Reviews and Comments

Hannie, Truus and Freddie deserve better than this.

Reading 'Seducing and Killing Nazis: Hannie, Truus and Freddie' and the writing style 20% of the way in, it still feels like it's an essay written by someone using only a single volume of an encyclopedia as reference.

At times paragraphs of detail on simple things, seeming to inflate word counts and then skipping 3 years without mention.

Sort of "They were born, moved, then a guy came and tried to recruit them to join the resistance, but oh no he was gestapo! JK it was only a test! They passed!"

It has some interesting photos of places I know in Haarlem, though.

The author spent time with Truss and Freddie, subjects of the book, but none of that really shows here. I'd love to see stories told in their voices, not a sort of bullet point retelling from an invisible narrator.

I hoped it would get better with anecdotes and stories, but this high school essay start isn't encouraging.

I'm reading an English translation, and there are things I could blame on the translator, like translating Dutch idioms into English like they should make sense. That's not my issue with it, though.

It remains overly simplistic and disjointed. We're at the half way point and it still feels like every page is a list of bullet points from the author's notes, and not an edited, final work.

"The winter of 1944-1945 was difficult for Hannie, Truus and Freddie who suffered from hunger along with their countrymen."

The "Hunger Winter" was mentioned a couple pages previously, but not really described, and then this is used to tie the heroines in to the passing mention of the famine.

I need to find better books about these women.

This has many hallmarks of stereotypical, unedited and self-published vanity books, and I think it dishonors the memories of its subjects.

I gave up about half way through.

2/5, mostly for the photos of Haarlem.

Last week, I watched a documentary about the elusive author J.D. Salinger. A number of med talked about the reclusive author down to tell them how much they loved his writing, and how much they identified with Holden Caulfield in Catcher In The Rye. One mentioned that when he cornered the author and told him how amazing the book was and how J.D. really SPOKE to him through his writing. The way the interview subject talked, Salinger can upset by this and quite rude.

I thought I'd read Catcher to see what the big deal was, and maybe it wasn't just a book that spoke to lonely alienated boys looking for something to blame. Reading this, however, I feel like I'm paging through the mind of an 8chan incel. Maybe it's not such a big wonder why lone gunmen adore this book.

Holden isn't special, and he's no rebel. Rebels DO something, but Holden only whines about things. Everything is someone else's fault. His room mate at school did this or that and caused him to get distracted. People who like something are stupid for liking it. Women are ugly and stupid because they aren't with him.

Holden is a sad little boy who is alienated and self-absorbed. Sure, he's sixteen and a loser, but he's hardly rebelling against anything. He sees only the faults in others and sees only (imagined) good in himself. Even when he sounds a bit self-deprecating, the core of his problems is someone else.

Holden might be a nihilist, but he's no rebel.

If Holden was Salinger inserting himself into the main character, then maybe the author's self seclusion was a service to humanity.

"I don't want to scare you," he said, "but I can very clearly see you dying nobly, one way or another, for some highly unworthy cause." Mr. Antolini from Catcher In The Rye

Okay, maybe J.D. Salinger could see Holden as a lone shooter.

Last week, I watched a documentary about the elusive author J.D. Salinger. A number of med talked about the reclusive author down to tell them how much they loved his writing, and how much they identified with Holden Caulfield in Catcher In The Rye. One mentioned that when he cornered the author and told him how amazing the book was and how J.D. really SPOKE to him through his writing. The way the interview subject talked, Salinger can upset by this and quite rude.

I thought I'd read Catcher to see what the big deal was, and maybe it wasn't just a book that spoke to lonely alienated boys looking for something to blame. Reading this, however, I feel like I'm paging through the mind of an 8chan incel. Maybe it's not such a big wonder why lone gunmen adore this book.

Holden isn't special, and he's no rebel. Rebels DO something, but Holden only whines about things. Everything is someone else's fault. His room mate at school did this or that and caused him to get distracted. People who like something are stupid for liking it. Women are ugly and stupid because they aren't with him.

Holden is a sad little boy who is alienated and self-absorbed. Sure, he's sixteen and a loser, but he's hardly rebelling against anything. He sees only the faults in others and sees only (imagined) good in himself. Even when he sounds a bit self-deprecating, the core of his problems is someone else.

Holden might be a nihilist, but he's no rebel.

If Holden was Salinger inserting himself into the main character, then maybe the author's self seclusion was a service to humanity.

"I don't want to scare you," he said, "but I can very clearly see you dying nobly, one way or another, for some highly unworthy cause." Mr. Antolini from Catcher In The Rye

Okay, maybe J.D. Salinger could see Holden as a lone shooter.