So my expectations were high.
Plus I've read A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, The Gulag Archipelago, and Darkness at Noon. All in the same genre.
I think because of my prior exposure to those books, this one did not seem as impactful. If anything, I'd say The Gulag Archipelago was the one that most made an impression on me.
Frankl writes as do the others, disjointed and out of chronological order. It's more thematic. It makes me wonder if having that kind of state-sponsored trauma impacts one's ability to tell the story. Or perhaps for them, it's not about the day-to-day events, but the larger meaning behind it all.
Certainly Frankl wants to get at why he and his fellow prisoners suffered the way they did at the hands of the Nazis. Even before being detained, Frankl was spreading interested in the question of meaning and purpose in life. He was convinced that if a man did not have a sense of meaning or purpose he would die either mentally or even physically. So he looked on his fellow prisoners as a kind of science experiment. He clearly saw that those who gave up hope always died. It was those, like himself, who felt that their unjust suffering had a purpose of some sort that survived.
I suppose the most remarkable thing about the book (and the others of the same genre) is how disconnected they were from their own tortures. They can discuss it dispassionately and disconnect from the personal experience of it. I suppose that necessary for survival. In Solzhenitsyn's case, he writes in a sarcastic manner, further removing himself from the horror.
Frankl is also remarkable for the fact that he could forgive and move on once released from the prison. He recognized the humanity of each person, whether guard or prisoner. All had the ability to be cruel or kind. He famously states, "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts."
The second half of his book discusses his theory of "Logotherapy." In a nutshell, after the war, he started his psychiatric practice helping people discover meaning in their lives. He was convinced that lack of meaning and purpose was the root of all mental suffering. He worked to reframe and redirect his patients towards discovering meaning in their circumstances, whatever they be.
One disappointment is that he never directs the reader to faith. I think he had faith in God as a result of his Judaism, but he never recommends that faith as a source of meaning and purpose. I suppose that's because he wants everyone, believer or not, to be able to access a life filled with meaning. That's a fair point. Obviously for me, a life whose meaning is found outside of God is just a temporary fill, but for Frankl that's enough.
The book is worth reading because it's such a cultural touchstone. I'm sorry to say it did not impact me the way it impacted some. I wish it had.
