Talk:Primo Levi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Suicide

I put back in some of the questions surrounding his suicide. According to references on the internet, there were several prominent people who questioned the suicide verdict, so I think it's worth mentioning. If someone has details explaining why we can be certain that it was suicide please add them. --User:Chinasaur

Clearly we cannot know for certain that Levi's death was suicide. This was the coroner's verdict. I personally believe this and think the article gives too much weight to the accident theory. I do not want to get into any sort of revert wars, but would like to discuss a revision of the suicide section. I would like it mentioned that his death is officially recorded as suicide. More importantly, delete the reference to no suicide note. According to Thomson, his major biographer in English, only a quarter of suicides do leave a note. So this fact is irrelevant. I propose deleting this spurious fact; The last sentence in the text as it stands.

Thomson discovered that PL's grandfather committed suicide in the same way, throwing himself from a height, and goes on far too long about this. So unfortunatly, though I believe Thomson to be correct, his journalstic coup in finding this fact makes him seem less balanced in his dismissal of the accident theory.

--Paw42 19:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree on omitting the "no suicide note" comment. It doesn't mean anything. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Overall, I think further emphasizing that suicide is the majority opinion is fine. But it's nice to keep the point that this biographical question has interested a lot of literary scholars due to the perception that if Levi did kill himself it bears on the message of his literary work. I wouldn't say I agree with the idea, but it's interesting that it has concerned people so much. I think that "no suicide note" is an interesting piece of information, although I agree it doesn't bear significantly on the accident/suicide debate. That's why I put it as a short sentence at the end: strictly informational. I think once you expand the paragraph to include the coroner's verdict, it will be more clear that "no suicide note" is not supposed to be an argument for "accident". --Chinasaur 16:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that people who want him to have had an accidental death becasue it might diminish their view of his writing have a problem. I reinstated alink to the article that advocated the accident theory. It is long and there are some internal contradictions.

The 'no suicide note is a spurious fact', if Thomson is right that only a quarter of suicides leave notes. He left no will but put his financial affairs in order. In Ian Thomson's work there are plenty of suggestions that his state of mind led him to consider suicide a lot in his last months. I believe that Levi is one of the great writers of the 20th C and that he committed suicide. Some folk have a problem with thinking both these things at the same time. I do not know why. So I've reverted to leaving the 'fact' in for the moment. Best to work on the whole para. Perhaps better if the article ends on a positive note; his reputation etc. --Paw42 20:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You are tending to oversimplify the point, which I think is partly why you don't like it. It's not just an issue of people "wanting him to have had an accidental death" because otherwise he can't be a great writer. The issue is more whether or not you want to interpret the author's literary work from a biographical perspective. In this case, because of the introspective clarity autobiographical emphasis in Levi's writing, his ultimate suicide is a very charged issue for literary interpreters, in addition to the general biographical interest that you would expect over the death of any celebrity. That's why I think it's worthwhile to point out the interest of literary critics in the question of whether his death could have been an accident.
The 25% suicides leave notes statistic is generally accurate from what I know, although I don't know how demographically specific that might get for Levi's case. But again, I intentially put that point after the suicide versus accident sentence because it is a separately interesting biographical note, not a solid piece of evidence in the suicide/accident non-argument.
Anyway, I don't disagree with you for the facts, only for whether it's worth discussing the limited controversy. I don't think we do the subject justice by glossing over the controversy altogether. And if we will note the controversy, I think it's worth also noting that many of the people interested in the accident hypothesis are literary critics, not serious biographers. I'm going to go ahead and change things a bit; see what you think. --Chinasaur 02:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Chinosaur, well done. I think your ammendment says what is needed. I have started re-reading Thomson's biography of PL. I think what is missing now is his role in keeping the issue of what we now call the Holocaust alive, despite various forms of revisionism and "Holocaust denial".

Also the biography makes it clear that he was clinically depressed in the months before hios death. I'm still ploughing through the biography!

--Paw42 20:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I remember hearing about the depression stuff, but couldn't get any details. I'd like to read the Thomson bio but I don't think the time is going to open up soon, so I look forward to seeing your additional info. Did you ever read Levi's early (I think maybe his first published collection of stories, at least in English translation) short story about lemmings? It's a science fiction kind of story where they determine that the lemmings kill themselves because they are missing a particular gene. A lot of those early stories are kind of tentative, but I thought he did a good job with this one. Definitely gives you a different perspective from anyone who thinks his work is all about optimism... --Chinasaur 21:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
To be honest, I find the suicide questionable based on the contrary accounts I have read; has anyone really refuted what Gambetta wrote? There's no question that people's love of Levi's work, and their sense that it was 'ultimately optimistic' has influenced discussion. Similarly, as Gambetta mentioned, there were rhetorical reasons to call it suicide and editorialize on its meaning. I think we ought to separate biography from literary criticism here; his death is, based on what I've read, a question mark. I can imagine Levi (in common with a great many people) choosing to end their life; but why down the chancy, narrow space he fell? Even if he'd wanted to leap to his death there was a courtyard available.
Forget about the note, the telephone call, and attribute the odd choice of methods to family history - and even then it's hard to construct a rational theory of the event that explains why the narrow stairwell, 3 feet wide at the narrowest part.
The remark above about people "needing" his death to be an accident suggests to me that a subtle reverse bias be at work against the accident theory, dismissing it as literary sentimentality rather than a legitimate interpretation of the existing evidence. FWIW I love the guy either way, and his message stands admirably whether he chose to end his life or not, but it's not an inconsequential point if someone may, or may not, have killed themselves.
The existing article seems fine, btw, I just thought I'd respond to the talk discussion. 142.177.43.222 21:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
From Thomson's biography it is indisputable that PL was suffering from bouts of clinical depression that were getting progressively more and more serious. I believe that in those circumstances his suicide would have been inevitable. During such severe depressions the urge to kill oneself can become so great as to overcome any rational thought. Whilst we may wish to think of his suicide as important in his life, I suspect that this was simply the result of an illness that is very prevalent. --Recyclotron 12:13, 20 February 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Copying of material across from Nazism in relation to other concepts

--Sam Spade has copied across a considerable amount of material from another section of Wikipedia relating to Fascism and other forms of totalitarian regime. I am not quite sure why, when a link would have been better. This material does, however, bring up the issue of Levi's contribution to the debate about the nature of Fascism, much of it in public life and publications outside the bibliography. However I think this section should be reduced to the references to Levi alone- with link to the page from which these materials have been copied.

--Paw42 16:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


(copied from User_talk:Sam_Spade#Primo_Levi-) Additional material from Nazism in relation to other concepts Hi Sam Spade, You have copied across material from Nazism in relation to other concepts - to Primo Levi. From your contribution to the Nazism in relation to other concepts discussion, you seem not to like this material where it was (is?). I do not think copying across is the way do deal with it. Some is irrelevant to Primo Levi. I think the PL article needs more about his attitude to Germany and Nazism, however as there is no reference for this material it is hard to check. Would you like toi ammend your contribution to Primo Levi? --Paw42 19:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Primo Levi argued that there was an important distinction between the policies of Nazi Germany and those of the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China: while they were all arguably totalitarian, and all had their idea of what kind of parasitic classes or races society ought to be rid of, Levi saw the Nazis assigning a place given by birth (since one is born into a certain race), while the Soviets and Chinese determined their enemies according to their social position (which people may change within their life). Therefore, in Levi's view, revolutionary communists would accept the son of a wealthy capitalist as a productive member of society if he agreed to change his original social position and oppose capitalism; but to the Nazis, one born a Jew will always remain a Jew, and he is a parasite who must be disposed of. A counterexample to this distinction may be found in Maoism in China, where at times during the Cultural Revolution the relatives of a "capitalist", even generations removed, were beaten, killed, or, at best, sent to a re-education camp. Collective punishment is another way of describing this phenomenon. In support of Levi's contention, however, the Chinese Communists have had some members with "bourgeois" social origin, some of whom, such as Soong Ching-ling, achieved prominent positions in the People's Republic of China. Similarly there were a number of prominent Bolsheviks who came from wealthy backgrounds and were accepted in the movement despite this.

Look, I can't take credit for this content, I didn't write it. When I found it I saw it as in the way, and over focused on this Primo Levi guy, who I never heard of. It was a HUGE block of text, and I kept an excerpt of it @ Nazism in relation to other concepts. Primo Levi and his opinions are addressed there. This level of detail would seem suited for the page on the man himself, eh?

As far as what to do w all of this, if you don't like some, even most of it, you can trim it, or find a home for it elsewhere. I'm sure at least some of it is useful here? I'm perfectly happy to try to edit it w you, but I can only address certain aspects, not having studied this guy and his thoughts. Sam Spade 21:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


This article appears to be in the hands of folk who know or care little about Primo Levi. User:Sam Spade dumped a whole lot of stuff from Nazism in relation to other concepts - a pile of ore with a few gems. I commented on this. Now Sam spade's entry has been reverted by Simonides.

I thought you were supposed to discuss ammendments in this place. Also, I'd have though that someone who has read all the major works of Primo Levi as well as possessing the most important biog. by Thomson, might have more say than people who have never heard of him.

--Paw42 21:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [Adding additional material from the Thomson Autobiography

I am re-reading the Thomson biography. I intend to expand the entry to include; 1. factors which led to Levi's survival in Auschwitz. 2. clarification about the publication of "If this is a man" and "The Truce" 3. general statement about his status as a concentrationscamp survivor, witnees, and finally bastion against holocaust denial 4. anything else I come across that seems worth adding.

I shall not touch the bit about his suicide, as there is too much there already. I'll be doing in short spurts oiver the next few weeks. Please discuss things there before editing anything I add. Thanks --Paw42 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Survival factor - the SS had sick prisoners put in the hospital?? "death march" - I have read that leaving with the SS or staying for Russian rescue was the prisoners' option?? ashes for paths - any paths been analyzed forensically??

[edit] Nazi Germany versus Communism section

Primo Levi wrote a lot of interesting and important things in the course of his literary career. I find this section somewhat out of place (especially when reading the table of contents); while his views on the comparison between racist Nazi totalitarianism and non-racist Soviet totalitarianism are not devoid of interest, they hardly deserve to be the one topic that gets this level of treatment. In the absence of a full exposition of Levi's views this should be pared down to a sentence or so, if not completely deleted. Palmiro | Talk 18:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Literary Fortunes

Thanks to Palmiro for adding a contribution about "If not Now, When?".

I added a section of Literary fortunes, which was a device to clear up the mess about his works and life being badly written about by others.

Slimvirgin spotted this and has put all the material about his writing together, so now it has the problems it had before! Somehow he has lost Palmiro's contribution about the novel "If not now, When", So I'll put that back.

Really this section needs sorting. I'll attempt to do this, but may end up with a literary fortunes section again!

That section about Nazism and Communism was originally dumped there from another article in Wikipedia altogether, see my notes above. The dumper did not even know who Levi was! I cannot find a source for these views, so Slimvirgin's request for sources is a good one. I'd love to get rid of this overlong, unsubstantiated section.

I am a Sunday Wikipedian, with few ambitions. However one is that the article on Levi should be be pretty good, as he deserves it. It would be helpful if you'd comment here.

--Paw42 09:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to put the material about Levi's works and literary career into a clearer order, and I've reinserted the deleted information about Se non ora, quando; for Levi himself at least, this was one of his principal works, and deserves reasonably full treatment, if anything more than included here. Unfortunately I'm not in Italy at the moment, and therefore don't have access to any works of criticism or even to copies of Levi's own books.
The section about Levi's early life is a translation from the Italian Wikipedia, and that article cites "Carole Angier, Il doppio legame. Vita di Primo Levi, Mondadori, 2004, ISBN 8804522488", but doesn't make it clear what precise information her book was used as a source for. If I find the energy I may try and get someone from the Italian wikipedia to clarify this. Palmiro | Talk 14:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cesare Pavese did not teach Levi Italian!

Pavese was a supply teacher at the school but did not teach Levi. This from Ian Thomson's biography. I shall change the text accordingly. --Paw42 08:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Palmiro | Talk 11:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lager vs. "lager" vs Lager

Levi appears to have used 'Lager' (with the capitalization) to refer to the camp. Would that be a good compromise? I'm trying to find a way to make it clear that we aren't mis-spelling and misusing 'laager', but (sic) doesn't seem appropriate. MilesVorkosigan 16:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I also asked User:SlimVirgin for her view. I don't have any copies of Levi's works with me here, so I can't tell. I wonder did the capitalisation vary between editions? I take it you're talking about English translations. Palmiro | Talk 16:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Palmiro. I am working from Levi's Italian texts. You are right. Levi writes 'Lager' invariably. I'll change that in the text. Thanks for your intervention here - also for tidying up and improving my contributions. --Paw42 16:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Vabbe', grazie. Forse potresti anche spiegarmi una cosa, quando scrivi in inglese "scholastic edition", vuoi dire un'edizione fatta per l'istruzione pubblica? In inglese non si usa dire "scholastic edition" (o cosi' mi pare) e mi chiedevo di che cosa esattamente si trattava! Palmiro | Talk 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I went and looked at one of the English editions listed on Amazon. I don't know how it looks in other languages.MilesVorkosigan 16:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edizione scolastica!

Sorry, Palmiro, that was a straight translation from Levi's words 'Ho scritto questa appendice nel 1976 per l'edizione scolastica di ""Se questo è un uomo""...' . I assume that this was an edition to be used in schools. I suppose "schools' edition" might be better, but I don't have a problem with the text as it stands. You can decide; you seem to be pretty much bi-lingual. I envy you that. --Paw42 16:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I now can't think of how exactly best to put it in English... sara' per un altro giorno... Palmiro | Talk 17:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Nazi extermination camp

By way of clarification of ""Lager"", I tried to link to this article in Wikipedia, but failed. Odd! --Paw42 16:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] his views section

currently it is worded as if his views are actual facts, take for instance "The death rate in the gulags was estimated at 30% at worst, he claimed, while in the Lager he claims it was 90-98%"

I placed a [citation needed] tag there but it was removed, because supposedly accusations and numbers dont need to be corroborated if we put it in a section about a person's views. If the numbers were in fact that high then a link or reference should be easy to find and cite, but as I've never seen that number elsewhere it looks to be just his viewpoint, and it should be mentioned that his view in no way is an authority on the subject, as he took part in one event, he cant claim to be an authority on all. He was never in the Gulags, and so it is just natural to say "bah, i had it worse" in order to bring the holocaust back into the forefront, to eclipse other atrocities that were going on.

--Jadger 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello there; Jadger, Slimvirgin and Palmiro. I see there's been a flurry of activity about this section; Levi's views on Nazism and Antisemitism. There is a great need for citation on some points in this section, I agree. I shall try to work out how to do footnotes. When I do, I'll start to add citations in this form. I have the sources for everything I wrote in this section. I may have to look some of them up again. Thanks, --Paw42 12:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

that source you gave is simply an interview with Levi, that is not what was being looked for. what was being looked for is a second source that can back up Levi's claims, as no one has ever heard of such wild claims as 98% of people died in the lagers. if 98% had died, then there certainly wouldn't of been so many left after the war.

--Jadger 13:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Jadger, I see you have reverted my last edit. I am merely putting in my source for quoting Levi's opinion. You may not agree with his beliefs in 1976. If you look at the "shipment" figures given in the artilce, I make it just over 96% died of these Italian Jews. Levi gives a range which includes this percentage. I do not know his source for any of these figures. I shall state this in the text. --Paw42 18:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously sources for where Levi's views come from are desirable, but we also can presume that our readers are reasonably intelligent. If we are clearly discussing Levi's views, it is not necessary to put "allegedly" or "Levi claimed" or "according to Levi" or whatever in front of every single statement he made. Palmiro | Talk 18:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

we shouldnt presume that the reader's are "reasonably intelligent" as you call it. Remember that this encyclopedia is not for aficianados but laymen, those that know there stuff don't go reading about it on the publicly edited internet but in properly sourced documentation. Stating that his numbers are biased and unsources in the text is fine Paw42, that is all I ever desired to come of this argument. you are right Palmiro, If we are clearly discussing Levi's views, it is not necessary to place allegedly in each sentence, but as at the moment it is not clear, and it is phrased as if it were fact, then it needs to be properly cited.

The paragraph as it is, with his claims as they are, is like myself saying that since I have experienced the Toronto Maple Leafs playing hockey, they must be the best at it because I say so. I need not to have factual support, I experienced it for myself. but the facts point otherwise, the Toronto Maple Leafs had a horrible season and failed to make the playoffs.

--Jadger 19:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] popular culture

Is the poem reproduced here a copyright violation? --Cmdroverbite 07:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably. But in any case i have deleted the entire 'popular culture' section, which was essentially a collection of non-encyclopaedic trivia. Palmiro | Talk 00:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted it. Trivias are in many articles, it's intersting and it's encyclopedic. Bring it back... Amoruso 01:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Levi and Israel

There is no reference in this page to Levi's views on Israel, which were, to say the least, ambivalent. I would suggest that something be added to counter the impression that Levi was a supporter of Israel due to the reference to the "Jewish national home" in the discussion of If Not Now, When? (which I suggest is POV, by the way). Such a suggestion would run substantially counter to Levi's actual views on Israel, which he made clear on a number of occasions.Larry Dunn 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your initial statement. Levi wasn't ambivalent about Israel, he simply wrote a couple of critical remarks of certain political aspects as the treatment of the Palestinian conflict and Lebanon's war at the time. He wasn't anti-zionist and he was a supporter of Israel in general. The criticizm over treatment with Palestinians is something common with most Israeli writers for instance and it's not notable enough in their articles usually, see A. B. Yehoshua. It's not notable enough here probably because he has many opinions over many issues. Amoruso 09:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Levi heavily and frequently criticized Israel. Starting in 1967, Levi expressed his criticisms of Israel openly; in 1982, he flatly stated his anti-zionism, signing a petition to recognize the rights of all of the peoples of the region. He went on to say, famously, that "Everybody is somebody's Jew, and today the Palestinians are the Jews of the Israelis." He also said that the Israeli state had become morally unacceptable to anyone who had survived the Nazi genocide.
Levi may have had many opinions, but in all his writings I cannot think of one word he wrote approving the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel. I can, however, think of many in which he comdemned this treatment. This does not seem to have been an example of many differing opinions which would be impractical to set out in this article.
Levi's criticism of Israel was an important part of his later life, and the price he paid for it was to be subjected to a storm of condemnation. Anyone alive at the time remembers this. It is simply astonishing to see no reference to it whatsoever in his wiki aricle, and I would suggest that the fact that the article omits any reference to it demonstrates a strong POV bias. Larry Dunn 14:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"in 1982, he flatly stated his anti-zionism, signing a petition to recognize the rights of all of the peoples of the region" -> this is not anti zionism. At all. It's a left political view common to most Israeli writers. I don't see how notable it is. Amoruso 18:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be something about his views on Israel. I am not sure that this ommission means what you suggest. Many readers of his two best known works are unaware of his continuing interest in the issues which arise in them, that the Holocaust is not his only theme; that he kept himself up to date with regard to Israel. I think it's time to put this right - with verifiable references. I am reading his biog. by Thomson again and hope to contribute such material.

--Paw42 16:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheist category

I've noticed this entry is listed under the "atheists" category, yet no content in the entry relates to this (unless I did not read carefully enough?). Anyone have any info on this that could be added somewhere? Not sure if it's required for category inclusion, but it would make sense to explain and source that, yes? (Not an expert on Levi myself so I wouldn't know)--Bonesiii 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His Capture

THe page says simply that "it was found he was jewish" when captured by the facist militia. In "If This Is A Man", he says that he confessed to being jewish under the impression that if he'd confessed to being a member of the resistance, he'd be killed immediately. Not worth working into the article, but clarifying here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.205.190 (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Monowitz

A clear article. The section on Auschwitz and survival could be expanded a bit. Primo Levi really was interned in Monowitz, earlier known as Auschwitz III. This part was associated with a large chemical factory, Buna, a subsidiary of I.G.Farben, where he worked in a chemical laboratory. There really was some sort of hospital in Monowitz. What is normally known as Auschwitz corresponds to Auschwitz-Birkenau, or Auschwitz-I, which was an extermination camp. Survival chances were better in Monowitz, though - as Levi writes - there were transports from Monowitz to Auschwitz-Birkenau. I can add a sentence if that is useful RFB 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should English be privileged language of titles of books written in Italian?

Seeing as Levi wrote in Italian, shouldn't the titles of his books be given in Italian first, with the titles of the English translations in brackets, instead of the other way round? Is it wikipedia policy to do it the way it is now, because if it is, it strikes me that it's a bad policy. Levi was an Italian writer who has been translated very well into English, but I'm sure his translators wouldn't want to support the slight impression that he actually wrote in English in the first place. Fine article otherwise, IMO. Lexo 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think the English titles should be listed first simply because it is an English-language article, but the Italian titles should be right alongside them, as least when the titles are introduced. I don't see any problem if it is made clear in the article that he wrote in Italian first. --Bonesiii 22:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia policy that covers which language to use in the title of the article. [1]
Unfortunately, I can't find a policy for what to do about foreign-language titles in the body of the article. The Manual of Style doesn't seem to help.[2]. Personally, I think the best policy would be to use what an English-language audience is most likely to be familiar with, which in this case would be English. It would be different for something like the Tao Te Ching. I don't think anyone will have the impression that he wrote in English. Both the Italian and English titles are listed at the bottom of an article if there is a question.GabrielF 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Pages on Levi's Books

Only four of Levi's books have pages devoted to them. I would be happy to contribute pages for his other books, other than his poetry and science fiction which I have not read.

I think his collection of essays from La Stampa (other peoples trades) and The Wrench certainly deserve more coverage.

Please let me know via this page if you have any views.

Also, I am about to start Angier's biography (the Double Bond), has anyone any views on the comparative quality of the Thompson/Angier biographies.

--Recyclotron 12:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrimo_Levi_93da.html"