Book Review: Account Rendered
Sep. 11th, 2025 01:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerIn the afterward to Max in the Land of Lies, Adam Gidwitz mentioned Melita Maschmann’s Account Rendered: A Dossier of My Former Self as one of the most important sources for the book, and also a book that he would urge everyone to read. Of course I had to try it, especially given that Gidwitz’s Melita Maschmann is one of the most likable characters in Max in the Land of Lies, for all that she is a true believer Nazi who, moreover, gets only very limited pagetime.
Now I realize some people may object to the idea of a likeable Nazi true believer, but I believe in order to understand evil one of the things we have to let go of is the belief that there’s any clear relationship between likability and goodness. If you will excuse a digression into quadrant theory, likability and goodness are two separate axes, and most of us are happiest with the “likable and good” quadrant and the “unlikable and bad” quadrant. Neither of these create cognitive dissonance. We want the people whom we like to be good and the people we hate to be bad.
But “unlikable and good” and “likable and bad” can both be a torment. You know that you should like so-and-so, because they’re so useful and helpful and have all the right opinions, but really you would climb out a window rather than spend an hour alone with them because they just grate on you. Or, you like so-and-so a lot, because they’re so funny and charming, and when other people say they’ve done bad things it’s probably lies, or jealousy, or a failure to understand the complexity of their character, or… oh God what if they are bad. You like them so much and they’re bad?? What does that say about you??? NO the accusations of badness are LIES.
(Or else, you insist that you never really liked them THAT much, like my friend with the Harry Potter tattoo who insists she was never THAT into Harry Potter.)
So: Melita Maschmann, likable Nazi true believer, who very slowly after the war began to look back on her former self and say, “What the fuck was I thinking?” This book, written in the form of a letter to her former best friend, a Jewish girl who had to flee Germany, is Maschmann’s attempt to figure out what, in fact, she was thinking.
The idea of the book as a letter is sometimes slightly alarming (can you imagine handing someone a book-length manuscript and saying “This is why I was a world-historically bad friend”?), but as a literary device it’s useful, because it gives Maschmann an imaginary interlocutor to pull her up short whenever she reaches a particularly “But didn’t this make you rethink your choices?” moment. Kristallnacht? The starving Poles when you were first posted to Poland? The time the local German army didn’t have enough troops to evict the Poles from their village to make way for German settlers, so you had to help? Maybe the time that you drove a truck around stealing furniture from the local Poles to give it to a German family that had settled in one of these newly emptied villages?
This last in particular was not merely wrong but also illegal even at the time, but rather oddly it’s also the only one that Maschmann didn’t have a single qualm about when she did it. The rest of these events did give her pause, but at the end of the day there’s a vast gulf between being taken aback and actually rethinking the ideology that has shaped your entire life.
Maschmann turned to National Socialism because she was an idealist who loved the idea of the National Community that cuts across classes and binds everyone together and fixes the poverty and shame that have crippled her country since the Great War. It was a way of rebelling against her parents that nonetheless embraced many of their beliefs: not only the sense that democracy had failed, but also the belief that violent competition among countries is inevitable, so although you might flinch from things you saw while invading Poland, if you didn’t invade Poland then Poland would assuredly invade you.
By this point you, my imaginary interlocutor, may well be asking, “But what part of this is likable, you monster?” Well, part of it is the fact that Maschmann had the strength of character to look back afterward and try to make sense of what she had done. This is something that most human beings seem to find almost impossible even when there aren’t war crimes involved.
Her account is clear-eyed, both in the sense of sheer observation - there’s tons of interesting detail here about life on the ground during the invasion of Poland, for instance - and in the sense that she’s trying to look at these events squarely, to explain without justifying, to say “this is what we were thinking” and hope that this might help turn other people aside if they find themselves straying into a similar path.
But even in Maschmann’s younger self, there are many appealing qualities. She was an indefatigable worker with a yearning to help people, an idealist who latched onto absolutely the wrong ideal. If she had latched onto a different ideal –
Well, the twentieth century was not short on ideals that led to mass destruction, so if Maschmann chose a different ideal, she might have been just as destructive in a different direction. Why do I find something so appealing about idealists, when ideology is used to create and justify so much suffering?
Now I realize some people may object to the idea of a likeable Nazi true believer, but I believe in order to understand evil one of the things we have to let go of is the belief that there’s any clear relationship between likability and goodness. If you will excuse a digression into quadrant theory, likability and goodness are two separate axes, and most of us are happiest with the “likable and good” quadrant and the “unlikable and bad” quadrant. Neither of these create cognitive dissonance. We want the people whom we like to be good and the people we hate to be bad.
But “unlikable and good” and “likable and bad” can both be a torment. You know that you should like so-and-so, because they’re so useful and helpful and have all the right opinions, but really you would climb out a window rather than spend an hour alone with them because they just grate on you. Or, you like so-and-so a lot, because they’re so funny and charming, and when other people say they’ve done bad things it’s probably lies, or jealousy, or a failure to understand the complexity of their character, or… oh God what if they are bad. You like them so much and they’re bad?? What does that say about you??? NO the accusations of badness are LIES.
(Or else, you insist that you never really liked them THAT much, like my friend with the Harry Potter tattoo who insists she was never THAT into Harry Potter.)
So: Melita Maschmann, likable Nazi true believer, who very slowly after the war began to look back on her former self and say, “What the fuck was I thinking?” This book, written in the form of a letter to her former best friend, a Jewish girl who had to flee Germany, is Maschmann’s attempt to figure out what, in fact, she was thinking.
The idea of the book as a letter is sometimes slightly alarming (can you imagine handing someone a book-length manuscript and saying “This is why I was a world-historically bad friend”?), but as a literary device it’s useful, because it gives Maschmann an imaginary interlocutor to pull her up short whenever she reaches a particularly “But didn’t this make you rethink your choices?” moment. Kristallnacht? The starving Poles when you were first posted to Poland? The time the local German army didn’t have enough troops to evict the Poles from their village to make way for German settlers, so you had to help? Maybe the time that you drove a truck around stealing furniture from the local Poles to give it to a German family that had settled in one of these newly emptied villages?
This last in particular was not merely wrong but also illegal even at the time, but rather oddly it’s also the only one that Maschmann didn’t have a single qualm about when she did it. The rest of these events did give her pause, but at the end of the day there’s a vast gulf between being taken aback and actually rethinking the ideology that has shaped your entire life.
Maschmann turned to National Socialism because she was an idealist who loved the idea of the National Community that cuts across classes and binds everyone together and fixes the poverty and shame that have crippled her country since the Great War. It was a way of rebelling against her parents that nonetheless embraced many of their beliefs: not only the sense that democracy had failed, but also the belief that violent competition among countries is inevitable, so although you might flinch from things you saw while invading Poland, if you didn’t invade Poland then Poland would assuredly invade you.
By this point you, my imaginary interlocutor, may well be asking, “But what part of this is likable, you monster?” Well, part of it is the fact that Maschmann had the strength of character to look back afterward and try to make sense of what she had done. This is something that most human beings seem to find almost impossible even when there aren’t war crimes involved.
Her account is clear-eyed, both in the sense of sheer observation - there’s tons of interesting detail here about life on the ground during the invasion of Poland, for instance - and in the sense that she’s trying to look at these events squarely, to explain without justifying, to say “this is what we were thinking” and hope that this might help turn other people aside if they find themselves straying into a similar path.
But even in Maschmann’s younger self, there are many appealing qualities. She was an indefatigable worker with a yearning to help people, an idealist who latched onto absolutely the wrong ideal. If she had latched onto a different ideal –
Well, the twentieth century was not short on ideals that led to mass destruction, so if Maschmann chose a different ideal, she might have been just as destructive in a different direction. Why do I find something so appealing about idealists, when ideology is used to create and justify so much suffering?
no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 05:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 06:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 07:09 pm (UTC)I haven't read/watched Hotel Lux, but I think this is a bit of a different kind of story. Maschmann really doesn't realize that her ideals had been betrayed (and some of her ideals were just wrong to begin with) because of the atmosphere of fear created by totalitarianism; it isn't till after the war that she even begins to grasp what went wrong.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-22 09:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-23 12:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 06:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 07:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 07:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 06:56 pm (UTC)You know, I'm very drawn to *ideals*, but I'm not very drawn to *idealists*. I think because I always wilt in the face of their commitment, because I can't keep up. The possible exception is when they are idealists for ideals that I myself embrace, but even then, there's the problem of liking unicorns the wrong way. (I think I've told you this one right? "You like unicorns? I do too! ... Oh no, you like cutesy unicorns ... Oh no no, all-wrong, all-wrong.") And that's basically the inverse of what makes me nervous around idealists: that they're looking at *me* and seeing that *I'm* the one who's liking unicorns in the wrong way. (Actually, that's a little different from not having enough commitment and not being able to keep up, but I think they connect.)
no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 07:04 pm (UTC)I hear you about the "liking unicorns" problem. And I think it does apply to idealists too: you may both like unicorns, and you might even like the same kind of unicorns, but you like unicorns a normal amount and the idealist LOVES unicorns SO much that they've devoted their entire LIFE to unicorns... a disappointment on both sides.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 07:52 pm (UTC)I find that a really interesting sentence because I do not consider "idealist" and "ideologue" interchangeable.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 07:57 pm (UTC)But obviously you also have idealists who never become totally identified with a particular ideology, and ideologues who were never idealists in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 09:14 pm (UTC)I hadn't been considering ideologues when I read the sentence, though your comment and Osprey Archer's reply make me see the relevance (I mean clearly they're relevant! I just hadn't been thinking in that direction).
And I can back away from my initial remark in this sense: there are lots of people I know, maybe most people, who have ideals and are committed to them and don't like bad compromises. They don't make me nervous at all. It's only a handful, maybe even just one or two, who seem really do or die, like no compromises EVER. (Although even them, maybe some compromises? I mean, we're talking about real people who know reality, so.) </small)
no subject
Date: 2025-09-12 06:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 07:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 07:45 pm (UTC)(a) I am glad she turned out to be the kind of person who cared enough even to wonder.
(b) Do we have any idea what her former best friend thought of the book?
(c) I am inevitably going to give another plug for None Shall Escape (1944) if it comes to a film festival near you.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 08:57 pm (UTC)So thanks very much for sharing.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-11 10:16 pm (UTC)I'm so glad she was alive to be asked about it! Her side of the story not lost.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-12 02:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-12 06:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-12 04:38 am (UTC)It seems vanishingly rare for a person to admit that they sincerely held beliefs that they now think are morally wrong.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-12 06:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-13 06:09 am (UTC)- a Nazi who became a socialist
- a neoliberal who became a Jesuit
- someone who had gone between being a Muslim who believed in interfaith collaboration, an atheist, and an Islamist, though I don't remember in which order. I remember he said something along the lines of "yeah, I understand if nobody takes me seriously anymore!".
no subject
Date: 2025-09-12 12:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-12 06:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-13 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-15 05:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-13 03:03 pm (UTC)Yeppp. And the number of times I see fandom people being like "JKR is actively paying for much of the anti-trans movement in the UK - and also, Harry Potter was never that good! It's derivative and annoying!" I mean, have your opinion, and God knows I spent enough time in the fandom to see the books' flaws dissected ad nauseum - but like, so what? The second part has nothing to do with the first!
And on the more serious end, I have an acquaintance who was good friends with Neil Gaiman for decades, and she's struggled enormously with the accusations (but not doubted them at all, from what I can tell, even though she had no idea beforehand. Now that's intellectual honesty.)
So: Melita Maschmann, likable Nazi true believer, who very slowly after the war began to look back on her former self and say, “What the fuck was I thinking?” This book, written in the form of a letter to her former best friend, a Jewish girl who had to flee Germany, is Maschmann’s attempt to figure out what, in fact, she was thinking.
Oh wow, fascinating. And yeah, respect for an attempt at looking at what she/they did and why.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-15 05:27 pm (UTC)