Schindler’s Ark (1982)
Who wrote it?
Thomas Keneally (1935-; active 1964-), born Sydney, Australia. The first Australian winner of the Prize, Keneally trained as a Catholic priest and then worked as a schoolteacher before becoming a highly prolific novelist, playwright and author of non-fiction. Many of his more than 50 books have roots in historical narratives. Prior to winning the 1982 Prize, he had already been nominated three times (in 1972, 1975 and 1979).
What's it about
Schindler’s Ark is the source material for Spielberg’s Schindler’s List, and in many senses therefore a document of the absolute worst of humanity. It’s about the depths of human suffering, murder on an unimaginable industrial scale, and the dismissal of an entire race of millions of people as subhuman. The Holocaust, in other words.
But against that backdrop of unsurpassed slaughter and suffering, it zooms in on the story of Oskar Schindler, a Sudeten-German industrialist who takes it upon himself to “save” thousands of Jews, initially by employing them in his enamelworks factory, Emalia, in Krakow (Poland), rather than having them sent to the horrors of Amon Goeth’s nearby Plaszow internment camp or - far worse - to almost certain extermination at Auschwitz. The later part of the novel documents the (even more incredible and shocking) transit of the Schindlerjuden away from the doomed Emalia camp and to a new factory near Schindler’s Sudeten/Czech hometown.
It’s an unusual Booker winner in that, while it adopts some of the stylistic cues of the novel form (and a little artistic license in the invention of conversations here and there) it is essentially non-fiction / biography.
What I liked
Like many, I’m endlessly fascinated by this appalling period in the all-too-recent history of Europe. I’ve read a lot of history of the period and its aftermath but tended to shy away from “fictional” depictions for fear of mawkishness, poor handling or a sense of “a cheap holiday in other people’s misery.” As such, Booker credentials aside, I enjoyed the fact that this endeavored to stay true to the facts and is more history than historical fiction.
Aligned with this is Keneally’s tone of voice throughout. While eminently readable, the prose is descriptive, matter-of-fact almost. It recognizes that the horrors of this period speak for themselves, with absolutely no need for overstatement or undue embellishment. It also brings home the “banality of evil” and how the utterly unthinkable can suddenly coexist with the everyday, in the minds of those faced with it.
It’s probably obvious to many, but I’d previously assumed that this was a “good German” narrative, a relatively straightforward look at a thin sliver of light in a broad expanse of darkness. And to some extent it is both of those things, but it’s also a character study of someone Keneally is at pains to highlight as being anything but perfect. Keneally’s Schindler is motivated (at least in the beginning) at least as much by selfish motives (capitalist impulses, a sense of personal exceptionalism, and a desire to “get one over on the system”) as they are by human decency. He’s a voracious womaniser, alcoholic, glutton, schmoozer with SS high command and at least a former NSDAP loyalist.
If anything, though, Schindler’s flaws and complexities are what make his story even more satisfying. It’s impossible not to be moved by his achievements, unique among so much abject failure, in safeguarding even such a small proportion of the population. And sat next to two-bit sadists like Amon Goeth (not to mention the outright inhumanity of some of the other camp commandants) he nevertheless comes across as not far from saintly. In a world gone fully black and white, his unwillingness to abandon the shades of grey is perhaps one of the most interesting roots of his actions.
It ultimately feels like an essential read - sobering yet endlessly fascination, impossible to tear your eyes away from. If you’ve had similar reservations to me I would strongly urge you to abandon them and give this one a look. You are highly unlikely to regret it.
What I didn't like
I guess you could nitpick ad nauseum about whether or not this is a novel, and whether it matters in terms of winning the Booker. It is indeed an oddity (though by no means unique in Booker history) but it’s one that you can quickly get over. It has absolutely as much richness, depth and emotional heft as any novel, and you soon stop worrying about it.
It’s also an interesting contrast with the previous winner, Midnight’s Children. Both tackle complex and unique periods of recent history, each with more than their fair share of suffering, but the approach could not be more different. Ultimately though, as discussed above, the plain prose and obedience to convention and chronology feels fitting in this case.
Food & drink pairings
It feels slightly crass to complete this section here, but any opportunity to recommend pairing an illicit cognac with your morning coffee a la Oskar can’t be passed up.
Fun facts
Again, apologies for the use of “fun” here, which also feels highly inappropriate, but I thought best not to deviate from my template.
Keneally wasn’t a massive fan of the retitling of the novel to Schindler’s List for the US market, and pleaded with Spielberg to adopt Ark in the title of his movie. However, Spielberg was keen to make lists a key visual metaphor so ultimately stuck with his instinct. Apparently the initial retitling was down to a (fairly commonly held, apparently?) misconception that its allusion was to Noah’s Ark (with the unfortunate association with animals being packed into a mode of transport) rather than to the Ark of the Covenant.
In the Guardian’s excellent year-by-year history of the Booker piece, which I’ve been using as a sneaky resource for many of these facts, there are some intriguingly oblique comments from novelist Paul Bailey (twice-nominated himself), on the judging panel that year. In a two paragraph (albeit caveated) rant against the Booker and the idea of literary awards in general he says his role ensured he was associated with “two novels he would never have even started reading in other circumstances” (he enigmatically neglects to explain which) and states that the entire 1982 shortlist is “history now and likely to remain so” (though goes on to congratulate himself for nominating Timothy Mo for the shortlist. It’s a bizarre little read and I’m intrigued if anyone can make more sense of it than I can - 1982 entry here.
I was intrigued by some of Keneally’s commentary in the edition I read. Both around the origin story of the novel (he was encouraged to write it - quite forcefully - by survivor Poldek Pfefferberg) and his questioning of what in his identity as a lapsed Catholic Australian qualified him to write this novel (“distance”, ultimately, was the gist of the answer) and also in his Afterword from 2016, written around the high peak of the European migrant crisis, which draws some none too subtle parallels and lessons.
Keneally’s previously nominated novels lost out to G. (1972), Heat & Dust (1975) and Offshore (1979). None of these have really figured among my favourite winners. Should I check out any of his previous nominees, or anything else he’s done? Schindler seems to have dominated public perception of Keneally so I’m very much intrigued to find out what else it worth exploring underneath that large shadow…
Vanquished Foes
John Arden (Silence Among the Weapons)
William Boyd (An Ice-Cream War)
Lawrence Durrell (Constance or Solitary Practices)
Alice Thomas Ellis (The 27th Kingdom)
Timothy Mo (Sour Sweet)
I’ve read a fair bit of Boyd but not this one, and (yep) none of the others. Any tips?
Context
In 1982:
China becomes first country with more than 1 Billion population
Falklands War
UK unemployment tops 3 Million for the first time since the 30s
Andropov replaces Brezhnev in the USSR
Helmut Kohl replaces Helmut Schmidt as Chancellor of West Germany
Israel-Lebanon War
Intruder Michael Fagan joins Elizabeth II in her bedroom
Hyde Park & Regents Park IRA bombings in London
Disappearance of Margaret Thatcher's son Mark during the Dakar Rally
Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp (anti-Nuclear protests in the UK)
First UN International Day of Peace
Lauch of Commodore 64 home computer
First CD player launched by Sony
"The Computer" is the first non-human Time "Man of the Year"
Opening of the Barbican Centre in London
Launch of Channel 4 in the UK
Michael Jackson, Thriller
ET: The Extra-Terrestrial
Sue Townsend, The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole, Aged 13 3/4
Roald Dahl, The BFG
Life Lessons
Oh man, I’m not going to even try this one.
But, seriously, give everyone in 2021 a copy of this book and I imagine many, many important lessons would be learned. Most of which should be horribly obvious but, sadly, are very much not.
Score
9
This is extremely difficult to rank on the same scale as many of the other novels. In some senses it’s a 10 (must read), but I feel like in the “great novel” stakes it can’t be listed in quite the same breath as Rushdie. Like the conflicted Paul Bailey (see above) I’m also coming to question the merits of pitting works of art against each other. But this is where I landed, and so be it.
Ranking to date:
Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie (1981) - 9.5
The Sea, The Sea - Iris Murdoch (1978) - 9
Schindler’s Ark - Thomas Keneally (1982) - 9
Troubles - J.G. Farrell (1970, "Lost Booker") - 8.5
Saville - David Storey (1976) - 8
The Siege of Krishnapur - J.G. Farrell (1973) - 8
Rites of Passage - William Golding (1980) - 7.5
Offshore - Penelope Fitzgerald (1979) - 7.5
The Elected Member - Bernice Rubens (1970) - 7
The Conservationist - Nadine Gordimer (1974) - 7
Holiday - Stanley Middleton (1974) - 7 .
Heat & Dust - Ruth Prawer Jhabvala (1975) - 6.5
In a Free State* - V.S. Naipaul (1971) - 6.5
G. - John Berger (1972) - 6
Something to Answer For - P. H. Newby (1969) - 5.5
Staying On - Paul Scott (1977) - 5
*Read in later condensed edition.
Next up
The first of two J.M. Coetzee winners, with 1983’s Life and Times of Michael K
