When you consider Primo Levi's Surviving Auschwitz, you are immediately struck by its deadpan tone, emphasis on factual descriptions, and frank presentation of its content. Levi comments on the events he describes and offers his own insight, but never allows his perspective to interfere with his presentation of facts or detract from the objective way in which he recalls the events of the Holocaust. Considering Levi's background as a chemist, the question arises as to how one should distinguish between Levi the author and Levi the scientist, or whether such a distinction is necessary. This essay will consider Levi's identity and perspective, as well as his motivations behind writing and method of communication, in an attempt to determine the extent to which he writes like a chemist. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The first factor to consider is Levi's upbringing and personal background, as it influenced his view of the Holocaust. He studied at the Liceo Massimo d'Azeglio, a school renowned for its anti-fascist sentiments, and studied chemistry at the University of Turin, although his classification as a Jew made it difficult for him to graduate. From this education he drew a positivist vision with which he placed his trust in facts and reality, in contrast to dogma and fascist racial idealism. Levi himself observed that "chemistry and physics...". . . they were the antidote to fascism" (The Periodic Table, Ferro), and since he relies on his scientific principles in examining fascism, it is natural that his careful and analytical realism is reflected in his writings. Beyond this, Levi was he was born in Turin and lived there both before and after the Auschwitz experience, as he felt a strong connection to it as home. This is significant when one considers that Turin was an industrial and positivist city that remained remarkably anti-fascist and was at odds with Mussolini's idealistic Italy For example, Antonio Sonnessa (The factory cells and the red rescue movement: forms of factory and neighborhood organization and resistance to fascism in Turin, 1922-1926) notes "The opposition. of the city's labor movement and working class to fascism and capitalism between 1920 and 1920" and 1922' and thus outlines a city with an ideological foundation strongly skeptical of fascism and modern Italian politics. Although Levi should not be considered synonymous with the prevailing Turin opinion, it is clear from his writings that he maintained this skepticism and rejection of fascism. In short, before having any experience in a concentration camp, Levi had been gifted with the perspective of a secular, positivist chemist by his education, career, and hometown, and one would expect this perspective to influence his writing regardless of the topic treaty; he's not just writing like a chemist, he's writing like a chemist. Furthermore, Levi's writing style and the reasoning behind it must also be considered; it's not enough to say that he writes like a chemist because he is, given the care with which he treats the topic. While maintaining a concrete and impassive register, Levi adopts two ways of writing. The first of these styles is that of factual description devoid of any deliberate emotional resonance with the reader; if you react, it is a personal reaction and nothing more. The other style focuses more on Levi's thoughts and reactions and therefore offers a more philosophical view of content that would otherwise be totally dry. The difference between these two styles is effectively delineated by two passages in which Levi describes Auschwitz: in the first('Auschwitz: an undignified name, then and for us; but it still had to correspond to a place on this earth') captures the sense of the unknown that gripped him and his traveling companions on the train to the camp, as well as a positivist sense of relief at learning that they were headed to a real destination – grants the reader a powerful emotional insight into the mind of a Jew traveling to an uncertain destiny. However, the second reference to Auschwitz ("We are in Monowitz, near Auschwitz, in Upper Silesia: a region inhabited promiscuously by Germans and Poles..." and so on) is a stream of information with nothing attached that could direct the reader hypothesis towards a specific reaction; Levi details the facts and lets the reader treat them however they want. Although these two approaches to writing are very different, they both resemble what you might expect to see in a lab report: the factual approach parallels observations of what happens during an experiment, and the philosophical approach parallels to the explanation and interpretation of data that you would expect a chemist to offer. This style is effective for writing about the Holocaust, as Levi's facts are objective and true to events providing the reader with an accessible medium through which to view them. On the other hand, Levi's personal insights are sufficiently distinct from plain facts to prevent the universal experience of the Holocaust from being overshadowed or confused with Levi's experience as an individual, so they provide a compelling and thought-provoking perspective that does not attempt to represent the suffering of others in itself. Viewing Levi as a chemist takes on another level of meaning when contemplating the nature of Auschwitz and what the concentration camps actually represented. One could consider the Lager as a laboratory that examines the behavior of humanity when pushed beyond the boundaries of human living conditions. In The Drowned and the Saved, particularly in the chapter The Gray Zone, Levi considers how individuals had to compromise their values ​​to survive under the SS regime, whose hierarchy permeated the prisoners' society, especially in the context of how some prisoners were granted special privileges by the guards. As Levi says here, 'Let's limit ourselves to the Lager, which however... can well serve as a "laboratory": the hybrid class of prisoners-functionaries constitutes its backbone, and at the same time its most disturbing feature.' Having detailed the use of the Lager as a laboratory in which the reaction of prisoners to the harsh environment could be observed, particularly in the case of those who entered the system as "functional prisoners". However, he also says that this specific class of prisoners constituted only the 'backbone' and that the society of prisoners was 'an incredibly complicated internal structure' – as Levi writes in If This, 'we would like to make people consider what the Lager was like. .a gigantic biological and social experience", and also expresses shock at the cold and indifferent approach of the guards, showing the sterile and mechanical way in which the camp and its authorities operated. Therefore, if we take the Lager as the setting for a great social experiment, as Levi did, then, observing it and trying to understand it, he takes on the role of a scientist. Enrico Mattioda (Al di bene e del male) considers how Levi's perspective as a chemist makes him particularly suitable for this. observational and analytical role, since 'Chemistry has taught us to distrust appearances, to distinguish similar from dissimilar, and this too proves useful in the Lager.' Levi is not only a chemist by vocation, training and writing style, but also a writer and prisoner. It therefore follows that, in recounting his experience as the latter, he must also do so as the former..