NLLB
discussion
This book ISN'T A BOOK
message 1:
by
Alice
(new)
Jun 26, 2013 08:50PM
OK, here's what I mean: Quite a few people are saying things like "too boring" "Not enough.." "too much.." blah blah blah.WELL: THIS IS A DIARY PEOPLE! Anne didn't write it for you to be entertained! She wrote it because she needed someone to confide in. If you don't like it thats ok, but please don't be cruel about it considering what it was originally written for. Thoughts please? Do you think people need to stop taking this and reviewing it as a fictional piece?
reply
|
flag
YES!Historical significance: great. Literary significance: non-existent.
I seriously wonder about the emotional depth and intelligence of anyone who complains about this book being "boring"... it says more about them than it does about The Diary of Anne Frank.
I agree this is not supposed to be a riveting fictional novel that the next J.J. Abrams movie should be taken from. It's a young girl's personal diary. Like pictures we find of other people's lives, we see snapshots of the last few years of her life. Historically, it's a rare glimpse into the lives of those impacted by the Nazi regime.I think the fact that one teenage girl's thoughts can survive a war and 70 years without people losing fascination about what is within is of HUGE literary significance, though. How many of today's stories will survive the decades with as much impact?
It also means all our thoughts are important to someone and we should never stop having them. This diary has more literary impact than one would expect-and it's just a simple accounting of a normal girl's hopes, dreams, complaints, hurts, and joys! How marvelous!
Yes it is not a book - Anne Frank wrote a diary which was published as a book.
I don't know how anyone could be bored by this. Even if what she's writing about is insignificant or unimportant to us, the fact that we, the readers, know what the big picture is, that we can see her future where she doesn't, the fact that we can see that, wow, a regular little girl was caught in the middle of a horrific part of history and still had regular little girl thoughts.... that is remarkable and I think that's why this book/diary is still so widely read.
A.Foulds wrote: "OK, here's what I mean: Quite a few people are saying things like "too boring" "Not enough.." "too much.." blah blah blah.WELL: THIS IS A DIARY PEOPLE! Anne didn't write it for you to be entertaine..."I read this book as a class in 3rd grade. I found it quite interesting, even at my young age.
this is quite entertaining (the book and the debate)
This was a great book (read many years ago now) but the fact that it was someones life was amazing!
When I read this book, I remember thinking that Anne was way too distraught over losing her bike. As an adult, I lived in Europe and saw that the bicycle is a mode of transportation, not a recreation vehicle. It changed my understanding of the work.
It's been a very long time since I read this book, but "boring" would not be a word I'd use to describe it. The fact that it was the real thoughts and feelings of someone made it engaging. Add to this the fact that she was hiding from the Nazis in order to advoid being exterminated and, ultimately, died in the Bergen-Belsen camp made it a compelling read.
Actually, Anne WAS writing her diary for entertainment. If you reread the diary, you may notice how detailed she is, such as the exact things that people said to her or how deeply she goes into how she felt. This is because she rewrote many of the parts and exaggerated. Though originally Anne had wanted it to be used as just a diary, after hearing a speech over the radio, she decided that she wanted to submit it for publication postwar. http://www.annefrank.org/en/Anne-Fran...
clair wrote: "This is because she rewrote many of the parts and exaggerated."Rewrote, yes. Exaggerated, says who? Adding detail does not equate to exaggerating.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are basically good at heart." This is the message for adults; otherwise, this diary is a good teaching vehicle for children just learning about the Holocaust. I used it a lot in the classroom. My students were waiting for the happy ending (grade 8) and it didn't happen. They were dumbfounded. "What? She died?" Yes. "So, but...did she REALLY die?" Yes. "And this is real? She was a real person?" Yep. They all were.PS It is a book. You may not find it entertaining, but it's a book alright. It's not a magazine, not a newspaper, it's a book. Check your wording before you post.
I think this discussion might have been better named as "This book ISN'T FICTION."
Will wrote: "clair wrote: "This is because she rewrote many of the parts and exaggerated."Rewrote, yes. Exaggerated, says who? Adding detail does not equate to exaggerating."
True. But just a question: doesn't it seem pretty likely that she would've? Anne really couldn't have remembered every single piece of dialogue word for word, and to make it more interesting for publication, she probably added some things. Second, Anne wanted to be a writer, and writers tend to add some extra details. Third, Anne actually gave the people in the annex pseudonyms, so what was stopping her from stretching the truth a little? Maybe exaggerate isn't the best word, though.
Donna wrote:PS It is a book. You may not find it entertaining, but it's a book alright. It's not a magazine, not a newspaper, it's a book. Check your wording before you post.""Emily wrote: "I think this discussion might have been better named as "This book ISN'T FICTION."'
OK Yes I know it is a book, but my point being it's not a fictional book. Ok, I should have reworded the post better, but at the time I wasn't sure exactly how to describe what I was thinking. You know what I mean anyway :)
You might be able to edit the discussion name, although you are getting discussion. However, it might not be what you want discussed.
clair wrote: "True. But just a question: doesn't it seem pretty likely that she would've? Anne really couldn't have remembered every single piece of dialogue word for word, and to make it more interesting for publication, she probably added some things. Second, Anne wanted to be a writer, and writers tend to add some extra details. Third, Anne actually gave the people in the annex pseudonyms, so what was stopping her from stretching the truth a little? Maybe exaggerate isn't the best word, though"Yeah, I don't think exaggeration is the right word. According to Anne Frank: The Biography: "Although Anne may have sometimes embellished occurrences in the annex, she did not exaggerate."
Here is some more information if you're curious: http://www.annefrank.org/ImageVaultFi...
There were a total of three diaries that have been published. The original, which hasn't all survived, her rewrite, and then the version her father compiled. We can look at the parts Anne rewrote and compare them to the surviving records of the original, and like the biographer above stated, there may have been some embellishments, but she didn't exaggerate.
☯Emily wrote: "You might be able to edit the discussion name, although you are getting discussion. However, it might not be what you want discussed."Any discussion is great. I don't want to edit it, because then I would only be changing it to something different to how I felt then, and the error in my words just adds to the discussion.
of course its not a book...its a diary......and diaries are supposed to be secret!!!!!!!!!! we are reading a girls personal diary.....who was chased by nazi men and then died.........not a great way to remember her
No it isn't..it's a diary written by a teenaged girl, but was later published as a book by the efforts of her father, Otto Frank.
I believe it was written first as a diary and then edited by Anne herself for eventual publication as a book. Her father later published it as a book after additional editing.
I don't understand the distinction some are making between a diary and a book. Fiction is often famously autobiographical. Nonfiction is influenced by the views of the author.Otto Frank made the decision to publish Anne's diary. As with all books, it was edited by the author (perhaps) and by the publisher. That's standard practice.
Were some elements and dialogue altered because of the quirks of Anne's memory? Name an autobiography that doesn't have the same foibles.
"The Diary of Anne Frank" is a literary classic not because it was created by a master, but because it reflects the experiences in a young girl's life as she and her family went through a monumentally horrific event in history. For a girl of Anne's age, I find the book very well written. More important, it speaks to many people in a personal and honest voice. That is why the book is successful.
I'm not sure I understand the problem with Anne's desires to have her story published. She is a girl who wants to be a journalist. She has dreams of her writing being something people read. She's thrust into hiding and begins her diary. Then, at some point hears people will collect diaries for publishing. She thinks, "I have a diary!" and begins looking at it critically to see if there is anything she wouldn't want the world to actually see.
She was still hopeful she would survive and be the person she dreamt of being. The sheer fact that she had that hope after everything she had been through is powerful and inspiring.
If Anne survived, perhaps she would have re-written it as an auto-biography. But it is a diary, written by a young girl, historical yes, always exciting, that is for the reader to decide.
Yes, it is not a book, its life.
This is one of the most moving books of the 20th century. I agree with Elizabeth, who said "I seriously wonder about the emotional depth and intelligence of anyone who complains about this book being "boring"... it says more about them than it does about The Diary of Anne Frank." It's like the high school students who leave one-star reviews for A Tree Grows in Brooklyn ("The book is all Wah-wah-wah, poor me.") and To Kill a Mockingbird ("Yawn. Who cares?").
Tell your friend to pull it out again, AFTER she has enough years under her belt to feel horror and empathy, and then report to us.
This is an excellent piece of history and should be taken as such. None of you know exactly how horrendous it was during this time. I have been to the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. I have walked the Normandy Trail. I have slept on Omaha Beach and been in the bunkers that men who liberated them were in and died in. Even now you can still feel the presence of their spirits. It was a horrible Holocaust they went through many didn't survive. Anne left her memoirs of her own experience as a young girl. If you can't identify with it do NOT incriminate her. She lived it first hand!!
A.Foulds wrote: "OK, here's what I mean: Quite a few people are saying things like "too boring" "Not enough.." "too much.." blah blah blah.WELL: THIS IS A DIARY PEOPLE! Anne didn't write it for you to be entertaine..."I agree with this statemnt, as I did not enjoy this 'diary' because it was a diary!
Well, I will still rate it...and my rating will be a 'first-class'!! The question is not about whether its a diary or a work of fiction, for me, its more a work of art! many people write diaries,Anne Frank too wrote it...but what makes it worth discussing here in this forum is the extra-ordinary mind that has written it in a way that demands attention and praise! no wonder every student of English Literature is referred this piece of art to actually understand the world of the craft of expression! "I took a paper and wrote about my day...if you loved it so much then it must have shown you a world!"
It's a diary. Anne didn't plan for it to be published, most likely. Keep in mind, Anne was one of many people during WW2 who kept accounts of the horrors of war.
But Anne's story is exceptional because her story was unique. I happened to read this at a very young age, and at that time I did not understand how very special it was.
Another reason why Anne's diary was published is because of the tragedy of it all. Anne did not plan on dying. She had planned on continuing to write in her diary even after the war.
And it is diaries like this who teach us about world events, and the emotions and experiences of people both in the past and present. Think of today's autobiographies as diaries, because to some extent they are. And they are still thought of as books, even though they are similar to diaries.
Fun Fact: Anne wrote in a diary, but also had a bunch of other notes she used for her diary. She also made a "secret language" to keep secrets in her diary. After she passed away, all of the files and notes she had were made into a book.
But Anne's story is exceptional because her story was unique. I happened to read this at a very young age, and at that time I did not understand how very special it was.
Another reason why Anne's diary was published is because of the tragedy of it all. Anne did not plan on dying. She had planned on continuing to write in her diary even after the war.
And it is diaries like this who teach us about world events, and the emotions and experiences of people both in the past and present. Think of today's autobiographies as diaries, because to some extent they are. And they are still thought of as books, even though they are similar to diaries.
Fun Fact: Anne wrote in a diary, but also had a bunch of other notes she used for her diary. She also made a "secret language" to keep secrets in her diary. After she passed away, all of the files and notes she had were made into a book.
I loved this book. (Yes, I do say book, because technically it is) And it is true that she planned to have it published. A wonderful book!
If there looking for something entertaining there are a lot of fiction books in this world
I read this book and cried as a kid.Ive been in a comasince so I need to reread her diary.If I am ever in
Amsterdam I will visit her museum.Anyway someone on here wrote that Anne Frank invented her own lanquage.
Tolkien invented his own lanquage.Frank sounds like
a young intellectual in development despite all her
trauma.
The circumstances in which the book was written are what make it an important part of our history. For me, the main aim of writing is to give people experiences or allow them to feel emotions they wouldn't otherwise have felt. If you believe in this, then the diary is also significant in the literary context, whether or not Anne Frank intended for it to be read by others.
Renuka wrote: "The circumstances in which the book was written are what make it an important part of our history. For me, the main aim of writing is to give people experiences or allow them to feel emotions they ..."totally agree with you!
OF COURSE ITS A BOOK!!! ANNE LATER PLANNED ON TURNING IT INTO A BOOK ON HEARING A BBC RADIO NEWS(I THINK) AND SO SHE STARTED EDITING AND ADDING DETAILS. U GUYS SHOULD SERIOUSLY GET UR FACTS IN LINE.ALSO IT NICE TO SEE THE HARSH LIFE A GIRL GOES THROUGH TO GROW UP AND HER DISCOVERING LOVE, FAMILY, AND FRIENDS AND MANY OTHERS THINGS OF LIFE AND NATURE.
I MEAN GROW UP PEOPLE, SHE WROTE IT IS TO LET HER EMOTIONS AND EXPERIENCES OUT. I READ IT IN 5TH GRADE, THEN AND NOW I STILL LIKE IT AND FIND IT INTERESTING. AS FOR THE BORING PART ITS A DIARY AFTER ALL. I LOVE THE BOOK AND MY SOLIDARITY LIES WITH ANNE.
It has been said that there are entries in the diary in ballpoint pen.No, that is not correct. All the diary entries are written in various types of ink and
(coloured) pencil, not in ballpoint. The document analysis by the Netherlands
Forensic Institute showed that the main part of the diary and the loose sheets
were written in grey-blue fountain pen ink. In addition, Anne also used thin red
ink, green and red coloured pencils and black pencil for her annotations: not
ballpoint. Nevertheless, the allegation can still regularly be seen on extreme
right-wing websites and elsewhere that the diary of Anne Frank is written in
ballpoint pen. Sneering remarks are made about "A. Frank the ballpoint girl," and
it is pointed out that the ballpoint pen only came into common use in Europe after
the Second World War. The conclusion forced by this allegation is that the texts
in the diary could not have been written by Anne Frank herself.
Annotation sheets
The origin of the "ballpoint myth" is the four-page report that the Federal Criminal
Police Office (the Bundeskriminalamt or BKA) in Wiesbaden, which was
published in 1980. In this investigation into the types of paper and ink used in the
diary of Anne Frank it is stated that "ballpoint corrections" had been made on
some loose sheets. The BKA’s task was to report on all the texts found among
the diaries of Anne Frank, and therefore also on the annotations that were made
in Anne’s manuscripts after the war. However, the Dutch investigation by the
Forensic Institute in the mid-1980’s shows that writing in ballpoint is only found
on two loose pages of annotations, and that these annotations are of no
significance for the actual content of the diary. They were clearly placed between
the other pages later. The researchers of the Forensic Institute also concluded that the handwriting on these two annotation sheets differs from the writing in the
diary "to a far-reaching degree." Photos of these loose annotation sheets are
included in the NIOD’s publication (see The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised
Critical Edition, 2003, pages 168 and 170). In 1987, a Mr Ockelmann from
Hamburg wrote that his mother had written the annotation sheets in question.
Mrs Ockelmann was a member of the team that carried out the graphological
investigation into the writings of Anne Frank around 1960.
A life of its own
In short: the "ballpoint myth" is easy to disprove. The careless wording of the
BKA report from 1980 – a report that for the rest in no way challenges the
authenticity of the diary – or at any rate its openness to several interpretations,
has taken on a life of its own in extreme right-wing circles. The "ballpoint myth" is
based on the simple fact that, around 1960, two annotation sheets with ballpoint
writing were inserted between the original pages. These texts were written by a
graphological researcher, and are not included in any edition of the diary (apart
from the Critical Edition, where photos of the annotation sheets are reproduced).
In July 2006, the BKA found it necessary to state in a press release that the 1980
investigation cannot be used to call the authenticity of the diary into doubt. SO THERE! *SNEERS*
Odinia wrote: "Actually it is a fraud. The girl who supposedly wrote it actually died of typhus & it is written in ball point pen, which had not been invented yet."False.
"True" events. Hahahaha!
Hey everyone. I know a lot of you are saying that Anne wrote the diary in a way that could be published, because she hoped it would be after the war. That may be so, but it still doesn't really change the fact that it's still a diary. Unless some of the things she has writen are fake - she can't really change too much of the actual facts of what happened. But just to contradict myself - I guess it wouldn't matter for her if she had made up things because who would know? But to be honest - I still think that people should not judge it quite so harshly. It's not a fictional novel.
Bipasha wrote: "It has been said that there are entries in the diary in ballpoint pen.No, that is not correct. All the diary entries are written in various types of ink and
(coloured) pencil, not in ballpoint. T..."
woah.
I'll take historians word who use things like evidence and a collaboration of thousands of witnesses over opinion pieces and a few secluded "witness" testimonies.The fact that your opinion article, with only a few dodgy references, says: "We have ALL heard the name of Anne Frank…Anne Frank who wrote her memoirs in ball point pen (which had not been invented yet)," which is unequivocally false, demonstrates all I need to know when you say "facts" and reference such laughable and poorly researched articles.
"I do not put footnotes on web articles"If you want people to take you seriously you should.
"but it is absolutely accurate and provably so."
Nope, I could easily prove to you the diary wasn't written in ballpoint pen. So right off the bat I know for a fact you've used a lie in your article.
You have a political agenda, that's all. Anyone can see that. I don't believe for a second historians are being jailed "just because." Prove to me historians are being jailed at all for anything unless you're talking about David Irving? Who was proven to have manipulated historical evidence.
I'm sorry, I'm going with the thousands upon thousands of witnesses and mounds of evidence along with the evidence based claims of the majority of historians over the very few crackpots who ignore evidence and manipulate it in their favor to align with their political agenda.
Odinia (the name speaks volumes) wrote: "Anyone who can read and reason can learn about the facts. They are not even disputed, just never mentioned. Are you aware that authors are being jailed for writing these verifiable facts? Why do you think that is necessary? https://odinia.org/?page_id=680"I looked at your page and noted the expected anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, misrepresentations and bold lies.
You said, "the best and most honest historians with the highest research standards are being arrested and jailed for writing these verifiable facts." Yet, you refuse to name sources. Sorry, but the people (note that I do not say folk/volk) on this forum are intelligent enough to discredit your assertions on those grounds alone.
I don't know why you would choose to comment on a book in a discussion forum, when your only agenda is to spread anti-Semitic messages--not to discuss the merits of the book.
She would have had better luck furthering her agenda with a web site not populated by well-read, well-educated people - and probably does, it saddens me to say.
Well she spelled Oxford good, didn't she?I have always been in awe with Anne Franks diary that when my daughters told us they had spoken about it on school and they were interested I did buy them a copy. What they liked was that the girl who wrote it is somebody from their age to whom they can relate. As a parent I feel it is my job to give them the experiences and books that enlarges their knowledge and empathy.
If that's what an Oxford education consists of, all I can say is that the educational system has failed
Oxford huh? I'm guessing Professor Higgins was correct:"This is what the British population - calls an ELEMENTARY education"
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
NLLB: DIARY OF ANNE FRANK,THE (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Anne Frank : The Biography (other topics)NLLB: DIARY OF ANNE FRANK,THE (other topics)
