Remembering Peter Novick

Remembering Peter Novick

Novick, a first-class mensch, will be remembered for his pioneering scholarship, intellectual courage, and a witty, astringent writing style that could turn the most forbidding of subjects into a pleasure to read.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket


Courtesy: Fredric Stein / The University of Chicago

Peter Novick was a first-class mensch. The University of Chicago historian, who died on February 17 of lung cancer, will undoubtedly be remembered for his pioneering scholarship, intellectual courage, and a witty, astringent writing style that could turn the most forbidding of subjects into a pleasure to read.  His first book, The Resistance Versus Vichy, which came out a year before The Sorrow and the Pity, began the demolition of France’s myth of widespread resistance to the Nazis. His last book, The Holocaust in American Life, was, as I wrote in The Nation, persuasive both in its account of the widespread avoidance of the Shoah in Jewish and American discourse until the 1960s, and in its anatomy of the political uses to which the Holocaust was put from that point onwards. But if you want to get a sense of what Novick was like as a human being you should really read Michael Berenbaum’s lovely tribute in the Forward.

Novick, he says ruefully, “argued that the Holocaust had been … manipulated by prominent Jewish organizations to preclude any criticism of Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians. He asserted that it was used to strengthen Jewish identity by making a long-defeated enemy central to that identity at precisely the point when Jews have gained full acceptance in American national life. Novick saw this as a fixation that allowed Jews to see themselves as oppressed when they have, in fact, become privileged.” Novick, writes Berenbaum, “held views on the Holocaust that were antithetical to everything to which I have devoted my professional life.” And yet they were clearly good friends.

My hunch is that Chicago may have played a role—in my own limited experience with Chicagoans the fierce ideological litmus tests so beloved of New Yorkers (especially, dare I say, Jewish New Yorkers) seem less important out there.

Sadly, I never got a chance to meet Peter Novick. Or even to confess to him the fact that when, as I was researching The Holocaust on Trial, my book on the David Irving libel case, I tracked down a brand new copy of The Holocaust in American Life in The Wiener Library in London—so far as I could tell the only copy in the United Kingdom–and proceeded to borrow it for the next six months! In a field clogged with special pleading, sentimentality and every form of exploitation imaginable Novick’s book was a model of scholarly decorum. And though he was attacked by all the usual suspects, who tarred him with all the usual labels, from “self-hating Jew” to “flippant” and “cynical,” Novick’s scholarship was unassailable.  Indeed I suspect that being attacked was less of trial to him than being credited as the inspiration for so much tendentious writing on a subject he invariably handled with grace and tact.

We did finally make contact, just under a year ago, after he wrote to thank me for citing him.  Which meant I did get a chance to tell him I’d ended up reading large chunks of his work aloud, so delighted was I by his prose, his candor and his meticulous attention to historical detail. The attacks had apparently continued, but Novick had long since given up responding. “To reply,” he wrote, “would send the message that I care about this–which is (1) not true, and (2) not what I would like to communicate. Fuck it.” We agreed to rendezvous—as he put it “next year in Jerusalem—on the Thames or by Lake Michigan.”

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x