The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness - Book Report/Review Example

Analysis of The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness Summary The Sunflower by Simon Wiesenthal is a story and a of an incident that occurred while the author was a prisoner in the Nazi concentration camp. The author is suddenly noticed by a nurse and upon confirmation that he was a Jew, was taken to the bedside of a dying man and a soldier who wanted to confess something to the author and asks whether he can be forgiven. The book raises basic questions about the ideals of clemency and pity. Although, Wiesenthal said nothing after hearing the confession of the 21 year old dying man called Karl, he wondered during the later years whether he had done the right thing and what would another man had done, had he been placed in his situation. The confession of this young man leads to myriad questions about the truth of life and what happens when a person is forced to stand at the crossroads with closed eyes. The question whether Karl can be forgiven is the spotlight of this story that unfolds in different phases. The story of this young man Karl and his involvement in the extermination of Jews has to be dealt in different perspectives. In my opinion, Karl cannot be blamed entirely for carrying out the attacks on Jews as he was not the perpetrator of the crime. The feelings that engulfed him while viewing the child in the arms of the man and the mother describes that Karl’s intentions were not iniquitous. It was a sudden or unpremeditated circumstance under which he and mates were forced to carry out the mass murder. On the face of it, the onus of the brutality of the incident could not have been on a single individual, Karl for instance or any one of the group. However, the question that garners at this point is whether Karl could have forced himself not to carry out the attacks even at the cost of his own life. My Standpoint I would have forgiven Karl not only because forgiveness is the gift of divine, but the realization of his wrong doings and his compassion towards the child along with the pity with which he describes the entire incident that express the essence of his guilt. Moreover, his confession that his bodily wounds are measly when compared with the burden of the murder that he was forced to carry out is a revelation considering his age and his psychology. On the other hand, it must be stated that a human being is perhaps too trivial to carry out the act of forgiveness and it is God alone who would be the best arbitrator in these situations. As a reviewer of this story and the incident narrated by Karl, I would prefer to forgive a man who has reached the penultimate phase of his life owing to the pain through which he was going after the shell exploded beside him. Under these circumstances, it would be wrong to show resentment against this young man who has little chance of living a life that he had taken away during the attack on the Jews. However, the brutality with which Jews were killed by the Nazis during those times cannot be a perspective of the discussion whether Karl should be forgiven or not. According to my opinion, he has not been spared of his life either and that can be reason enough for forgiving him as the onus of killing the Jews or their massacre by the Nazis cannot be borne by him alone. While narrating the incident to the author, his disinclination towards life comes out in each line of his description and the way in which he has been haunted by the spirits of the man carrying the child and the mother shows his repentance and he does not regret even when he is wrapped with wounds all over and has the zeal to live until the moment he is able to confess his feelings to a another Jewish person and ask for mercy for killing his fellow people. Supporting readings Although, the author wondered at several instances as to why he was listening to the confessions of a dying Nazi soldier, he begins to sense a feeling of empathy. As revealed in the first reading in Part II, Sven Alkakaj, “dilemma comes not only because the dying SS man asks for forgiveness, but also because he genuinely seems to recognize his crime and guilt” (103). However, forgiveness and forgetting are not the same and one must not forget before forgiving because that will undervalue humanity. The empathy is relevant particularly when it comes to the question of forgiving Karl and his actions that led to the loss of so many human lives, for which he could not be entirely responsible considering his explanations and his confession that he was not a born killer. Even as the author feels a genuine lack of cogency in the thoughts of the dying soldier, he could somehow feel that there is something about this man that kept him hooked to his determination to live until he was able to confess the crime or the killing that he had committed and the way in which he was brought into it. In this context the reading Robert Coles may be referred – “I would, then, pray to God for the forgiveness of that Nazi, who claimed to be repentant – I, the present day son of my parents, the one who inhabits this life”. (Wiesenthal 128). The above is stated in the context of self-righteousness. The description of the alteration and modification of light and shadow is an emblem of the dilemma that was constantly hitting the author although he was far less than responsive. As a matter of fact, the circumstance under which the incident was being narrated to him could not have made him vociferous in the real sense, for he was equally sympathizing with the 21 year old boy even though he might not have stated something that expresses an idea of forgiveness; however, his lateral thinking makes the readers feel that his heart is lined with mercy. The third reading which supports my point is that of Dalai Lama who says, “I believe one should forgive the person or persons who have committed atrocities against oneself and mankind. But this does not necessarily mean one should forget about the atrocities committed” (Wiesenthal 129). So as long as one does not forget the offences, forgiveness of a repentant person is acceptable. The tendency of the dying soldier to establish physical contact with the author is a reminiscence of his pleads or his penchant while asking for mercy from a Jew. In this perspective, a semblance of thoughts cannot be overlooked and the dilemma of whether Karl should be forgiven is evaded to a great extent. Although, the author poses a big question in this book that stirs the ideals of forgiveness, he is himself of a mind that is tilted towards the poor boy and his deplorable condition; in fact, all the above descriptions are oriented towards the author’s intention to forgive the boy who was already in enough pain. Opposing readings During the confession of the young man, Karl, there arise feelings that are not in favor of mercy or forgiveness and the author moves back to the world to which he belonged. In this context we may use the reading of Harry Cargas who explains, “I am afraid not to forgive because I fear not to be forgiven” (Wiesenthal 124). There a selfish thought underlies the act of forgiveness and it seems only a person liable to commit such atrocities would be able to forgive Karl. At this point it might seem unethical to forgive him. Also in Christian scripture there is a “reference to an unforgivable sin” (Wiesenthal 124). The second reading which opposes the standpoint of mercy is that of Eugene J Fisher, “we have no right to put Jewish survivors in the impossible moral position of offering forgiveness, implicitly, in the name of the six million.” (Wiesenthal 132) Six million victims have suffered the injustice and so the author is no one to forgive the sinner on behalf of so many sufferers. Forgiveness can be an individual standpoint but in a case where many others are involved, the forgiver should think about the rest. The third reading against my position is that of Eva Fleischner, “come out in favor of forgiveness, while the Jewish students feel that Simon did the right thing by not granting the dying mans wish” (Wiesenthal 139). The reason is identification of oneself with the victims. The Jewish students could identify themselves with the millions of sufferers. Hence from this viewpoint forgiveness if not justified. It is not appropriate for an individual to forgive a sinner who has wronged millions. This is similar to Fisher’s explanation. Conclusion The narration and confession evoked mixed feelings in the mind of the author who had been trying to relate the incident through a series of montages and reminisces about his family and the reality of war much of which centered on the brutality on the Jews. The predicament of the author whether the dying man should have been forgiven remains one of the most profound questions about Jewish massacre by the Germans. However I would look at the scenario from individual viewpoint only and simply going by the faith that the repentance of the dying man is genuine. Mercy being a virtue can therefore be showered in such a situation without forgetting the crimes. Reference Wiesenthal S. 1976, The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness, Schokhen, Print. Read More