LONDON – A new book that allegedly portrays a fictional account of Anne Frank’s
sexual awakening has been condemned as “cashing in” on a respected historical
figure – though both the author and book’s publisher have denied the allegations
by a British newspaper.
British novelist Sharon Dogar has produced a
fictional retelling of the life of Peter van Pels, a close friend of Anne Frank,
in her book Annexed – referring to the annexe of the Amsterdam office building
where the Frank and van Pels families lived in hiding together. According to The
Sunday Times, the book, set to come out in September, includes graphic accounts
and intimate details of their time together, as imagined by the
author.
The
Sunday Times article claims
a lovemaking scene was removed
from the final version and that the book makes up explicit encounters
between
Anne Frank and Peter van Pels.
However, Dogar and the book’s publisher,
Andersen Press, have denied the allegations.
The article quotes a scene
from the book in which van Pels tells Frank he is “scared he will never
make
love to a girl,” and he speaks of “slipping my hand beneath the fabric
of her
dress and holding her a little tighter.”
In another section, he describes
“feeling the warm weight of her on my neck and the soft press of her
lips on my
cheek. Then my mouth finds hers. And, once it’s there, I cannot
stop.”
The article also quotes Andersen Press’s editorial director,
Charlie Sheppard, as saying that the author believes that Frank and van
Pels had
sexual relations.
“Sharon feels they had sex, but this was taken out from
an earlier version,” Sheppard told the newspaper. “Sharon reread and
reread
Anne’s diaries, and is in no doubt that they were in love.
They also talk
about sex in the diaries. After all, the hormones of both were
raging.”
However Andersen Press objected on Monday to the
Sunday Times
article, calling it a “total misrepresentation.”
“Sharon is very aware of
the enduring importance that Anne’s account has for generations both
past,
present and future, and with this in mind has dedicated herself to
meticulous
research, working with Anne’s official biographer and communicating with
the
Anne Frank estate to produce a beautiful story of life in the annexe
from
Peter’s point of view. It is categorically not an attempt to ‘sex up’
her
incredibly important story,” a spokesperson for Andersen Press
said.
Asked about the quotes used in the
Sunday Times article, the
spokesperson said, “Sharon has been inspired by Anne’s account, and her
book is
partly about the love that grew between Anne and Peter in the most
unusual and
unbearable of situations. She has chosen to depict the passionate,
inspirational
and fiery young woman who leaps from the pages of the diary, and she’s
written a
wonderful novel about a life lived in hiding with her – and then beyond
the
diary in the horrors of the Nazi extermination camps.”
In the article,
Anne’s first cousin, Buddy Elias, 84, is quoted as saying that the book
was
“unnecessary” and “wrong” in its characterization of the two.
Elias, who
lives in Switzerland and heads a charity in Anne’s name, told the paper,
“Anne
was not the child she is in this book. I also do not think that their
terrible
destiny should be used to invent some fictitious story.”
He added, “From
what Otto [Frank] told me about Peter, he was very shy, but in this book
he is
given a character he did not possess.”
However Andersen Press said that
Dogar communicated closely with Elias throughout the drafts of her book
and
claimed that in his last correspondence, he had told Dogar: “I honor
your
opinion about Anne, as a person, as a writer, and I’m sure your motives
are
good. I wish you satisfaction with your book.”
The Anne Frank Trust,
meanwhile, said it was “dismayed” by the alleged fictional sexualization
of
Frank and van Pels and said it feared it would cause offense to
Holocaust
survivors.
“If this novelist wants to write honestly about teenage sex,
why not use her own fictional characters instead of blatantly exploiting
the
millions of devoted readers who she well knows will buy this book purely
because
the young girl portrayed is Anne Frank?” said Gillian Walnes, cofounder
and
executive director of the Anne Frank Trust UK.
“Of course fiction is
important, and we would encourage teenagers to expand their imagination
through
reading it. However, why do the tragic real lives of Anne Frank and
Peter van
Pels need to be fictionalized? These were two young people who lived
well before
the constant sexualization of young people, and we even have proof in
her
writing that Anne and Peter did not go that far in their short romance,”
she
went on.
“Readers of a British national newspaper,
The Daily Mirror,
recently voted Anne Frank the most inspirational and influential woman
of the
past 100 years.
There is so much teenagers can learn about Anne’s life
and writing that will have a positive impact on shaping their own
attitudes,
that fictionalization is totally unnecessary, and in fact
sensationalist. I am
afraid the words ‘cashing’ and ‘in’ come prominently to mind,” Walnes
added.
Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British
Jews, said that “the story of Anne Frank, in her own remarkable words,
surely
contains enough true life drama, tragedy and tension without the need
for
embellishment. It is the honest and personal account of a child hidden
from the
age of 13 and murdered at the age of 15, and should absolutely not be
turned
into a salacious account of adult relationships by the fictional and
fevered
imaginings of a commercial author.”
Karen Pollock, chief executive of the
Holocaust Educational Trust, echoed this statement, saying, “Anne
Frank’s diary
invites us to consider from a very personal perspective what happened to
one
young girl during the Holocaust. The truth of her life and suffering in
hiding
is extraordinarily powerful – and fictionalizing her life is unnecessary
and
risks trivializing what happened to Anne, her family and millions of
other
victims during this dark period of history.”
In a statement on Monday,
the book’s author said she had at no stage suggested that the two had
had sexual
relations and that the article was designed to upset people.
“I’m afraid
people may have fallen into the trap of believing what you read in the
papers.
I’m so sorry that the article has upset people, but then again, that’s
what it’s
designed to do; and it’s also designed to make people believe that the
author of
the book is responsible for that upset, rather than the journalist who
wrote the
article,” said Dogar.
“At no stage in my book, now, or ever, have I
suggested that Anne and Peter had sex,” she continued. “It would be so
helpful
if people could reserve judgment until having read the book.”