Customer Reviews

The Portage to San Cristobal of A. H.: A Novel (Phoenix Fiction)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

To say that Steiner's work is controversial would be an understatement, and the controversy is probably well-deserved. This book is an expanded version of what first appeared in the KENYONG REVIEW, and it sometimes has a padded feel to it. The book is clearly at its strongest when following the Israeli team as it seeks to return the captured Adolf Hitler to San Cristobal, where he will be? This is part of the story--what would happen if Adolf Hitler was brought out of a South American jungle to a world that, for a variety of reasons that Steiner acutely outlines, would rather not be reminded of Hitler. There are several interludes where various intelligence services in several countries ponder this question, but I find these portions more of a drag on the story.

Where Steiner is at his best is in first trying to provide a sense of the horror that Hitler represents. Then, in an ambiguous ending, he has Hitler explain himself. This, more than anything else, has been the source of a firestorm of criticism of Steiner. Critics say that by having Hitler at center stage in the last chaper, spouting his venomous justifications for his actions, suggests a sympathy for Hitler's thinking. These critics seem to ignore the exceptional passages Steiner has written about the impact of Hitler's horror on an individual like Lieber, who is the driving force behind the decades long search for Hitler. Some have even suggested that Steiner's words not only justify or mitigate Hitler, but place the blame for the Shoah on the Jews themselves. Nonsense. Steiner has bravely put forth for all to contemplate, how seductive evil can be to those predisposed to hate. More than that, he has set forth a story of pain, its continuing effect on people, and how we must learn to live with its memory.

This is a brave and disturbing book; it will challenge any serious reader to work one's way through the unthinkable and unimaginable. There is no easy explanation for Hitler or the Shoah, and Steiner does not try to offer one. What he does offer is the freedom for the individual to think about issues that others would rather not have raised.

There is nothing in recent literature quite like this little book. I have a feeling that it will take its place alongside "First and Last Men" and Voyage To Arcturus" as classic works which are little-read, yet never quite go out of print.

This book is only accidently about Adolph Hitler. Its true theme is the power of language.

At it most pedestrian moments, George Steiner's novel "The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H." is a "what if" story in which young Israeli Nazihunters find Hitler in the Amazonian jungle thirty years after the end of the Second World War. The genesis for the story comes from the historical disappearance of Hitler's body after his suicide as well as the apprehension, trial and execution of Adolf Eichmann. Now we know that Stalin had Hitler's remains brought to the Soviet Union to prove that the madman was indeed dead, but the idea of holding Hitler accountable for his sins is certainly compelling. While this book does not provide a formal trial, it does raise some fascinating questions.

There are a pair of chapters in Steiner's book that stand out from the mere mechanics of capturing Hitler. In the first the question on the table is what would you do with Hitler once you had him in custody? Here is a man responsible for the deaths of millions, who remains in our minds the greatest mass murderer of the past century no matter what truths come to us about Stalih's purges. How do you extract judgment? Without access to the hellish inferno of Dante's imagination, what punishment could ever hope to provide closure? The fact that a satisfactory answer cannot be found does not detract from the merit of the line of inquiry.

The second important chapter is the last, where Hitler is allowed to speak. The value of this chapter is that it gets beyond the memory of history to the heart of the evil. There is a fatal tendency in the modern world to equate Fascism with Hitler and the Nazis, which means anti-semitism and the Holocaust. The common folk on the street today would point to skinheads as being fascists. But Fascism is a dynamic built upon the Struggle for Order, a world in which the ends justify means that a democratic populace should scorn. Ultimately Steiner speaks to the ironic level on which Hitler achieved a victory of sorts, having cast the world in the image of his own ideology. Certainly the Cold War, which was still in bloom when Steiner wrote this book, is an example of the fascist ideology, where the demands of "national security" becomes a justification for blind obedience.

Reading these two chapters is well worth reading the entire volume, which is but an evening's read. Certainly you can give over one evening of your life to consider the issues raised by "The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H." and come to terms with them on your own. Hitler has become a caricature and while it is difficult to see him for what he truly was, this book definitely looks in the right direction.

This is a brilliant entry in the genre of "what if?" stories not because of its topic - the conclusion of a decades-long hunt for Adolf Hitler by a weary group of Israeli agents - but due to the stylish and daring writing of its author. A warning though: I read this book several years ago, and lent it to a friend who has since moved, so my memory of it cannot be trusted to be perfect as I have not been able to reference it.

Not knowing the history of the novel or of its author, aside from what was on the original dust jacket, I think it is nonetheless fair to say that it was written not with any genre market in mind, but for the readers of so-called "serious" fiction. Steiner seems interested not just in his subject matter or the development of plot and story, but in the very structure of his sentences: of how we read and understand the English language. I don't pretend to be a student of modern literary trends, but I found Steiner's occasional forays into highly styalized language to be challenging and interesting; if anything, they drew me deeper into the novel.

The novel is structured so that we alternate between following first, the now ragtag and isolated group of Israeli agents who are hot on the trail of a World War II-surviving Adolf Hitler; and second, the reaction to the news of Hitler's imminent and then actual capture by the Israelis in the capital cities of a number of interested nations. And we are not talking about public reaction, but the responses of foreign service and intelligence officials, of politicains and bureaucrats, of ruling circles capitalist and communist (the book was written in the 70's) to the news that Hitler is alive and that the Israelis - the Jews - have got him.

Steiner naturally posits that the Israelis, on behalf of the murdered six million, will want to take Hitler back to Israel to stand trial for the Holocaust. But they are not alone in having a claim on the butcher. The Germans are interested in bringing their former leader to justice, and the victorius Western Allies (the U.S., Britain and France) want to grab Hitler to place him in front of a world tribunal, a la the Nuremburg Trials. The Soviets meanwhile want to make sure that their cover story for their variation on a "Kennedy autopsy" isn't blown. The Israeli team find themselves in a race; can they get out of the Amazonian forest they found Hitler in before the West can send their own commandos to grab him out of their hands? And does their own government really care anymore?

Steiner addresses the philosphical question of who has the right to pass judgement on a criminal. Each stakeholder gets a chance to express their point of view, their motives for wanting, or not wanting, control over Hitler. The most moving and powerful chapter of the book is, not surprisingly, that which presents the Israeli, or more particularly the Jewish, case (Lacking a "Jewish state," would not the Jews still have a legitimate claim on Hitler?). Unsure if they can hear him, the control agent for the Israeli team of hunters sends his men a radio message to remind them why they must be the ones to try Hitler. His is a harrowing recounting of the crimes of the Holocaust, large and small, mass and individual. It is like a primal scream crossed with stream of conciousness. Steiner jerks tears here, but why shouldn't he?

Perhaps the one voice missing from the book (and it isn't Hitler's - the Fascist madman gets a chance to defend himself in the end) is one that speaks not for a specific group of victims, or for the geostrategic interests of various bureaucrats and elites, but for all of the victims of Capitalism, Fascism and Inter-Imperialist rivalry.

If I had written this novel, I might have drawn the connection between capitalism and fascism, both in Germany and as world systems where the latter is created to save the former from proletarian revolution. I would have therefore had to consider the responsibility of the American, British and French ruling classes, as well as the German, for Hitler and WW II. Moreover, I would have had to discuss the criminal misleadership of Stalin over the world Communist movement,and the failure of the German Social Democrats and Communists in preventing the Nazi seizure of power.

Steiner, I am sure, does not share my Trotskyist political analysis of the rise of Hitler, Mussolini and fascism in general. That's OK. But it would have been nice if there were one voice in his book that took a truly internationalist view of the capture and fate of Adolf Hitler, one voice that spoke as sincerely for all of the victims of fascism and Nazism as did the spokesman for the Jewish fallen.

That one caveat aside, I think this is a brillant and challenging novel, as beautifully written as it is topical. I am especially happy that it will soon be back in print. It is an important work of fiction, and of philosophy.

I first read "The Portage" completely unaware of the great controversy which had surrounded the book during its initial publication, learning of it only after finishing the book and reading the author's afterword detailing the controversy that arose upon the book's original publication in 1970/71. Steiner has described the book as a philosophical text written in the guise of a work of pulp fiction; I'm not so sure of that.

Most of the work does follows the standard drama of your typical thriller: the book opens with an Israeli Nazi-hunter team finding Hitler deep up the heart of the Amazonian backwater, with flashbacks used to let the reader in on the events leading them to him. The central part of the book is the struggle referred to by the book's title: the Israeli plan is to abduct Hitler from these backwaters in Brazil to the Venezuelan city of San Cristobal, where an Israeli plane awaits to take him to trial in Jerusalem. During this time, we are given glimpses of how the rest of the world reacts to the rumors that Hitler still lives and has been found. The drama throughout most of the book comes from two sources: firstly, will the team get Hitler, now in his eighties (the novel takes place around 1970), through the malaria-infested swamps and rainforests alive? Secondly, even if they do, will they get him back to Israel before the rest of the world learns of his existence and intercept him for their own trials?

I don't wish to spoil this drama, so I will skip to the ending. What makes the book more than a simple work of alternative history, and what has made the book quite controversial, is its ending: Hitler is on trial, and the man put in charge of Hitler rises to give his opening remarks. But Hitler, who until now has been mute, almost catatonic, will have none of it. After shouting his lawyer into silence, Hitler launches into a sweeping, ten page list of arguments that ends the book. The book essentially ends with this speech, a fact that seems to have created much of the controversy, inasmuch that many critics seem to believe that such an ending serves as an implicit approval of Hitler's arguments (that is, because no one is allowed to refute Hitler, the book de facto supports him). It is an unfair criticism, in my opinion, as texts should be allowed to show disturbing characters and ideas, if only to let them fail on their own merit, or to let the reader decide for him or herself.

I won't spoil the ending by detailing the arguments Hitler makes, other than to say that Hitler takes the concept of "blaming the victim" to new heights of rhetoric and imagery. He doesn't deny the Holocaust, but (attempts to) justify it in ways you have likely never come across before. Forget the usual theories regarding Hitler - that he feared he was part-Jew, that he got syphilis from a Jewish prostitute: by the end, Hitler is not only blaming the victim, but creates an argument bordering on blasphemy and full-on disturbing (and disturbed).

Steiner's work outraged many, who felt that Steiner should have, ironically, listened to the advice the Israeli team's handler gives them early on in the novel: under no circumstances should Hitler be allowed to speak, because his evil rests in his mastery of language, his charismatic ability to seduce the listener with his arguments and appeals.

The book is shocking, but I'm not sure if that shock manages to sustain itself into any deep or meaningful insight. I would recommend that those who read this check out two relevant books, if they can. One is "The World Hitler Never Made," by Gavriel D. Rosenfeld; the other is "Explaining Hitler" by Ron Rosenbaum. Rosenfeld's book deals with the growing number of alternative history works (in literature, film, and television) that reference Hitler and/or Nazism, from Robert Harris' book "Fatherland" to the Star Trek episode "The City on the Edge of Forever." Rosenbaum's is just what the title indicates: an examination of the various theories and explanations given as to how and why Hitler became Hitler.

Both books feature sections on Steiner's novel; Rosenbaum's book also features what I can only frankly describe as a bizarre interview with the author himself. Rosenfeld makes the case that Steiner's work represented a growing Cold War disillusionment with the notion that in defeating Hitler, humanity had defeated its greatest evil. The discoveries of the evils committed by the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol-Pot (amongst many) seemed to only confirm that humanity remained as evil as ever, if not more so, and that, ironically, the Holocaust-related notion that "we must never forget" not only didn't stop evil, it may in fact help fuel it (by keeping alive the seductive allure of Hitler's words and imagery). Steiner's Hitler, then, is meant to be seductive and persuasive, because Steiner is showing the irony of what Holocaust studies and Shoah memorials are doing: by keeping the image and voice of Hitler alive, they also keep his most diabolical assets - force of personality, the rhetoric, the seductive power of evil - alive as well. It's as if, one might say, a work like Spielberg's "Schindler's List" creates as much evil as it hopes to prevent, and as such it would be better to indeed forget, to just forget and move on, rid of the allure and temptation that evil possesses.

For Rosenbaum, the character "Hitler" of "The Portage" is unforgivable: he calls him "Steiner's Frankenstein", the created monster that the creator cannot control. While this gives him a bias against Steiner, his interview nonetheless begins with him giving the author several attempts to take the easy way out. Steiner doesn't, and in fact turns the book on its head. The novel, he states, isn't meant to show the fallacies of Hitler's arguments (which some defenders of the work have claimed occurs), but to actually put forward the argument that the Jews might indeed be responsible for their own Holocaust, and that the world might actually be better off if they'd never existed. Steiner, in this interview, seems obsessed with the idea of breaking the boundary of what is taboo, especially (what I take to be) the sensitive taboos and other undiscussable topics within Jewish communities (Steiner himself is Jewish). I found the interview interesting because it changes how you view the book, so you may want to refrain from reading it until once you're finished with the novel itself.

I apologize for giving so much space to discussing works other than the one I'm ostensibly reviewing, but I think a work like this, given the nature of its ending, is really helped by doing some outside reading. Using Rosenfeld, it is interesting to see how "The Portage" works in relation to a number of other 'Nazi alternate history' works that came out at the same time. Rosenbaum too is quite useful for context, although quite honestly Steiner comes across as somewhat unhinged by the time his interview in that book comes to a close.

So, overall, why the three stars? It is a decently entertaining book, readable in an evening as other reviewers have mentioned (this brevity being a good or bad thing, I don't know), and I disagree that it drags in the middle sections - some of the international settings, such as those that deal with a retired Red Army doctor and another with East and West German lawyers are quite interesting capsule stories in their own right (it should be said, though, that the book was written during the Cold War and all the international intrigue in the plot falls completely within that now somewhat dated framework). Hitler's words at the end are shocking and, so to speak, "novel" enough to make them seem much more explosive or thought-provoking than I suspect they really are.

Ultimately, however, especially if you read it in conjunction with some additional reading as I've described, the book does become an interesting study of the question of how artists approach dangerous subjects. How do you invoke Hitler without invoking the charismatic who seduced millions into evil? Can works be considered critically apart from their authors? (Steiner was often labelled a "self-hating Jew" by critics of the book; his resultant bitterness from this is quite apparent in the Rosenbaum interview)

It raises some interesting questions, but ultimately it is not the philosophical novel Steiner seems to have envisioned it being. It is really more a pulp work that makes dangerous use of a real-life villain. Not a bad read, but not quite the challenging or provoking work it might have been had the overall plot and story been fleshed out.

I just read Portage for the third time, and it's a breathtaking experience. Steiner manages to distill into 170 pages a breadth of perspective and intellectual challenge that will stretch any mind. The core event is a simple thought experiment -- capturing Hitler and hauling him out of the Amazon. But the "adventure" narrative is interrupted repeatedly by apparent digressions central to the theme of the book. My favorite is the elderly, classically educated German lawyer who is also, incidentally, an ex-Nazi officer. It begins with an almost frivolous analysis in music theory, and ends by presenting in simple detail the implications of the discovery of Hitler.

The book is a narrative tour-de-force. Reading it the first time, you will probably find (as I still do) that the chaos of the trek through the jungle is as impenetrable as the jungle itself. There are five men, all Jews, in the party, and although each is carefully situated in his own character, it is almost impossible to keep straight who is who, who is speaking, what they are speaking about. Having read The Lost City of Z recently, I can appreciate how well Steiner describes the physical challenges of crossing the Amazon basin. The trek is a chaotic nightmare we burst free of occasionally to listen to Americans, the British, Russians, and French and Germans ruminate on the implications of the capture and how to respond to it. And the book ends, most maddening, at just the right moment.

As for the flame of controversy over the last chapter: Steiner responds to it in an Afterword not to be missed. His response runs to five pages, but it can be summed up in two words: "Read, idiots!" Yes, Hitler is given unanswerable arguments to justify himself. Yes, he is fundamentally correct on every point. Yes, in no uncertain terms, Hitler is the nightmare child of Judaism. But that is not the whole story, of course, and the answer to Hitler's speech is in the early pages, in Leiber's Kaddish. If Hitler's persuasive arguments trouble you, read that part again.

This is a stark, brutal book, for all its craft and elegance. It demands that humankind recognize that Hitler is our darker self, no more alien than the soldiers of the Seventh Cav who rode into the Little Big Horn eager to "kill me some Sioux" or the children burning scorpions at the beginning of The Wild Bunch.

Hitler has become a bogey we can reject, the thing we are not, a Judas goat we can kill for our own sins. Steiner's unwelcome message is, Look in the mirror of history.

In this novel, Adolf H. did not commit suicide at the end of World War II, but escaped to South-America. After he is captured, he can defend himself for his crimes. His defence contains the same items as these developed in another book of the author 'In Bluebeard's Castle'. Adolf H. took revenge by organizing the holocaust because mankind was blackmailed three times in an absolute manner: by one terrifying almighty God, by the limitless love of his son Christ and by Rabbi-Marx, who wanted to create heaven on earth.
I found the first part of the novel 'the chase of Adolf H.' rather average.
The second part 'The defence of Adolf H.' is a powerful text, but I prefer the treatment of the same themes in his book 'In Bluebeard's Castle': a bold and compelling conjecture about the subconscious motives of the holocaust.

I recently reread this novel in order to review it for a book club. In doing so, I have read the earlier reviews on your site.

I am quite surprised that the firestorm of criticism that met this novel when originally published almost 20 years ago is not reflected in at least some of the reviews by your readers. For my part, I count this absence as a positive reflection upon the Amazon reviewing community. That firestorm was solely a consequence of Hitler's speech presented in his own defense in the final chapter. Primarily Zionists and European "new right" nationalists involved in this strong criticism dislike the fact that Steiner, an ethnic Jewish author of significant stature, is anti-Zionist and views the creation of Israel and its national policies as betraying the Jewish people's moral (and highest) contributions to human discourse. Steiner would see the Jewish gift as transcending, what is in his view, a narrow nationalistic, materialistic perspective represented by Zionism. One can rationally differ with Steiner's views about Israeli middle east policy, the consequences of the creation of the State of Israel and its ongoing policies toward the Palestinian people, or the rationale of Zionism generally, but it is another matter to castigate any author holding the view that Zionist nationalism has contributed to the enormously dangerous dilemma in the middle east, both for the people of Israel and the rest of the world.

On an entirely different score, none of your reviewers has yet mentioned what a fine example this novel is of the Socratic method applied to creative writing. The author, whatever his personal beliefs, remains neutral on all issues he raises. He grants the reader the ultimate gift -- the right to decide for his/her self the value of the competing ideas presented. As Steiner himself has said when commenting upon this book, fiction gives a freedom of openness and presentation that is less available in the nonfiction or essay format. According to Steiner, the "fictive" presentation gives the reader greater access to the ideas and draws the reader into the story, allow him to become a participant in the resolution of the issues raised. This is another way of saying that creative writing, i.e.., fiction, can often reveal truth in a more effective fashion than the nonfictional presentation of "facts." This is quite an acknowledgment from someone who has made his career as an essayist, not as a author of fiction.

Finally, from a literary perspective, there are many, many wonderful descriptive passages in this book. To pick a few examples, the character Charlie, the CIA agent on the ground, is an acute portrayal of certain predominant American traits as seen from an outside perspective -- characteristics of the entrepreneurial instinct, materialism, and cultural banality. Character Gideon B's fever dialogue is marvelous writing, as is the discourse of Rothling, the old Nazi soldier, now attorney, who riffs (among other topics) upon music and the closed-in caution of the Post-WWII German generation. Whether you agree or disagree with the views and feelings presented through these characters and others, Steiner leaves that choice to you. In any event, the writing is generally fine, and often quite exceptional.

This novel is about many topics -- the nature of evil, the power of words, the connection between revenge and justice, communal and individual responsibility, the role of metaphysics in "giving comfort" in the face of horrifying adversity, the tenuous role of "art" in humanizing mankind. Steiner, for his part, through the gift of fiction, provocatively lays these complex topics out and leaves it to us, the readers, to sort them for ourselves as we see fit. That is the ultimate gift an author can give the reader.

AH was not the incarnation of evil nor was he a force of nature. He was a very common man who was as much a sponge and a mirror of his world as he was an actor upon it. If anything he was a clown which is what made him laughable out of power and deadly once he achieved it. Steiner understands ALL of this and his morality tale gives an insight into the nature of our nature. It is as much a lamentation as it is an argument but either way it is an enlightenment.

I read this book at the recommendation of someone who I trust. I might not be that guy for you, but I'll try to help. The central storyline of _The Portage to San Cristobal of A. H._ is that Hitler did not die in the bunker but instead escaped to the jungles of South America. Committed Nazi hunters have found out where Hitler has been hiding and they capture him and work their way out of the jungle. Overall, I enjoyed the book. As a reader, I think the highest praise I can put on a book is that it inspired me to write. This book did just that.

Without granting too much of a spoiler, I think the most interesting thing Steiner does is humanize the character of Hitler. He presents him as a frail old man but with a still-powerful mind. Many will have mixed emotions about the ending, but this shows the power of the author's idea. There are a couple of critiques though from my perspective. The first is that there are several chapters that do not have to deal with the main storyline that are presented and seem like filler. I think the author is trying at points to show juxtaposition or contrast to give context, but for me it seemed like filler. The book is short anyways, yet it seemed padded out. This filler means there are many characters who are presented, too many for such a sparse narrative. The ending is also challenging, but if you have an open mind it will grant an interesting perspective on events of the past.