“Perhaps I hadn’t communicated the atmosphere and the despair at his crimes so clearly expressed in his words.” (Wiesenthal, 1997, pp.67). Since Simon wasn’t the direct witness of the horrific events that Karl had described, he wasn’t able to illustrate (describe) the same image to Arthur and Josek. Throughout the book, Simon leaves out details about what had happened with Karl, he does so when telling the story to his friends, again when he sees the sunflowers during the Nazi trials, and finally when he meets Karl’s mother. Towards the end of the book, Simon says he joins the investigation of Nazi crimes to be able to redeem his belief in humanity and justice. (Wiesenthal, 1997, pp.83-84). However, when it comes time to tell his story, he remains silent. “I didn’t want to tell them about the haunting episode of the hospital in Lemberg.” (Wiesenthal, 1997, pp. 84). At the end of the book when Simon meets Karl’s mother, he does not tell her the truth about his experience with Karl. Simon lies and lets Karl’s mother believe that her son died a good and honest man.
The Sunflower by Simon Wiesenthal (1997) is not considered an efficient work of witness literature according to Herta Muller. Muller’s belief that loss of words makes certain events hard to describe, thus invalid as a witness account. Throughout the story, Simon is often at a loss of words to explain his predicament. Not only is Simon unable to describe what he went through, but he intentionally lies about it when given the