I think that in asking the reader to consider his predicament and to put themselves in his shoes, that he still has not come to a conclusion of whether or not he acted correctly. He says that even years after his liberation, he still searched for an answer to his question, still sought to allay his conscience. While at the end of the book he says, “that challenges the conscience of the reader…as it once challenged my heart and my mind.” This puts his dilemma in the past tense, and leads one to believe that he has finally reached a conclusion, but does not tell us what his conclusion is. I believe he does this so as not to bias the reader to his opinion, and to be better able to pose this moral question of forgiveness to a larger audience for debate.
As for myself, I believe I would be in the same boat as he is. A few things that would occur to me are the fact that one cannot forgive a person for a wrong that was not done to him. I fully agree on this point, and so would have acted the way that he did. As from the man’s perspective that the author was seen as part of a larger whole, the simple fact that he confessed to a Jew his wrongs and expressed remorse for his actions seemed to me to be sufficient simply in the act of confessing to clear the man’s conscience. While there was no priest that we know of to clear the man’s slate before he left this earth for the life after this one, the confession and expression of remorse would be seen by his omnipotent creator, and I’m sure was noted as such for his journey to life beyond the pearly gates.
No comments:
Post a Comment