Search

This article examines the challenges of coming to terms with Holocaust perpetratorship as depicted in postmemorial third-generation Holocaust literature by Lithuanian diaspora writers Rita Gabis, Julija Šukys, and Silvia Foti. It also outlines the mnemonic strategies used to reconcile contradictory historical narratives from the perspectives of both the victims and the perpetrators. The analysis demonstrates the authors’ approaches to portraying victims and perpetrators, their choices in framing conflicting historical accounts, and their exploration of individual actions within the context of collective national identities. The main variations observed in the structuring of conflict stem from differences in writing styles, levels of personal connection to familial history, and collective experiences of suffering. These variations are also intertwined with the deliberate silence surrounding the individual-historical narrative which the collective voluntarily retreated into.

This article examines how the invisible emotional and psychological shadow of an ancestor's complicity in war crimes is passed on to descendants and expressed as postmemory writing in two rite of return memoirs: A Guest at the Shooters' Banquet by Rita Gabis and Siberian Exile by Julija Šukys. Both writers transform informal family knowledge about a grandfather's complicity in Nazi war crimes during the Nazi occupation of Lithuania, archival research, and travel into a long-term process of working through the inter-generational transfer of trauma. Writing serves as a memory space for their own unhealed historical and familial trauma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the challenges of coming to terms with Holocaust perpetratorship as depicted in postmemorial third-generation Holocaust literature by Lithuanian diaspora writers Rita Gabis, Julija Šukys, and Silvia Foti. It also outlines the mnemonic strategies used to reconcile contradictory historical narratives from the perspectives of both the victims and the perpetrators. The analysis demonstrates the authors’ approaches to portraying victims and perpetrators, their choices in framing conflicting historical accounts, and their exploration of individual actions within the context of collective national identities. The main variations observed in the structuring of conflict stem from differences in writing styles, levels of personal connection to familial history, and collective experiences of suffering. These variations are also intertwined with the deliberate silence surrounding the individual-historical narrative which the collective voluntarily retreated into. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]