How does Diane Ackerman's background as a naturalist and a poet inform her telling of this slice of history? Would a historian of World War II have told it differently, and, if so, what might have been left out?

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

The most obvious difference between the telling of a naturalist and an historian is that an historian would not have the specialized knowledge that might link Żabiński's actions on the behalf of Jews to their occupation as zookeepers. The poet in Ackerman paints their personal life and motivations with a...

Unlock
This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this answer and thousands more. Enjoy eNotes ad-free and cancel anytime.

Start your 48-Hour Free Trial

The most obvious difference between the telling of a naturalist and an historian is that an historian would not have the specialized knowledge that might link Żabiński's actions on the behalf of Jews to their occupation as zookeepers. The poet in Ackerman paints their personal life and motivations with a sensitivity that an historian would choose to avoid in the interest of objective reconstruction of precise history.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team