Uncategorized
Disney+ series ‘A Small Light’ tells the Anne Frank story from the perspective of the woman who hid her
(JTA) — The short life of Anne Frank has inspired generations of filmmakers and television producers. The list of past productions range from “The Diary of Anne Frank” (1959), whose director George Stevens witnessed Nazi occupation as a U.S. army officer, to the Academy Award-winning documentary “Anne Frank Remembered” — featuring the only known footage of Anne — to the Emmy Award-winning dramatized miniseries “Anne Frank: The Whole Story” (2001).
On Monday night, viewers will get another TV version. But “A Small Light,” an eight-episode series premiering on National Geographic and streaming Tuesday on Disney+, tells the story from a new perspective: through the eyes of the woman who hid the Frank family.
Miep Gies was an independent 24-year-old with a busy social calendar and a dance club membership when she began working for Anne Frank’s father Otto in 1933 at Opekta, his successful jam business in Amsterdam. As Jews were rounded up and deported from the Netherlands in 1942, her Jewish boss asked if she would be willing to hide his family in an annex above the office, and she did not hesitate.
“A Small Light” stars Bel Powley as Gies, Joe Cole as her husband Jan Gies and Liev Schreiber as Otto Frank. It’s named for a quote from the real Gies, who once said that she did not like to be called a hero because “even an ordinary secretary or a housewife or a teenager can turn on a small light in a dark room.”
That metaphor had literal meaning for the Frank family and four others in the secret annex, who spent two years in a dark 450-square-foot space behind a hinged bookcase. Gies, her husband and four other employees of Otto Frank secretly kept eight Jews alive while running his business downstairs. Gies brought them food and library books, using black market ration cards and visiting several different grocers to avoid suspicion. Anne Frank said in her diary, “Miep is just like a pack mule, she fetches and carries so much.”
In the series, the “dark room” is seen less than Gies’ frenzied bicycle trips across Amsterdam, as she tries to sustain the appearance of a normal life. Her secret pushes her away from friends and family, while her marriage strains under the weight of ever-looming disaster. The creators of “A Small Light” sought to recreate a hero as a modern, flawed, at times even annoying person.
“She’s not some kind of saint,” executive producer Joan Rater told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “She had moods, she had a new marriage, she wanted to hang out with friends. She wanted to take a day off and she couldn’t.”
“I think everyone can relate to Miep,” said Powley, an English-Jewish actress known for starring in several British shows and in American films such as “The King of Staten Island.” “She was just an ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances.”
Although “A Small Light” is rife with tense scenes and suspense, the producers fashioned it with young audiences in mind. The show conspicuously avoids the explicit violence and horror typically expected of its subject matter, leaving out concentration camps and murders. Rater and co-creator Tony Phelan wanted children like their own to watch the series. While they were writing it, their daughter was the same age as Anne was when she was writing her diary.
Some young viewers have seen Anne’s story being swept up in literary purges across U.S. school districts, as part of the debate over what should be taught in American classrooms. Earlier this month, a Florida high school removed an illustrated adaptation of her diary after determining that references to her sexuality were “not age appropriate.” The same edition was previously yanked from a Texas school district, although it was reinstituted after public outcry. Meanwhile, a Tennessee school board banned “Maus,” Art Spiegelman’s Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about his father’s experience in the Holocaust, after objections over curse words and nudity last year.
The name “Anne Frank” has long been synonymous with Holocaust education as her diary remains one of the world’s most-read books, with translations in over 70 languages. But the “relatable” rescuer presents another appealing way to teach children about one of the most wretched chapters in human history, said Brad Prager, a professor of German and film studies at the University of Missouri.
“It is the message that people like to hear,” Prager told the JTA. “If you ask a fourth-grader why we watch TV and movies — well, this is so that you can learn to do the right things, or you can learn that in certain circumstances anyone can be a hero.”
Liev Schreiber plays Otto Frank and Amira Casar plays Edith Frank in “A Small Light.” (National Geographic for Disney/Dusan Martincek)
A broader lens on the Netherlands during World War II is less palatable. The Germans and their Dutch collaborators implemented a highly effective system of persecution: Between 1942 and 1944, about 107,000 Dutch Jews were deported primarily to Auschwitz and Sobibor, then murdered. Only 5,200 of them survived.
Although Gies did everything she could to save the Jews in her care, the unwritten ending to Anne’s diary is well-known. Three days after her last entry in August 1944, Dutch police officers led by SS officer Karl Josef Silberbauer raided the annex. Gies escaped arrest by observing that she and Silberbauer shared a hometown.
“My luck was that the police officer in charge came from Vienna, the same town where I was born,” she said in a 1997 interview with Scholastic. “I noticed this from his accent. So, when he came to interrogate me, I jumped up and said, as cheerfully as I could, ‘You are from Vienna? I am from Vienna too.’ And, although he got very angry initially, it made him obviously decide not to arrest me.”
In a valiant last-ditch effort, Gies walked into the German police office the next day and attempted to buy her friends’ freedom. She was unsuccessful.
Gies found Anne’s notebooks and papers strewn on the annex floor. Without reading them, she gathered and tucked the writings into a drawer, hoping to return them to their owner. Germany had all but lost the war already, with Allied troops less than 250 miles from Amsterdam.
The Franks were packed on the last train ever to leave the Westerbork transit camp for the Auschwitz extermination camp. Otto was separated from his wife Edith and daughters Anne and Margot on the Auschwitz platform. In October, the girls were transported to Bergen-Belsen, and Edith succumbed to starvation in January 1945. Her daughters died of typhus a month later, when Anne was 15 years old.
Some studies have suggested that knowledge about the Holocaust is diminishing. In 2020, the Claims Conference found that 63% of Millenial and Gen Z Americans (ages 18-39) did not know that six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. More than 10% did not recall ever hearing about the Holocaust, while 11% believed that Jews caused it. Another Claims Conference survey reported that despite living in the country where Anne hid from the Nazis, a majority of Dutch people did not know the Holocaust took place there.
“In a time that antisemitism is on the rise and there are more displaced people in the world than there ever have been before, it couldn’t be a better time to re-explore this part of history, but through the lens of this ordinary young woman,” said Powley.
While “A Small Light” celebrates the power of the individual, the fate of Anne Frank also represents the failure of the whole world, said Prager. By centering Gies’ perspective, he said, the series risks making Anne a peripheral character in her own brutally aborted story.
“When you decenter Anne Frank, one thing is that you lose the Jewish perspective on the persecution,” he said.
Otto Frank, the sole survivor from the annex, appeared at Jan and Miep Gies’ doorstep after the war and ended up living with them for over seven years. In July 1945, Gies watched as he received the notice that his children were dead.
“He took it in his hands and suddenly he became eerily quiet,” Gies said in an interview for the Anne Frank House. “You cannot explain it, it was a silence that speaks. I looked up. He was white as a sheet. And he handed me the letter.”
Gies read the piece of paper, stood up and opened her desk drawer. “I took all the diaries, with all the separate sheets and everything and handed them over to Mr. Frank,” she said.
She told him, “This is your daughter Anne’s legacy.”
In 2010, Gies died at 100 years old. Every year on Aug. 4 — the day the Franks were arrested — she stayed at home, drew her curtains and did not answer the phone or doorbell.
Powley believes the show’s angle gives a fresh perspective on “your mom’s dusty copy of Anne Frank’s diary.” She approached the role of Gies with a heavy sense of responsibility.
“I feel a deeper connection to this story than I have with other projects,” she said. “This offer came to me on Holocaust Memorial Day and it immediately had that special feeling to it. My grandma, the Jewish matriarch of my family, died during COVID. I feel that she would be proud.”
—
The post Disney+ series ‘A Small Light’ tells the Anne Frank story from the perspective of the woman who hid her appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
The Antisemitism Mainstreaming Pipeline — and Why Ben Shapiro Drives It Crazy
Tucker Carlson speaks on first day of AmericaFest 2025 at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona, Dec. 18, 2025. Photo: Charles-McClintock Wilson/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Antisemitism rarely introduces itself honestly. For much of its history, it has tried to initially arrive in disguise — entering public life not as overt Jew-hatred, but as something designed to appear as a concern about public welfare, power, influence, corruption, or social decay.
In medieval Europe, it appeared through the blood libel — the accusation that Jews murdered Christian children for ritual purposes. During the Bubonic Plague pandemic, it surfaced in charges that Jews poisoned wells. By the 19th century, the accusation adopted a modern vocabulary: hostility toward “cosmopolitan financiers” or shadowy bankers manipulating nations. The 20th century refined the charge further, replacing superstition with ideology — Jews recast as “rootless elites,” global conspirators supposedly undermining civilization.
In the 21st century, the costume has changed again. Antisemitism now frequently arrives wrapped in language generally treated as respectable: “only criticizing” Israel, denunciations of globalization, or warnings about corrupt “elites” controlling Western institutions.
The rhetoric evolves. The structure does not. Ideas that begin on the fringe migrate into respectable conversation until what once sounded extreme begins to feel familiar.
What has changed is the speed — and the machinery.
In earlier centuries antisemitic conspiracies spread through pamphlets and fringe publications. Today they move through podcasts, YouTube channels, and broadcast platforms hosted by personalities who insist they are merely facilitating debate or “just asking questions.”
The result is the antisemitism mainstreaming pipeline: a system through which fringe ideas gain legitimacy simply by appearing on platforms with massive audiences and ostensibly respectable hosts.
Few figures illustrate this more clearly than Piers Morgan, Megyn Kelly, and Tucker Carlson.
Each presents himself or herself as a champion of open discourse. Each insists controversial guests deserve a hearing and that viewers can judge for themselves. In theory, that sounds like a commitment to free speech. In practice, it functions as a laundering mechanism — moving conspiratorial narratives rooted in Jew-hatred into mainstream discussion.
The pattern is now familiar. A guest known for trafficking in conspiracy theories appears on a widely viewed show. The host frames the claims as legitimate debate. Clips spread to millions. Later the host insists that interviewing someone does not imply endorsement.
By then the damage is done. The narrative has already escaped the fringe ecosystem that produced it.
Consider Piers Morgan’s program. Morgan insists he is moderating debate. Yet his guest list regularly includes figures whose currency is outrage and antisemitic tropes.
Dan Bilzerian has claimed that Israel controls American politics and global media while warning of “Jewish supremacy” as the world’s “greatest danger.” Nick Fuentes traffics openly in conspiracies about Jewish power and Western decline. On the far-left, commentators such as Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian have repeatedly echoed barely updated versions of Henry Ford’s “Jews control America” trope.
On Morgan’s stage these claims sit beside legitimate commentary as though they deserve equal footing.
The result is not scrutiny. It is normalization.
Megyn Kelly’s approach is subtler, but no less revealing. Her program often frames controversial ideas within broader critiques of elite hypocrisy and institutional decay. Within that frame, conspiracy theories about hidden networks slip into discussion disguised as cultural criticism.
Kelly has even suggested that figures such as avowed Hitler-fan Nick Fuentes raise “good points,” illustrating how fringe rhetoric — and the people advancing it — enter mainstream discourse.
She has also portrayed criticism from Ben Shapiro as evidence that he only criticizes her because he objects to her willingness to criticize Israel.
Yet when Shapiro criticized Kelly, Israel was never mentioned.
His objection concerned her embrace of figures such as Candace Owens, who has promoted grotesque conspiracy theories — including the claim that Erika Kirk was complicit in her husband’s murder.
Rather than address that criticism, Kelly reframed the dispute as one about her being “critical of Israel.”
The maneuver is telling. When antisemitic narratives are challenged in this pipeline, those in the pipeline seek to shift focus away from the claim and toward the motives of the person objecting to it. The implication becomes that the Jewish critic is acting out of tribal loyalty — shielding Israel rather than confronting falsehood.
In other words, the argument moves from “is this conspiracy true?” to “why is this Jew objecting?”
That shift is not incidental. It is the point.
Tucker Carlson represents the most advanced stage of the pipeline.
During his time at Fox, Carlson cultivated a narrative in which Western civilization faces existential danger from shadowy elites and corrupt institutions. Earlier versions avoided explicit references to Jews, relying instead on the language of globalism and hidden influence.
Once he left Fox, the euphemisms started to disappear.
His guest list expanded to include figures who openly promote antisemitic conspiracies or offer revisionist interpretations of 20th-century history designed to soften — or outright invert — the moral verdict on Nazi Germany.
Each appearance serves the same purpose: the guest gains legitimacy simply by sharing a stage with a host whose audience numbers in the millions.
None of these hosts need to identify as antisemites for the pipeline to function. The mechanism is normalization. Morgan does not need to repeat Bilzerian’s rhetoric, and Carlson does not need to echo his guests’ most grotesque claims. Ideas once confined to the fringe become more mainstream because they are repeated in supposedly respectable settings.
The host maintains plausible deniability. The guest gains reach, credibility, and a larger audience.
This helps explain why Ben Shapiro has become such a lightning rod.
Shapiro occupies a rare position in American public life: openly Jewish, unapologetically pro-Israel, firmly rooted in conservative politics, and consistently condemning antisemitism from both the far right and the far left.
That combination disrupts several narratives at once.
For elements of the populist right, his prominence challenges the notion that conservatism must purge Jewish influence. For the radical left, he is not a complication but a confirmation — evidence used to reinforce their claims about Zionism, power, and Western alignment. What unsettles both sides, however, is not his identity but his refusal to indulge their premises.
He does not debate conspiracy. He rejects it.
When Shapiro criticizes media figures for platforming such narratives, the response follows a predictable script. Rather than address his argument — or confront the conspiracy itself — critics claim he is reacting to their “criticism of Israel.”
The maneuver is clever. It is also pure deflection.
The facts do not cooperate. In these exchanges Shapiro almost never mentions Israel. His criticism targets the decision to give enormous platforms to voices promoting dangerous and false conspiracies, including those about Jewish power or hidden networks controlling world events.
Within hours, that accurate criticism is reframed as an attempt to silence dissent.
Shapiro’s conduct, however, is far less dramatic. He criticizes hosts he believes are behaving irresponsibly and declines invitations to appear on their shows. That is not censorship. It is editorial judgment.
And that is where the conflict sharpens. Because the pipeline depends on participation. It requires credible voices to sit across from conspiracists, to treat the exchange as meaningful debate, and to lend legitimacy through proximity.
Shapiro refuses.
That refusal is not incidental to the feud with Morgan, Kelly, and Carlson — it is the feud.
It exposes the gap between what these platforms claim to be doing and what they are really doing. If this were simply open inquiry, the absence of one guest would not matter. But when the model depends on staging spectacle between credibility and conspiracy, refusal becomes disruption.
And that leads us to the real question at the center of this fight: will platforms that profit from outrage, clicks, and the steady elevation of the worst ideas continue to drag the public square downward — or will enough people will simply stop showing up for the performance?
Micha Danzig is an attorney, former IDF soldier, and former NYPD officer. He writes widely on Israel, Zionism, antisemitism, and Jewish history. He serves on the board of Herut North America.
Uncategorized
Five facts about Passover you may not know
אַ טייל פֿון די בעסטע באַשרײַבונגען פֿונעם אַמאָליקן שטעטל געפֿינט מען בײַ די ווערק פֿון ב. גאָרין (1868 ־ 1925). באַקאַנט ווי דער מחבר פֿון דער ערשטער געשיכטע פֿונעם ייִדישן טעאַטער, איז גאָרין אַבער אויך געווען אַ פֿײַנער שרײַבער מיט אַ ספּעציעלן אויג פֿאַרן שטייגער לעבן, סײַ אין אייראָפּע, סײַ אין אַמעריקע. איין באַנד דערציילונגען, „פֿאַרגעסענע ניגונים” (1919), האָט ער אָפּגעגעבן ימים־טובֿים און די קאַפּיטלעך וועגן פּסח זענען אָנגעפּיקעוועט מיט אינטערעסאַנטע פּרטים וועגן די אַמאָליקע פּסח־טראַדיציעס.
1. בײַ די שנײַדערס, שוסטערס און קירזשנערס זענען די וואָכן פֿאַר פּסח געווען די סאַמע בעסטע צײַט צו פֿאַרדינען
פּסח איז דאָך אַ פֿרילינג־יום־טובֿ און צוזאַמען מיטן ווידער געבוירן ווערן פֿון דער ערד, ווערט דער מענטש אויף ס’נײַ געבוירן. מע קויפֿט זיך נײַע קליידער וואָס מע באַשטעלט בײַם שנײַדער מיט וואָכן פֿריִער און ערבֿ־פּסח טוט מען אָן די נײַע מלבושים צום ערשטן מאָל. ווען אַ קינד האָט געטראָגן אַ נײַ גאַרניטערל האָט מען דאָס באַמערקט און אים געוווּנטשן „תּתחדש!‟ — טראָג געזונטערהייט! לויט גאָרין האָבן די עלטערע ווײַבער אויך געזאָגט „פֿאַרניץ געזונט!‟ און „געזונט זאָלסטו טראָגן!‟. אַגבֿ, דער מינהג פֿון טראָגן נײַע פּסח־קליידער האָט זײַן עקוויוועלענט בײַ די קריסטן, וואָס פּראַווען זייער חגא פּאַסכע אויך מיט נײַע היט און קליידער.
אַזוי ווי נישט אַלע יאָר האָט מען זיך געקענט פֿאַרגינען צו באַשטעלן אַ נײַ גאַרניטערל, האָבן די קליידער געדאַרפֿט זײַן אַ ביסל גרויס, כּדי דאָס קינד זאָל קענען אין זיי אַרײַנוואַקסן און מע זאָל זיי נאָך קענען טראָגן דרײַ־פֿיר יאָר. דעריבער באַקומט זיך אַ קאָמעדיע דאָס ערשטע יאָר ווען דאָס קינד גייט אָנגעטאָן אין אַ רעקל וואָס איז גענייט געוואָרן אַ סך צו גרויס פֿאַר אים.
2. דאָס רייכערן פּאַפּיראָסן יום־טובֿ האָט צונויפֿגעבראַכט מענטשן
אַן אינטערעסאַנטע סצענע מאָלט אויס גאָרין וועגן רייכערן פּסח. רייכערן מעג מען, אָבער אָנצינדן אַ שוועבעלע און מאַכן אַ פֿײַערל — נישט. נו, אויב אַזוי, האָט מען געזען אַזאַ סצענע אין שטעטל — אַז מען האָט געזען אַ מאַן גייט פֿאַרבײַ רייכערנדיק אַ פּאַפּיראָס אָדער אַ ליולקע, האָט מען אים אָפּגעשטעלט און בײַ אים דאָס געליִען און אָנגעצונדן דעם אייגענעם פּאַפּיראָס. דערנאָך האָבן אַנדערע אָפּגעשטעלט דעם צווייטן ייִד מיטן נײַ־אָנגעצונדענעם פּאַפּיראָס און אַזוי ווײַטער און ווײַטער. איינער האָט געהאָלפֿן דעם אַנדערן רייכערן.
3. קינד און קייט האָבן געשפּילט אין ניס
דאָס שפּילן ניס איז, ווי באַקאַנט, אַ פּסחדיקע פֿאַרווײַלונג. אין גאָרינס שטעטל האָט מען געשפּילט אַזוי: צו ערשט אַראָפּגעקײַקלט איין ניס (אַ וועלשענער נוס). דעם נוס האָט מען גערופֿן דעם ראָש. דערנאָך האָבן די אַנדערע געקײַקלט זייערע ניס, און וועמענס נוס איז געקײַקלט געוואָרן צום נאָענטסטן צום ראָש האָט געוווּנען אַלע ניס. עס דערמאָנט אין דער איטאַליענישער שפּיל „באַטשע‟, וואָס ווערט אָבער געשפּילט אָן אַ ברעט.
4. אָרעמע־לײַט האָבן פֿאַרדינט פֿון באַקן מצות
איינע פֿון די שענסטע פֿאַר־פּסחדיקע טראַדיציעס איז דאָס באַטייליקן זיך אין אַ פּאָדראַד (בײַ גאָרינען אַ „פּאָדראַט”), אַ קאָלעקטיוו צו באַקן מצה, די אָרעמע־לײַט זאָלן קענען פֿאַרדינען עטלעכע רובל און דערבײַ טאָן אַ מיצווה. די טראַדיציע לעבט נאָך הײַנט אין חסידישע קרײַזן. גאָרין דערמאָנט זיבן פֿונקציעס בײַם פּאָדראַד — אַ וואַסער־גיסער, אַ מעל־שיטערקע, אַ וועלגערקע, די קנעטערקע, אַ רעדלער, אַ זעצער (זעצט אַרײַן די מצות אין אויוון) און דער „מענטש‟ וועלכער „קלײַבט אויס די מצות פֿונעם שלאָפֿבאַנק‟.
געוויינטלעך לייענט מען וועגן פּאָדראַד אין דער ייִדישער ליטעראַטור ווי אַ לעבעדיקע, פֿריילעכע אַרבעט. אָבער גאָרין שרײַבט אַנדערש. די פּאָדראַד־אַרבעטער האָבן געוואָלט כאַפּן אַ דרעמל ווען נאָר מעגלעך:
קיין לײַכטע אַרבעט איז דאָס נישט געווען. מע דאַרף שטיין פֿערצן שעה אין מעת־לעת אויף די פֿיס און וועלגערין און וועלגערין ביז די הענט ווערן געשוואָלן און אַלע גלידער ברעכן.
5. די באָבעס, נישט די עלטערן, האָבן פֿאַרזיכערט אַז די קינדער און אייניקלעך זאָלן פּראַווען פּסח
גאָרין באַשרײַבט אויך פּסח אין דער „נײַער היים‟, אויף דער איסט־סײַד פֿון ניו־יאָרק. אין עטלעכע דערציילונגען לייענט מען וועגן דעם דורות־ריס בײַ די ערשטע אימיגראַנטן און זייערע קינדער. אָפֿט האָבן די אימיגראַנטן פֿאַרגעסן וועגן זייערע ייִדישע טראַדיציעס, אָבער די אַלט־מאָדישע באָבעס האָבן פֿאַרזיכערט, אַז זייערע קינדער און אייניקלעך זאָלן זיך צוגרייטן אויף פּסח און אָפּריכטן די סדרים.
די קינדער זענען פֿאַרכאַפּט געוואָרן מיט דער לעגענדע פֿון אליהו־הנבֿיא, זײַנע מעשׂים און זײַן כּוס בײַם סדר. וואַרטנדיק אויף אליהו־הנבֿיא האָט זיי געהאַלטן וואַך בײַם סדר. אָבער אויך די באָבע, וואָס האָט זיך באַקלאָגט פֿאַר איר טאָכטער און איידעם וואָס פֿאַר אַ גוייִש לאַנד ס’איז אַמעריקע, האָט במשך פֿונעם סדר פאַרשטאַנען, אַז אין רוסלאַנד זענען די ייִדן טאַקע געווען ווי שקלאַפֿן. קיין ייִד האָט נישט געוווּסט וואָס דער מאָרגן וועט ברענגען. אָבער אין אַמעריקע קען מען טאַקע רויִקער שלאָפֿן. מען האָט אפֿשר אַנדערע צרות, אָבער, רעלאַטיוו גערעדט, קלענערע. איין מעשׂה ענדיקט זיך אזוי:
שוין אַ צײַט מיט יאָרן ווי זיי אַלע האָבן ניט געהאַט אַזאַ פֿריילעכן און באַהאַרצטן יום־טובֿ ווי דעם איצטיקן. נאָר די זכרונות פֿון דער היים זײַנען ווי אַ שאָטן געהאָנגען איבער זייער שׂימחה.
בײַ גאָרינען איז פּסח נישט בלויז אַ יום־טובֿ וואָס פֿאַרבינדט אונדז מיט דער אַלטער געשיכטע פֿון די ייִדן אין מצרים, נאָר אויך מיט דער נײַערער געשיכטע פֿון די ייִדן אין שטעטל און ניו־יאָרק.
The post Five facts about Passover you may not know appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A brilliant Jewish storyteller may be gone, but her characters are ‘still talking’
Still Talking
By Lore Segal
Melville House, 128 pages, $19
In one of the stories in Lore Segal’s posthumous collection, Still Talking, a group of women in their 80s and 90s agree without the need for discussion “that they were not going to pass, pass away, and under no circumstances on. They were going to die.”
It is characteristic of these tough-minded women, who have graced the pages of the New Yorker and taken a star turn in Segal’s 2023 collection Ladies’ Lunch, to renounce one of the most annoying euphemisms of modern life.
Like the stories in the earlier collection, this book also features the “Ladies Lunch,” a literary device that Segal’s longtime friend Vivian Gornick describes as “a group of very intelligent Upper West Side women (Lore and her friends)” who get together regularly to talk.
“Aging is the condition at the heart of all their musings, a development that has not made them any less interesting than at any other stage of their lives,” Gornick says in a warm introduction, calling Segal’s writing “one of the small glories of American literature.”
At one such meeting, a character named Farah suggests a discussion topic: “forgetting as an Olympic sport” because names, dates, events — almost everything — won’t stick in their minds. At another get-together, Ruth, the “bona-fide retired activist” of the group, regrets not going to a dinner she was invited to, not because she missed the food or conversation, but because “it makes it easier to not go the next time.” And in “Left Shoulders,” a character wonders if she is losing the very capacity for speech. “There’s something I want to say, but my mouth doesn’t open to say it, or not in the moment when there is a gap in the conversation.”
Segal’s life and work are now the focus of a new exhibit at the Center for Jewish History’s Leo Baeck Institute, an archive and research library for the history and culture of German-speaking Jews. The show, which opened in January and closes April 15, features photographs, documents and artifacts that trace Segal’s personal and literary journey from prewar Vienna to New York.
Born into a Jewish family in Vienna in 1928, Segal escaped Nazi-occupied Austria on the Kindertransport when she was 10. She grew up in England in a series of foster homes, material that she mined for her first autobiographical novel, Other People’s Houses. Eventually she was reunited with her parents in Britain, then emigrated to New York with her mother in 1951. Her father died in the final days of the war.
Some of this historical trauma in reflected in the story “Ilka,” in which the eponymous character tells her friends that her daughter applied for and received her Austrian citizenship. When they ask whether she considered doing the same, she says, “I did not. I was remembering my parents’ desperation assembling the papers that were required for our emigration.”
At first, the story has a light-hearted tone as Ilka describes going back to Vienna for visits when she was younger, dropping her bags at the hotel and racing off in search of a remembered tower or palace. Then it takes a darker turn as she reports on her daughter’s efforts to find out what happened to relatives who didn’t manage to escape, including a beloved, “immensely overweight” aunt who was killed at Auschwitz.
“Ilka tries not to imagine Tante Mali, who needs help getting up from her chair, forced to run to the right, turn and run left. To imagine the men? Not Dante, not Milton, not Shakespeare has anatomized their human hearts, and about what she cannot imagine she cannot think and I cannot write,” Segal says in a metafictional twist at the end that shifts from the third to the first person, shedding light on Segal’s distinctive storytelling method.
Segal elaborates on that technique in another story, “In the Mail,” in which a writer character named Bridget compares the act of writing fiction to the transporter in “Star Trek,” a device that dematerializes people into energy so they can be reassembled elsewhere. “I turn us into the words that would allow [others] to imagine us,” she says.
The post A brilliant Jewish storyteller may be gone, but her characters are ‘still talking’ appeared first on The Forward.