The Use Of Humor In Holocaust Literature

When representing, or simply talking about the Second World War, the Holocaust is often mentioned. The trauma of the holocaust lasted for years and years, and to cope with that trauma, or to simply talk about it, it was often done through literature. Thus, many researchers and scholars from all parts of the world have studied and have written dissertations on Holocaust literature and how to approach the Holocaust through literature. For instance, in a Master thesis, done by Hanni Meirich, the use of humour in Holocaust literature was studied. Meirich (2013) suggests that humour is often used as a tool in Holocaust literature either to distance the authors from the events they are narrating and to perhaps maintain the Jews’ dignity. Furthermore,

In a thesis done by Katherine Ann Wright for her Masters, she studies the Holocaust literature of the second generation of survivors in America and how the Holocaust has become part of their identity (Ann Wright, 2009). Ann Wright (2009) suggests that literature can prove that the Holocaust is still a part of the Jews identity, and it is through literature that these second-generation of survivors can share their stories and connect to one another. She further suggests that these authors feel obliged to share these stories which have become part of their identity, yet it is up to them to decide on how much they want to share (Ann Wright,

The Indians’ contributions during the war finally led to their independence from the British empire. However, these Indian contributions seem to have been neglected by Western scholars and historians, and thus Indian writers felt the need to educate the world on their seemingly unnoticed contributions.

In his book, Farthest Field: An Indian Story of the Second World War, Raghu Karnad, an Indian journalist and writer, remind the world of the forgotten Indian contributions to the Second World War by using the stories of three of his family members (Karnad, 2015). Karnad (2015) was perhaps trying to imply, through the deaths of his family members, that the war had not only killed Indian soldiers, but perhaps the civilians who were helping the soldiers as well (i.e. doctors and