Tags
Berlin, book review, childrens fiction, Fiction, Holocaust, john boyne, the boy in the striped pyjamas, world war 2
The boy in the striped pajamas by John Boyne
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Even though this book is about the Holocaust and Auschwitz there is a persistent, deliberate sense of censorship that haunts the narrative and stops us from truly experiencing the horrors of the concentration camp. This will either have one of two effects on the reader: either they will be attracted to this ‘lighter’ way of story-telling, or they will be completely put off by it.
The story is about Bruno, a nine-year old boy living in Berlin with his wealthy family, who comes home one day from school to find they are moving to a place called ‘Out-With’. Bruno is greatly disappointed and mourns the fact that he will no longer be able to play at exploring the nooks and crannies of the grand, mahogany rooms. This tumultuous change in family life is all due to his father’s promotion, which coincided with a personal visit from a short, cold-mannered and rather rude man known as ‘the Fury’.
Bruno resents the visit and the ensuing developments that cause his family to move, and when they do eventually arrive at their new home his disappointment grows into despair. ‘Out-With’ turns out to be a desolate place in the middle of nowhere and no place for a young adventurous boy to grow up. Even his mother objects and is uneasy with their surroundings; which he knows only because he hears his parents arguing about it.
With no friends to play with and no other houses for miles around, Bruno tries to make the best of things; however it doesn’t take long before Bruno’s inquisitive nature gets the better of him and he discovers that there are people living nearby. People living in a high-walled building; people who walk around listlessly wearing nothing but blue striped pyjamas. Bruno’s imagination is ignited and it is not long before he finds a way to reach this place and befriend a boy, just like him, who has had to leave his home behind because of the ‘Fury’.
What ensues is a friendship that destroys ethnic and religious boundaries and which ends in a final, cruel twist of fate.
Boyne warns us that this is ultimately a fable, a cautionary tale and that it is not true; even though the rare moments when we do get a glimpse of the horrors of Auschwitz goes to show that Boyne stays faithful to real accounts of that time.
However, I assume Boyne chose to write the story through the eyes of a nine-year-old in order to cultivate a more innocent, ‘fable-like’ approach. And indeed this not only leaks into the perspective, but also into the language of the characters in the form of ‘Out-With’ and ‘the Fury’. This, and other forms of censorship/ banning of ‘bad’ words are both a blessing and a curse. I initially read this book with a group of Year 8 students, and appreciated the fact that the story was clean and straight-forward to read. It also helped that they had to do a little thinking to figure out who ‘the Fury’ was and what ‘Out-With’ meant. However, I couldn’t help smiling when some more ‘awake’ readers complained that the main character was a little dumb. My twelve-year olds had touched on a very good point.
While Boyne was trying to make a terrible account about WW2 and concentration camps more accessible for younger children; he has also managed to ‘lobotimize’ it too. From experience I (and my year 8’s) know that most 9 year-olds are not as ignorant as the way Bruno is portrayed to be in the novel. They are the exact opposite: inquisitive and highly precocious. Children at that age learn things almost by osmosis and I feel (like my students) that Boyne made a grave mistake when dumbing his main character down like that.
If you are looking for an ideal book for your 11-13 year old that will tie in with their History classes and is a little more conservative, then this is the perfect book. However I would suggest that reading together would be the best, as then issues and questions can be raised about the narrative, who knows, you might be surprised about the intelligent responses you get as I did.
ANALYSIS OF ‘THE BOY IN STRIPED PYJAMAS’
Having had further thoughts on Boyne’s use of a child narrator, I have decided to analyse it as a deliberate device and a way of story-telling. There are passages within the book that I have criticised because I deem the viewpoint too simplistic or naive. However if we were to look at the book from an analytical standpoint, there is much to say about Boyne’s intent and message to the reader. Arguably WW2 was one of the most senseless and incomprehensibly violent wars the world has ever seen. The sense of gross defilement that victims went through is still very hard to process. Psychologically, there will always be a ‘why’ that the survivors of the holocaust have carried and will carry with them till they die. It’s like an empty vacuum that cannot be filled with an answer, because there isn’t one.
The children in the story represent both of these mentalities. Shmuel is a character that says very little, is world-weary and resigned to his fate. The vacuum I spoke about is evident in his description and actions. He understands the suffering, knows the pain, yet cannot (or IS not capable) of questioning it due to his age. The main character however is far more innocent. He has zero concept of the world around him (which is the only thing I don’t like about this book). We could argue that Boyne uses a painfully ignorant boy to highlight the incomprehensibility of the war itself, and that Boyne is channelling this message through the character’s actions.
This could also reflect in the innocent childish lisp that he has. There are certain words that have become imbued with horror that the child cannot pronounce come what may. I forget exactly which words they were, but I think ‘Auschwitz’ was one and possibly ‘Hitler’ was another. I found this to be quite potent, as Boyne is clearly signalling how some words are not fit to grace the lips of children. In some cases, people who suffer some sort of psychological trauma also develop speaking difficulties. We could also argue that the child narrator is foreshadowing the events about to befall him (his tragic end).
The children in the novel are severely repressed. Shmuel for obvious reasons in the camp, but for Bruno it is a repression of communication. There is a silence in the house, a clear ‘children should be seen and not heard’ culture which was prevalent then. Bruno’s communication with his father is sporadic and often curtailed for one reason or another. We can again link this to how the holocaust could not be explained in rational ways, because Bruno’s father is seen to avoid/ dodge the questions of his son. In a cast that is so heavily made up with male characters, there is a sense of imbalance which is again mirrored in the unfair imbalance of power during this time. The questioning of the Holocaust, or the attempt to break down barriers of communication come from the female characters. They are more divulgent, yet again, they are repressed. Hitler’s girlfriend reaches out to Bruno and shows affection which counts as emotional communication, Bruno’s mother is constantly arguing with her husband. Bruno’s grandmother is the bravest of them all, and outright challenges her son in what he is doing. The children’s lack of information and naivety could stem from the fact that they are starved from feminine affection. The Holocaust was a ‘man-made’ event, with emphasis on ‘man’, hence lack of feminine values and a feeling of absence or one-sidedness in the narrative.
That’s about all I can think about for now. However I’m pretty sure there is more to say about the ending and the meaning of Bruno’s fate. I’m pretty sure it’s more than just poetic (in)justice for his father’s crimes. It could be another more subtle, but in-your-face theme of how the son pays for the father’s crimes. Ultimately the Jews in the concentration camps were also paying the price of a crime committed by their forefathers; the crucifixion of Christ.
EDITED: Based on the response of a fellow commentor, I felt compelled to amend the end of my review (namely the last sentence above). What I should have said was that the Romans (Pilate) killed Jesus, but according to some scriptures the ancient Jews had just as much input into his death by creating allegations against him. If you wish to read my views on the subject then take a look at the comments section below; my review is merely an attempt to anaylse and draw parallels with what Boyne is trying to represent on a literary level. I will not comment on this further as this is a book review not a platform to discuss religious issues and in the current political/ religious climate. If you wish to do that, find yourself another forum, as it will probably be more welcome there than it is here.
So, what do you think? Got any other views on the subject? Do you agree/ disagree with any of the above?
Related articles
- The Absolutist by John Boyne: December Book Club Choice (smartgirlsbookclub.wordpress.com)
- Top Ten Books About The Impact of War (trishadm.wordpress.com)
- Great Summer Reads For Children/Teens (blogs.abc.net.au)
- A look at books – Irish gems of short stories, novels and history (irishcentral.com)
I saw the movie but haven’t read this book. I remember thinking the same thing, that my daughter at Bruno’s age wouldn’t have been as clueless about the whole situation. Such a sad story, regardless of its flaws.
I think all these reviewers are probably too young to remember life in the 1940’s (I’m not!!). Children then were far less precocious: “seen and not heard” was the order of the day, and we remained ‘children’ for far longer. I think that Bruno is very well-drawn indeed. This is probably reflected in my reluctance to encourage my grandsons to read it; I felt one needed to have a proper perspective on the holocaust to begin to understand it.
I’m only 12 and i get the who book. I know about hitler and the thing her did and why there bad. But everyone has different thought on what Bruno did but to be honest I think anyone that age would have done what Bruno did not knowing what it was like on “the other side of the fence” i also think that John Boyne did a good jod recreating what happened and i think the movie was amazing.
I read this book last year and thought that the book worked really well portrayed through the eyes of a child 🙂
Anna: I have seen most of the movie too with the pupils and I have to say the movie was much better. The language in the book can be a bit repetitive at times so seeing a visual interpretation helped.
She Loves to Read: I agree with you there. There are very few ‘children’s’ book out there as YA has blurred the boundaries a lot by including many adult elements. I’d have never picked this as a read myself. I’m glad you enjoyed it too.
This got me thinking on what’s preferable in a child narrator– off-puttingly precocious (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or condescendingly naive (this one). It’s a rare author who doesn’t err in either direction, but if one must, how would you rather see a kid written?
I’d rather they were precocious if push came to shove. Kids can probably identify a lot better with a narrator that is full of curiosity like they are. But Boyne was obviously aiming for something quite specific when he fashioned his naive main character, so I can’t really blame him if it went a bit pear shaped.
Like you said, it’s a hard thing to do. I recently read and REALLLY enjoyed ‘Holes’ by Louis Sacher who again, has a naive main character, but I think that works well because we are told quite early on he is a bit slow and has that whole family curse thing going on.
There’s that sympathy factor there, and also the dumbness. Whereas here there’s nothing wrong with the kid. He’s bored, he’s closeted in the house, so that means IMHO he should be climbing the walls from frustration and asking LOTS of questions!
It’s a thorny issue Doug. BTW, have you changed your blog? What’s all this ‘read, you bastard’? lol!
We as a yr 8 class have recently read this book- and I found the book was making out that a nine year old was completely dumb ( they most certainly aren’t!). Also, Shmuel was too young to have worked and that was not well researched either.
Hi Katie, thanks for your views and welcome to the blog. Yes, many reviewers are annoyed about how some parts of the story don’t fit with history.It didn’t really matter with me, I was too concerned about the glaring mistreatment of the characters (marionettes, I call them) to notice any historical mismatches.
How did the class respond to the book? Would you rather have read something different, say Morpurgo’s ‘War Horse’? I can’t help thinking that while it was a good choice for our school, it didn’t really offer any of the able students a chance to really stretch themselves. It’s hard finding the middle ground sometimes.
good point
what are you talking about
this book is impecably amazing through it is not for children under the age of 9
its a good book and the end was very surprising
but i think he wouldn’t have got killed if it wasn’t for his parents.
they didn’t tell him that the fence was a bad environment for him
the book is verrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyy boring
Care to explain why? 🙂
this is a very good review
Because its aimed at little children
personally i really liked this book and i loved the film too!!!
Hi Molly, I didn’t get to watch the whole movie (we were watching it during lesson time) but I feel the story translated better onto film. The director was able to explore the naivety of Bruno better than the way Boyne was trying to through words alone.
I THINK THIS BOOK I GOOD BUT BAD AT THE SAME TIME BUT IF YOU DIDN’T PUT IT IN A CHILDS POINT OF VIEW THIS BOOK WOULDN’T BE HERE I THINK JOHN DID A GRATE JOB
Thanks for your comment Jac, but a little advice on the way you word them. Spelling errors, caps lock and incorrect sentence structures are not the issue here. Calling other commenters ‘Dick’ or otherwise, is. Please be a bit smarter next time you post a comment with that kind of language because it will be deleted and you will be blocked. Let’s be respectful of other people’s opinions, thank you.
myworldlyobsessions, it seems like you’re really trying to put John Boyne down. No offense and sorry if you weren’t, but that’s just how I perceived it. Personally, I really loved this book! It’s true that Bruno seems a little too naive, but I still loved it.
No offense taken, and sorry if my review came across as a put down. If you read my review properly, I did give ample enough reasons as to why I thought it wasn’t up to scratch and I believe that’s how you give constructive criticism. If I were just saying ‘it’s crap’ etc, THAT would be insulting and not a fair, balanced review of the book.
I reiterate, I read this with a class and had the opportunity to watch their reactions to the storyline and discovered what elements worked and what didn’t. Mixed into the review was also my own personal opinion of the book as a text to teach. Yes, it is highly teachable, yes it contains vocabulary that most would not have come across before, but it lacks that certain something and the kids felt it too. THEY are the target audience and I’m afraid to say that kids are quite often most brutally honest about what they like and don’t like.
I don’t think is fair to compare the children now days with the children lived back then. The life would be simpler as they have no television or internet, and many children might not even get to go to school. Even if they were in school, they were most likely to be brain washed with information that were not true. For example, Some Japanese denys the killings in China during WWII and did not put it in their history book.
I think the author did a good job in telling the story in the German child’s point of view. It’s new and it was never done before. The author also stated he wasn’t trying focus too much on the history as there were too many books about it. He wanted to focus more on the friendship and the family relationship. It is a fantastic movie. Now I want to read the book. n_n
Akarli, I think you are being a little unfair in saying children back then were mostly too naive and simpler than the children of now because of lack of technology. Yes, schooling may have been for the rich, and information may have been censored; but children had a far more extended vocabulary than children nowadays. As someone in education I know for a fact that kids today have quite poor literacy and numeracy skills compared to a century ago.
Let me put it this way; Bruno is the son of a soldier quite high up in the Nazi regime. Hitler has even been to dinner once or twice in his house. He has seen and probably overheard conversations of soldiers in and around the house. He has certainly overheard his mother and father arguing (as in the book). He has a grandparent who is very vocal in her disapproval of her son’s current job in life. All these are a factor of the ‘friendship and family’ aspect that Boyne wanted to represent, yet Bruno is deliberately being disconnected and not allowed to explore/ asks questions about why there are children half starving in a camp he can see from his bedroom window.
I’m sorry but you can’t really have a big secret like ‘what job does daddy do’ under one roof without Bruno catching on somehow. But having said that, I really feel the ending of the novel was truly devastating. Shame that the language couldn’t have been a bit sharper. It ended far too quickly and simply.
I love this book it is amazing and well written. I am reading it and I am in grade 6, I really enjoy it and I can’t put it down.
I really liked the book altough I thought the ending could have been a little better and that Bruno could have understood more then he did.
Brianna – I’m really happy you enjoyed it. It’s very cleverly thought out. The best bit for me was Bruno and Shmuel’s friendship. I wish they had run away and escaped together.
Sarah – Well done to you too. And extra brownie points for being brave about saying your opinions.
I thinkit was good and I am in y6
I only think he needs to make bruno smarter
thank you myworldlyobsessions. Yes, i agree with all the complaints that people have put in, as I do agree myself that the storyline should have been a little stronger and that he shoud have had Bruno understanding a little bit more of what was goingon. I mean, it isnt very well thought out as no part of the camp would be left unguarded.
But puting all that aside, it was a truly heart wrenching book, and I loved it to pieces!!!
Brill I read it for a book in school.
this book is a work of literate jenius, great review aswell
really good book and im only 11
the book is amazing! it was boring at the beginning and became interesting as the story goes on, then became tragically haunting because if the ending. I think the story cold have ended when Bruno and shmuel ran away and lived happily ever after…
Glad you enjoyed it Chebet.
People are really divided on how they feel about the book. I also wish the ending could have been happier; but unfortunately for a lot of people in the concentration camps there was no happy ending.
I don’t know about you, but after I read the book I became curious about the woman featured in the book that was Hitler’s girlfriend. Apparently she was real and it fascinated me how any woman could live with an evil man like Hitler.
Quite a boring book until the drama with Shmuel happened, my opinion, but love your review 🙂
I thought this book was pretty cool-the ending may have been sad but it just proves the theme of the book. I especially like the time period the author decided to write this story in.
I think Bruno’s innocence was believable. I think when read a book about the Holocaust, we must remember that we do so with the eyes of people who know what happened. Also, speaking of the grand prejudice that this film speaks about, I MUST comment on the reviewers surprising prejudice, which no one else has noticed. The Jews did NOT kill Christ. The Romans did. This is a lie used to justify killing people and it is scary to see it used in a review of this particular book. And scarier yet, is that no one noticed this or commented on it.
“The Jews crucified Jesus through the Romans. At the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, the Romans had conquered all the area in which Jesus lived and taught. The Romans allowed the Jews to continue with their Sanhedrin (their government), but the Romans took away capital punishment from the Jews. In order to have Jesus crucified, the Jewish leaders had to manipulate Rome into doing it. First, the Jewish leaders had to lie – make up charges (Luke 23: 2, 3). The Jewish leaders persisted in their demands for crucifixion (vss. 5-19). New Testament writers charged the Jews with having crucified Jesus (Acts 2: 36, 3: 13-17).”
It’s like asking the question are the Jews guilty of murder in the first degree, or being an accomplice and manipulator in the overall crime? They played a part… and this they cannot escape from.
It is not scary that people did not comment on it; more like there is more to it than ‘technically it was the Romans’. The Jews at the time created many complaints which in turn formed the basis around which Christ was put to death. I believe in today’ court of law people like this would be charged with a punishment almost as harsh as the murderer’s themselves.
However I do respect your opinions Jackie and I will amend my review to include the fact that the Jews were an accomplice to Jesus’ murder, the same way Shmuel became an accomplice to Bruno’s death which still works as a good parallel.
Great review! I especially like your analysis of the book.