The Lost Life of Eva Braun
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
by Angela Lambert
"From the time of our first meetings, I promised myself to follow you everywhere, even in death. You know that my whole life is loving you," Eva Braun wrote to her Führer shortly after July 20, 1944, when a briefcase bomb just missed blowing him up. His clothes torn to shreds, an arm damaged, Adolf Hitler, already enfeebled from lack of exercise and a demonic need to spend long hours micromanaging the war, watched his Nazi cohort abandon him. On his last day in the bunker, few remained, except his personal staff and Braun, who finally became his wife for the last 36 hours of their lives.
The 17-year-old Eva met Hitler in 1929, while working in his official photographer's shop. Like many German women, she had been indoctrinated to seek an all-powerful male leader. Hitler was courteous with women, who in the Nazi scheme of things were intended only to raise strong Aryans while supporting their fathers and husbands. He liked obedient dogs and sentimental songs. He liked to watch Eva dress up in traditional Bavarian costume. He gorged on cream cakes and brought her chocolates. That he was a political figure and found it hard to spare time for her only made him more precious to Braun.
There is no evidence that Braun was anti-Semitic and she never joined the Nazi Party. Hitler never discussed policy with her; indeed, he thought women had no business in public life. He never publicly acknowledged Eva, and even private photographs of them together almost always show him as stiff and formal. She wanted marriage but was willing to wait. He said he belonged to the German people — and that a family would be distracting. In "TheLost Life of Eva Braun" (St. Martin's Press, 512 pages, $29.95), Angela Lambert suggests that because of his belief in eugenics, Hitler dared not pass on defective genes (incest and mental illness were a part of his family history).
Ms. Lambert's biography is verbose. Why does she repeat so many facts? Why do we need to learn several times that Albert Speer was named Hitler's personal architect at 29? What Ms. Lambert explains in a footnote is then explained again in the text and vice versa. Sentences wind back on one another, bloated and redundant: "Eva's tact and sensitivity towards the domestic team were diplomatic, bearing in mind her youth when her position was formalized and the fact that they had no idea how long she would stay."
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
The subject is so fascinating and rare, that it’s worthy of a review, but a critics mind is a terrible thing to waste
I believe we wait until the fourth paragraph to learn of the biography’s fault is because the writer wanted to attract and tempt the reader with the short story. And show the horrific situation that it was happening in, and also show how Eva felt about and admired Hitler, before the reader starts judging her, because of Hitler’s horrific actions. Even in that paragraph she describes him as dog loving, cream cake eating character who loves to listen to sentimental song character, and not the Hitler that we all know.
I think we don’t hear about her faults until paragraph 6 because if it was placed earlier, the reader would question its credibility from the get-go. We wouldn’t internalize Braun’s willingness to wait for marriage with Hitler, or Hitler’s neglect for family. Instead, we would focus on how Lambert’s writing is ‘invalid’.
In order to entice the reader, there must be an exciting lede to draw them in. The first three paragraphs discuss the more exciting and “juicy” information to capture and keep the reader’s attention, and as the article goes on, it reaches more undesirable details.
Other than a few thousand words from a diary Eva kept in the mid 1930s, and her extensive collections of photographs (which Ms. Lambert describes with fascinating precision), most of what is known about Braun comes from her family and friends. Many witnesses thought her superficial, even stupid. But not Ms. Lambert, who finds a nobility and courage in Braun's character — no matter how monstrous the object of her adoration.
But to Eva, Hitler was no monster. Ms. Lambert doubts she knew about the concentration camps and other atrocities Hitler perpetrated. But certainly Eva knew something. To be a sentient human being meant that no matter how cosseted, she had to be aware (especially in the last days) that Hitler had turned Germany into an inferno. Did Eva repress her uneasiness, or project, as Hitler did, the fault onto others? We will probably never know, since it was not her role as a woman to even raise such questions.
Or so Ms. Lambert surmises: "Their true relationship will always be a mystery but at the heart of it may be this: Only with Eva could he step down from his pedestal and allow himself to be dependent, childlike, attached." We simply don't know if this is so, or if this is: "Eva never complained to Hitler about being depressed or lonely." Never?
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
I’m not completely sure about my answer because there’s a typo, but I assume the question is “What can be said about the biographer’s language?”
The biographer’s language comes off as grandiose, sugar coated, and annoying to the reviewer. The reviewer exclaims "Or so Ms. Lambert surmises: “their true relationship will always be a mystery”. The reviewer uses ‘surmise’ as if the reviewer is thinking “do you really not know what’s going on? a mystery? it seems kind of obvious, no?”.
Later in paragraph 9, the reviewer offers a better statement [in the reviewer’s mind] that is more straightforward, and with less much less tact.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
I agree. Braun is a mysterious figure of history, and drawing conclusions based on conjecture is not ideal. So little is known of the dynamics of the relationship, however interesting.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
The biographer’s language seems to me as being uncertain or unsure of what is being portrayed to us about Eva. The reviewer proves to us that the biographer’s statement about Eva and Hitler can possibly be false or unclear in understanding.
no facts to back it up, except through her family history. Her mother was a contemporary of Eva
It seems like the statement made by the biographer is in reference to the short diary Eva kept. Perhaps these conclusions were drawn from Lambert’s writings or secondary accounts mentioned in paragraph 7.
Ms. Lambert seems to handle the biography as if she has full knowledge of Eva Braun’s feelings and situation. As is mentioned in the next paragraph, there is the assumption that Braun is just like Lambert’s mother, when in fact, Lambert’s role is not to assume or compare Eva Braun with anyone. As a biographer, she needs to tell the story from the most accurate and unbiased angle.
Ms. Lambert believes that she knows Eva because Eva is like Ms. Lambert's mother, a German woman of Eva's generation who never could come to terms with Hitler and the Holocaust. Ms. Lambert lived in Germany just after the war, and she writes about hearing her mother tell the stories and sing the songs that Eva would have learned.
Some readers may object to the intrusive biographer, but I found the analogies Ms. Lambert draws between her family and Eva's an important way of understanding how she produced such an empathetic portrayal of her subject. This biography has an obsessive quality, a personal tone that allows Ms. Lambert to imagine in depth what it was like for Eva, but which also carries her to a realm closer to fiction than fact.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
In the beginning paragraphs the review is overtly negative, almost berating the biographer for such a bad job. However, the last paragraph seems to excuse Lambert for all that she was criticized for. I suppose having many parallels between yourself and the subject of your biography would be both a strength and a weakness. It puts you close enough to understand, but too close to speak objectively.
The review of the biographer is mixed, whereas Ms. Lambert is well respected for a good job in synthesizing what could have been Eva’s character and giving great descriptions she is also criticized for the synthesizing process itself, where Ms. Lambert didnt seem to stay with facts but rather assumed the role of a painter, and depicted what she wanted to believe in the biography, which deviated from the original point of such writings and became more of a fictional work rather than the intended informative piece on Eva’s life.
Hitler’s relationship with Braun is mostly unknown. The reviewer calls out Lambert for broad assumptions. The title of the biography contains the words “lost life,” that seems to hint at an innocence of sorts. The strong personal nature of the biography says a lot about the passion behind the writing, but also perhaps as the reviewer say’s a fictional element as well.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
In my opinion, the biographers empathetic portrayal, as the author describes it, is Lambert’s strength and also her weakness. Her connection to Braun, because Braun reminds her of her mother, gives the biography not only a personal tone but also a more loving feel to the biography. The tone often felt fictional just because it is uncertain to whether or not Braun did or felt some of the things stated in this biography.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
The review is mixed as the writer points out the flaws that were blatantly obvious in both her style and knowledge of the subject, but also goes on to say that it has an obsessive quality about it. One of the biographer’s strength and weakness is that while she is giving all of this information to us, making the reader feel like we are really getting in depth knowledge of Eva, her knowledge may be contrived.
The subject matter is great, yet not enough evidence. SHe must place things in context of history. The intimate nature of eva’s relationship with Hitler forgives the intimate nature of the biographer’s references. At the end of the day people will read it for the subject and not necessarily for the writing or history. There is a saturation of hitler and WWII literature.
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
A University of Toronto Ph.D, Rollyson has published more … (more)
It seems the reviewer found the book an interesting and engaging read. He or she selected interesting excerpts and points to discuss however, the reviewer also expresses concern over the accuracy of the biographical account. Pointing out the author’s “obsessive quality.”
The reviewer emphasizes the empathetic portrayal of the subject. Empathy tends to prevent objectivity. Personal tone brings more fiction than fact. On the other hand, in my personal opinion, Eva as a loving woman would never question Hitler’s deeds. She seemed to be a type of a woman, who would state: “Even if the whole world’s against you, I will silently stand behind your back and quietly supply you with bullets”.
It feels negative, mainly because she mentions her faults like lack of substantial evidence for the claims and repetition. Regarding her strengths being her weakness, the fact that she’s empathetic of her subject she may be more biased when it comes to accurately portraying her.
The review is mixed in the sense that she enjoyed the story and the author’s clear passion for the subject matter, but questioned the authenticity. She is unsure if there was a clear enough line drawn between fact and fiction. This is a worthy discussion to have about any of the pieces we will read in this class, In Cold Blood comes to mind in particular.
While Lambert does her job of trying to give the reader an in depth portrayal of Eva Braun, she also makes the mistake of trying to explain things she may not completely know or understand herself. As a biographer, she would be better suited letting the reader take in the information and make their own conclusions as opposed to putting ideas in their head such as how Eva Braun felt and whether she was in fact happy or unhappy with her life with Hitler.
General Document Comments 0
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments