Did the Times crossword puzzle dis Elie Wiesel?
In yesterday’s New York Times crossword puzzle there’s a clue reading ”Night novelist.” The answer is “Wiesel.”
The puzzle thus enters the fray in a long debate about how to characterize Elie Wiesel’s book about Auschwitz. Is it a memoir? A novel? Something else?
As I wrote in 2006:
Wiesel himself was forced to clear the air in an interview with The New York Times. Night “is not a novel at all,” Wiesel said. “All the people I describe were with me there. I object angrily if someone mentions it as a novel.”
And yet, in the past, Wiesel hasn’t helped matters in this regard. In 1972, Hill & Wang packaged Night with two other books, Dawn and The Accident, which Wiesel clearly identified as novels. The set’s cover refers to the works as “Three Tales by Elie Wiesel.” In a later edition of the same volume, Wiesel refers to all three books as “narratives,” although he calls Night a “testimony,” and the other two “commentaries.”
Now it’s true that Wiesel has written novels. But in the case of the puzzle clue, the word “novelist” after the book title suggests the latter is a novel.
In the August 19, 2007 Times paperback best seller list, Night is listed under “nonfiction.”
Does the editor think a correction is in order, or does he stand by the clue? I sent a note to the Times crossword blog to find out.
JustASC is written by Andrew Silow-Carroll, Editor-in-Chief of the 
June 27th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Several readers objected, including Professor Wiesel himself, who contacted The Times through his Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity – NYT
mr carroll,
as you can see above, it was not only you who objected, although i think you are well aware of that by now
the point i would like to make is many more who daily scower the puzzle for inaccuracies and errors did not make note of the clue
my assessment is, well, welcome to the mainstream
the crossword puzzle community, IMHO,word-nerds as they are, hardly fit the profile of wanting to create ill feelings or incite trouble or dredge up past hurtful reminders
the professor, and his cause, have been and will continue to be sponsored by myself, of course, as well as many others, however, it looks a little heavy handed to pounce on a crossword puzzle editor, his staff and the newspaper over this
i can also share with you, that some at NYT saw your response as a threat, to make a correction or else, and i have to tell you this is the part that was unacceptable to me
to stay mainstream implies rolling with the punches and my advise would be to soften the approach to an error, especially an unintentional one, with a more positive highlighting of why it is wrong and identify who it may have offended
always allow the other to save face, just like shimon perez talks about in today’s NYT feature
anyway be well
frankD
June 30th, 2009 at 9:56 am
A threat? “A little heavy handed”? “Make a correction or else”? Or else what, exactly?
As a newspaper editor I am always happy to correct the record, especially when someone points out that something we printed contradicts our own standards or style.
Word nerds, like me, regularly pick nits — what is the Times crossword blog if not a nit-pickers’ delight? Why is asking if a cobbler has a crust within the rules, but raising a question about a literary issue out of bounds or imply a threat?
Readers know I’m not one to raise the anti-Semitism flag too quickly, but there’s a creepy insinuation about your use of the word “mainstream.” I wonder if you would have had the same reaction, or would the unnamed Times-men you cite, if this hadn’t involved Wiesel and the query hadn’t come from a Jewish newspaper.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
mr silow-carroll,
well, now that the dust has settled, i guess i can respond – mainstream indicats a group has assimilated to the extent whereby its own members reach all ends of a spectrum and certain individuals embedded within the group will be potentially more dangerous than a fanatic fringe element – what does that mean ?
let me ask you, who in the last few years has done the most damage to any of your causes ? –
1) the NYT
2) madoff
3) the holocaust deniers
i think your answer will expose that waiving the anti-semetic flag on the “creepy insinuation” of mainstream is like tiger woods ever again playing the race card – thirteen mistresses and counting and not a single sister in sight !
“creepy” is what madoff did IMHO, leaving so many real people and needy charitable effort to go begging, all for his own individual pursuit of an extravagant ego-driven lifestyle – but that is what joining the mainstream is, insulated from history being changed by deniers yet open to trusted and close relationships going very badly
my suggestion would be to put the flag away and not be too quick to blame or color outsiders and others opinions and advise until you explore from within – that is part of knowing history also, which no one can deny
anyway be well,
frankD
December 14th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
and of course, as an extension of my thoughts above i have found another post that is more eloquent than mine, but you might notice, has a thread of what i am trying to get across……..
“When any group believes that they are a law unto themselves, abuse is sure to follow. Whatever happens in this case, that issue must be addressed by members of the community. If they don’t, and ethnicity is allowed to trump ethics, then they will have nobody to blame but themselves for the anger directed against them.
This is moment in time, both because of these events and where we stand in the Jewish calendar – just days before Tisha B’av , when the tradition invites introspection. I hope that the community has the moral courage to undertake such introspection and those outside it have the sensitivity and discipline to allow them to do so without being humiliated.”
the quote is from brad h
frankD
December 14th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
and once i was looking i found another gem which i have to include regarding joining the mainstream …………………………………………….”Well, you can’t have it both ways. The fact is that Jews are exceptional. There can be no debate that various historical factors — including a communal reverence for intellectual acuity, along with centuries of marginalization — primed Jews for, first, survival, and then uncommon achievement. The rub is that those very same factors might have predisposed them to distinction in less-savory domains. Maybe we can’t have Philip Roth and Leonard Bernstein without Bernie Madoff and the informant behind the Jersey busts, Solomon Dwek.”
above in quotes by alana
anyway be well
frankD