Just finished reading this book. It’s a children’s book about the Holocaust but told in a way that I’ve never read before. And it made it a refreshing, easy read if you’ll allow me to say that about a book discussing the Holocaust. The plot revolves around 2 young boys forming a friendship at a concentration camp. They have the same birthday, even down to the year, and this begins the start of their close friendship over the course of a year. The catch is that one boy, Bruno, is the son of the German Commandant of the concentration camp; and the other, Schmuel, is a prisoner within that same camp. The way they meet is rather far-fetched; but, for a work of fiction AND a children’s book, it is allowable. They meet almost everyday in the afternoon at a certain part of the fence that keeps Schmuel and the other Jews inside the camp, and Bruno and the other non-Jews outside the fence. The hardest part for me to believe is that neither Schmuel nor Bruno knows why they are separated, they just are. And this lack of knowledge is justified because they are 9. I probably doubt this because I’m thinking with my adult mind plus I have hindsight. When I was 9, I probably knew nothing of what was going on in the world and was most concerned with my secret crush on Brandon Moss, my homework, and Nick Jr. So I guess this could pass for true. All Schmuel knows is that he hates the soldiers that are cruel to him and his people but he likes Bruno because he has found a true and good friend in this hard place. Bruno is equally simplistic in that he hates being moved there from Berlin but delights in the fact that he has finally found someone he can talk to that is his age. Their one regret during their whole year in talking is that they were never able to play with each other once.
The hardships that happened in the concentration camp are hinted at. And, to be honest, I’m glad they weren’t a focal point because that has been discussed to death I think. One of the best things about this book is that it focuses on the relationships created and severed by the Holocaust, and not from a horror perspective (which there was plenty), but from a simple view of friendships made and friendships broken, ties made and ties broken, irregardless of whether they were German or Jew. There were points, though, where you felt Bruno was being insensitive for having complaints at all. But you have to understand that Bruno’s world was turned upside down too and he was almost as much a victim, in his innocence, as the Jews were.
One of the only things I didn’t like about this book is that the characters were a bit too one-dimensional for me. Anytime a character would deviate from the norm was a side note, a hint at another side of their character. Didn’t the father ever doubt himself in his mission? Weren’t there ever moments when he could see the humanness in the Jews he killed and for one brief moment, felt an ounce of shame? This shame comes eventually but has nothing to do with the Jews. I suspect that I’m expecting too much from a children’s book to ask for deeply multi-faceted characters. And this also would pull more focus on the horrors caused by the Holocaust and not on the relationship between two boys separated by a fence. I just hope the movie, which is made for adults (I think), will dig more into these details.
4 comments:
i'm mad u used 'irregardless' - tell me where in the dictionary i can find that word! the miseducation of the uppity negress, i tell ya. anyway, that sounds like a cool book. something to get kids interested in learning about the holocaust perhaps. i'll recommend to faith!
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
I am not alone...and if bootylicious is a word, then irregardless is too!
ok fine, it made it in the dictionary - but so did "bling bling!" still doesn't make it right lol.
Post a Comment