Elie Wiesel Essay On Madness

Every single human being, at some point in time, goes through various troublesome experiences, be it a natural disaster, illness, an abusive relationship, a violent incident, or the loss of a loved one. However, some experiences are more devastating than others. Each survivor has his/her way of coping with the trauma and maintaining sanity. Elie Wiesel, one the survivors of the Holocaust, gives us some insight into dealing with extremely difficult experiences. He spent a year imprisoned in the Auschwitz and Buchenwald concentration camps, the same camps where he lost all his family members (Wiesel 15). After his liberation, he moved to France where he learned French and studied Literature, Philosophy, and Psychology. Then, he then worked as

a journalist for twenty years, until 1954 when novelist Francois Mauriac urged him to speak on behalf of the Jews who lost their lives (15). Six million Jews were drastically deprived of their right to live during the Holocaust, yet the most horrifying aspect of this sad truth is not the numbers. It is the circumstances which preceded their disappearance. Even more disconcerting, is the fact that this mass killing was pointless. Generations of families—grandparents, parents, children, and grandchildren—vanished without any justification, if any, it would be barbaric cruelty. The blood of millions of restless Jews forever lies in Auschwitz and Treblinka. How does one respond to humanity after surviving such an inhuman experience of madness? Elie Wiesel, who survived the Holocaust, decided to answer to it by making words. He wrote to provide a resting place for the departed so that they could find rest in the vehemence of his words. "Why I Write: Making No Become Yes" by Elie Wiesel is a controversial essay which successfully depicts a tormented survivor writing in a desperate attempt to perpetuate the existence of his Jewish brothers who lost their lives during the Holocaust.
The most conspicuous characteristic of this essay is the abundance of controversies. At many instances in the essay, the author mentions some form of deity using the terminology: God. With regards to the Christian faith, and from a historical point of view, the Jewish people were considered as the chosen people of God. Abraham, who is regarded as the father of Christian faith and to whom God first revealed himself, was a Jew. The ten commandments, which serve as a guide for Christian behavior, were revealed by God to a Jewish man named Moses. Jesus Christ, who Christians recognize as the son of God and God himself, was born among Jews and hence was also a Jew. So, there is a perceived connection between the Jewish people and God. It is very ironical that the “people of God” will suffer such a horrific experience. For those who believe in some form of deity, and most especially for Christians, it seems obvious to ask why God allowed doom to fall on his people. Why do bad things happen to good people? This is a ubiquitous interrogation which generates numerous debates. Let’s consider the story of Jesus Christ, a story filled with many paradoxes. The Jews, who for a very long time awaited the coming of the Messiah, ruthlessly put him to death when he finally came. Even more troubling is the fact that Jesus Christ, who is considered son of God, has also examined God himself. This implies that he had the ability to defeat his oppressors, or even escape from them. Instead, he journeyed innocently towards death, just like the Jews. “They guess where they are going, they know it, and they keep silent. Tense, thoughtful, they listen to the wind, the call of death in the distance” (18). Moreover, it was difficult to make sense of the fact God allowed his only begotten son to go through such disproportionate suffering. Similarly, God allowed his people—the Jews—to be massacred under Hitler’s reign. One can find multiple connections between the tragic death of Jesus Christ—son of God and that of the Jews—people of God. This analogy can be interpreted from different viewpoints. It could be seen that a test of faith. As God’s chosen people, and through a counter effect, the Jews might be exposed to painful experiences, not only to strengthen their belief in God but also induce other people to believe in God. Besides, just as Jesus Christ gained everlasting victory through his resurrection, the departed Jews would also resurrect in victory and savor eternal life with God. It remains tough to think positively when faced with such traumatic experiences. Spending a year in such an intense immersion of madness can have disastrous effects on the strongest of human beings. Elie Wiesel struggled to remain active, in his way, even though he seemed to have lost his faith. Throughout the text, he refers to God as being blind (17), indifferent (18), or even as the god of darkness (17). Also, when he refers to his faith in God, he does so in the past tense. “A Jewish adolescent who knew no fear, except the fear of God, whose faith was whole, comforting and not marked by anxiety” (18). It would be unreasonable to blame him considering the countless times he might have begged God on his knees to free his people from such a calamity.
Another controversial image is illustrated in paragraphs 18 and 19. “People tend to think that a child reawakens a murderer’s lost humanity…[but] our Jewish children had no effect upon the killers” (18). At least some, if not all, of these Nazis soldiers had wives and children at home, or parents and grandparents still living. It 's hard to perceive how a soldier will effectuate these mass killings, and, at the end of the day, go back home to his happy family. It does not make sense, at all! How can a human being viciously deprive a fellow human being of the right to humanity? Perhaps, the soldiers were only following Hitler’s orders. However, this assertion still raises numerous interrogations. Are there any limits to obedience and compliance? Should one execute any request, be it right or wrong, made an authority figure? Not necessarily! Obedience should not be opposed to morality and ethics. Hence, the soldiers, who made the killing, are equally as responsible as the brain(s) behind the holocaust.
This essay also depicts the unique nature of death. Even though the Jews were annihilated in masses, each Jew distinctively experienced death. No two people felt the same pain, in intensity and duration. “Jewish children…I see them…hounded and humiliated, bent like the old men who surround them as though to protect them, unable to do so” (18). Mothers were not able to alleviate the agony of their children. Brothers could not save their sisters. They could not even save themselves. It, surely, might have been tough to helplessly experience one’s suffering combined to the suffering of the others. The survivors, who witnessed such tragedies, certainly expected to be next in line. This extreme level of fear and uncertainty can have damaging effects on sanity.
The author is perceived as being deeply disturbed and tormented.

Surviving such an experience usually leaves an individual with permanent sequels. “Why do I write? Perhaps, in order not to get mad. Or, on the contrary, to touch the bottom of madness” (15). Anything which is not logical is usually referred to as insanity. Since no logic can be derived from the extermination of millions of Jews, the Holocaust can be considered as an epitome of madness. A survivor may choose to run away from the madness of such a traumatic experience. On the other hand, the survivor may decide to fully embrace madness to make sense out of an experience of madness. Madness generates constant questioning which in turn fosters deciphering. Hence, touching the bottom of madness does not necessarily mean a mental breakdown. It also implies the achievement of full understanding and a sense of closure. The great philosopher Aristotle once said, “No great mind ever existed without a touch of madness” which infers that madness is a relatively subjective term. It can be seen as a disease, or simply as an extremity. Elie Wiesel might have been referring to madness as the mental illness. He had to write because containing that experience might have made him mad. At the same time, he might have been writing to fully immerse himself in the madness, so as to get to the deepest level of

understanding.
Moreover, there is a significant conflict of purpose going on in the survivor’s mind.

Paragraph 11 demonstrates this struggle. It portrays the survivor as being unresolved and confused. He is a survivor, but he is also a human being. Maybe he should stop mourning the past, go on with his life, and be genuinely happy. He, too, wants to celebrate the beauty of love and life. As human beings, we are usually drawn to success and personal achievements. Abraham Maslow, a great psychologist, calls this the need for self-actualization. Though being a survivor, Elie Wiesel felt the need to achieve his goals and realize his full potential without necessarily speaking the language of the night. Even with his writings, Wiesel attempted to explore other prospects like the Bible and the Talmud. “In my other books, I have tried to follow other roads. For it is dangerous to linger among the dead, they hold onto you, and you run the risk of speaking only them” (18). He was, probably, trying to run away from his memories. The survivor wishes he could leave the darkness and enter the light, but he is afraid he might be betraying the dead. There are times of doubt for the survivor, times when he has no idea about which path to take. Nevertheless, the survivor decides to remain loyal because he “…owes nothing to anyone, but everything to the death” (17). For them, he would, incessantly, keep

trying.
The author engaged in a desperate attempt to make the reader understand the magnitude of what happened behind the walls of the concentration camp. “Could the reader be brought to the other side of those walls? I knew the answer was negative, and yet I knew that “no” had to become “yes” (17). It appears like the author knew he would not be able to transmit this experience in its fullness. “We all knew…that we could never express in words, coherent and intelligible words, our experience of madness on an absolute scale. All words seemed inadequate, worn, foolish, lifeless” (16). The author, seemingly, needed a whole new vocabulary to depict the mindset which dwelled in the minds of the Jews, the overwhelming fear, the smell of burnt flesh, the intensity of the pain, and the deafening screams. No word possessed the precision required to decode this sort of language, the language of death. The author writes to make us understand, but he still warns us that we are not going to understand. “Even if you read all the books ever written, even if you listen to all the testimonies ever given, you will remain on this side of the wall” (18). The author conveys the complexity of such an experience, one which cannot be fully decrypted if not endured. He desperately attempted to make the reader understand. He wrote around twenty-five books, but only three or four could illustrate the irrational and delusive reality of the concentration camps. “Have I attempted too much or not enough…I do not know…And yet I have tried. God knows I have tried” (18). Perhaps, the author could not make the reader understand because he had not been able to make sense out of this experience. “He has tried to bear witness, but it was all in vain” (19). He does not only write to make the reader understand, but he also writes to know. He is still struggling to find some closure. He may probably never find it. The reader may never fully comprehend the realities of Auschwitz and Treblinka, but at least he tried. He is duty-bound to keep working, he owes it to the dead.
The survivor’s commitment to making words was aimed at immortalizing the existence of those who were tragically snatched from this world. He lived only to testify about what he had seen and experienced. “If by some miracle, I emerge alive, I will devote my life to testifying on behalf of those whose shadow will fall on mine forever and ever” (17). Anything else would have entailed betraying the Jewish people. They still existed inside him. He saw himself in them. “They reflect an image of myself, one that I pursue and run from at the same time” (18). Betraying them would have meant revealing himself. Wiesel, just as all the other survivors, had to carry along the dreams and memories of the departed. Therefore, the author did not speak for himself any longer. He was talking for those who could not speak, the dead. There must have been a reason why he survived. He dedicated his life to breaking the silence and bearing witness, not for him, but for them. “I owe them my roots and my memory. I am duty-bound to serve as their emissary, transmitting the history of their disappearance, even if it disturbs, even if it brings pain” (16). Evidently, he saw it as a way of granting eternal rest to their souls and offering them some shelter in the immensity of his words. The world decided to suppress their existence, but the author brings them back in his books and allows them to exist through his characters. Even when he decided to explore other topics, he still reserved a place in his works for the dead. He wrote solely for them, to grant rest to the restless.
“Why I Write: Making No Become Yes” by Elie Wiesel is an essay is an essay full of conflicting emotions and thoughts, which depicts a survivor’s allegiance to bear witness. The author provides some valuable insight on how to react to traumatic and unjust experiences. Various forms of injustices still prevail in our society nowadays. They might not occur at a macro level like the Holocaust, but a crime, no matter how small, remains an injustice. Wiesel urges us to fight against silence, be it the silence of words or any other form of silence. Desmond Tutu, a South African social rights activist, once said: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” No matter how desperate it might seem, we should always promote justice and fairness for all. It is the responsibility of every living soul to uphold and advocate the respect of human rights.