Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1Nickelini
Night and Man's Search for Meaning
Both books are memoirs written by young Jewish men who survived the horrors of Nazi concentration camps.
Both books are short.
Both books discuss the influence of their experience on their spiritual lives.
Both books are excellent and must-reads for everyone.
Yet, my reaction to the two books was different. When I read Night, about two years ago, I thought: Great book. However, I've read this before. I've seen the documentaries. I've seen movies. There is nothing new here.
After many, many years on my to-read list, I recently read Man's Search for Meaning. The first 93 pages are his memoirs, the remaining 60-odd pages give his theory (which is slightly more scientific, and slightly less interesting). Yet I came away from this book feeling like I had read something new. I felt this was a book that I should give away to everyone I know.
I notice that I gave Night 3.5 stars in my library, but 4.5 to Man's Search for Meaning. I'm puzzled why I would have such a different reaction. To Night I clearly felt: Important, but I've heard it before. But Man's Search for Meaning, which I read later (and read twice, actually), I felt was the book to broadcast to others. Can I say that it was just the mood I was in when I read these books, or is there something else going on?
Has anyone else read both these books? How do YOU think they compare?
PS: I think they are both great and everyone should read both of them, at some point.
Both books are memoirs written by young Jewish men who survived the horrors of Nazi concentration camps.
Both books are short.
Both books discuss the influence of their experience on their spiritual lives.
Both books are excellent and must-reads for everyone.
Yet, my reaction to the two books was different. When I read Night, about two years ago, I thought: Great book. However, I've read this before. I've seen the documentaries. I've seen movies. There is nothing new here.
After many, many years on my to-read list, I recently read Man's Search for Meaning. The first 93 pages are his memoirs, the remaining 60-odd pages give his theory (which is slightly more scientific, and slightly less interesting). Yet I came away from this book feeling like I had read something new. I felt this was a book that I should give away to everyone I know.
I notice that I gave Night 3.5 stars in my library, but 4.5 to Man's Search for Meaning. I'm puzzled why I would have such a different reaction. To Night I clearly felt: Important, but I've heard it before. But Man's Search for Meaning, which I read later (and read twice, actually), I felt was the book to broadcast to others. Can I say that it was just the mood I was in when I read these books, or is there something else going on?
Has anyone else read both these books? How do YOU think they compare?
PS: I think they are both great and everyone should read both of them, at some point.
2maggie1944
I have read both although some time ago. I agree with your response to Night. Now, I mainly enjoy talking with my grandson about it because for him, at age 16, it all relatively new information.
I read Man's Search for Meaning many years ago at a time when I was in therapy coping with the aftermath of a dysfunctional, narcissistic mother. Today I note that both authors used Frankel's method of coping with their horrific experiences. And I think perhaps the import of all this is that we all can use his insights in making our lives the best they can be, given Reality, such as it is.
I read Man's Search for Meaning many years ago at a time when I was in therapy coping with the aftermath of a dysfunctional, narcissistic mother. Today I note that both authors used Frankel's method of coping with their horrific experiences. And I think perhaps the import of all this is that we all can use his insights in making our lives the best they can be, given Reality, such as it is.
3jillmwo
I found Night an utterly horrifying read. It has also been indelibly impressed on my mind, while Man's Search for Meaning had less of an emotional impact on me.
Curiously, therefore, I would almost do the reverse of the previous two posters. I would recommend Night to a wide range of acquaintances (albeit with a warning or two) while I would recommend Man's Search for Meaning to those who would approach the questions raised in both books with a more cerebral mindset.
My sons both had to read Night in high school, which I felt was too young of an age. A certain maturity is required to my way of thinking to properly digest either of the two works and I don't think high school is necessarily the best choice.
Curiously, therefore, I would almost do the reverse of the previous two posters. I would recommend Night to a wide range of acquaintances (albeit with a warning or two) while I would recommend Man's Search for Meaning to those who would approach the questions raised in both books with a more cerebral mindset.
My sons both had to read Night in high school, which I felt was too young of an age. A certain maturity is required to my way of thinking to properly digest either of the two works and I don't think high school is necessarily the best choice.
4margad
I have not read either of these, and will have to do so. At a certain point in my life, I had read so many holocaust books (fiction mostly) that I felt I had, if not exactly exhausted the topic, exhausted myself with it. But these two books sound definitive and precise, each in its own way.
5boeflak
I think one of the key differences among the two is this: In Night we learn mostly about others - the brutality of the Nazis. In Man's Search for Meaning we learn an extraordinary principle about life: that the attitude we bring to our lives at every moment of every day is a matter of personal choice - no matter how terrible the situation we face.
I think that's an extraordinary finding; an essential principle worth incorporating into our lives. There's other research that suggest Frankl was on target. I think Richard Wiseman is the scientist who studied 800 people over the course of 10 years to find out why some of them seemed to be lucky (and thought of themselves so) and others felt and experienced the opposite.
It turned out that "lucky" people lived by different rules than "unlucky" ones. One difference was that lucky people perceived their own bad luck as good luck. In other words, they brought a different attitude to bear on a bad situation. After an accident for example, they might think: "I can't believe it. My leg is broken, my car is totaled, but jeez - I could have been killed. Or I might have killed someone else. This could have been so much worse. And now I get to buy a new car!" Of course, the "unlucky" person's attitude would be "Why is this always happening to me?"
It's no surprise to me that you want to recommend Frank to others; I've been doing so since first reading it many years ago.
I think that's an extraordinary finding; an essential principle worth incorporating into our lives. There's other research that suggest Frankl was on target. I think Richard Wiseman is the scientist who studied 800 people over the course of 10 years to find out why some of them seemed to be lucky (and thought of themselves so) and others felt and experienced the opposite.
It turned out that "lucky" people lived by different rules than "unlucky" ones. One difference was that lucky people perceived their own bad luck as good luck. In other words, they brought a different attitude to bear on a bad situation. After an accident for example, they might think: "I can't believe it. My leg is broken, my car is totaled, but jeez - I could have been killed. Or I might have killed someone else. This could have been so much worse. And now I get to buy a new car!" Of course, the "unlucky" person's attitude would be "Why is this always happening to me?"
It's no surprise to me that you want to recommend Frank to others; I've been doing so since first reading it many years ago.
6maggie1944
Ooopsey, its Viktor E. Frankl who wrote Man's Search for Meaning, not Frank. I've been recommending him for years, too. Maybe it is time for me to re-read it.
