did not, in fact, write. Charney’s Distantly Related to Freud is a wise chronical of a child encountering the entire range of life’s deceptions that often dash hopes but build character. It was a pleasure to accompany her on her journey in what is an extraordinarily well written and very substantial book.

By: Mary Soderstrom

Mary Soderstrom — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:57:49 +0000

I’d like to say a word for the elegance and understated seriousness of Distantly Related to Freud. Ann Charney’s book should not be grouped in the category of “haulocaust survivor” books because it transcends that category. It speaks to questions of identity that are universal, It also captures the way adults try to protect children from the past no matter what that may be, and how children must nevertheless learn to build their own lives on their heritage which they may only dimly understand.

By: Elaine Kalman

Elaine Kalman — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:21:52 +0000

Reviewing books is a tricky business and an honest reviewer will call it the way she sees it. Doing so may make her enemies for life among other writers–but, over time, will earn her respect with readers. (Rooting for an author because she’s home-grown talent is cheerleading, not criticism.) That said, reading is a subjective endeavour. Monique Polak’s novel was trashed by its reviewer in The Gazette. The only way to know whether you like it or not, is to read it for yourself.

By: Judith

Judith — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:14:22 +0000

I have only read Brodoff’s The White Space Between as well so I can’t comment on the review of the other books, but I do feel that the Brodoff review is a bit lopsided. I’m sure it must be very hard to review a book in just a few lines, but it seems to me that the reviewer only focused on the negative aspects.

Brodoff’s book is wonderfully written and I found the characters very enticing. If anything, I wanted the book to be longer.

By: Leo

Leo — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:54:41 +0000

I, too, have only read one of the books in question, that being Brodoff’s The White Space Between.

Not only is Carla’s point an excellent one that all reviewers should take to heart when doing multiple reviews within a single piece (look to Harper’s for some guidance there; they have some excellent reviews of that type), but also, the reviewer of Brodoff’s book missed what I think is a fundamental theme of the work.

The clue is in the title itself. The tale is about the relationship between a daughter and mother that illuminates with clarity the ‘white spaces’ which exist between family members – those facts, issues and moments of private lives that people go to great lengths to keep hidden from view. These white spaces, then, provide the dramatic backdrop to the life of a mother who has lived through the Holocaust and emigrated to Montreal to start a new life, only to have to flee to the United States to find peace at last, and her daughter who has become an accomplished artist, returning to Montreal to put on her first solo show.

The perspective of a Holocaust victim, mixed with the theme of white spaces, is a unique take on relationships and on how such a traumatic event can permanently alter the perception and outlook of a human being.

Brodoff’s writing is clear and full of meaning. Her characters are grounded in the here and now and are richly defined and vivid in the reading. The descriptions of Montreal are down to earth and complimentary, showing us a human and livable city. It has a strong narrative that easily pulls the reader through. It is, in the end, a genuine love story of a city, a love story between mother and daughter, a story of the moments of life that define us all.

For that alone, Brodoff ought to be praised loudly by her fellow writers in her home town.

By: Carla Hagen

Carla Hagen — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:45:43 +0000

I have read two of the four books reviewed here–Ami Sands Brodoff’s The White Space Between and Gina Roitman’s Tell Me a Story, Tell Me The Truth. I agree with the reviewer that Roitman’s linked stories read like a memoir. I felt they were complementary to Sands Brodoff’s vividly imagined novel. Although I have read neither Distantly Related to Freud nor What World is Left (the only one of the four on which the reviewer lavishes high praise), I did notice a glaring discrepancy: It appears that What World is Left is the only one of the works that actually takes place during the Holocaust. The other three, if I am not mistaken, are set in the now and the legacy of the Holocaust. If that it is true, it seems unfair and unwise to compare the four books. (Additionally, What World is Left is a YA book). If the criteria of the reviewer is immediacy of the Holocaust, then obviously What World is Left will come out on top–and I’m sure it is a fine book, which I look forward to reading. My complaint is that the other books, and especially The White Space Between, get short shrift. Can each book not be reviewed on its own merits, rather than being lumped in and summarily compared to other books, merely because they all pertain in some way–but in very different ways–to the Holocaust? I expect better from your journal.
Sincerely,
Carla Hagen

By: tim Jones

tim Jones — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:37:58 +0000

man…

that`s heavy -

and too many commas, etc…

but interesting nonetheless…

By: Michael Atkin

Michael Atkin — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:38:45 +0000

For some alternative perspectives on and reactions to The White Space Between by Ami Sands Brodoff, including reader reactions, check the following links:

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1897187491/

http://www.aelaq.org/mrb/article.php?issue=25&article=715&cat=2

http://www.buzzingblue.com/?tag=ami-sands-brodoff