. . .the pretentions and folly of youth. I don’t doubt Ms. Bush’s sincerity in writing this book (novel?), but even mentioning her work in the same breath as two books about the holocaust is youthful arrogance in the extreme. Stories of perseverence and survival are always moving, but the related horrors of Nazi Germany are far removed from most other life experiences and one should compare their own works to them with extreme caution.
I very nearly put this in the Pit (where it will probably end up anyway), but I can’t bring myself to any level of vitriol about her. She seems to have turned herself around and is trying to make a difference in the world. I just think a bit more restraint in her evaluation of her own writing is warranted.
Would a book about human suffering, written by a person you’d never heard of, have the same effect on you?
Do you think USA actually reported accurately? The only quoted part is “very, very modestly,” then the rest is the reporter’s words. Why’s that? I sense a Rita Skeeter.
Look, if a person who’s never suffered anything more than a hangover were to compare herself to Anne Frank, it would be obscene. But I don’t think it’s obscene to say you want to open people’s eyes to human suffering. The tragedy of Anne Frank has more to do with the Nazi extermination machine than with Frank herself. On a day-to-day basis, I don’t think her suffering could compare with that suffered by millions in the world today.
Bush says that it’s not an autobiography. The book is called Ana’s Story and is a true account of a teenager with HIV that Bush knew. Anne Frank’s situation was very bad obviously but I don’t feel her memory is belittled by saying this woman’s is as well.
She says she hopes her books have the same sort of influence as The Diary of Anne Frank and Number the Stars. She never makes any explicit comparison between her book and the other two. I don’t see what the problem is.
And I don’t agree that the Holocaust should be treated as some sort of taboo subject that can never be compared to with anything because doing so would trivialize it. There ARE such things as trivial comparisons (like those silly Harry/Hermione shippers who compared themselves to persecuted slaves or some such nonsense) but it’s ridiculous to attempt to measure degrees of suffering and judge which two can be considered equal. Who suffered more, the girl hiding in the basement in fear of the Nazis or the girl tied to a bed and forced to serve as a sex slave to Japanese soldiers? Or the single mother living with HIV in Panama? Or the child dying of slow starvation in North Korea? Does it matter who suffered more?
I think you’re being very unfair. She didn’t say she’d written a book as good or important as Anne Frank did. She said she hoped her book would have a fraction of the same impact.
This is one of those reasons to avoid partial quotes, but what are you implying? You think Bush said she hoped to dress “very, very modestly” and the reporter made up a comment about Anne Frank? The statement is not outrageous - Bush hopes her book about a young person suffering in a foreign country will make people think, just like other books have. I’m doubtful that it will - anybody remember Zlata’s Diary? - but she hasn’t boasted or said anything selfish, or anything that insults Anne Frank.
Marley23: I thought I made myself quite clear, but then, I have no idea what you’re talking about, or why it’s got you in a twist. So let me try and guess.
The reporter is pasting something trivial Bush said to something weightier that the reporter said. We don’t know what Bush really said. If she could quote her part way, why couldn’t she quote her all the way? If Bush was rambling, the reporter could have gotten her to do a quotable quote. IANAJ, but I am a critical reader, and I don’t think this is very good journalism.
Or so you’ve asserted, based on… what, exactly? What I’m responding to is your “Rita Skeeter” accusation, which implies shady dishonesty if not outright faking.
As I said, that’s one of the reasons I don’t like partial quotes. But I do think you’re being a little paranoid here. If the thrust of the article was “Bush is comparing her book to ‘Anne Frank’” and the reporter never gave a full quote, I’d be suspicious. But it’s an innocuous overview type of comment near the bottom of the story; there’s no reason to sex it up. [This, for the most part, is what I was trying to say in my third paragraph.]
No offense intended, but since you’ve said you’re not a journalist, I’m guessing you’ve probably never tried to actually do what you’re suggesting. Some people are much more quotable than others. Not everybody talks in full, well-planned, on-topic sentences. Looking at the dearth of quotes in that story, I’m guessing Bush is not a very quotable person. Or at least, she wasn’t very quotable in this interview. Maybe dad’s way with words and attitude toward the press runs in the family.
The only thing is that this “innocuous” comment seems to have spun up the OP pretty good. Maybe it spun up other people. Maybe the journalist knew it would have that effect, and was, indeed, trying to sex it up. I don’t know. I don’t know what Bush said.
I’m well aware that this is a tempest in a teapot, but I’m suspicious anyway. And I’m done now.
I’m not ‘spun up’ at all; I just think she’s being presumptious and should have a few writing credits under her belt before making sweeping statements. This is IMHO, not the Pit.
