The first thing that I noticed when I began Windows on the World was the way in which it was set up. Especially as I continued through the novel, the minute-by-minute description kept me pushing forward until I could get to that final moment when I knew that the tower would collapse and the story would end, but of which the Yorston family was unaware. When I got to 10:28 and saw the twin towers, literally on the page, there was no way the ideas and topic of the book could remain separate from a sort of memorial by the author.
As for the author, I caught myself asking several times why the novel spent so much time telling the tale of the author alongside that of the Yorstons. I found my answer on pages 235-236: “Writing an autobiographical novel not to reveal oneself, but to melt away. A novel is a two-way mirror behind which I hide so I can see and not be seen. The mirror in which I see myself, in the end, I give to others.” So is this novel not only his way of remembering the events of September 11, but also an autobiography? Without having read this in his own words, I don’t know if I would have seen that his impressions and opinions serve as a record like that.
One of my favorite quotes from the novel, simply because of its versatility, is found on page 86 when Beigbeder is listening to his daughter tell him about a story: “It’s all about this wolf and he wants to eat the little pigs but the pigs build this house with bricks and he can’t, the wolf can’t eat them. And I thought: it’s wrong to indoctrinate young children with such lies.” Most of us know this story, but never really think past the pages of the children’s version to realize that in real life, the wolf wouldn’t be stuck on the outside, but would be able to destroy the pigs. In terms of 9/11, America’s brick house was punctured by the teeth of the wolf, and the fact that it wasn’t indestructible scared the nation.
The last idea that I will comment on from the novel, although it is packed with so many concepts that I would like to explore, is just that Beigbeder does the best that an author can when faced with the challenge of describing a situation that no one survived. Not having been in the tower while and after being hit, he could not have known exactly what the conditions, the people, the fear were like, and yet his descriptions still left me with goose bumps. As he even says, “Even if I go deep, deep into the horror, my book will always remain 1,350 feet below the truth.” The best that such a terrible event can be described is exercised here, while interspersed with human thoughts to yield a sense of reality and tragedy to the situation.
Frederic Beigbeder’s Windows On the World is a fascinating and terrifying look at the September 11 terrorist attacks. The book oscillates between the story of a family trapped in the World Trade Center, and the author’s ruminations on the world more than a year after the event. This style allows the author to provide a detailed account of the trapped family despite the reader’s knowledge of their fate. It also allows him to reduce the intensity of the book. In the Author’s Note Beigbeder explains that while overseeing the translation of the book he revised some scenes because he feared they might be “more likely to wound” an American audience than he intended. Beigbeder’s constant interruption of the narrative allows him to provide his interpretation of the results of the event, and gives readers a respite from the extremely detailed story of the deaths of the people at the top of the World Trade Center.
This style also allows the author to remind the reader that he, a Frenchmen placing fictitious characters within a terrorist attack on American soil, is not the absolute authority on the event. Beigbeder uses the book to describe the propensity of all people around the world to sympathize with Americans after September 11. He states that he is “writing this book because I’m sick of bigoted anti-Americanism”, and provides a list of his favorite American artists. He presents the attacks as the result of a divide between those who have wealth and influence, and those who do not. Beigbeder describes France’s relationship with the United States as being “a combination of admiration and contempt, a longing to be part of it and a pride at resisting.” Even though this ambivalence exists between the France and America, Beigbeder suggests the countries are united in their response to the tragedy. He reminds the reader “we are the same: even if we are not all Americans, our problems are theirs, and theirs are ours”. The book provides an interesting and challenging inspection of the results of September 11 without ignoring the violent and horrible reality of the event.
“…Merging fiction with truth- and with tragedy – risks hurting those who have already suffered, something of which I was intensely aware when rereading the novel in English – the language in which the tragedy happened. There were, I felt moments when it was starker and perhaps more likely to wound than I intended. Consequently some scenes have been revised for this edition.”
- Frédéric Beigbeder, “Author’s Note”
What exactly does Frédéric Beigbeder mean by “the language in which the tragedy happened”? Is the tragedy of 9/11 made comprehensible only through its translation in language/literature, and what issues arise in the translation of tragedy into an artistic representation such as Windows on the World? Beigbeder suggests that tragedy is not only expressed through language, but that tragedy itself occurs and exists within language; 9/11 is a tragedy of the English language, 9/11 happened in English. However, Beigbeder is neither American nor a native speaker of the English language, and thus he has chosen to write the story of the tragedy of 9/11 in French, leaving the duty of translation to a third party. Beigbeder writes a fictitious account of the morning of September 11th, a non-reality further removed from the truth/reality of that morning in its inability to capture the tragedy as it happened (in English). I would like to direct attention to and analyze two specific scenes that have been edited for the English version of the novel.
Original French Text
10h10
Le Windows of the World était une chambre à gaz de luxe. Ses clients ont été gazés, puis brûlés et réduits en cendres comme å Auschwitz. Ils méritent le même devoir de mémoire.
(page coupée)
[ Windows on the World was a deluxe gas chamber. Its clients had been gassed, then burnt and reduced to ashes, like at Auschwitz. They merit the same duty of memory. (page cut)]
English Version
10:10
In Windows on the World, the customers were gassed, burned and reduced to ash. To them, as to so many others, we owe a duty of memory.
Original French Text
10h15
Je veux que tu souffres pendant que je jute…Je vais te torturer à mort, te tuer, t’éventrer pour baiser tes entrailles, élargir ton vagin pour rentrer tout mon corps à l’intérieur et mourir à l’endroit où je suis né…
Ils crient ensemble….
Je suis morte de plaisir, dit la blonde en Ralph Lauren. Je suis morte en t’aimant.
[I want for you to suffer while I orgasm… I will torture you until you die, kill you, disembowel you to fuck your entrails, widen your vagina and climb inside and die in the place where I was born…
They cry together…
I am dead of pleasure, said the blonde in Ralph Lauren. I am dying loving you…]
English Version
10:15
“I’m dying of happiness,” says the blonde in Ralph Lauren. “I’m dying loving you.”
“Death is better than Viagra,” says the guy in Kenneth Cole.
“You were my reason for living; you’re my reason for dying.”
The “minor” editing of chapter 10h10 is purely terminological: the original version mentions Auschwitz by name, making the comparison more vivid, more real. In chapter 10:14, Beigbeder cites Albert Thibaudet’s “History of French Literature”, and his theory that “a generation is an age group who, at twenty, lived through a historic event from which they will never recover and which will forever mark them” (278). Thus, in the mention of Auschwitz (and reflexively, the Holocaust), Beigbeder situates 9/11 as an event of the same magnitude and tragedy. However, to say that the WTC was “like Auschwitz” was considered one of those “moments when it was starker and perhaps more likely to wound than I intended” in translation, and so the main trust of the chapter remains (the WTC has become a generic gas chamber), yet the specific implication of Auschwitz and the Holocaust is removed, leaving a more theoretical and abstract invocation of another generations definitive tragedy. To what extent does the exemption and censure of one word change the chapter?
Chapter 10h15 in the original French version is approximately two and a half pages long; however, the English translation comes in at just under half a page - a glorified paragraph with a snatch of dialogue tagged on at the end. Whereas the original French chapter is primarily comprised of dialogue, only three lines make it into the English version. The reason for the censure is indubitably related to the sexually explicit nature of the text. In the English version, Beigbeder backs away, while in the original text his characters are aggressive, murderous sadists. Beigbeder manipulates and inverts the mantra “Kill or Be Killed” into a sort of “Kill before Being Killed.” What is Beigbeder attempting to say with this graphic scene? How would the American response to the novel differ if this sensational passage were allowed to remain? How would the American public react if the exact translation were made available? How does this passage change the book as a whole (not just in the reception/reaction of the work)? Why can this scene happen in French, but not in English?
Overarching Questions to Address:
- How is tragedy linguistically bound? (the event itself - the "happen-ing", the depictions of tragedy: Windows on the World (fiction) vs. the 9/11 Commission Report (non-fiction)) What language will we use to talk about tragedy? Does tragedy exceed language, what about the mourning of tragedy?
- How is the English translation unfaithful to the original text? What is the significance of this self-censure? How do these exemptions demonstrate cultural and linguistic clash/difference?
- How would the American public react if the novel was translated in its entirety?
- What is Beigbeder saying with 10h15 (french version)? And why does he ultimately decide not to?
The subject of Frederic Beigbeder’s Windows on the World, the tragedy of 9/11, is clearly a very touchy issue, and rightfully so. Last week, in a writing class I am taking, we discussed an article (which can be located on the Providence Journal website) entitled “9/11 the Most Overblown Event in U.S. History.” After simply stating that the article made some interesting points, I drew harsh criticism from some of my classmates who felt the article was insensitive and in bad taste. When I ordered this book, I recall reading several customer reviews from amazon.com. Many of these reviewers rated the book poorly, not based on its content or quality, but rather its subject. These reviewers felt that Beigbeder did not have the right to tackle the tragedy of 9/11 in a novel.
Clearly it was a risk for Beigbeder to write this book. He addresses the controversial nature of the subject matter and why he wrote this book, in several passages. On page 124 he says, “Nevertheless, I can’t shake a feeling of disquiet, the very feeling I have writing this book: does one have the right?” Beigbeder addresses this again on page 295 when he says, “I truly don’t know why I wrote this book. Perhaps because I couldn’t see the point of speaking on anything else. What else is there to write? The only interesting subjects are those that are taboo. We must write what is forbidden.” These passages bring up some interesting questions to consider about the role of art and particularly the novel in contemporary society.
I saw Windows on the World as a respectful and insightful look at 9/11. It is a valuable and perhaps necessary book that allows us to reconsider and examine the event in a different way. We all know the facts of what happened; this book helps us to consider what it means.
Questions to consider:
Should any subject be considered ‘forbidden’ for an artist?
What is an appropriate response for a writer or artist to a tragedy such as 9/11?
Does Beigbeder achieve this goal or ideal?
I'd like to respond to Jim's 'questions to consider' as a starting-off point for my response to this novel. Jim, the first question you pose is a difficult one to answer. I am truly unsure as to whether any subject should be considered 'forbidden' for an artist. Perhaps no, if the artist is writing or creating as a means to better his life or the lives of others. Perhaps yes, if the artist is seeking to intentionally hurt another or others. However, what if the artist is writing or creating in order to better his life or the lives of others by seeking to intentionally hurt another or others. This scenario is why I am unsure of the answer to your question. Although, I am sure that the subject of the tragedy of 9/11 should not be considered 'forbidden' for Beigbeder. As an artist, Beigbeder successfully presents an outsiders' view of the tragedy of 9/11 that is not to be offending to Americans, but rather to be empathetic to Americans. Throughout the novel I noticed that if there was a chance that Americans would be offended by what he wrote, he would suspend himself in his thoughts and apologize for his insensitivity. By acknowledging his insensitivity at times, he in turn makes himself seem more sensitive than he realizes. For example, on page 80 Beigbeder writes at the beginning of Chapter 8:48:
OTHER POSSIBLE NAMES FOR THE WORLD TRADE CENTER RESTAURANT:
-Windows on the Planes
-Windows on the Crash
-Windows on the Smoke
-Broken Windows
Sorry for that bout of black humor: a momentary defense against the atrocity.
It is apparent that Beigbeder had good intentions as an artist when writing this novel. Therefore, I'd like to pose a question to consider, if this novel was so carefully constructed and tastefully written for its audience, then how is this novel 'extreme' expecially in comparison with the film 'CUT' we viewed in the previous class? Is it extreme because of the occasional use of foul language or the snippits of sexual content? Is it extreme because of the sensitivity of the subject? Is it extreme because of the inevitable ending?
Perhaps it is extreme because of the feelings and ideas it provokes in the reader. It provokes feelings of sadness, fear, concern, and sympathy, but it also provokes ideas about destiny and inevitability of death. It is an extreme thought to think that Carthew and his sons were destined to die on 9/11, but the man who was ten minutes late for work that day was not. Here lies the idea that this could happen to anyone at anytime. I believe that this is part of why Beigbeder felt that he needed to write this novel, out of astonishment that he could have been Carthew and the Tour Montparnasse could have been the World Trade Center.
Recently on television I watched a stand-up comedian discuss his views of race wars in the United States. He stated that all of the different races were in turmoil merely to distract, to keep busy. He also mentioned that as soon as terrorists threatened the safety of the United States, all of the races bound together and became one. All differences were put aside so that all of the reserved anger and hatred could be focused on America's threat. Does nationalism act as a means to bring the nation together or as a distraction to hide our internal issues?
After September 11 the United States experienced a wave of nationalism. American flags hung on the flagpoles of suburbia, French fries were renamed "freedom fries" and bumper stickers depicted red, white, and blue as colors that "don't run." America entered a state of "us vs. them" where countries were either supporters of our cause (justice must be served!) or against our free nation.
The chapter in which Daniel speaks about his father Carthew being a superhero appears to be a metaphor for how U.S. citizens viewed the government after the September 11 attacks. Daniel describes his father as a "superhero about to avenge the abomination of Darkness." Carthew is unaware of who has committed this crime and is only aware of the horrors he and his loved ones are experiencing. After the morning of September 11, U.S. citizens were left with feelings of confusion and rage. Across the country, people asked themselves "who did this"� and "when will justice be served"� Without knowing who had caused the attacks, undirected anger and desire for revenge swept the nation. Citizens banded together, everyone experienced the losses in New York on that day.
This message has been edited by adurand on Feb 4, 2008 4:06 PM