When I saw that 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' was on the reading list for this week my heart skipped a small beat. I remember reading the book for about 2 years ago for an English book report. At that time it made a hughes impression on me, the way it was written and the emotions that came along with this writing style. The fact that it is written from Bruno's point of view makes a part of the story based on innocence and naivety. In the Guardian (2006) they also claim that the point of view of 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' is the most important element that really shapes the book into a great children's book. My first impression before reading the book again was that I probably would find underlying symbols and other elements that I missed reading the book for the first time. Due to that I was eager to start reading this book again.
The most impressive new insight I gained when reading this book was that this book really touches adulthood and childhood. When I read it 2 years ago I only paid attention to the part that touched childhood and not adulthood. Now I tried to pay attention to what makes this book a 'cross-over' book. The fact that the marriage between Bruno's father and mother is being destroyed by all the stress and amounts of work Bruno's father has to fulfil to become a good officer, but then again Bruno's naivety is present when he calls the man who visits (Hitler) 'The Fury' and Auswitch 'Out With'. In class we discussed how cross-over books can be precisely defined and I remember it being defined as: ' The great children's books are the ones that touch childhood and maturity'. I think that Bruno's character and the actions that adults undertake in his environment is a great example of quote.
There is another element that made me wonder whether it could really have been the case at that time. Bruno is 9 years old and I remember from my own History teacher that there was a lot of propaganda going on in classrooms as well, but Bruno seems to know nothing about Jews or the battle against them. I do not believe that boys aged 9 at that time did not know anything about Jews, especially with the in doctrinism at that time. This is on the other hand a great piece of writing from John Boyne since he really convinces the reader that Bruno is innocent and naïve and knows nothing about camps such as Shmuel is located in.
I believe that if you're reading this book when you are older that you mostly see the hard parts of the story. Speaking from my point of view I found the part where Shmuel is beaten because he got food from Bruno when Shmuel must wash glasses in Bruno's house is really a sick event. The beauty of the book on the other hand is that the ending really touched me and again...made me cry just like it did 2 years ago. The 2 elements of the hard truth and the childish innocence made it worth while to read.
I can identify myself with Bruno since he is very ignorant sometimes and to be honest I can be kind of ignorant as well. For instance that Bruno does not know what is going on I often have the same problem, I also believe in the positive qualities of human beings instead of expecting the worse.
Additional sources next to class discussion and notes made during the PowerPoint.
Hughes, K. , ( 2006), ' Educating Bruno' , The Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/jan/21/featuresreviews.guardianreview18
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten