A least get your quote right. 'It wasn't just RENOIR who hated the Jews...' and as far as I recall D Waal quotes Renoir quite a bit in reference to this point (Renoir referencing Charles Efrussi's Jewishness as a reason for his (Efrussi's) lack of taste or as being the base cause for Renoir and Effrussi having differences of opinion.)

And I think you'll find it's a moot point.
And I think Jews were "out to get" during this period in history, it's well documented that anti-Semitism was common and most Jews had to live with the background noise of prejudice.
The "gay uncle" was far more than that, he was a successful banker, a collector, involved in war, a fashion designer. Are you sure your own prejudices aren't being outted here?
It reads a bit like it.

Funny you should say that. I have no prejudices over religion. It's an opinion on a book, but funny how anything mildly related to Judism (and my point is about not liking a book, not about the religion) tends to immediately draw this dumb "you're anti Jews" backlash. Kind of kills any open critique of literature if there is even an inkling that the author/subject/nationality/publisher might be this that or the other religion.
Just to reiterate for clarity: I did not find this a good book. I felt it was sloppily written and it's subject matter was lacking. I based that on my reading of the book, not on the authors religion.

I meant the "gay uncle" Andy. I thought this might've been obvious as my comment about prejudice immediately follows this.
Funny how you immediately thought it referred to Jewishness.
I have no beef about your dislike of the book but
sloppily written. How? And lacking subject matter, how?

And so arose the trolls of goodreads.

Suffice to say our opinions on this book differ. I don't feel expanding on the details of that difwring view will achieve anything here. If you dislike my review you can write a review expanding on the books virtues that will counteract it.

As you don't know me please keep your opinions of me to yourself.

Thank you and goodbye.

This isn't personal.
You have said, "Kind of kills any open critique of literature if there is even an inkling that the author/subject/nationality/publisher might be this that or the other religion."
I have just given you the opportunity to discuss why you believe this book isn't well written or why it lacks subject matter.
I am interested.

I liked it because it was well written, almost beautifully written in my view.
I thought it explored family dynamics that the author hadn't been aware of and did it in a way that made those characters very accessible.
I found the history of places interesting, the reasons why people had left one place and gone to another important.
I liked the connections his family had to people like Renoir and Proust.
And the bits about citizenship, the limbo of Viktor and Emmy in their last few months, I hadn't known this had happened to people. So it was insightful.
I would've liked to read more about netsuke but I don't believe De Waal had enough information about this so he didn't try.
What would you have liked to see done differently?