Holocaust

The Holocaust is invoked as lived history behind a present-day encounter with antisemitism: Philip Roth recalls that Aharon Appelfeld’s mother was killed by the Nazis and that Appelfeld spent part of his childhood in a concentration camp. The book does not narrate the Holocaust itself; it shows how its consequences remain present in the lives and perceptions of people who have survived or inherited its violence.

Historical Presence

Roth introduces Appelfeld’s history while recounting a Sunday walk in Chelsea with Appelfeld and his son Itzak. A man’s hostility toward Roth becomes more than a personal insult in that company: Appelfeld’s mother had been killed by the Nazis, and Appelfeld himself had spent part of his childhood in a concentration camp. The recollection establishes the historical weight Roth attaches to the encounter without supplying further details of Appelfeld’s wartime experience.

The London Encounter

The immediate incident takes place on a quiet Chelsea street. Roth understands the stranger’s anger as antisemitic and responds confrontationally; Appelfeld’s history is the reason Roth gives for feeling especially unwilling to let the hostility pass unchallenged. The Holocaust is therefore not presented as a detached historical reference. It shapes the meaning of a contemporary encounter and the urgency Roth assigns to it.

Disputed Interpretation

Afterward, Roth tells the story at a dinner. Those present find his interpretation mistaken and treat the stranger as eccentric or mentally unwell rather than antisemitic. Roth remains convinced that the reference to his clothing was directed at his Jewish appearance. The disagreement leaves the incident unresolved: the book records Roth’s interpretation and the group’s dismissal, rather than providing independent confirmation of the stranger’s intent.

Narrative Significance

The recollection connects the Holocaust’s human consequences to the contested recognition of antisemitism in everyday life. Appelfeld’s family loss and childhood experience make the historical past an immediate presence in the scene, while the dinner guests’ response shows how readily that significance can be denied or explained away. The episode’s force rests on this contrast, not on an expanded account of events the narrative does not describe.