
Despite the inescapability of the failure of words—since in their utterance is both representation and replacement, which create insurmountable distance between the atrocity and us--literature remains a likely space to forge an appropriate response to the Holocaust and other collective tragedies. In class, we discussed looking at Fugitive Pieces as a literary text that demonstrates how to utilize representational modes in a way that reveals their shortcomings without sacrificing the eloquence and lyrical components that draw us to literature. In the first part of the novel, Jakob's narrative, we encounter a response to trauma that is gripping despite--or perhaps because of--the narrator's inability to access the specific details of the traumatic experience.
In the second part of the novel, Ben's narrative, we witness another narrator's inability to access the details of the traumatic experience. The difference, however, is that Ben is not a survivor of the Holocaust; he is a child of survivors, which means that he is essentially trying to access someone else's trauma and claim it as his own. Although the details of "the event" remain just out of reach for both Jakob and Ben, they each confront it in a vastly different way.
What are some of the differences you see in the two narratives? How do you account for them? What do you make of them? What might these differences tell us about the ethics of representation?