According to the New York Times reviewer discussing Unbroken:
On a number of small but dubious points she (Hillenbrand) gives him a pass: Could a neighbor really have sewn back on a toe Zamperini severed during a childhood accident? Would a family so poor that it shot rabbits to feed the children also have owned a car? More seriously, she rarely forces him to reach. “Unbroken” offered her an unusual chance to study and dissect a man who had undergone extreme duress. But virtually everything about Zamperini is filtered through her capable yet rather denatured voice, and we don’t really hear him. So, while a startling narrative and an inspirational book of a rather traditional sort, “Unbroken” is also a wasted opportunity to break new psychological ground.
Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I respectfully disagree with the New York Times reporter and feel that Hillenbrand has created an exceptional work. The brief discrepancies, as mentioned in the review, are trivial and bear no significant importance to the major message of Unbroken. I also disagree with her statement that Louis Zamperini is filtered through Hillenbrand’s account. Zamerpini’s character shines through his actions and personality which speak for itself. I think that Unbroken breaks psychological grounds, despite the reviewer’s opinion. In the post-war scenes, Hillenbrand’s account delves into the mental anguish Zamperini endured as he struggled to regain his dignity. Hillenbrand effectively explains his mind and pulls through with an important message of forgiveness and salvation.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with these comments made about Unbroken. Writing a biography a person who has had such a life as Louie Zamperini can be very difficult especially capturing the mental and psychological part of the character. Hillenbrand did a great job, especially with Louie's fall and rise after the war, of capturing the psychological aspects of Louie. I do not believe that Louie's character has been filtered, he continues to face awful hardship after hardship and Hillenbrand makes it almost hard to read at points because of the amount of brutality that Louie faces. All the way through the reader gets a good insight into Louie's mind as he deteriorates, and then breaks down after the war only to rise up again. And as for the facts that do not quite add up, they do not have a major effect on the novel and probably do not even matter if they are right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteIgnore the old adage and consider for a moment that one can in fact judge a book by its cover. Blatantly and purposefully, the front cover of one edition of Unbroken advertises the pages within as a “World War II story of survival, resilience, and redemption.” Random House Publishing specifically chooses these words to reflect author Laura Hillenbrand’s unambiguous goal of artfully and accurately recreating the inspirational life of Louis Zamperini. Hillenbrand and her work masterfully succeed. The remarkably complete and page-turning saga overcomes the oft-encountered biographical challenge of listing tedious trivialities. Moreover, any seemingly superfluous detail Hillenbrand utilizes reinforces some larger idea. By this logic, the details themselves are not so vital as the significance each conveys. When a critic alleges, “On a number of small but dubious points [Hillenbrand] gives [Louis] a pass,” said critic misunderstands the purpose of this literature. Apparent “irregularities” are not wrongly written. That Louis’ family shot rabbits underscores the destitution of his family. That Louis severed a toe reveals his obstreperous nature. Scripture scholars refer to this idea as religious truth, or effectively the core meaning hidden within a story’s surface, and use it to decipher the essence of Biblical passages. The disagreeable critic continues, deriding Unbroken as “a wasted opportunity to break new psychological ground.” In the same way one dare not ask a children’s book to reveal some sort of scientific principle, a story of survival, resilience, and redemption needs not tread further into psychological realms than Hillenbrand already does. Again the critic has misinterpreted Hillenbrand’s aim. Here, psychoanalysis accomplishes little to express her overall theme -- the equatable religious truth -- of one man’s power to maintain his dignity despite tremendous adversity. She avoids the tasteless mundane and calls upon human empathies to illustrate the dire toll taken on raft-bound cast aways and Japanese prisoners of war.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement. The point of the book was to inform readers about survival, resilience, and redemption in World War II, as stated on the cover. Laura Hillenbrand did all of this. We also must remember that Louie himself did not write the book, so it is natural that Hillenbrand filtered his experiences. She cannot put his emotions into her book; she was not the one who experienced these horrors. Louie had an eventful life, and trying to put his emotions into the book is next to impossible. The facts that do not line up have little to no effect on the impact of the novel.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the New York Time's reviewer's opinion of the book Unbroken by Laura Hillenbrand. Hillenbrand's goal in writing this book was to share Louie's experience, the experience of all Pacific POWs, as well as their constant and ongoing struggles. She was not aiming to write a detailed account of Louie's life, from his childhood onward. Hillenbrand did not live through the POW experience, and as a result, there are natural discrepancies, however Hillenbrand researched to the best of her ability, and was told first hand accounts of these experiences. These discrepancies are minor details which are forgotten quickly when looking at the bigger story, and the focus of the novel. Hillenbrand did a phenomenal job portraying the struggle of Zamperini during his days in the camp and beyond, and the criticism directed towards Hillenbrand by the reviewer disregard the purpose of the novel.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I recognize the reporter’s right to his or her own opinion, my own beliefs about Unbroken differ. In order to portray an accurate account of Louie’s character, Hillenbrand may have taken miniscule artistic liberties. She did not write the story to describe only the Zamperini family. The purpose of her story is to inform her readers of Louie’s struggles as a POW and of his later miraculous conversion. She clearly accomplished her goal, regardless of small details. I also agree with Emma and Haley, that the author herself did not live through the POW camps so it is implied that her writing may not be 100% factual, although it almost is.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this reviewer’s comments about Unbroken. First of all the facts that are false do not degrade the value of the story. Rather, they may have been used to emphasize a point, like how difficult the Great Depression or an aspect of Louie’s character. Secondly, like Emma said, Louie did not write the book and therefore his experiences are filtered through Hillenbrand. And like Haley said, Hillenbrand did not live through Louie’s struggles. Therefore, she cannot say how he honestly felt at an exact moment, even though she may have asked him in an interview. After all he may not have remembered, or may not have wanted to remember. She, along with readers, can only speculate as to what he was feeling through his actions or his words. She cannot relive it, nor would she want to. Besides, she wrote this novel to convey an inspirational story of a courageous man. She does not need to add his emotions, and adds to the story by not doing so. Readers are instead forced to wonder about the psychological aspect of it, and how they themselves might have responded. This leads to the third and final point that this story simply was not meant to “break new psychological ground.” That does not mean it was wasted. This story needed to be told. Louie Zamperini’s courage should never be forgotten, nor should his experiences.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree with this critic's review. It is made clear that the book is not an autobiography, and is rather a biography. Laura Hillebrand is not Louie Zamperini, and was simply trying to covey his story in a way she and others could relate to. The evidence that the critic discusses are minor details, and could be made in any book. I agree with Emma when she says that Hillebrand cannot write exactly about Zamperini's emotions because she herself did not feel them, and this is alright because that was not her goal.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the reviewer that there may have been factual errors regarding Zamperini's early life. However, the book is not meant to be a detailed account of the life of Louis Zamperini. Those details were given to add depth and give background as to what type of person Louie is and was. The book is truly trying to accomplish what so many history books cannot: describe the true events of the Japanese POW camps of WWII and the post war burden that those unfortunate veterans carried. I agree with Haley, in that those details are overlooked when the reader really experiences the power of what the author describes in this novel.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the reviewer; however, Unbroken is just what the critic said it was, "a startling narrative and an inspirational book." At no point in time was the book meant to be a psychological dissection of one man. I agree with Emma W. when she says, “The point of the book was to inform readers about survival, resilience, and redemption in World War II, as stated on the cover.” Hillenbrand meant to recount a huge event, World War II, using a single narrative, Louie Zamperini’s life. While explaining Louie’s struggles and life during the war, Hillenbrand was able to capture a historic image of the Pacific during the war. She branches out many times from just focusing on Louie to talk about other stories of men that relate to Louie’s story and to give factual information on the war in a way that isn’t dull or boring. Also, like Francesca Fridman said, the book is a biography. There is going to be a filter on whatever is said because it’s not Louie’s voice accounting the events. Hillenbrand though goes to extensive lengths to record the thoughts and things going on inside of Louie and the other men around him.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the New York Times reviewer. I believe Hillenbrand did a terrific job portraying the events in Louie Zamperini's life. As Francesca Fridman said, the book is not an autobiography but rather a biography. The main message that Hillenbrand tried to capture was the struggle, survival, and redemption Louie faced and she did a great job with that. Reading this novel made me feel as if I was there myself during the time. I also agree with Emma that Hillenbrand herself can not write Zampernini's emotions because she was not apart of the experience. Hillenbrand's purpose for writing this novel was evident and Louie's story added so much more to it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I see the point the critic is trying to make, I have to disagree for various reasons. First as John Ray previously stated, those minor fallacies were not meant to delude the reader with inaccurate information, but rather to deepen the story and put a little personality behind the novel. Second I disagree with the critics comment that Hillenbrand rarely pushes Louie to reach. As I read the novel, I could feel the anguish and pain Louie felt as he was stranded, captured, and beaten. Also I cannot not imagine that it was easy for Louie to relive his journey considering how long it took him to overcome the effects of the war. As many before have previously stated, this novel was written as a biography, not an autobiography. Therefore, there is going to be some filtration, but I believe that it would have been extremely difficult for Hillenbrand to make this story any richer in detail. I agree with Jake’s analysis of Hillenbrand’s themes of the novel and how psychoanalysis is not necessary to portray those themes. I see where the critic is coming from in the respect that novel which delved itself into the emotional and mental growth of a Pacific POW would have been intriguing, but I believe that the only way you could get this kind of psychological journey would be if Louie wrote the story himself. Even then however you may not be able to capture the image Hillenbrand was able to portray through her novel.
ReplyDeleteLike Emma and Catherine, I must respectfully disagree with the New York Times critic. The point of the book is not solely to tell the story of Louis Zamperini’s life, but also to tell readers the story of World War II through the eyes of one individual. Ignoring the few discrepancies written by Hillenbrand, the book does just that: it tells the story of WWII through the life story of Louis Zamperini, and although Zamperini’s character may be filtered from time to time by Hillenbrand’s writing style, he still comes through as an extremely relatable human being. Unbroken is not “a wasted opportunity to break new psychological ground,” but an exceptional way to learn the facts of the Second World War through the actions of a realistic and lovable individual.
ReplyDeleteLike Mary and Sarah, I completely disagree with the New York Times critic. He seems to blatantly overlook the incredibly struggles Zamperini went through during the war and focuses completely on Hillenbrand's background on Zamperini. If she went into as complex detail on Zamperini's childhood and teen years as she did his war experiences and life after the war she would have been able to write two books. Hillenbrand's in-depth writings about Zamperini's military service, plane crash, time spent at sea, and time as a POW is not "A wasted opportunity to break new psychological ground,". Hillenbrand manages to tell the incredible story of Zamperini's survival in an educational and entertaining way.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree with the New York Times reviewer because the small points that she addresses are overlooked when the reader continues on with the story. Hillenbrand was trying to show her readers the tragedies that American POWs had to go through during WWII by using Louie’s story. Louie’s story of how he survived all that he went through and the harshness of the Japanese should be what the readers focus on, not Louie’s childhood life. I agree with John Ray when he says that the details about Louie Zamperini’s life are added to give depth and background to the book and also agree with Emma when she says that Louie himself did not write the book, therefore some points made in the book may be just Hillenbrand’s.
ReplyDeleteMarisa Donato
I agree with Catherine when she says that she disagrees with the reporter. How does the poor family having a car have anything to do with the message of the story? It doesn't. The reporter is trying to put a damper on a beautifully crafted and engaging piece of work which should not effect the message of this heartwarming, yet daunting, story. "Unbroken" is a tale of overcoming difficulties and staying strong in the face of one's enemies, and this unnamed reporter should be able to look past the trivial details and look towards the creatively written story that Hillenbrand creates.
ReplyDeleteAs Marisa Donato stated, the crux of Unbroken is in its dealing of the treatment of POWs by the Japanese. The stories and emotions in Zamperini's heart are undeniable, and come across in Hillenbrand's storytelling. As Julia Papanastou said, Unbroken's beauty is in the crafting and storytelling. Yes, while Louie did not write the novel, the sheer truth and purity of his experiences give the events credibility. In the hands of Hillenbrand, this powerful story was shaped into a startling epic, calling Americans to recognize certain, undeniable truths about human suffering and strength.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement. As Grace Parker said, although Louie didn't write the novel, Hillenbrand was more than capable of capturing Louie's emotions through her own writing. Unbroken is a magnificent account of Louie's terrifying experiences during World War II and Hillenbrand does a fantastic job of relating those experiences to us while still portraying many of Louie's emotions, thoughts, and feelings. I agree with John Ray when he says that the minor errors regarding Louie's early life are not of any importance at all. This information is merely to provide background information so that the reader knows Louie's personality well before the real focus of the novel comes in, which are Louie's experiences during and after World War II. Maybe if Louie himself had written the book then we would have seen some more of his thoughts and emotions and maybe even have made some psychological discoveries, but that isn't that point of the novel and it certainly isn't Hillenbrand's goal in writing it.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately this particular review failed to capture the essence of the book and of Louie's life. Hillenbrand does an excellent job of retelling one of the greatest stories ever told through an artful suspenseful way. People read this book for the wonderful story of "survival, resilience, and redemption" not to "dissect a man who had undergone extreme duress." Furthermore, this book should not have been intended for some experiment in the psychology area. If the reviewer wanted psychology then he/she should not be reading UNBROKEN but rather "The Interpretation of Dreams" by Sigmund Freud. In closing, this reviewer completely missed the aim of this story but will hopefully, in time, improve.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jake Skarz when he says that the critic misinterpreted the story and could not grasp such a touching story. I also agree with Colin Riley when he says that nobody other than Louie as the author could satisfy this critic.
DeleteI would have to disagree with the New York Times in saying that it is "a wasted opportunity to break new psychological grounds". I feel Hillenbrand did an outstanding job on this piece. The things mentioned were not to any importance in this book. Hillenbrand was trying to inform the readers about the hardships faces while being a POW in Japan. Hillenbrand did not live through Louie's struggles and hardships so she can't say at one moment in time this is how he was feeling or what he was thinking but she did her best to show it how Louie would have. I agree with Francesca Fridman when se said that Laura Hillenbrand is not Louis Zanperini and was simply trying to convey his story in a way she and others could relate to. I also agree with Emma W when she says, "the point of the book was to inform the readers about survival, resilience, and redemption in World War II, as stated on the cover."
ReplyDelete-Lauren Lyman
I disagree with the New York Times review of Unbroken because the book is a perfect example of breaking “psychological ground”. Louis Zamperini forces himself into alcoholism in order to fall asleep at night and then practically strangles his wife in his dreams from the atrocities of being held as a POW by the Japanese in WWII. Through a revelation with his faith he turns to Christianity to overcome the haunting horrors, forgive, and move on. His internal motivation and mental toughness clearly shows that anyone can overcome a terrifying situation and urges others to find faith in their life. Whether Louis Zamperini was rich or poor does not affect the message within Unbroken because material possessions have nothing to do with psychological obstacles. As for Laura Hillenbrand adding her personal voice, she has complete authority and necessity to do that. Without appeal to readers Louis Zamperini’s story would go unnoticed, but Hillenbrand’s intriguing writing has educated hundreds as she has publicized his story to the top of New York Times Bestseller list. I completely agree with Catherine when she says, “Zamperini’s character shines through his actions and personality which speaks for itself.” Hillenbrand was very historically accurate with all her statistics, which proves she did not alter Louis actions in the novel. Actions define character and therefore Louis’ voice was entirely present. I also agree with Haley in that Hillenbrand’s aim was not a detailed account of Louis’ life, but to show the “survival, resilience, and redemption” of a model prisoner of war: Louis Zamperini. – Elle Zadina
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with the New York Times review. Like Haley Hartzel stated, Unbroken is not simply Louie's story, but also a recollection of many stories and experiences of soldiers and POWs in WWII. I also agree with Will Lederer when he said Unbroken was not meant to be dissected and analyzed. There are probably numerous books out that focus on the physiological states of soldiers, but Unbroken is not one of them. It is a tale of survival, and of recognition of heroism for the soldiers who survived unimaginable horrors. Although the reader doesn’t get much of a physiological aspect of Louie’s life, the reader gets a sense of his character, and by the end of the book you will find yourself rooting for Louie’s survival, success, and defeat of his arch nemesis, the Bird.
ReplyDelete-Annie Lyons
I whole heartedly disagree with the New York Times review. The whole reason why Hillenbrand never had to "reach" for anything from Mr. Zamperini was due to the fact that his story is so incredulously true. The words from the book seem to leep off the page and grab the readers attention. Louis Zamperini's story is a testament to the strength of the human spirit. Even though his body was battered, bloody, and bruised, Louis never gave in, never broke, never submitted to his captor. This book is not meant to be analyzed and dissected like a science experiment. It's supposed to simply be the extraordinary account of the resilience and strength of the human spirit. I agree with Catherine S and Jake Skarzinski when they say that the book is more of a statement of the body and mind rather than a historical manuscript.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with the review from the New York Times. As Mimi explained, Unbroken was not meant only as a detailed account of the life of Louis Zamperini, but also a look into the horrors of WWII. Even then, I believe that the book was a fantastic telling of Louis Zamperini’s determined, unbreakable mindset. This mindset can be seen on page 295-296 when The Bird forced Zamperini to hold a wooden beam over his head, hoping to break him physically. Louis, however, stared at the Bird with hatred in his eyes and thought, “He cannot break me.” He held the beam over his head for an agonizing thirty-seven minutes only breaking when The Bird punched him to the ground. This is just one testament to Louis Zamperini’s mental strength despite his physical weakness. On the other hand (as Catherine mentioned), Unbroken also documents Zamperini’s anguish in his later life when he faces alcoholism brought on by terrifying nightmares of The Bird. Unbroken undoubtedly breaks psychological ground focuses on both ends of the spectrum: Zamperini’s unbreakable attitude and his anguish after the war.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with statement because Hillenbrand was able to still portray the emotions Louie felt in many situations. Hillenbrand did not need to exaggerate anything because everything that Louie said is true. His story is one of the human will to survive doing whatever it took. Louie never gave in to anybody and he fought every single day to survive and go home to see his family. I agree with Frankie that Hillenbrand took the story and told it in a way that we could all relate to. I also agree with Tommy because Hillenbrand did a great job telling Louie's story and she made it so vivid that sometimes it was hard to read and believe the brutality.
ReplyDelete-Michael Brien
I disagree with the statement because I feel, as Jake alluded to, the book was meant to be a story, not just a detailed list of events in Louis’ life. I also feel the Hillenbrand’s writing described as a, “wasted opportunity to break new psychological ground…on a man who had undergone extreme duress”, is an unfair description because, as much as a reporter should be dissecting interviews and getting extreme details, there should also be a level of respect for a Japanese POW survivor in the amount of suffering he went through. Essentially, it may not be worth it to try digging for new details in this man’s story when it is possible that memories of his hardships may come back to him and cause him pain for his lost friends and intense brutalities seen. I also agree with Mimi’s point that the book is also meant to shed light on the horrors of the Pacific theater.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the statement by the reviewer, I agree with part of the statement. The points brought up about Louis's toe and shooting rabbits seem totally unimportant and unrelated to the argument made. In that case, I disagree. However, I am with the reviewer in saying the voice of Zamperini gets lost in the narrative. Hillenbrand focuses so much on the historical aspect and tells Louis's amazing story in a matter-of-fact way that loses some of his personal experience. The emotional anguish and strength that Louis needed at the POW camps was shown through his actions. However, for anyone who went through those experiences, there is much more going inside internally than what Hillenbrand shares. I found myself trying to imagine how he felt/coped and longed for more of a personal conenction. I think that the story was incredible and inspiring, but Hillenbrand failed to commit to the novel as an agent of exposing Japanese horrors/Pacific war or to the story and emotional pain of the man Louis Zamperini. I agree with Ryan Chestnut that the book is not meant to be dissected as a science experiment and add that Hillenbrand wants us to take away the message as a whole. Which message that is however, is unclear.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the New York Times reporter; Hillenbrand’s novel is an excellent work with very little discrepancies. Catherine S. is correct with her statement that “The brief discrepancies, as mentioned in the review, are trivial and bear no significant importance to the major message of Unbroken.” I also agree with Emma when she says that “Hillenbrand cannot write exactly about Zamperini's emotions because she herself did not feel them, and this is alright because that was not her goal.” Hillenbrand wrote a biography for a reason and if she wanted more of Zamperini’s voice in the writing she would have let him write it.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the New York Times reporter. In my opinion, Hillenbrand did an excellent job of portraying Zamperini's experience. The reporter's arguments about the severed toe and family's wealth are insignificant points when looking at the whole book. The book was mainly about Zamperini's experience in the war and Hillenbrand portrayed this very well. As for his emotions and not being able to "hear" him, as the reporter put it, I agree with Emma when she says that “Hillenbrand cannot write exactly about Zamperini's emotions because she herself did not feel them, and this is alright because that was not her goal.” I also agree with Francesca when she said "Laura Hillebrand is not Louie Zamperini, and was simply trying to covey his story in a way she and others could relate to." This book is a biography, not an autobiography, so Hillenbrand is just focusing on telling Zamperini's story rather than studying or dissecting him.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the voice and spirit of Louis Zamperini are whole-heartedly present in Laura Hillenbrand’s Unbroken, and that the literary critic seemingly underestimates Hillenbrand’s work, in saying that she failed to give Zamperini a voice. Perhaps this particular critic’s own skepticism prevented him or her from seeing all that Hillenbrand had to offer. I must concur with Jake Skarzynski when he states that, “In the same way one dare not ask a children’s book to reveal some sort of scientific principle, a story of survival, resilience, and redemption needs not tread further into psychological realms than Hillenbrand already does.” If Hillenbrand did indeed attempt to further analyze this story that needs no further analysis, as the critic recommends, Unbroken would lose its effect as an inspirational story of resilience and hope and transform into an inappropriate psychoanalysis of the challenging life of Louis Zamperini. Additionally, readers would be denied the right to personally relate to and react to this story of triumphing over adversity in their own way. Conclusively, as a writer Hillenbrand accurately relays the facts to readers and of course, as all writers do no matter how objective they try to be, includes her own voice as well as the voice of Zamperini. However, contrary to what the New York Times literary critic believed, Hillenbrand also appropriately left room for readers to make their own conclusions and analyses.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this reporter. I believe Hillenbrand did a wonderful job of narrating the story while also keeping Louis Zamperini's voice alive in her book. She was respectful and truthful in her story telling and in some instances in enjoyed stepping back from Louis' experience and reading how the rest of the world was coping with his loss, at other points, Hillenbrand was able to take the reader right into the story. The New York Times reporter seems to say that Hillenbrand missed a chance to dissect Louis, but as a reader, I could almost feel Louis' pain and suffering as the story unfolded. I agree with Ellie Sweeney when she says, "The reporter's arguments about the severed toe and family's wealth are insignificant points when looking at the whole book." The story itself is ultimately not about how poor and unfortunate the Zamperini's are because of their lack of wealth, but in the end it is about a story of loss, recovery, and return. I also agree with Michael Brien when he says, "Hillenbrand did not need to exaggerate anything because everything that Louie said is true." Hillenbrand is only trying to be as truthful to the story as she can be.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with this statement because the book was written over such a long expanse of time that it would be irrational to expect Laura Hillenbrand to include every personal detail about Louie’s feelings and perceptions as he was going through those hard times. I thought Hillenbrand did a great job of including quotes and details from Louie and other characters in the story that give insight into what was happening, and also adding real emotion when describing some of the tougher challenges that Louie faced, which didn’t seem filtered to me at all. Also, I agree with Catherine that the book is much bigger than that. I don’t think it is necessary to pick apart Hillenbrand’s writing to find little discrepancies when the story and message is much more important.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement that “virtually everything about Zamperini is filtered through her (Hillenbrand’s) capable yet rather denatured voice, and we don’t really hear him.” I believe that the story captures the view of Zamperini very well and describes in detail all the events that he endured during the war in his own view. Hillenbrand may have exaggerated some events such as the severed toe that was sewn back on, but the story still has remarkably inspirational messages and his view shows through. Little exaggerated events such as these do not damage the story or take anything away from it and should not be focused on since they are not part of the main war story. I agree with Sierra that Hillenbrand did a great job of including quotes and views of Zamperini and his fellow war prisoners. I also agree with Tommy that Hillenbrand not only did a great job of capturing Zamperini’s views, but also including what was happening in the world at that time to show a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the New York Times review of Unbroken. Personally, I feel that Laura Hillenbrand did an exceptional job in creating a historically accurate, thrilling, and captivating story that follows Louis Zamperini’s journey through life. The review mentions that “we don’t really hear him”, however, from cover to cover I was able to get to know the amazing and charismatic Louis Zamperini, sympathize with him through his struggles, and rejoice with him during his feats. I agree with Katherine Cienkus that the issues the New York Times reviewer had with the novel were in fact trivial and did not contribute to the overall message of the story. I also agree with Emma W. that “the point of the book was to inform readers about survival, resilience, and redemption in World War II, as stated on the cover. Laura Hillenbrand did all of this.”
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this critic when they say that Hillenbrand’s voice overtakes Louie’s voice in Unbroken. I feel that people might think that because it’s in third person and it’s not the actual Louie writing the book but I feel like it was legitimately his voice. There were many emotions expressed throughout the book from the raft to the prisoner camps and his experiences with Cynthia. Being the reader, I could feel his emotions through the book and hurt for him or hoped that he would find the right way. I felt his joy when he was in the Olympics and the pain he suffered when he was in the POW camps. She took his story and made it accessible to everyone and inspired many from sharing his story. I agree with Emma when she says that Hillenbrand can’t write Zamperini’s emotions because she didn’t feel them. Also I agree with Francesca when she said this book was a biography and not an autobiography. This book definitely has Hillenbrand’s style in it just like any other biography, but I don’t feel that her style takes over his emotional story.
ReplyDeleteI love the New York Times, but I am going to have to disagree with this statement. Honestly, I wouldn’t care to read the story of a man ruined by his struggles to overcome posttraumatic stress disorder—the few chapters that discussed it were painful enough. And maybe Louie didn’t want to be “physiologically dissected”; this is not a medical journal, it’s “A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption.” Like Jake S. said, that subtitle was chosen for a reason, because Louis Zamperini did overcome depression and the aftermath of war, but it was not the highlight or most inspirational time of his life. That is why Hillenbrand chose to focus on his everlasting youth and his more optimistic days, on his resilience and his will to survive, and then, yes, she spoke of his redemption from his darker days. In my personal opinion, the author’s voice is what makes the book so readable and enjoyable, at that. She might take a few liberties, yes, but that is because it is a story, it is humorous and unforgettable. It brought to life an athletic and military hero whom I had known nothing about previously. I had the same thought as Emma W.: Louie did not write this book himself, so, naturally his emotions were not spilt onto the page—we can hear Laura Hillenbrand, and she is a great writer. Like Seabiscuit, this book is worthy of the cinema. -Karina de Hueck
ReplyDeleteI would like to respectfully disagree with the reviewer. Although I can see the point he/she is trying to make about the voice of Hillenbrand overpowering Zamperini's, that is not what she wants us to take out of the story. I agree with Ryan Chestnut that this story is not one to be "dissected" like a science experiment. Although the reviewer is looking for deep pyschological ground to be broken, that is not Hillenbrand's goal. She wants to educate the public on the POW in Japan and also tell an incredible story of a man who persevered through all adversity. This inspiring accomplishment is what one should bring away from it, not the minor details. That is what is truly sensational.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the reporter. The small inconsistencies in the story have nothing to do with the overall message of the book. It was not the authors intention that the book by analyzed for accuracy. I agree with Jimmy in saying that Hillenbrand wanted to educate and tell and story at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the reporter in saying that Zamperini's story is filtered through her voice and that "we dont really hear him." By writing a biography, Hillenbrand includes facts about his life while also attempting to write a story as Jimmy said. It is hard to hear his voice because readers often haven't gone through the harsh experiences he has, but Hillenbrand connects facts with his story in order for us to hear his voice. As Tom said, it is very difficult to write a story of him, but Hillenbrand does a good job of communicating his background to the reader whether the facts or right or wrong. The probable reason for not necessarily accurate facts is for exaggeration to emphasize his story and the brutal treatment he got.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the reporter who says that we don't really hear him. Hillenbrand did her homework; she researched and dug down into the life of Zampernini to create this inspirational and somewhat accurate work. Although some events seem somewhat far off or exaggerated, the main message of the novel still holds to be true. The little tiny details have little to do with the main idea of the story.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with this reviewer's point. I'd agree with Francesca when she stated that the book wasn't an autobiography. The author listened to Louie's incredible story, and as most authors do, she probably added her own exaggerated elements to possibly emphasize some facts about Louie's life. In a way, out of Louie's incredible story, the author created her own out of her way of telling it. She investigated the life of a truly incredible human being. I also agree with Michael Neumeyer when he said that the tiny details had little to do with the main message of the story. Those details simply emphasized it. Regardless of the added in details, Hillenbrand did an icredible job by incorporating some quotes from Louis, and telling his life story. Psychological ground may have been broken by just retelling Louis's story, and reading about his hardships and reflecting on how they effect us.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this review of "Unbroken". I believe Hillenbrand successfully told a story that not only captured Louie's account of the war but the experience of being a POW in Japan as a whole. I agree with Olivia's statement that Hillenbrand probably did enhance details. However this did nothing to change the main message and only helped reader's better understand Louie's extraordinary life. I do believe that this book broke psychological ground. Louie's resilience show's the power of the human spirit to forgive and learn from the greatest of tragedy. I personally find Louie's capacity to let go of his anger inspiring. I agree with Marta when she says that Hillenbrand connected facts of the story to reveal Louie's strong and unbroken spirit.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this review. Hillenbrand does not shut out Louie's character with her own voice. She simply aids him in telling his story. The story of Unbroken is not a lesson Hillenbrand wants us to learn. It is not fiction. She gives a historical account a voice in the form of this novel. I agree with Michael inn saying that Hillenbrand did the research, and is simply putting it to the pages of a novel. I see no example of her twisting the story, or how this is a loss of phsycalogigal ground. If anything, this story does not lose any ground, but gains ground in the form of compasion of the readers towards the POW prisoners, and in the form a rememberance of the underlying horrors of the POW camps.
ReplyDeleteI both agree and disagree on this viewpoint. I believe that when we hear stories that are slightly exaggerated that we actually hear more from the Zamperini's and Louie themselves. Whenever I read a story that seemed exaggerated I thought it added more of a conversational tone. It didn't matter how true the story was you could tell it came from them. However, in the amount of pages that were in this book there is no way to sum up the entire experience that Louie went through.It's not that she didn't write it all was more that she physically couldn't. I would complain but really that is unfair because some things cannot be written, no matter how good the detail you never know the feeling until you experience it yourself.Having taken a split decision it is hard to either agree or disagree with Clarice but I'd say I lean more towards agree that she is merely assisting Louie in telling the story. She is doing the best she can considering that she didn't experience all of this herself.However, I have to disagree with Julia because I don't believe that anyone can ever tell the full story not even the person who experienced it.
ReplyDelete