Desert Peach/Ruth Saunders
Duncan
Ruth Saunders wrote:
Duncan wrote:
> Ach. I assume that's a reference to me.
Far from it, Duncan,
Oh. Right. <blush> Mind-reading again...
as I said, I didn't read the start of the
discussion so I don't know what was said, but the accusation of
'revisionism' is one I've read in reviews of Donna's work and one
I've
heard her mention that had been hurled at her in the past. It didn't
seem inappropriate to upload the FAQ at that point. No references to
anyone where intended or should be inferred, the question about
'revisionism' has been in the FAQ since it was first written in 1997.
> The Holocaust is only peripheral to my argument (it only came up
because
> Eli insisted on taking the scenic route - and not even he has
accused me
> of accusing DB of revisionism. At least, I don’t think he has)
which is
> basically that I think she could be a bit tougher on the German
Army.
I agree with you - but then she could be tougher on all the armies
most
of whom were as bad as each other. The SS is a different story
altogether, but she's not writing about them. "Tongue" is interesting
in
that it does try to redress the balance against the impression given
by
Hollywood of the white-hatted liberators to a degree that I've not
seen
before.
I feel that she could stick more closely to the known facts of
Rommel's
life - but that's because I know a good deal more about the Field
Marshal than is good for me when reading Donna's work. I don't think,
for instance, that there's any real question of who was responsible
for
the death of Rommel - it was quite definitely the Nazis and no-one
would
act against a man like Rommel without Hitler's knowledge.
Hitler ordered his execution but he shot himself first. I think the
question is over why he shot himself.
Who or what did he think he betrayed? Or was he scared (unlikely)?
Rommel's own
son was there the day the Generals came for him, has written of his
experiences of the day and is still alive to tell the tale now.
Sure. Although you wouldn’t necessarily call him a reliable witness
would you?
The question is why he was murdered, and there are only two (I think)
answers which make sense, either (a) he was implicated in the 20th
July
Plot
Implicated, not involved (I think). He knew von Stauffenberg etc. (I
think).
or (b) Hitler had identified him as a possible figurehead to whom
the Allies would listen and decided to remove him for that reason.
Yes, but Hitler was really fucked up by then and the war was nearly
over.
I
don't think there is anything like the number of questions that hang
over the death of JFK.
No.
But that's really a minor point of interest to
WW2 historians such as myself, Donna isn't claiming to be one of us
tweed-suited brigade and nor should she be.
Sure.
> I happen to think that the beliefs of the Nazis were so
> despicable (and their result, the Holocaust, was a crime of such
> magnitude) that anyone who writes in their shadow, so to speak, has
to
> be careful that her natural sympathy for her characters doesn’t
tend to
> make us forget that that shadow is there.
Again, totally agree with you. But that's not to say she can change
the
facts to bring the Holocaust into parts of the story where it has no
place being.
Ummm. Well, she can do what she likes, obviously, and I’d still read
her... but can she do that i such
a way that she’s treating the Holocaust as just another event, like a
battle or something? I dunno. I
mean, she can, but it could be morally dubious, to say the least...
[re IQ testing]
I'm not sure...the problem I've always had with IQ testing is (1)
that
it tests only one kind of intelligence and (2) that some of the tests
I've read are excessively culture based. This means that many of the
most common tests under score people whose intelligence is of another
kind (at its most basic it excludes people skills and tends to
over-reward logical skills).
I’ve heard both those criticisms before and I honestly don’t understand
either of them. How many
types of intelligence are there? What does “culture based” mean? What
are “people-” and “logical
skills”?
Many of the tests are language based and
will under measure the intelligence of people whose first language is
not the language the test has been set in, or who score less well in
language generally.
True. That I can dig.
Tests have improved from the ones originally
written, but none that I know of have managed to totally exclude
cultural bias.
I... dunno. Dubious.
> Like I said, I think that Nazism was of such a different order of
> magnitude that it can’t simple be called “German racism”. [snip] Of
course there
> is a third difference between now and then which also can’t ever be
> forgotten: there are barely any Jews there, either.
I agree with you...with the proviso that the basis of Nazism was
(IMHO)
racism, and if we forget that we are in extreme danger. Also: while
the
Jews were the main 'enemy' of the Nazis, the largest group to suffer
at
their hands, they were not the only one. Jehovah's Witnesses,
criminals,
the disabled, gypsies...and gays were all enemies of the state.
True. But the Jews were the important ones. They were the ones which had
to be wiped out. There’s a
mystical element to Nazism which (arguably) referred to Judaism - even
depended on it, was a mirror
image of it (chosen people/master race etc.). George Steiner is really
good on this. Of course, it
depends on how you respond to irrational beliefs yourself. Eli, for
instance, is such a rationalist he
thinks I’m talking shite... (8-})
I can't find the quote now - I've obviously snipped it by accident -
but
I'm surprised that you find the stories overly populated by nice
(good?
deserving?) people. I haven't noticed this to be more the case than
'real life', thinking of such wonderful characters as the murdering
doctor in #21, Winzig (he's dangerous, IMO), those two smuggling
officers, and Rosen. He's quite definitely not a nice person.
I know people like nearly all the characters in the Peach - the one
I'd
pick out that I can't quite believe in is the man-impersonating cook,
Krueger, but just because I never met anyone like her doesn't mean
they
don't exist. Most of the people seem to be as 'nice' as in Real Life
and
as nasty, often both depending on circumstance. I don't think the
Peach
handled the near-rape in Lady Luck particularly well, but people do
what
they do, not what you want them to do. If nothing else it makes a
change
from the white-hat black-hat scenarios one finds everywhere else.
Sure. Saying anything is ‘nice’ or ‘not nice’ is pretty lame. I also
haven’t really read enough of Donna
Barrs work to express an opinion on her work (amazing how you can wing
it when you have to) but I
completely trust her political beliefs. It’s not that she portrays
anyone dishonestly, or that the bad guys
come off lightly, I think it’s that I get suprised sometimes reading her
stuff that her obvious
infatuation with the German Army isn’t leavened by a bit of sneering, or
a squirt of piss-taking,
iykwim. I guess it’s the tone I’m referring to. But it wouldn't stop me
buying it.