Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “Holocaust Testimonies: The Ruins of Memory” as Want to Read:
Holocaust Testimonies: The Ruins of Memory
A sustained analysis of the ways in which oral testimonies of survivors contributes to the understanding of the Holocaust, this book also aims to shed light on the forms and functions of memory as victims relive devastating experiences of pain, humiliation and loss.
Paperback, 235 pages
Published January 27th 1993 by Yale University Press
(first published 1991)
To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
(showing 1-30 of 102)
The Holocaust Testimonies was a interesting book but not for the ones who like a more intense book rather than a calm and sort of frightening book upon the Holocaust. This Book is about the past experiences of the people who were sent to the special camps. Their was many main people who played their part in the book, with that being said their was truly no main character besides the Nazi's and how cruel they were to others and the actions that they posed. The plot started out as a place in whic ...more
Feb 15, 2008 Jessica rated it 3 of 5 stars
Recommends it for: historians, anyone interested in the Holocaust
Langer, who has observed over 300 hours of Holocaust testimony (I can't even begin to imagine), examines the memories of Holocaust survivors with five specific categories. Although he provides more than enough actual testimony his purpose is in trying to explain how that particular trauma has affected memory. So, this isn't really a history book, but it's not a psychological exploration either. Langer, an English professor, uses literary analysis and philosophical exploration to examine the memo ...more
Langer's cataloging and analysis of the testimonies he witnessed are mostly useful and insightful, particularly when he establishes how the Holocaust experience challenges our ideas of heroism, logic, history, etc. However, he seems to privilege oral testimonies over written ones in a way that is a bit simplistic. While he is correct to point out the differences between the spoken and the written, he fails to recognize the tropes inherent in oral testimony that make the appearance of immediacy i ...more