Time creates an essential context for evaluating both the series and the book. It is of utmost importance to begin by stating that Heather Morris met Lali Sokolov (born Ludovit Eisenberg in 1916) during the early 2000s, close to his 90th birthday and six decades away from the events of the war. During this period, Eisenberg refrained from discussing his personal experiences and only divulged them in full to Heather Morris. Naturally, the mere passage of time, even a considerable duration, and the absence of prior verbalisation or written documentation of the memories do not undermine the credibility of the witness's testimony. Nonetheless, the writer (reporter, researcher...) who intends to tell a biographical story must consider this circumstance. If the writer aims to recreate the personal experience and memory of the witness and present their fate truthfully and factually, then it is crucial to conduct a thorough and detailed critical analysis of these memories. This analysis should involve comparing and contrasting them with other available sources to identify and correct any errors that may arise from the natural fallibility of memory. In Morris's book, he repeatedly stated his commitment to preserving historical truth and conducting meticulous factual verification. The book was promoted as a "true story". In practice, however, the text's relation to the realities of the camp was at least questionable, and the historical accuracy was not merely questionable but false, as demonstrated in the book review. The errors documented in that list (though only a portion of a much longer fragment) indicate the author's deficiency in historical knowledge and research skills - crucial, if not indispensable, for an accurate portrayal of the world depicted in a historical novel. The main reasons for the significant difference between the content of the book and the actual historical events were primarily due to the author's disregard for the physical evidence of the camp as historical sources. Instead, the author relied solely on personal accounts such as memoirs and contemporary sources like online resources rather than historical documents. While working on the book, the author never visited the site of the former camp. Therefore, she described a reality utterly unknown to her, even at a basic geographical and topographical level.
There are also doubts surrounding Ludovit Eisenberg's authorisation of the content. The book was published twelve years after his passing, thus casting doubt (or rather negating) the likelihood of his influence on the final editing and overall structure of the text that was eventually printed and distributed to readers. Taking this into account, it is essential to regard the book not as a factual account or a biographical narrative derived from authentic sources but rather as a piece of literary fiction that employs genuine settings and characters. Its purpose is not to depict the characters' stories but to convey the author's ideas about the narrative.
Given the aforementioned, it is natural to question whether a historically inaccurate book can be a reliable foundation for a television series depicting camp realities.
From the perspective of researchers and educators, it is evident that if we are to accurately portray the fate of Ludovit Eisenberg in a historically credible manner, several elements of the novel would need to be removed entirely. Additionally, some other aspects would require more accurate documentation and supplementation. Above all, it is essential to recreate the appearance of the camp and the realities of daily life within it from scratch. De facto, therefore, the story would have to be rewritten. The series' creators had an easier time working on it because they were aware of the controversy surrounding the book and the reasons behind it. Thus, they could have tried to portray Lale and Gita differently to approximate the series as close as possible to the “true story”. Whether it would still be accurate to say that the series is based on Heather Morris's bestseller is a separate issue.
So, did the series creators go beyond the novel's content and consult historical sources to verify the information in the book? If they did, how much did they include in the script? Instead, they seem intent on finding a middle ground. They tried to enhance the book's story with factual elements without compromising its essential message or perspective and especially without sacrificing the marketing potential that comes with its popularity. How successful was this attempt?
Essentially, the series ended up being so similar to the book that the creators couldn't avoid making significant errors and distorting facts. This conveys false information and creates an overall inauthentic depiction of the camp's reality.
The series portrays several scenes and events that are historically inaccurate or could not have occurred in the real KL Auschwitz as imagined by the creators. Moreover, although certain events in the series are identical to the book's inaccurate content, others appear to be original ideas conceived by the creators. One example of the many plots copied from the book is a scene where an SS man walks by three prisoners using the cloacal pits at night, shoots them, and leaves their bodies in there (episode 1). However, this scene is impossible in reality for several reasons. Firstly, the SS men were not allowed to be on the premises at night, and secondly, the body of the deceased had to be laid out for the last roll call outside the barracks and taken to the crematorium after the number had been crossed off the register. It was strictly prohibited to dump bodies in disarray within the camp, as this could have led to chaos in the records and posed an epidemiological risk.
„THE TATTOOIST
OF AUSCHWITZ”.
FACT-CHECKING REVIEW
Dr. Wanda Witek-Malicka, Auschwitz Museum Research Center
Since its publication in early 2018, Heather Morris's novel The Tattooist of Auschwitz has garnered worldwide acclaim. Translations are available in 47 languages, and sales reached millions within two years by September 2019. The novel has become an undisputed bestseller despite controversies and scepticism regarding its factual value. The book's publicity led me to anticipate its imminent adaptation for the screen, especially considering that the author intended the story to serve as a screenplay rather than a novel. So, rather than wondering why, the focus should be on why it took so long, considering it has been over six years since the book's release.