The fear and terror that Elie Wiesel endured during his teenage years can not be rationally explained. The novel Witness for Life by Ellen Norman Stern portrays the dramatic and emotional impact that the Holocaust had on Elie Wiesel's life.
The systematic extermination of Elie's family became a ghastly memory and a critical part of shaping his future identity. Elie's comfortable home life in his early years deeply influenced his life. Eliezer Wiesel was born in Sighet, Transylvania to Shlomo and Sarah Wiesel on September 30, 1928. Elie, from a very young age, wanted to learn the intricacies of the Jewish religion. He would study Judaism eleven months each year. He would do his secular studies in an intensive one-month program. His love of learning would come back to him later in his life.
When Elie was fifteen, all the Jews of Sighet were gathered up and put on a train to Auschwitz. The last sight that Elie had of the town that he had loved so much during his childhood was Adolf Eichmann striding up and down the platform laughing. The horrible stench of burning human flesh surrounded the camp. He witnessed human bodies being tossed into giant ditches with fire burning at the bottom. Hoping that this was all a dream, Elie went to bed that night to the sounds of the Mourners Kaddish, a prayer for the dead. Although he still believed in a god, he could no longer praise him. Elie's father died during the time that he was in Auschwitz.
Elie soon met the Nobel laureate Francois Mauriac. Francois was also a member of the French Resistance. He urged Elie to write about what he had witnessed. Elie emerged with an eight hundred page manuscript that no one would publish. The manuscript was entitled Night. Mauriac used his influence to have Night published after Eli condensed the book.
By reading this novel before reading a novel like Night I was able to better understand the life of Elie Wiesel. The author made it apparent that she interviewed Elie for this biography. She also used excepts from many of Elie's books. Although this is a well-written book, it was published in 1982. Elie has done many things since then, including the pinnacle of his career, winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I would suggest reading a more current biography.

Elie Wiesel's new children's book, King Solomon and His Magic Ring, is an unpleasantly surprising work. Wiesel, author of over forty works of fiction and non-fiction, stuns readers with an uninspiring, bland retelling of a famous legend. He attempts to catch our children's attention with a thin spidery plot that is difficult to grasp.

As a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Wiesel could have done much better for himself. Instead, he has written one more book that we are able to add to the growing pile of poorly written children's books lacking in stimuli. Surely, "Not only was Solomon the wisest of all rulers, he was also the mightiest." (12). Well, not only is that line cliché, it's also not something that would excite a young mind.

Speaking of exciting, the paintings featured in this piece are of very high quality and talent. However, they are not suitable for children. The art is too dark and depicts demons, giants, lions, and other things that might frighten younger readers. In addition to boring or perhaps scaring today's youth, Wiesel has also managed to impress upon them a couple of incorrect teachings, including one about women. "Solomon's worst mistake? His marriage to the daughter of the Pharaoh." (36) The daughter of the Pharaoh gives a poor example of women. The book describes her as an enthralling dancer who later tricks Solomon whilst he is under her spell. Not all women are evil temptresses out to control men through manipulative ways; the author should make that clear.

Now, what about this magic ring? "From the moment he slipped the ring on his finger, Solomon's authority extended over everything from spirits and animals to the wind." (14) That sounds a bit like mind control. Add that to the way Wiesel portrays King Solomon; a reader might think Wiesel was advocating ruling with an iron fist. Children's books are meant to be entertaining, yes, but not to cause the youngster to reach for incorrect ideals.

Our media claims '90's youth is desensitized to television murders and sex in the movies. However, since children are taught that books are the alleys towards truth, they tend to try to learn from them, rather than media. Let Wiesel not inadvertently poison the minds of tomorrow with works such as this.

This book is written in the format of a conversation between two friends, Francois Mitterand (former President of France) and Elie Wiezel (Nobel laureate). This format makes for easy reading, but tends to gloss over hard discussion of the interesting issues. On the upside, it rolls along very quickly, at the pace of conversation.

I had serious problems with this book. Both the dialogue and the concept of this book are incredibly arrogant. The supposed "conversation" has the air of a Doonesbury cartoon, with Gary Trudeau lampooning political figures-- except the authors do it to themselves. It is arrogant also because the authors presume that readers care about their opinions on everything outside of their specialty. Who cares about Mitterand's opinions on religion, Nature and childhood, except as they relate to his specialty (politics)? What makes his opinions on these subjects any more interesting than mine? He tends to oscillate between banality and a forced profundity. He tells readers that "courage isn't the absence of fear; it's being able to dominate your fear." True, undoubtedly; but common knowledge, commonly expressed. If this is the best he can do, this book should have been circular-filed by the publisher.

The format also contributes to this. The few times they stumble onto something profound, like the importance of names to a culture, they stumble right back off it. Wiezel is generally more profound in his musings-- of course, his reputation and living have been made by seeing deeper trends and implications in society. It is a shame, if only for this reason, that the book focusses on Mitterand. When discussing religion, Wiezel notes, "I can remember the first time I failed to put on the phylacteries. . . For me it was terrible, because I was so devout. But the world did not collapse under my feet. And yet, I had been convinced that if I committed such an act I would be struck down on the spot."

Both authors point out that they've never been psychoanalyzed. Perhaps this is the impetus behind the book. Mitterand was near death when this project was completed, and tells readers that he wishes to be understood. The authors know each other well, which makes for much more interesting reading because the interviewer knows what questions to ask. The downside is that some questions whose answers are already known to the interviewer but unknown to the reader may not be asked. Therefore, we need aperceptive and intelligent interviewer, which we luckily find in Wiezel.

The two obviously go over well-trod ground. This means that they don't explain their thoughts very well, knowing that the other understands it. This book could have used a good editor to say, "I don't understand this thought." At one point Mitterand says that "I'm interested in the kinds of questions religions pose . . . Fundamentally, I admit the existence of a principle, and of an explanation, but my mind falters at the forms of the explanation."

There were some interesting points in the book, but they were mostly incidental. For instance, for those who didn't already know, a strong pro-Israeli bent can be detected in Mitterand. Some of the "forward school" thinking about war that Mitterand displays in his dismissal of retreat in war characterized strategic thinking in France before WWI. The statement "peevishness, however, has never been a substitute for rage" could be straight out of Tushman's Guns of August.

The book does improve if you can get through the first chapter. The chapter on faith is better than the one on childhood, and the chapter on war is better still. The book is disingenuous, though, as Mitterand paints himself not as a human being, but as a saint forced to negotiate in this world. Sad, really, because he is an interesting, complex character, who stood in a unique position during a number of historical events. Ultimately, books can be found about all of the topics they cover that are much more interesting, in-depth, and profound.

After chapters on such topics as childhood and the meaning of faith, Mitterand says "I believe we should be strictly professional and talk only about what we know." This would have been a much better book if he had done so.