What do you think?
Rate this book
Denial: A drama in two acts
In a contest of intellect and wills, Abby Gersten, a tenacious civil liberties attorney, defends a right-wing Holocaust denier, arguing her case against a young, committed Jewish federal prosecutor. But Abby may have to sacrifice everything to prove that Truth and Justice do not always go hand in hand.
92 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
28 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
September 11, 2021
Profound and entertaining fits this play. I was so busy enjoying listening to this that the shock of the play’s message hit home harder.
On the surface this play is about a lawyer’s client is being prosecuted by the state for denying there was a holocaust. In-depth, the play is about the complexity of having freedom of speech, in the US referred to as the First Amendment, and the cost that comes with it.
Abigail Gersten is good at what she does, and she doesn’t like to lose. When she agrees to represent her client, she makes it clear that she’s not representing him but the First Amendment. I found the delivery of this speech never lost its amusement with the subsequent times I listened to this.
This play is packed with irony, Abigail Gersten is Jewish and is disgusted by her client, Bernard Cooper, but defends him because of her belief in the law what makes the justice system work. This made sense until the unfolding drama pointed to her folly (having principals also come with a cost) by defending this denier, Abigail herself becomes an easy target for others who have cause to be angry at her client. Anger is in the form of hate mail and loss of her other clients. The irony becomes poignant when some of the anger comes from the Jewish community.
Peter Sagal illustrates how anger makes no room for the rationale that requires to look at a picture’s depth to see the complexity. This hit me when I listened to it two further times, by then I was less distracted by its comedy (which, thanks to the amazing cast of actors, ran right through the play). Peter Sagal’s play puts freedom of speech under a microscope and raises questions of where to draw that line of toleration before censorship is actioned, and how far should it go (even when it’s used in the name of goodness)? These are tough question that becomes more profound because this play never forgets to put the drama first.
The play’s action is mostly set in Abigail Gersten’s office, in-between the slick exchanges there are twists and turns as lawyer and client are kind of playing a cat and mouse game to see who can get the better of who. The play left me with the impression .
(side note: read dates showing when I started and finished reading this are an approximation as this was read sometime between July and August 2021)
On the surface this play is about a lawyer’s client is being prosecuted by the state for denying there was a holocaust. In-depth, the play is about the complexity of having freedom of speech, in the US referred to as the First Amendment, and the cost that comes with it.
Abigail Gersten is good at what she does, and she doesn’t like to lose. When she agrees to represent her client, she makes it clear that she’s not representing him but the First Amendment. I found the delivery of this speech never lost its amusement with the subsequent times I listened to this.
This play is packed with irony, Abigail Gersten is Jewish and is disgusted by her client, Bernard Cooper, but defends him because of her belief in the law what makes the justice system work. This made sense until the unfolding drama pointed to her folly (having principals also come with a cost) by defending this denier, Abigail herself becomes an easy target for others who have cause to be angry at her client. Anger is in the form of hate mail and loss of her other clients. The irony becomes poignant when some of the anger comes from the Jewish community.
Peter Sagal illustrates how anger makes no room for the rationale that requires to look at a picture’s depth to see the complexity. This hit me when I listened to it two further times, by then I was less distracted by its comedy (which, thanks to the amazing cast of actors, ran right through the play). Peter Sagal’s play puts freedom of speech under a microscope and raises questions of where to draw that line of toleration before censorship is actioned, and how far should it go (even when it’s used in the name of goodness)? These are tough question that becomes more profound because this play never forgets to put the drama first.
The play’s action is mostly set in Abigail Gersten’s office, in-between the slick exchanges there are twists and turns as lawyer and client are kind of playing a cat and mouse game to see who can get the better of who. The play left me with the impression .
(side note: read dates showing when I started and finished reading this are an approximation as this was read sometime between July and August 2021)
September 30, 2016
When it comes to free speech, no matter how repugnant, how hateful or how untrue, everyone has a right to it. Unfortunately, this comes with some pretty nasty people spreading their lies. But it's up to those who are smart, those who can prove them wrong to speak out against them. In this age of Donald Trump, I think free speech is a great thing. His words have not convinced people of anything, they have merely revealed what was always there, and THAT is what's important. Let us bring the darkness out into the light so that it may be fought. Sagal's "Denial" is powerful and nuanced, an excellent exploration of the highly explosive subject of free speech. When a prominent Jewish lawyer agrees to accept the case of a Holocaust denier being sued by the government, she must choose between what many feel is right . . . and the law. It's not an easy subject, and if the people doing a production of this play can pull it off it will be a provocative presentation.
February 5, 2017
Quick short read. I did this as an audio book but it ended up being more of a play than book. There were actors who played parts and I very much enjoyed that it was so different. The story itself is worth a listen. I enjoyed it.
December 3, 2022
Theater should be incendiary: it shouldn't just make us think, it should make us mad--make us argue with each other all the way home and for hours afterward about who was right and what we'd do in their place and what we've learned from what we just saw and what we can do about it. Denial is such theater. Although this play, by radio personality Peter Sagal, is perhaps somewhat flawed in some of the details of its construction, it nevertheless raises powerful issues that need to be aired and discussed.
Denial is about a man named Bernard Cooper who is being investigated, or harassed, by the United States government. Cooper is an engineering professor by day, but his hobby is writing articles and pamphlets denying the existence of the Holocaust, and he's become well known among his fellow believers, to the extent that the feds think he's potentially harmful. They've seized his mailing list and other documents without a warrant and are planning to build a case against him.
Cooper believes that the government is violating his Constitutional right to free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union agrees, and they've helped find a top-notch attorney to defend him. The lawyer is Abigail Gersten, and she's Jewish. At first, for Abby the path is clear: even if Cooper's thoughts are repugnant and horrifying, he's allowed to express them and it's Abby's duty to fight for his right to do so. But as Abby gets to know her client better, she begins to doubt whether it's right for her to do that duty.
Denial mines complex moral ground, raising valuable questions about law versus morality, doing what's correct versus doing what's right, and the elusive concepts of truth and falsehood and good and evil. Sagal stacks the deck against Abby: her opponent is a young Jewish zealot attorney and her secretary and confidante is a young African American woman, both of whom have serious difficulties understanding why Abby feels any obligation to defend Cooper; and the man that Cooper is directing his most serious attacks against is an apparently saintly Holocaust survivor whose actions seem heroic in just about any context. But nothing is ever quite as it seems, and so Denial takes some interesting twists and turns as it moves through a series of exciting confrontations that conclude the play.
For me, perhaps the most interesting element of the piece is its exploration of the scary discipline of Holocaust Denial. Cooper's arguments that this pivotal historical event never happened are based on actual, published work (his character is particularly modeled on a man named Arthur Butz). It's important for people to be aware that this movement exists and what its beliefs are. Rewriting history is not a new idea, or one that has been wiped out; as our collective memory is increasingly committed to the electronic ether of the Internet, safeguarding the truth becomes ever more important.
Denial is about a man named Bernard Cooper who is being investigated, or harassed, by the United States government. Cooper is an engineering professor by day, but his hobby is writing articles and pamphlets denying the existence of the Holocaust, and he's become well known among his fellow believers, to the extent that the feds think he's potentially harmful. They've seized his mailing list and other documents without a warrant and are planning to build a case against him.
Cooper believes that the government is violating his Constitutional right to free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union agrees, and they've helped find a top-notch attorney to defend him. The lawyer is Abigail Gersten, and she's Jewish. At first, for Abby the path is clear: even if Cooper's thoughts are repugnant and horrifying, he's allowed to express them and it's Abby's duty to fight for his right to do so. But as Abby gets to know her client better, she begins to doubt whether it's right for her to do that duty.
Denial mines complex moral ground, raising valuable questions about law versus morality, doing what's correct versus doing what's right, and the elusive concepts of truth and falsehood and good and evil. Sagal stacks the deck against Abby: her opponent is a young Jewish zealot attorney and her secretary and confidante is a young African American woman, both of whom have serious difficulties understanding why Abby feels any obligation to defend Cooper; and the man that Cooper is directing his most serious attacks against is an apparently saintly Holocaust survivor whose actions seem heroic in just about any context. But nothing is ever quite as it seems, and so Denial takes some interesting twists and turns as it moves through a series of exciting confrontations that conclude the play.
For me, perhaps the most interesting element of the piece is its exploration of the scary discipline of Holocaust Denial. Cooper's arguments that this pivotal historical event never happened are based on actual, published work (his character is particularly modeled on a man named Arthur Butz). It's important for people to be aware that this movement exists and what its beliefs are. Rewriting history is not a new idea, or one that has been wiped out; as our collective memory is increasingly committed to the electronic ether of the Internet, safeguarding the truth becomes ever more important.
December 26, 2024
( Format : Audiobook )
"Justice, you want justice?"
Peter Sagal is here writing about a very sensitive subject: that of freedom of speech and our right to express it, combined with the expression of truth, responsibility and the rewriting of history. When Bernard Cooper, an holocaust denier, is being harassed by the police to the point of his door being taken down by them to seize his papers, Abigaile Gersen, a prominent lawyer and herself Jewish, agrees to take on his defence.
The play is angry and emotional, as would be expected, but offers up to the reader questions which won't go away. Not a comfortable book to read, but important and well performed by the full cast led by Harold Gould end Stephanie Zimbalist.
"This is about doing what's right."
"Justice, you want justice?"
Peter Sagal is here writing about a very sensitive subject: that of freedom of speech and our right to express it, combined with the expression of truth, responsibility and the rewriting of history. When Bernard Cooper, an holocaust denier, is being harassed by the police to the point of his door being taken down by them to seize his papers, Abigaile Gersen, a prominent lawyer and herself Jewish, agrees to take on his defence.
The play is angry and emotional, as would be expected, but offers up to the reader questions which won't go away. Not a comfortable book to read, but important and well performed by the full cast led by Harold Gould end Stephanie Zimbalist.
"This is about doing what's right."
April 14, 2024
Hard hitting legal drama about a holocaust denier that gets a lot of bite from not reducing the issue to caricatures and the work of an utter idiot. Letting someone morally repugnant actually win exchanges and have legitimate points takes the ethical stakes to a place they don't usually get. The free speech dilemmas are only heightened.
March 20, 2023
So coollll
August 12, 2009
After reading Sagal’s somewhat disappointing
The Book of Vice: Very Naughty Things
, I decided to try out one of his plays. As I often find myself taken aback by avowed deniers of the Apollo moon landings, I was interested in the subject material of this book. The protagonist confronts a man who has dedicated himself to disproving the Holocaust.
Sagal’s dialogue style is a bit academic when it might benefit from being more fragmented and raw. There's a bit of Ivy League pretension dripping from the play. Still, the playwright does a great job of crafting strong opposing minds who clash violently with each other.
The play felt strongest when the tables are turning on characters I was rooting for. It’s a story that can get you thinking, and it’s very readable even if you haven’t seen a stage production.
Sagal’s dialogue style is a bit academic when it might benefit from being more fragmented and raw. There's a bit of Ivy League pretension dripping from the play. Still, the playwright does a great job of crafting strong opposing minds who clash violently with each other.
The play felt strongest when the tables are turning on characters I was rooting for. It’s a story that can get you thinking, and it’s very readable even if you haven’t seen a stage production.
December 14, 2014
Wonderful performances about an important and disturbing issue. I found the ending to be a bit weak.
April 6, 2017
Excellent and challenging play about lies and holocaust denial.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews