Angela’s answer to “If this is the true story of Lale and Gita, why is it being described as historical fiction?” > Likes and Comments
98 likes · Like
Thank you for the insight. Incidentally, I searched my library but couldn't find the book. Is it available in the United States? I'd love to read the book!
Hi Deanna, it will be released there by HarperCollins in September :)
i absolutely loved this book and wondered how much of it was true so i appreciated your informative response. it's one that will stay with me. Any plans for a movie?
Hi Joanne, the book has been optioned for a TV miniseries by a production company called Synchronicity, which is very exciting.
Angela Meyer- the copyright page of the novel states that "this book is a work of fiction. References to real people, events, establishments, organizations, or locales are intended only to provide a sense of authenticity, and are used fictitiously. All other characters, and all incidents and dialogue, are drawn from the author's imagination and are not construed as real." To me, this counters the claim that this story is based on historical events and make it confusing to the reader. This disclaimer states that the entire story is fictitious. Why is the disclaimer included if many of the events and characters are purportedly true and the contents have been 'fact' (sic) checked as claimed in the author's acknowledgements?
Mary- Thanks for posting the article from the Auschwitz Memorial Research Center. I had come across this as well. How did this article and the publisher's representation impact your reading of this novel? I wouldn't expect it all be true, but I would like to know which parts were true actual events and which aspects were fictionalized. It seems to me that the author and publisher are intentionally making that unclear. Judging from many of the reviews here lots of readers consider this book largely factual and as such I find that this novel mispresents the genocide.
Mary, you are not missing anything. Besides the considerable questions about legitimacy, the Tattooist is just not well written. At best, it's a poor romance novel with the Holocaust as a back drop. I haven't read Beneath a Scarlet Sky, and don't think I want to if it also mispresents the Shoah.
Past comments of mine caught up in a mass deletion by GR had provided the below links on the topic of how Morris botched the story, making clear that, among other things, any remarks by Morris about what parts of Lale’s (or, rather, Lali’s) stories actually made it into the book are wholly unreliable. It’s quite likely that Morris did not concern herself with protecting Lale from flights of fancy, and what he might tell her to keep her interested, etc. We simply don’t know what is a product of her own imagination, but we do know that whomever she engaged to “research” the underlying history and information either were incompetent or, if not, were given an alarmingly limited scope of work. Morris herself apparently didn’t even bother to review Gita’s testimony video, otherwise one presumes Morris would make sure not to use the wrong number in relation to Gita’s tattoo.
https://view.joomag.com/memoria-en-no...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/bestsel...
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/...
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/verac...
http://www.your-news.co.uk/the-tattoo...
The author made numerous claims that could only be intended to bamboozle readers, both inside and outside of the novel, including ones such as “95% of it is really as it happened; investigated and verified” when she had no business making such an outlandish claim.
An eye-opening piece from February that is best to read along with the limited-scope report by the Auschwitz Memorial Research Centre about the problems with what Morris chose to do:
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2...
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Deanna
(new)
Feb 23, 2018 08:16AM
Thank you for the insight. Incidentally, I searched my library but couldn't find the book. Is it available in the United States? I'd love to read the book!
reply
|
flag
Hi Deanna, it will be released there by HarperCollins in September :)
i absolutely loved this book and wondered how much of it was true so i appreciated your informative response. it's one that will stay with me. Any plans for a movie?
Hi Joanne, the book has been optioned for a TV miniseries by a production company called Synchronicity, which is very exciting.
Angela Meyer- the copyright page of the novel states that "this book is a work of fiction. References to real people, events, establishments, organizations, or locales are intended only to provide a sense of authenticity, and are used fictitiously. All other characters, and all incidents and dialogue, are drawn from the author's imagination and are not construed as real." To me, this counters the claim that this story is based on historical events and make it confusing to the reader. This disclaimer states that the entire story is fictitious. Why is the disclaimer included if many of the events and characters are purportedly true and the contents have been 'fact' (sic) checked as claimed in the author's acknowledgements?
Mary- Thanks for posting the article from the Auschwitz Memorial Research Center. I had come across this as well. How did this article and the publisher's representation impact your reading of this novel? I wouldn't expect it all be true, but I would like to know which parts were true actual events and which aspects were fictionalized. It seems to me that the author and publisher are intentionally making that unclear. Judging from many of the reviews here lots of readers consider this book largely factual and as such I find that this novel mispresents the genocide.
Mary, you are not missing anything. Besides the considerable questions about legitimacy, the Tattooist is just not well written. At best, it's a poor romance novel with the Holocaust as a back drop. I haven't read Beneath a Scarlet Sky, and don't think I want to if it also mispresents the Shoah.
Past comments of mine caught up in a mass deletion by GR had provided the below links on the topic of how Morris botched the story, making clear that, among other things, any remarks by Morris about what parts of Lale’s (or, rather, Lali’s) stories actually made it into the book are wholly unreliable. It’s quite likely that Morris did not concern herself with protecting Lale from flights of fancy, and what he might tell her to keep her interested, etc. We simply don’t know what is a product of her own imagination, but we do know that whomever she engaged to “research” the underlying history and information either were incompetent or, if not, were given an alarmingly limited scope of work. Morris herself apparently didn’t even bother to review Gita’s testimony video, otherwise one presumes Morris would make sure not to use the wrong number in relation to Gita’s tattoo. https://view.joomag.com/memoria-en-no...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/bestsel...
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/...
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/verac...
http://www.your-news.co.uk/the-tattoo...
The author made numerous claims that could only be intended to bamboozle readers, both inside and outside of the novel, including ones such as “95% of it is really as it happened; investigated and verified” when she had no business making such an outlandish claim.
An eye-opening piece from February that is best to read along with the limited-scope report by the Auschwitz Memorial Research Centre about the problems with what Morris chose to do:https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2...
