Oh boy. Here we go.
I two-starred a book with heavy subject matter, with practically no reviews of substance to be seen that gave it less than four stars. Which means the masses love it and I'm standing up to say, "Hold on a minute, though." This basically puts me in the position that my Five Days at Memorial review did.
First of all, I two-starred the BOOK. Not the Holocaust, not the women themselves or their stories. My unfavorable opinion of Born Survivors doesn't have to do with content, it's about the way that content has been arranged and presented as a BOOK. Because that's what we're supposed to be rating/reviewing here, or at least I think so. Rate Holden's work here, folks, not the titular mothers.
While there was an impressive volume of information, it was presented in a haphazard and disorderly way. Even the stories of the three young mothers were shuffled in a way that created confusion. We started with background information on Priska, followed her all the way to being transported, then typewritered back to start with Rachel and follow HER all the way to transport, then typewritered AGAIN for Anka. But these three storylines also aren't happening on concurrent dates. This means that, despite efforts to organize things into three distinct stories, we're describing same historical backdrop three times. Which means that any historical referents made during these first three chapters read like a skipping record.
A minor offense, I suppose, except that later, Holden changes her strategy and begins to organize things not into distinct "Priska, Rachel, Anka" columns, but instead by dates/events ("The Camps", "The Death Marches", etc.). Then we experience the opposite problem--trying to sort out who's who, and what each woman's individual circumstances are as Holden runs around trying to keep all three balls in the air, so to speak.
Basically, there was a TON of information here, and I think it got away from Holden a little. There were conflicting goals here, both to relate a heroic story of survival with three protagonists who never interacted, and to explain the historical details of the Holocaust to a reader who, after all, doesn't have encyclopedic knowledge of who/where/when everything was. Each of these goals stood in the way of the other.
For instance, there were these aggravating little cutaway clauses mid-story that sketched in background information irrelevant to the narrative flow of the story.
Example (NOT a direct quote): Rachel looked down in fear as Mengele, who had received the Iron Cross, asked her again if she was pregnant.
See, it's interesting that Mengele had an iron cross, but Rachel doesn't know that and it doesn't much matter to her, now, does it? It detracts from Rachel's terror and the pressing question "Are you pregnant" to include a biographical side-note on Mengele like that. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the story and the history stood in each others' way.
In fact, this results in an even clunkier phrase: "but of course, [she/they] didn't know that."
For example (NOT a direct quote): The camp had a reputation as the deadliest ever built, and had been created to house Russian POWs. Of course, Anka didn't know this as she passed beneath the formidable gate. She only cared about surviving.
This pattern of sketching in historical details, then reaffirming that the mothers didn't know any of them, was maddening. And it happened a LOT. Why choose to yank the readers out of the narrative flow to provide background, only to plunge us abruptly back in with the assertion that the background wasn't important and indeed wasn't known at all to the women? I'm not suggesting that the history should've been excluded completely, I'm just saying that the transitions between the two were clunky. Again, Holden had a lot of balls to keep in the air and didn't do it terribly smoothly.
Then there were a few notable cases where an almost callously colloquial narrator showed its face. In the most startling instance, one of the mothers feared that her relatives were "sucking on gas". In a book that tried to hold on to an almost chilly, informative narrative voice, these few moments of poetic license were unpleasant.
So listen, future unsatisfied readers of Born Survivors, it's OKAY to two-star a Holocaust book. Because nobody's belittling or two-starring the Holocaust. There are deeply irritating elements of Holden's compilation and writing at work here. That's how you can find these stories so inspiring and unbelievable, but still not enjoy the book all that much. It's not wrong to be critical of the writing, even with socially and emotionally-charged subject matter. It wasn't wrong for Five Days at Memorial and it isn't wrong here. We have a duty to judge these books not simply on the inspirational value of their content, but on the quality of the writing that delivers these stories to us. Or at least I think so.
And hey, five-star reviewers, if this book was an emotionally enlightening or transformative experience for you, that's great. I just need a book that's stronger in its bones than this one. Hands down, the writing makes up the bones of a book, and the writing of Born Survivors just isn't up to scratch.