Reviews for Edoardo Weiss: The House that Freud Built

The average rating for Edoardo Weiss: The House that Freud Built based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-04-13 00:00:00 Sonya Dancy It was a revealing look at the medical system through the eyes of a doctor experiencing the life of a patient while trying to also practice. Heymann was engaging, and quite interesting, as she revealed her personal struggles and foibles while also magnifying the problems with the patient-doctor relationship. While the book is now somewhat out of date (published in 1995), it provides some interesting context as we look at healthcare issues and various reforms and education efforts made over the years. Any student of public health or medicine should read this when feeling the onset of cynicism or omnicience.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-03-21 00:00:00 Cary Grant This was a short and gripping read, and tells a story that must never be forgotten. I am writing this review not to comment on the story itself, but in response to some of the criticisms I have read about the book. Criticism #1: Dr Miklos Nyiszli was at Birkenau rather than Auschwitz, and there are several inconsistencies in the book between Auschwitz and Birkenau. Response: Auschwitz and Birkenau were part of one larger complex collectively called Auschwitz. I believe that perhaps the colloquial references to the name of the camp heard while living there are just simply unclear to those of us who weren't there. I sometimes found the descriptions of the layout of the camp in the book confusing, but I believe they made sense with Dr. Nyiszli's recollection of Auschwitz-Birkenau when he was there. Criticizm #2: The doctor's descriptions seem detached, therefore the book may have been written by someone else. Response: Technically, the TRANSLATION was written by someone else. I think the phrase "lost in translation" may describe the feeling some readers have expressed. My Criticism: I felt throughout the book that Dr Nyiszli probably was responsible for more of the medical "experiments" (atrocities) than he claimed responsibility for in the book, and pointedly left out details for what he was not proud of. Dr. Mengele was a really bad dude, and I don't think the author would have established the level of trust with Mengele that he did without being more menacing himself. That being said, whatever the doctor did certainly saved his life, and shocking readers with more details of gruesome medical experiments would have people shun the rest of the story. I don't think this book was published until several years after the doctor's death, and I would not be surprised if I found out that someone close to the author edited out gruesome parts of the manuscript before publication. If that happened, it may also explain some of the disconnectedness some readers felt about this book. Overall, I think this was a VERY worthwhile read.