Winner of the 2012 Miles Franklin Award, All that I Am is a perfect read for the holidays. It is a beautifully written and, for the most part, compelling story based on a real group of leftist and mainly Jewish German dissidents who, from both within Germany and then, later, from exile in the UK in the lead-up to WWII, fought to bring to the attention of the world the rise of tyranny under Hitler.
Told from two points-of-view (POV), it proves the old adage that survivors write history. Ruth Becker, based on Ruth Blatt, a real person who Funder knew, is a survivor. An elderly woman living in Bondi, Sydney in the ‘present day’ of 2002, she’s struggling with what appears to be Alzheimer’s. Recent memories are fading while old memories are coming to the surface. Alloyed to her physical condition is the arrival of an annotated autobiographical manuscript of Ernst Toller’s I was a German.
It is the empty-hearted yet ‘wunderkind’ playwright Toller, a WWI veteran and conscience of the German people, who provides the second POV. He is similarly looking back on past events, more out of a sense of regret at his actions, from New York in 1939. He is re-drafting I was a German, this time including the woman he loved and used to work for him, Ruth’s cousin Dora Fabian, who did so much to save Toller’s work after the Nazis rose to power. He wants ‘to see whether, at this late stage of the game, honesty is possible for me.’ At the end of his first chapter he thinks: ‘I will tell it all. I will bring Dora back, and I will make her live in this room.’
It’s a struggle for Toller. Though he had relationships with other women, he feels only half a man without Dora. In a wonderful image, he compares their love to ‘a carpenter’s spirit level, each of us holding an end up so hard, fighting to keep that trembling bubble alive.’
Dora is the fulcrum around which the other characters pivot. A strategic thinker with a sharp intellect, she’s a no-nonsense woman of incredible bravery. Some readers have suggested her character is almost too idealised. Well, pressure changes people; like a furnace, it burns some, melts some and forges others. And there is no greater pressure than that faced in an unseen war, when freedom is at stake. Dora is forged into a steely operative. Others wilt.
More naïve than Dora, Ruth is married to Hans, a crack reporter who writes scathing satirical articles about Hitler in the German press before the Nazis start to claim the freedoms that we all hold so dear. After a short prologue that sets-up the stakes of the story—retelling the events of the day Hitler is confirmed as the new Chancellor—we find Ruth visiting her doctor in Bondi Junction in 2002. Presented with the possibility of her condition eventually taking her sight, she thinks:
I had very good eyes once. Though it’s another thing to say what I saw. In my experience, it is entirely possible to watch something happen and not to see it at all.
This is a lovely double foreshadowing of what’s to come. Dora and the group do see what’s happening with Hitler, whereas the rest of the world, at least on the surface, doesn’t sense what’s to come. But there is a more personal failing that Ruth’s referring to, a betrayal of their group by one of its members that she didn’t see coming, even when Dora began to voice her suspicions.
We see the ‘emergency’ of the Reichstag fire, arranged by the Nazis, which enabled Hitler to claim totalitarian powers. In its wake is the persecution that ‘sent fifty-five thousand Germans into exile – some two thousand writers and artists among them.’ This exodus predates ‘the mass of Jews [that] came later’, those lucky ones who got out before the extermination camps began to take their heavy toll. Ruth and Hans, Dora and Toller, as well as others are among those who get out, but they leave behind others, including family and friends.
The stakes are gradually raised. Dora continues to receive accurate information from German contacts on the accumulation of arms, components for fighter planes and proof that Hitler is circumventing the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which restricts the number of men the German army is allowed. Hitler makes the exiles stateless and poor by decree then begins to send hit-squads after them. There is a cracking scene in which two Nazi operatives come into Dora and Ruth’s flat posing as Scotland Yard detectives replete with a warrant to search their home. Their presentation, accents and documentation make Ruth believe their story. Dora sees through them, asking to see the search warrant, and she sees the one clue that gives them away, something that a true Brit would not have written. It’s spellbinding stuff.
Toller is friends with the renowned poet WH Auden. There is a lovely scene between them in Toller’s New York hotel room. Toller is a bound to bouts of severe depression. He says to Auden: ‘It’s a strange pathology, don’t you think, … to want to be something other than what you are?’ Auden replies, ‘It’s the same old thing, isn’t it? … All that we are not stares back at all that we are.’
This sense of identity underpins everyone’s actions. Forced into exile in London, they find themselves in a different landscape altogether: that of the refugee whose visas are predicated on the provision that they do not continue their political activities, the very thing that defines them, the very thing that is increasingly necessary as Hitler builds his armed forces for the war that will come.
They now have two overt enemies: first, the growing reach of the gestapo, unafraid to execute resistance members wherever they may be; and second, Scotland Yard as representatives of the British who in the early 1930s are unwilling to rock the boat with ‘Mr’ Hitler. Moreover, there is a covert enemy that begins to germinate: the one that lies within, the one that personifies Auden’s battle between what a person is not and what they are.
In this sense All that I Am is more than a story of the courage, allegiances and betrayals that espionage entails. It’s a story of how love blinds; and a story of loss, of trying to rediscover that part of you that makes you all that you are when external events and then time threaten to lever truths from your grasp. It’s a powerful story with much wisdom that works on many levels, from the slow-burn psychological thriller to the investigation of the human condition in the most pressurised circumstances.
Questions have been raised about whether the story would work better as non-fiction. Most characters were real people, while others were based on real people. I haven’t read Funder’s acclaimed Stasiland, a work of non-fiction that explores similar themes of the individual versus tyrannical power, which received praise for its narrative inventiveness. Some of those who heaped this kind of praise now complain about a work of fiction not being creative enough! Having not read Stasiland, I was free to approach All that I Am on its own terms. To me, it’s a superb re-imagining of past events that speaks to peoples of all persuasions, nationalities and times. I can’t say whether it would have worked better as non-fiction, but it certainly works as fiction.
The more interesting issue to my mind is it winning the Miles Franklin Award. The judges have taken an expansive view of the prize’s requirement that the winner ‘present Australian life in any of its phases’, that pesky clause that has seen past works with loose connections to Australia ruled out of contention. Ruth narrates from the prism of modern Bondi, and so it deals with a phase of Australian life. But it does so in a limited manner; the overwhelming majority of the story occurs in Europe. I don’t have a problem with the expansionist stance, though I wonder whether the judges were under pressure to be more inclusive. It beat some strong competition, that’s for sure, with the judges split between Funder and Frank Moorhouse’s Cold Light. For once, the woman won!
My only qualms come with some minor pacing issues in the middle, and the final chapter. I won’t spoil things for those of you yet to read it, and it is a minor thing quickly forgotten, but there is a POV switch there that is very awkward and could have been avoided.
Otherwise, All that I Am is enthralling.
This review counts toward my 2013 Australian Women Writers’ Challenge.
All that I Am by Anna Funder
2011
Penguin
363 pages
ISBN: 9780143567516
Source: the bookshelf rainbow (aka purchased)
Interesting, John, I was not as enamoured of it as you!
I was discussing it the other day with my mother, who is fluent in German and knew Ruth Blatt well. She thinks that Frau Blatt would not have liked this appropriation of her life for a book. She was apparently a rather private person, and (like my mother) was reticent about aspects of ‘her war’ that still caused her grief.
Of course my mother may be wrong about this and Blatt may have given Funder permission, or more. But for me, the unease I felt about fictionalising the life of someone who has friends still living, compromised my reading of the book. I felt that it was ‘worthy’ in its ideals (for which Blatt had been enlisted)rather than compelling as a story.
It would be interesting to know whether she had ‘approval’ as it were. Maybe the sensitivity made her choose fiction over non-fiction?
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Musings of a Literary Dilettante's
Oh, to be a fly on the wall!
Indeed!
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Musings of a Literary Dilettante's
I have still yet to read this book so will come back and read your review in careful detail then. I’m interested in your comment Lisa … I’m not sure what I feel about that. To what should we restrict writers … Of either fiction or non-fiction … By saying who and what they can write about? My sense is that Funder is highly ethical and thinks very seriously about these things. Staysail and she said was going to be fiction but she decided she would dishonour their stories by fictionalising them. In this case, she chose fiction and I think that’s largely because a lot of it is fictionalised. I often wonder with fiction how we can trip ourselves up on something because we happen to be ‘in the know’ about the facts or situation but love something else that might have similar issues but we are oblivious. I think about this a lot but have no simple answer!
*chuckle* O AutoCorrect, “Staysail and”!! I’ve seen some funny ones but this is one of the best!
You’re right, Sue, it is a vexed question, and a perennial one. It was Bertrand Russell who warned his sons to stay away from authors lest they end up in a novel, and in our own time, Gillian Mears has apparently had ‘issues’ with her family because she mines her own life in fiction and they don’t like it.
I don’t pretend to be consistent on this issue: in Richard Flanagan’s Wanting I liked him giving Mahinna ‘a voice’ because she was disempowered in her life and had never had one, but I was cross with him for fictionalising Dickens because Dickens was well able to speak for himself. But these are post-reading rationalisations: the real reason was that I was happy to hear Mahinna’s fictional voice because I had never heard of her before, whereas I was offended by Flanagan’s Dickens because I’d read so much of his writing that I felt I ‘knew’ him, and Flanagan’s voice was not the one I knew and liked.
I think with All That I Am, I felt that it crossed a boundary that I personally was uncomfortable with.
To sidetrack, and I hope not being too personal, John, I note that you were pleased at the mention of your vigneron ancestor in Grenville’s Sarah Thornhill. Would it change things for you if albeit in a worthy cause she had enlisted him in her dispossession theme? Perhaps dropped him into a massacre party and given him cringeworthy things to say? Authors can and do twist history to their art, and I would never deny them the right to do it, but there are going to be times when readers arc up about it if they feel a boundary has been crossed.
Thanks for this Lisa (hope John doesn’t mind a 3-way conversation). It is a vexed question as you say … and the very fact that we respond differently depending on our personal knowledge is the thing that analytical me is bothered about! Mears of course isn’t the first or last to upset her family. I had two family members presenting their point of view regarding another novel on my blog about a year ago. It was very respectful, which I appreciated, but they wanted to get their point across.
As a parent of children who’ve shown interest in writing – with one still very keen and who tends to the personal – I have been steeling myself for a long time! I’ve decided I’m going to have to put my money where my mouth is if and when something I don’t agree with comes out!
Oh that is hilarious! I think *you* should write a novel about the experience of waiting to be put into a novel, very postmodern and all that!
I wish I was up to the challenge … I could get them first!
I love conversations! The more the merrier. Oh dear, it’s not an easy question, is it? Had Grenville dropped the other John Boland in a massacre party? If there was evidence to suggest he had partaken in such atrocities (and I should stress there’s none that I know of), then I think that would be fair game. I’d wear whatever words Grenville put in his mouth, mainly because I trust her characterisation. If he had paid a visit to Sarah’s house and said some silly things? Can I get out of answering that by saying that I don’t think Grenville would use him in that way, given her fictionalising of everyone in ‘The Lieutenant’?!
I know nothing of the people in Funder’s ‘All that I Am’. But from the notes at the end of the novel, it seems Funder knows an awful lot about them. I guess I trust her to do the right thing, too. But it is a difficult question. I still wonder whether The Lieutenant would have been better if it had depicted real people, such as William Dawes, as characters. Ashley Hay depicted Dawes in her ‘The Body in the Clouds’ and I enjoyed that novel. Giving real people a voice, even when so much is known about them – and even when the author wants to give them a different treatment – can work well: just look at Hilary Mantel’s Thomas Cromwell.
I think I ducked that question… oh well, sorry!
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Musings of a Literary Dilettante's
Ah, but what if what this fictional Boland was implicated in something immoral that the real Boland had *not* done, maybe even something that the real Boland disapproved of. That’s the question! Because the dead can’t sue, or retrieve their reputations. (Though even when the living sue, it sometimes backfires, as it did for John Wren when he sued Frank Hardy over his fictionalisation as John West. That gave the book more air, and the fictional version is the one that prevails today.)
There’s a very interesting little book by Evelyn Juers, in the Giramondo Shorts series, called The Recluse (http://wp.me/phTIP-4Ju) in which she explores Sydney’s ‘Miss Havisham’ whom, it is said. was the inspiration for Dickens’ Miss Havisham. This little book makes a point of being respectful, reminding us over and over about the borderline between what is known and what is conjecture.
I see your point. Do you think, though, that Funder has her characters doing things that the real people did not do?
I shall look up that Miss Havisham book… it sounds interesting.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Musings of a Literary Dilettante's
I really don’t (and can’t) know whether Funder has or not. My mother’s very strong reaction to her friend’s life being turned into a novel was on the grounds that Ruth Blatt was reticent about these events and that Blatt would not have liked it. But perhaps Blatt was less reticent with a younger person, or opened up with a skilled interviewer rather than a personal friend, or felt the need to tell her story towards the end of her life? Who knows?
That was Stasiland … I didn’t see the silly iPad autocorrect!
I agree, Sue. I don’t doubt Funder’s authenticity. And it’s a perceptive comment about being tripped up by things we know. John
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Musings of a Literary Dilettante's
Thanks John … It’s something that has been ‘bothering’ me for a while.
Fascinating conversation! Thanks for having it in the public forum!! I agree with you about the Miles Franklin – I think that Funder’s book is only co-incidentally Australian. More significantly, while it was a brave book to write it didn’t meet the mark for me (not sure whether this is the fault of the book itself or the position of my mark or expectation!). I haven’t read Sarah Thornhill, although I have read another of the trilogy and was surprised to enjoy it. Sarah Thornhill is on my TBR list.
Funder’s book aggravated me in the same way that Kingsolver’s Lacuna did – it sort of seeped truth but was fiction and I found the blurring of the boundary between the two somewhat frustration. I have nothing against faction and think that it has its place in literature and can often bring history to life in the way that dry historical accounts cannot, but I felt slighted by both these books… as though I was missing out on the joke or something. Not sure how to properly explain the feeling.
In another vein, I am struggling to read Moorhouse’s In Cold Light. I absolutely adored the other two in the series which I read when they first came out, back to back. Perhaps it’s the distance that is troubling. I almost feel as though I should go back and read the other two books before I persevere with this one – anyone have any similar experiences with this book??
I really liked Cold Light, Justine! (I reviewed it here http://wp.me/phTIP-4rn). I didn’t re-read the others (though I was tempted to) but I did find Cold Light a different reading experience, and I think that’s because reading the first two were (for me, at my age) like reading history and learning about my parents’ generation’s hopes and attitudes, whereas Cold Light is of my own time.
Hi Justine, we all have such different reactions to this fiction/history nexus, don’t we? I’m glad Lisa replied to your question about Cold Light as I haven’t read any of the trilogy! Sounds like more (or should that be Moorhouse?!) for the TBR! Cheers, John