Banned Books discussion

This discussion is for talking about The Diary of Anne Frank, The Definitive Edition, which is the unabridged version of the original.

I believe that abridged versions have a place in literature for people not yet ready to process them. I wish that both published versions of Anne Frank's book explained that they were different, i.e., one said abridged and the other said unabridged.

I do think this case is different, though, because this was a young girl's private diary. Whether it should have been published at all is an ethical question. There are things I've written in diaries that I would never want published.

The father is the one who chose not to publish everything. I do not blame him at all for leaving parts out that he thought would affect how people thought of her. In that day and age, especially, people would have judged her rather than getting what was important out of the book. So I personally think condemning him and that version is unfair.

I blame him for not mentioning that he did remove parts he thought would affect how people thought of her.

What right does he have to alter another persons testimony and fraudulently pretend this was the whole story? This decision was not his to make and that he hid from the unsuspecting reader that the diaries had been tampered with is despicable.

Anne Franck belongs to history and her father willingly falsified history for reasons of his own.

This is actually worse than what Daniele da Volterra, Il Braghettone, did to the Michelangelo's painting in the Sistine Chapel.

Andrew wrote: "I blame him for not mentioning that he did remove parts he thought would affect how people thought of her.

What right does he have to alter another persons testimony and fraudulently pretend this ..."

Although I don't agree with the father removing parts of the diary (especially because this was not mentioned, this was not universally known), I also think that it is rather presumptive for you to say that Anne Frank belongs to history. She was first and foremost a human being and she belongs (or she belonged) to no one but herself.

Gundula wrote: "Andrew wrote: "She was first and foremost a human being and she belongs (or she belonged) to no one but herself."

I note that you use the past tense.

She belongs (present tense) to history. Another thing you can blame her father for who published a censored version of her diary without her consent and which she probably wouldn't have done herself. It was he who put her on the public stage of history.
That was presumptive.

Frankly, I think he probably did what he thought best. He had, let us say, good intentions.

Andrew wrote: "Gundula wrote: "Andrew wrote: "She was first and foremost a human being and she belongs (or she belonged) to no one but herself."

I note that you use the past tense.

She belongs (present tense) t..."

He had very good intentions, and since Anne Frank was dead, she would not have been able to give her consent either (and considering some of the facts she had put into her diary, perhaps she would not have given her consent or perhaps she might also have wanted an abridged version published, we just cannot know that and will never know that). I think Otto Frank should have never claimed that the diary was complete but I also do not fault him for releasing an abridged version of the diary (although I do and vehemently fault the ignoramuses who have tried to get the full, unabridged diary censored and/or banned). Many diaries, many journals are abridged (some by the authors of the diaries themselves but more often than not by family members, publishers etc.). I don't particularly like this, but if diaries in question (unlike the original Anne Frank diary) are titled are described as being selective journals, I don't have a huge problem with this (from the standpoint of academic honesty).

Gundula wrote: " I don't particularly like this, but if diaries in question (unlike the original Anne Frank diary) are titled are described as being selective journals, I don't have a huge problem with this (from the standpoint of academic honesty)."

The fact remains her father didn't mention these were selective journals, but on the whole I can agree with this.

Andrew wrote: "Gundula wrote: " I don't particularly like this, but if diaries in question (unlike the original Anne Frank diary) are titled are described as being selective journals, I don't have a huge problem ..."

I think that's a main bone of contention.

Are you sure he never mentioned it? He might have to the publishers. How do we know he kept it a secret completely. Then again, he might have been afraid that the publishers wouldn't take it if they read the whole thing, or would only publish it if they thought it was whole. Do we know if he tried other publishers first?

Yes, the diaries were found after his death, but that didn't mean that at one point others didn't know about them. If he said so right away, people would be clamoring for the rest, and the story would not have become the beloved tale for young adults it is now. The era was just too oppressive back then.

I think it's censorship when an already published title is banned, challenged, or published abridged in order to silence the words. But publishers edit all the time. I don't believe for a second that the diary wasn't edited partially for grammar, tense, spelling, etc. But plenty of books that are sent to a publisher undergo major overhauls where the publisher says to take out sections that are irrelevant or that will hinder book sales.

This was a private document, and I just don't see why it's a problem. The man was protecting his beloved child who had just been murdered. I'm trying to put myself in his shoes, and if I were trying to share my child's legacy and childhood with the world, I can picture myself not wanting everyone to see her most private thoughts that they didn't need to see. As it is, I'm uncomfortable reading about the sexuality of a young girl who had no control over her thoughts being published. I'm sure he thought those parts weren't necessary to the story, and he wanted to protect her.

As a parent, protecting my child is more important than sharing her private things with the world. I'm not trying to make some published work not available to others; I'm protecting the memory of my kid. My children have huge issues that would make very interesting reading, but it feels like I'm violating them just by talking about it. I certainly wouldn't want to hint that there was more, because people might then push for it.

We're talking about a very different time. Otto's daughter had just been killed by people who judged them because of their heritage. I would think that keeping some things private would be natural to someone who had survived the Holocaust. I doubt it even occurred to him to say that the diaries weren't complete because he didn't expect anyone to find out or care.

I just can't fault a man for protecting his child's memory. He was trying to put a human face on a war that took humanity away. He wasn't trying to show the world the diaries of a public figure. She was just an anonymous young girl at the time. Now that she's a part of history, it's easy for us to say what should and shouldn't have been done a time when she was just another victim of the monstrosity of WWII. But at the time of publication, I think his actions were completely reasonable and not in any way trying to defraud anyone. The alternative might have been that the diaries were never published in the first place.

Kelly wrote: "Are you sure he never mentioned it? He might have to the publishers. How do we know he kept it a secret completely. Then again, he might have been afraid that the publishers wouldn't take it if the..."

I have the utmost respect for the difficult decisions the father of Anne Franck was confronted with, but he chose wrongly.

“I doubt it even occurred to him to say that the diaries weren't complete because he didn't expect anyone to find out or care.”

I find this a strange moral stance, and I strongly disagree with it.

“I just can't fault a man for protecting his child's memory”

Again, this was not a decision for him to make. He didn't “protect” her memory. He falsified who she really was. He made her less human.

He could just as easily have told the world that this were excerpts from the diaries of his daughter. He could have stated his reasons why he chose not to publish the complete diaries.

You can invent all kinds of excuses, and to a certain extent they have some merits. None of those reasons take away from the fact that he could have published exactly the same excerpts and have told the truth about them.

He didn't. He chose to lie by omission.

Andrew wrote: "Kelly wrote: "Are you sure he never mentioned it? He might have to the publishers. How do we know he kept it a secret completely. Then again, he might have been afraid that the publishers wouldn't..."

You claim that you have respect for Otto Frank but your words do not show respect but rather the opposite.

I know that if my daughter had been murdered like Anne Frank was and I had found her journals, I would probably be very hesitant to even consider releasing them in their entirety if I was not sure that this was what what she desired (however, if I knew this was what she desired, I would have no problem releasing the entire journal even with entries I would consider problematic). But if I was unsure, I might well decide not to release parts of the journals that were very private and might leave a negative impression concerning my child and her memory. And Otto Frank was also likely protecting other members of his family by choosing to omit certain parts of the diary (although I do wish he had published the diary as a selected journal but that is all I can and will fault him for, but we also don't know wether it was Otto Frank or the original publisher who chose the title of the book, who chose to label the book not as the selected journals of Anne Frank but the diary of Anne Frank).

And I have to ask why you are so full of seeming hatred towards Otto Frank? You should save your venom for those who deserve it, the Nazis (the perpetrators of the Holocaust) and those who now are striving to ban and censor the definitive, the entire diary of Anne Frank.

Gundula wrote: "Andrew wrote: "Kelly wrote: "Are you sure he never mentioned it? He might have to the publishers. How do we know he kept it a secret completely. Then again, he might have been afraid that the publ..."

I said I had respect for the difficult decisions he was faced with.

I maintain he should have specified that these were only excerpts. He could have given reasons for doing so, but that wouldn't have been strictly necessary.

Otto Franck made a mistake. A very understandable mistake, but a mistake nevertheless, and one which could have been easily avoided.

I just don't like to be deceived. That's all.

The comments about hatred for Otto Franck and venom are completely on you. The implications of what follows are insulting. They are also dishonest: you try to undermine my position by casting doubts on where my sympathies lie. You're also presumptuous in trying to tell me what I should do.

I've said what I wanted to say, and seeing which turn this takes, I bow out of this discussion.

Andrew wrote: "Gundula wrote: "Andrew wrote: "Kelly wrote: "Are you sure he never mentioned it? He might have to the publishers. How do we know he kept it a secret completely. Then again, he might have been afra..."

Look, I have also maintained that Otto Frank should have mentioned that the diary was not complete.

However, the tone of your posts (or at least some of your posts) did leave the impression with me that you were not just being critical of Otto Frank but actually almost despised him (if that was not your intention, then I apologise, but nevertheless that feeling still remains with me to a point).

Let's try to stay away from personal stuff, okay? Where we all are disagreeing is just on judging Otto and his decisions.

Thanks, all!