Those forensic findings were published in 1989 along with new material in a comprehensive critical edition of the diary. Graphologists and others have reiterated those findings during a variety of analyses over the past six decades. In response to this speculation, the Netherlands Forensic Institute undertook an exhaustive forensic analysis of the diary in the early 1980s that proved the book had been written by Anne. Holocaust deniers, misinterpreting the results of libel and defamation lawsuits, published books and pamphlets claiming the diary was a hoax. The excluded material screamed into the public consciousness when the contents of the five ‘suppressed pages’ became public But though readers like Lane said the book helped them see adolescents in a new light, they had no idea how much material Otto and his publishers had suppressed. “As seen through Anne’s eyes,” wrote Mary Lane for The English Journal in 1956, “the evils of discrimination have made a terrific impact on these young people’s minds.” At the time, the events Anne recounted were so recent that Lane was able to write to Otto Frank and even visit Miep Gies in Amsterdam. It was especially revered for its impact among young readers. It was an instant success, gaining worldwide fame and soaring to immediate symbolism. She encouraged her boss to acquire it and – with an English translation by Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday, a cover that featured Anne’s photograph, and a foreword by former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt – Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl was published in English in 1952. The French-language translation languished in a pile of rejected books at Doubleday in New York until editor Judith Jones chanced upon it. It was an immediate success in Europe.īut English-language readers almost missed their chance to read the book. Het Achterhuis (“The House Behind”) was published in 1947. Eventually, though, Otto found a publisher. The cuts made the book short enough for publication, but publishers were reluctant to release books about the Second World War for fear of alienating war-weary customers. In an early passage from the diary that Otto eliminated completely from the first editions, Anne describes her classmates as everything from “a detestable, sneaky, stuck-up, two-faced gossip” to “pretty boring.”Īnne's father Otto Frank, photographed c1967. ![]() Otto made his own cuts, too: he removed passages in which Anne was critical of her parents’ marriage, and expurgated sections about sexuality and her often brutal comments about friends, family members and acquaintances. Otto respected some of those editorial decisions, but overlooked others – for example, he included material about Anne’s crush on annexe dweller Peter van Pels. Anne herself had begun editing large swathes of her diary with publication in mind after hearing a radio broadcast that called on Dutch people to preserve diaries and other war documents. Eventually, persuaded by a historian and a friend who convinced him the diary was a significant document, he agreed to seek publication.īut the manuscript that Otto Frank pitched to Dutch editors didn’t contain his daughter’s entire diary. He began sharing translated portions of the diary with his mother, then telling others.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |