Sign in with Facebook
Brandy's Reviews > The Boy in the Striped Pajamas
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas
by
by
I hardly know where to begin bashing this book. Do I start with the 9-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister, who read about 6 and 8, respectively? The imperial measurements (miles, feet) despite the German setting? The German boy, raised in Berlin, who thinks that Der F眉hrer is "The Fury" and Auschwitz is "Out-With," despite being corrected several times and seeing it written down? The other English-language idioms and mis-hearings, despite our being told that he speaks only German? And that he believes that "Heil Hitler!" is a fancy word for hello, because he understands neither "Heil" nor "Hitler"?
So maybe these are fussy issues, and I shouldn't trash the book on these minor linguistic flaws. Instead, I can start with the plot holes big enough to drive a truck through: that Bruno, whose father is a high-ranking official in "The Fury"'s regime, doesn't know what a Jew is, or that he's living next door to a concentration camp. Or that the people wearing the "striped pajamas" are being killed, and THAT's why they don't get up after the soldiers stand close to them and there are sounds "like gunshots." Or that there's a section of fence that is (a) unpatrolled and (b) can be lifted from the ground high enough to pass food and, eventually, a small boy through, AND that nobody would try to get OUT through this hole. Or that Bruno's friend Shmuel, a frail 9-year-old boy, would survive over a year in a Nazi camp. Or even the author's refusal to ever use the word "Auschwitz," in an effort to "make this book about any camp, to add a universality to Bruno's experience."
That last is from an interview with the author that appears at the end of the audio version. I can't speak to most of what he said, because it was a lot of "here are all the places that are hyping my book," but the worst part of it, to me, was where he was addressing criticisms: "there are people who complain that Bruno is too innocent, too naive, and they are trivializing the message of this book." Um, no. I'm not trivializing the message; I'm objecting to his trivializing of the Holocaust. I find his treatment of the Holocaust to be superficial, misleading, and even offensive.
As an audio recording, I'm pretty neutral. The narrator did the best he could with the material and there was some differentiation between the characters' voices, but the music that was added... some chapters ended with appropriately-somber music. Other chapters had no music at all. Sometimes the music appeared in the middle of a chapter.
Two other incidental notes: first, normally you can't say anything negative about a Holocaust-themed book without being an asshole, because the books are so tied in with the Holocaust itself. In this case, though, I feel like, due to the fictionalizing of it, the book is far enough removed from Auschwitz that it's okay to be negative about the book without being insensitive about the Holocaust. Second, this doesn't land on my "run away! Save yourself!" shelf, because that's more for books that are comically bad--books that I can bash with glee and mock with abandon. I can't find anything funny about what makes this book so bad; it's just plain offensive and shallow.
So maybe these are fussy issues, and I shouldn't trash the book on these minor linguistic flaws. Instead, I can start with the plot holes big enough to drive a truck through: that Bruno, whose father is a high-ranking official in "The Fury"'s regime, doesn't know what a Jew is, or that he's living next door to a concentration camp. Or that the people wearing the "striped pajamas" are being killed, and THAT's why they don't get up after the soldiers stand close to them and there are sounds "like gunshots." Or that there's a section of fence that is (a) unpatrolled and (b) can be lifted from the ground high enough to pass food and, eventually, a small boy through, AND that nobody would try to get OUT through this hole. Or that Bruno's friend Shmuel, a frail 9-year-old boy, would survive over a year in a Nazi camp. Or even the author's refusal to ever use the word "Auschwitz," in an effort to "make this book about any camp, to add a universality to Bruno's experience."
That last is from an interview with the author that appears at the end of the audio version. I can't speak to most of what he said, because it was a lot of "here are all the places that are hyping my book," but the worst part of it, to me, was where he was addressing criticisms: "there are people who complain that Bruno is too innocent, too naive, and they are trivializing the message of this book." Um, no. I'm not trivializing the message; I'm objecting to his trivializing of the Holocaust. I find his treatment of the Holocaust to be superficial, misleading, and even offensive.
As an audio recording, I'm pretty neutral. The narrator did the best he could with the material and there was some differentiation between the characters' voices, but the music that was added... some chapters ended with appropriately-somber music. Other chapters had no music at all. Sometimes the music appeared in the middle of a chapter.
Two other incidental notes: first, normally you can't say anything negative about a Holocaust-themed book without being an asshole, because the books are so tied in with the Holocaust itself. In this case, though, I feel like, due to the fictionalizing of it, the book is far enough removed from Auschwitz that it's okay to be negative about the book without being insensitive about the Holocaust. Second, this doesn't land on my "run away! Save yourself!" shelf, because that's more for books that are comically bad--books that I can bash with glee and mock with abandon. I can't find anything funny about what makes this book so bad; it's just plain offensive and shallow.
1683 likes · Like
鈭�
flag
Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.
Sign In 禄
Reading Progress
Started Reading
November 1, 2007
–
Finished Reading
November 6, 2007
– Shelved
November 6, 2007
– Shelved as:
2007reads
November 6, 2007
– Shelved as:
audiobooks
January 9, 2008
– Shelved as:
teen
January 27, 2008
– Shelved as:
historical
September 1, 2008
– Shelved as:
library
Comments Showing 1-50 of 360 (360 new)
message 1:
by
Gabriel
(last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:53PM)
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Nov 20, 2007 08:01PM
I hear you Brandy; you've hit on the so many odd things about this book. I gave it a slightly better review, perhaps to help assuage the pain of having paid money for it! In any case, I can't argue with anything you've said. The sad thing is educators are eager for materials to use in their classes on the subject, so I fear the book will get more play than it deserves.
reply
|
flag
What is wrong with you? Perhaps you shouldn't read if all you do is nit pick a book to death. I know it's not 'historically accurate' and that you've uncovered every flaw in the book, but it just happens to be....fiction. Do you really believe there are unicorns, flying dragons, elves and who knows what else running around in this world (or do you only search for historical inaccuracies there, too?!) Perhaps you should rewrite the darn thing if you think you're so much better than John Boyne.
You've completely missed the point. I would be embarrassed if I were you - this whole review makes you sound ignorant and childish.I think you don't want to recognise that people can be just this ignorant about deeply unpleasant things happening right in front of them. Bruno does not know because adults he relies on to explain the world conceal the truth and lie to him. Adults have always been perfectly capable of lying to themselves.
Also, because you obviously know no German and like to nitpick - 'out-with' is 'aus-mit', a plausible enough mishearing of Auschwitz, which comes from the Polish name for the town and would not be immediately recognisable as a placename. Bruno mispronounces some words because they have no meaning for him, so he tries to make them fit a pattern he recognises.
Brandy, do people actually pay you for your opinion on books? Because, and I don't think I am alone in this sentiment, most of us read for the enjoyment of it, not to say that this was a lighthearted read, but it is, nonetheless, a book. Not a docudrama, not a life commentary, not non-fiction. The author took an event from history and showed another side to it. He 'speculated' on how a boy might see things. And we're not talking about the video game era kids who get their news on their cell phones (if they even bother)....we're talking about children who were not as exposed and 'worldly' as the kids of today. I realize it may not meet your high standards, but seriously, give it, and all of us a break here. It's a book. A FICTION book. It never was and probably never will be marketed as a true historical document. If it is, then I am sure they will come to you for your opinion on why it would be so wrong.
Whichit:I do understand the point of this book--that horrible things happen, and there are plenty of people who do nothing because the horrors are just so implausible that people assume they're really seeing something else. That the holocaust happened because some people believed strongly enough in the cause, and so many other people believed strongly enough in the people who believed in the cause. So yes, I get the point of the book--but I found the presentation of that point very off-putting, condescending, and emotionally manipulative.
As for the plausible mishearing of Auschwitz in German, I do thank you for this explanation--the first anyone has offered. I think that (if this was the case) it should have been better explained in the text, and it doesn't explain away any of the other mistaken words ("the Fury," etc.), even after seeing the words in writing and having his sister attempt to explain it over and over. Bruno's malapropisms come off less as "he's a naive little boy" and more incredibly precious. It's too much for me--too cutesy, too cloying. One or two of these mishearings I could handle, especially if Bruno responded to any corrections, but it's overdone in this novel.
Incidentally, for middle-grade/teen novels about an innocent, naive boy getting caught up in the atrocities without truly understanding what's going on, check out Jerry Spinelli's Milkweed.
Kristi, I do read plenty for enjoyment, and I do enjoy most of what I read. But I do have some high expectations of what a good book should be--namely, I want the characters to be realistically-drawn and true to themselves throughout the book, and I want the plot to make sense in the context of the world that's been created. When it's a world with a clear historical construct, the anachronisms stand out in a bad way. Just because it's fiction doesn't mean I have to accept and love everything about it.
I also think that if a book is going to bill itself as historical fiction, it has a responsibility to be historically accurate. The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is billed as a fable, but that really seems more a marketing decision than a creative one--a ploy to delegitimize any and all reviews that mention its historical problems.
Lastly, I don't know why it matters if I get paid for my opinions (I don't), but Horn Book editor Roger Sutton (His actual review is behind a subscription wall; check with your local library system to see if you have access to any databases that include The Horn Book.)
Brandy,You are bound to be flamed over and over again for bashing this book... for some reason, books that deal with subjects such as this one are apparently automatically excused from fulfilling some very basic literary standards.
I love reading and I do so for pleasure; unfortunately poorly written books and/or poor storylines get in the way of my enjoyment... blatant factual errors contribute greatly to this as well (whenever I recognize them immediately like it happened with this book; I don't go around checking every single fact against an encyclopaedia).
Anyhow, I agree 200% with what you said. I found this book to be extremely overrated: repetitive, highly unbelievable at some points, filled with errors and with an incredibly predictable ending. 2 stars instead of 1 because the premise was interesting, but the writer seriously botched it up.
Let the flaming begin.
Greetings :)
I like this book to an extent - oh well, it almost brought tears to my eyes, but then there were some things that put me off (I have just my review on it in my own 欧宝娱乐 account).Your review brought some things that have escaped my eyes, and I was really glad to know your views about the book.
Cheers.
You do have problems. It is a little boy! If it was that time period would you want your NINE YEAR OLD little boy knowing that on the other side they were poisoning people because of there relgion. Hey daddy what is your job? Oh I just kill people because there Jewish. Do you want to come to Bring you Child to work day? Yeah thats really nice. I totally agree with Kristi (second from the top)Rewrite it if you think you can do it better then John Boyne then send it to me. I'll be the judge...
I have to say agree with so much of what you've said. I got this book after seeing the movie because I was so touched by the movie and had heard that the book's ending goes a little further than the movie's ending. The one thing that was off-putting to me about the movie was the fact that all these germans spoke with british accents. We came up with several reasons for doing this, though, and were able to get past it.
The use of "American" measurements (feet, miles, etc.) in this book has no such excuse. If an author is writing an historical fiction book he ought to remain historically accurate to a point. There is no reason to "dumb down" books just because they are for children (older than 9, as the jacket says). I am quite certain a teenager would understand the usage of kilometers in a book set in Germany.
I lived in Germany for 3 years. The inability of the child to understand 'der Furher' (umlaut omitted) is really just incomprehensible and implausible. The word for "fury" is not anything like the word for "leader."
Great story--poorly executed.
Hi Brandy,I'm sorry that you have been verbally whiplashed by a couple of very bitchy girls.Have seen alot of them around 欧宝娱乐. They are usually pretty ignorant of the topic as these ones are.
My first reaction to this site was relief on seeing your ONE star evaluation. Sanity!!!Perception!!!Background Knowledge!!Allelulia!!!
I have just written my review of this implausible and in some ways unethical story in these days of Holocaust Denial. I hope you will read it and take some solace and I'd really like to get a comment from you as well.
I was on the Jewish Holocaust Committee here in Sydney for a while and it was a real education in many ways. Met some very interesting, pleasant people, survivors among them naturally.
Keep up your great librarian work. You are what we need:People courageous enough to read perceptively, see past the sentimentality and speak out: "The Emperor has no clothes".
If the girls on this site read my review, you might find yourself reflecting on the sheer horrific reality of the Holocaust and its child victims and wonder why anyone could have the temerity to write a sentimental fictional account.
The facts are UN-believable.
Cheers from Wayne, Sydney, Australia.
As a native German speak I'll comment on the "language" flaws. I actually thought the author was really clever in this aspect. He used English words that said something significant about the person/place, and used them as sound-alikes for the actual German words. That actually takes some intelligence and talent to pull it off as he did. The Fury was the Fuehrer, which would sound very similar to fury (if you're an English speaker)...and what a fitting word to describe Hitler. And the same goes for Auschwitz. I thought it was clever, and I thought the book was really good, and this comes from a person who has had to see every movie on the Holocaust, visit every museum, and pretty much read every book on this topic while growing up in Germany. I'm not easily impressed with anything on the holocaust anymore, but I thought this was a good book.
I get confused by all the rage against this book. the book was written for young people. It's meant to be, a sort of, introduction. Just how much truth and reality needs to be in a book about the Holocaust meant for 9 year olds? This book did an excellent job of presenting a terrible event in our history and most importantly, sets up an opportunity for a dialogue with your kids.Everyone needs to settle down and stop looking at this book through your adult eyes and remember a topic of this magnitude needs to be learned slowly and with baby steps. This book is meant to be read by children and thier limited world-view.
Jami wrote: "I get confused by all the rage against this book. the book was written for young people."Well, considering that the back of my copy explicitly says "this is not a book for nine-year-olds" I would debate that point. I'm not really sure WHO the target audience is for this book, but I agree 100% with Brandy that this is a dreadful mangling of history and the faux-naivete with which the author approaches the subject makes me never want to read anything else he's written!
Brandy, I respect your opinion to not like the book...but there was a reason Bruno never changes "The Fury" and "Out-With" - the author did not want to label anything in his book. While he wanted to hint at the Holocaust, he wanted people to keep in mind these types of things were happening in other places, during other times, and very well might happen again. My book came with an author interview where he states that, perhaps yours didn't, but I wanted to make that clear. That is why Bruno, even though he is corrected constantly, does not change his names for them. [I read your whole review after this...but it sounds like it might have been a slightly different interview?:]But, I'd also like to point some things out that you said.
First of all, you wrote that you couldn't believe Bruno didn't know what was going on... but, that is historically accurate. A LOT of Germans didn't know what was going on. This is why Auschwitz II-Birkenau was out in the forest, hidden by trees. Even people who lived across the street from Auschwitz I weren't entirely sure what was going on. The Nazis were doing anything they could to hide what they were doing. The soldiers weren't allowed to take pictures (though some of them did) and this is why the Nazi's began destroying Auschwitz II-Birkenau when the Soviets and the Americans were closing in. So Bruno having no idea what is going on IS historically accurate. And of course, what others said, he is a 9 year old boy!
I'm also not sure why you are surprised that Schmuel had survived for a year considering there are and were survivors of the Holocaust...so obviously people had lived for a year or longer in the camps. Some people actually were in the camps for much longer than a year.
In any event, I liked the book, I'm not saying you have too, but I think the book challenges people to look at things from a different point of view. Not many of us have ever thought what it might have been like for children during that time and I think Boyne captures both childhood innocents and cluelessness perfectly.
I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the book.
Hi Teresa,In a way I'm sorry that you DID enjoy this book.
As a child of a prominent Nazi, Bruno would have been in the Hitler Youth, would have seen portraits of Hitler hanging at home , in his classroom , in public places. Would have been indoctrinated at school about the Jews and their racial inferiority.Yet he is so so ignorant.Of Hitler, the Hitler salute, of the Jews.Of course he may not have known of their fate.
The debate still rages about the ignorance of the ordinary German as to what was "going on".
The country was swamped with slave workers of every nationality.Many factories had Jewish slaves who were undernourished,sick,starving ,dying. I've met them when I was a member of the Jewish Holocaust Committee.German civilians, young German women , worked alongside Jewish prisoners targeted for extermination in camps like Auschwitz and went home for rec leave. They saw nothing wrong with what was happening to these people. Nor did the wealthy Corporations in whose factories or laboratories they worked and who all wanted to use free Jewish labour.
Researchers are still finding out the location of concentration camps in Germany itself that they did not know existed.They are in the tens of thousands.
Please read about what REALLY happened.
There is a huge library of books, there are more than 6 million stories ,and the survivors have theirs too as well as the perpetrators and witnesses who helped the victims.
Why are you choosing to concentrate on a fiction , and a poor one at that, from a writer who obviously does not realise the implications of his poorly researched book in a time when Holocaust denial is becoming louder and more rampant?
The Holocaust is NOT a sentimental tale.
It is a REALITY.
There was no Saviour when babies where caught on German bayonets in bayonet practice, when young children where held by the heels and swung against brick walls in front of their mothers.The school children who were fed poison food.The young mother who was ordered to shoot her mother, father and husband otherwise the Nazis who had entered the house when the family were at dinner, would kill her new baby. What would YOU do ,Teresa???.
Imagine it happening to your children - the poisoned food, the bayoneting, the brick walls.These children were not protected from knowing about the Holocaust.
No little Brunos here to snivel over.
The Holocaust is not a book or a story
...it HAPPENED.
Bruno is a fiction!!!A travesty of TRUTH.
Wayne, Sydney Australia.
Bruno is a metaphor for the way the entire nation saw the evil in front of them and pretended to ignore it. This book has many elements that are not "in your face".
Wayne, you shouldn't assume just because I enjoyed this book that I know NOTHING of the Holocaust and how incredibly terrifying it truly was. That in itself is a travesty! I studied abroad in Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic while in college in a WORLD WAR II AND ITS AFTERMATH History course (which of course included a trip to Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II-Birkenau themselves) so it is very unfair of you to assume I know nothing. The Holocaust is something I have been reading about and studying since I was little. I've written college papers about it, read many survivors stories, learned from professors in Europe who are well versed in this matter, etc. And just because I have knowledge of the horrors and shear terror of it does not mean I have to automatically hate this book. Boyne is not out to write a book people should read and say "Oh, so that is what it was like" He even said that! He said he was writing it from a view of what MIGHT have been. MIGHT...key word. People need to realize that he isn't saying this is how it was, he's musing on an idea that popped into his head on how it COULD HAVE been. And yes, I do agree with what you said about kids and families knowing, but, you and none of us were there so we cannot be sure how EVERY single persons life played out during that time.
There is nothing wrong with writing a fictional tale of someone wondering "If there was an instance like this, what would it be like." This isn't a text book, its not meant to educate people, its meant to be read and thought about. That is all. It is fictional for a reason. That means its not real, it didn't happen.
And I should believe the underlying story of two boys prevailing over severe prejudice to be friends is a wonderful moral that we all could learn from.
Thankyou, Teresa.
With a response like that, all I need say is:
I rest my case.
Wayne wrote: " Thankyou, Teresa.
With a response like that, all I need say is:
I rest my case. "
You didn't like the book, I did.
Such is the case of most books.
That's all there is to it
No, I'm sorry my dear, the implications of Boyne's book are far beyond merely liking or disliking it.
There is far,far more to it.
Wayne wrote: "No, I'm sorry my dear, the implications of Boyne's book are far beyond merely liking or disliking it.
There is far,far more to it."
Whatever.I'm not going to argue with. You will have your own opinions of the book. Others will have theirs. That's why they are called opinions
I'm sorry you received such hatred about your review. I think it's obscene that we can't separate a book about a subject from the subject itself. People are afraid to criticize this book because they'll be seen as Nazi-sympathizers which is absurd. To accuse someone of being so is to be fascist yourself. I appreciate what the author is trying to do, but I , too, was offended that the author himself said we don't have the right to not think this book is perfect. It's offensive to amazing stories like Elie Wiesel's Night. (Wiesel is the one who says no one but a survivor has the right to even write about the Holocaust.)
I don't have a problem with someone loving this book, so why do people have a problem with us not loving it?
So I'm sorry you've had to deal with this. I'm sure I will, too.
Brandy I agree with your review as well. This book was awful. It was terribly written, and it does a horrible disservice to both the survivors and those who died during the Holocaust. It trivializes the whole event, it's sickening.
Now that you mention it...yea, some parts don't make sense. Like, at all..
um dude EW. wtf get over it ew. it's just a good book. not all things in books have to make 100% sence. he was just trying to show how naive the boy was and exaggerating it only made it clearer duh! think of all the english speaking kids who mistake words for other things urh. it just frustrates me that you can be so critical i mean get OVER it. i'd like to see you write something better. kids are often that niave, you know. or i doubt you know. and don't bother sending some lame, stupid reply trying to sound all smart just because i sound dumb because nobody CARES. especially not me. i mean having read your review for this book i couldn't care less what other sh** you have to say. get a life
byeeeeeeeeeeeeee
and no, i don't care if i sound like a stupid lame immature kid because that's what i am. and i'd much rather be me than someone who has nothing better to do with their lives than write nasty reviews about good books. it's not as if some of the greatest books ever don't have flaws.
oh and btw i used i thought you might like to see how your review has aided me in my essay: The language used in the book is another technique used by the author to help shape the audience鈥檚 interpretation of the story. Because the story is told from the point of view of a German child, the language is quite simple and straightforward. The author chose to use uncomplicated language because he wanted to show the story from the point of view of a child, an this makes it more realistic. The language used also indicates to the reader that the child is uneducated about the war and the Hallocaust, particularly the way in which Bruno mistakes words like 鈥楩uror鈥� for 鈥楩ury鈥� and 鈥楢uschwitz鈥� for 鈥極ut-With鈥� and does not know the meaning of the word 鈥楯ew鈥�. This reinforces the fact that Bruno is a na茂ve and innocent child who is unprejudiced. Using this language helps to give the reader insight into the life of a child during the war and the effects of war on children.
Thank you for a honest review of this book. It is good to see someone take a stand for something that they did not like. You have every right to air your opinion on this poorly written book. I am sorry to see all the nasty flames that you are getting from it. I to have had the joy of getting nasty responses when I am honest about a popular book. Unfortunately I had to take down one of my reviews because a certain woman would not leave it alone.
Jen Leamen wrote: "You do have problems. It is a little boy! If it was that time period would you want your NINE YEAR OLD little boy knowing that on the other side they were poisoning people because of there relgio..."Bruno's father was a high-ranking Nazi officer. He would not have considered Jews "people," for one, and would have expected and encouraged his son to support what the Nazis were doing. Bruno's father would have (and would have been expected to) educate his son in the ways of the Nazis. Perhaps you should look up "Hitler Youth" on Wikipedia. As the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, I find that the very concept of this book trivializes the Holocaust--something that has played a large, painful, personal role in my life. It's an extremely sick, offensive, ridiculous, misguided, and misleading piece of fiction.
Thank you, Wayne, and thank you, Brandy, for your comments. I'm sorry you both have faced such criticism (although I'm certainly opening myself up for abuse now as well, I suppose).
I hear what you are saying, but I have to disagree. 'The Fury' was a nickname for Hitler. Also, it was very intresting how the boy didn't know about Hitler. Think about it. The book would have been ruined if the boy had known about Jews. He would 1. stay away from Shmuel and 2. Would probaly be argonat and annoying.Also, I agree that the sister was like a eight year old. She was annoying and ill-behaved. I hated the character of Gretel and the way she treated her brother. That usually does not happen in real life.
I wonder if you remember anything about being a kid. You are naive and unaware of most things going on around you. It is very likely that many 8 year olds and young didn't really understand what was going on. Remember, many adults didn't believe what was happening despite all the proof they were faced with. That kind of horrifying stuff was extremely hard to understand.Take a close look at the young kids around you and you will see that they pronounce things wrong all the time even though they are corrected. They are kids. Just because he speaks German doesn't mean he knows the definition of everyone word.
I think you need to read this book without hindsight and through the eyes of a child.
Jen wrote: "I wonder if you remember anything about being a kid. You are naive and unaware of most things going on around you. It is very likely that many 8 year olds and young didn't really understand what wa..."Jen, I wonder if you know anything about Nazi Germany - an eight year old boy would have been in the Hitler Youth (or rather, in the Jungvolk organization) and so would his sister. And they would have been indoctrinated about Jews from an extremely early age. Moreover, even when children mispronounce things, they don't usually mispronounce them as words in another language. The "F眉hrer"-Fury mispronunciation makes no sense if you assume that the boy is speaking German (as he is, in fact, German.) The word for "fury" in German is "Zorn" or "Wut", neither of which is remotely like German. (And lest you think I am focusing solely on one nitpicking thing, I feel that this is just one example of many in which the author was lazy and unconvincing.)
I knew that one was coming Jen. I was going to say "Get ready Jen, because someone is going to yell at you about not knowing anything about Nazi Germany"But nobody gets what this story is really about. Instead they want to nit pick and get upset over the historical inaccuracies (good thing its a FICTION book right!) instead of the underlying story of friendship that was made even when the children were supposed to hate each other.
But, that's all I'm saying. This book could be argued to the end of the earth.
Hi thereI noticed you all have some strong views about The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, which makes you ideal people for me to ask if you would you like to put a question to John Boyne himself about his book? BBC World Book Club is interviewing him on Tuesday 23rd February and would love to hear from you. If you could email me at ruth.mcdermott@bbc.co.uk as soon as you can with your question about the book (anything - doesn't have to be particularly clever!), we can either arrange for you to talk to the man himself, or have our presenter put your question to John for you. Then you get to hear your question on World Service Radio! Please get in touch soonest, including where you are in the world and a telephone number we can contact you on.
Thanks, and all the best.
Ruth McDermott, BBC World Book Club
Bless you for this, Brandy and I'm sorry you've gotten trolls here.Attention trolls: if the author didn't want people to "nit pick" (your words)over the inaccuracies and plot holes, he should have done a science fiction book about Beepboo who lives on Planet Zix and makes friends with Seedoo who has different color antenne.
But he didn't. He set it in Nazi Germany, a place for which there is, sadly, plenty of good accurate documentation.
Don't excuse this by saying "it's just a kids story". As a children's librarian I know damned well the power of children's fiction when it is well written. And if they're not old enough to read about the ugliness of the Holocaust, then they shouldn't be reading about it. Period.
I say this as an Ashkenazi (that means Eastern European) Jewish woman who grew up in a NYC Jewish neighborhood with Holocaust survivors, who has no relatives left in Poland where the Holocaust wiped out any family members who hadn't emigrated. I say it as the mother of a child who at 8 was traumatized by a teacher reading to her class about the Holocaust who now at 15 (just as I once did)carries a copy of Anne Frank's diary around with her.
It may be "just a book" to some of you, especially you foul mouthed types who can't even argue effectively. But you are talking about MY family history and this trivializes it insultingly.
Hi Library Lady, and others...There is such an emotional response to this book, might you have anything you'd want to ask Mr Boyne? What would be the one burning question you'd want answering? Do let me know on ruth.mcdermott@bbc.co.uk.
Ruth
Hi Library Lady,It is hard to get through to young readers who have obviously been effected by Boyne's book. On the large PLUS side, I do hope his awful book does generate a real interest and lead them to pursue and peruse genuine Holocaust writing which has no trace of Boyne's sentimentality,ignorance and warped fabulist mission. "A Square of Sky" is one such book. And the 3 books for young readers by Hans Peter Richter who was a real German boy and a young soldier : "I Was There" recounting his experiences as a young boy in the Hitler Youth;"The Time of the Young Soldiers",
telling of his experiences in the army which he joined aged 17 years;and "Friedrich" relating the story of a friendship between a Jewish and a German boy.
DON'T despair. Go gently. Their generous compassion for Boyne's Bruno will bear good fruits and Boyne will be forgotten when the 'real thing' comes along.
And hits home.
Your own story was a tragic and moving one. There are millions of stories and we get JB!!!!
Regards Wayne Bradley,Sydney Australia.
'the fury' is adolf hitler not Der F眉hrer
Yeah, it was a good book but it had many flaws/unreal/incorrect parts.
So ok it had flaws, but it is a book. Maybe the author wasn't just trying to show the effects of the Holocaust, maybe he was also portraying friendship, showing that just because people are meant to hate each other you can still find friendship and love. Have you looked it in from that point of view? Saying that it is a terrible book because it is not factual is what I believe to be wrong, it is just like saying that shakesphere is wrong for writing Romeo and Juliet and making them fall in love. I believe the author decided to show a side that not many others would dare to, i just believe he's showing naive children being friends, it doesn't have to be true. It my view it was a good book, about friendship in any situation.
Cassie, have you heard of the BOOK "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? Ok, it has flaws, but it is a book, just a book, a mere book!!
It is also a pack of lies about Jewry.
It contributed to that event we call the Holocaust, this mere book with flaws. It is still being used to this day to promote anti-semitism.And by the same people who say the Holocaust never happened.
If John Boyne wanted to write about friendship, interracial friendship, he could have used any situation, as you say.
There is nothing daring about Boyne's book.
There is nothing ABOUT Boyne's book.
Much more to "Romeo and Juliet" however!!!
First of all it sounds as if you are trying to mock me? "Ok, it has flaws, but it is a book, just a book, a mere book." If you think you can write better, I challege you to do so, if you believe that this book is so wrong and un-ethical, write your own version and get it to sell. I am not saying that John Boyne has covered every section of the Holocaust in this NOVEL. Also I do not believe that because John Boyne has not outlined every terrible thing that happened in the Holocaust that he has created a pack of lies, and that he is against Jewish people. He isn't stating that the Holocaust did not happen, either. Also I have learnt a lot about the Holocaust, have studied the Jewish Religion, intensely and heard survivors stories, as well as visit many Synagogues and musems about the Holocaust, and just because I have read this book and liked it does not mean that I believe that the Holocaust did not happen, also it does not make me any less Knowledgeable than yourself on the Holocaust just because I liked this book, as you seem to be implying. Yes John Boyne could of choose any situation such as the Australian nurses being trapped in Japanese war camps and being rapped and killed, such as the soilders fighting in the Middle East, for their coutries or their lives?, For the constant choice that has to be made by African people. "To kill thy brother or be killed", but infact he chose this situation, his book is published and on the shelfs and it may not be the whole truth, but like I say it is a fiction book. Fiction - not factual.
And if you don't like the book that is fine with me. But telling me the flaws of the book isn't going to change my mind, nor anyone who likes it because it is one for their own. I liked the book, does not mean I know anything less about the Holocaust. You enjoy, you're opinon and I'll enjoy mine :)
Ok. This book was written from a 9 year old boy's point of view. Honestly. Tell me what 9 year old says everything right? I'm sure like most children during that time, Bruno's parents did not want to tell him about the horrible things that were going on. I know I wouldn't. Question. Is that all you do to books? Read them to nit pick if they match historically to the "T"? If so, I honestly feel sorry for you. I like to read books for enjoyment. Whether they are accurate or not. I loved the book. And would gladly read it to a mid-level classroom to teach them about the Holocaust because I think they would be able to relate to it better than obviously you do. I wonder what you would do for a book that "was historically accurate"? Would you try and find something wrong with it too? Did u not like the way that the author used the word "the"?
Where in the book does it say anything about it being Auchwitz? If you have any idea whatsoever, you would know it is not about Auchwitz because the 9-year-old boy would NOT have lived passed the gates. They catigorised children, women and men. Kept the men mainly to work, killed the mothers and their children and sent the ones who could work off.It has no reference to Auchwitz, or to anything that resembles that place.
The children of high-powered members of society had little knowlege of anything in that time and the life of Burno is actually ACURATE to what it would have been like.
You must remember this is a childrens book! It is the mild introduction into the time for children and adults alike which needs to be remembered in my opinion.
My conclusion is that you have very little idea about what you are talking about and to judge this book with no knowlege whatsoever you look like a fool.
I am actually a published author in the area of war and I gave this a great review - so you keep on believing that we live in a perfect world where we have no gruesome history.
Kim N wrote: "Brandy I agree with your review as well. This book was awful. It was terribly written, and it does a horrible disservice to both the survivors and those who died during the Holocaust. It trivial..."...I havent read this book so should i or shouldnt i from all these bad reviews
Cassandra I think it's implied that it's Auschwitz... "Out-With" in german would be Mit which doesn't make any sense the only logical thing I can think of it that it is a strange join between Auschwitz and the English equal. and just because your a write about war doesn't give you or anyone the right to put someone down because they didn't like a book. I hated this book, I read for enjoyment but the flaws of it ruined the experience. It had no grabbing power except when the author stopped trying to create a realistic vision and got on with the story. I've read books in this genre and none have ruined their subject matter as much as this did. For me.
I agree with your review. I was disapppointed with this book. It could have been so much more. However, I do believe Boyne was trying to express the innocence of children. he tried to show how parents lie to children "for their own sake" which ends in tradegy. Also, children are innocent; they do not judge; they do not see race. Boyne attempted that in this novel too. He is sucessful in the characterization of the friendship but not in the bigger picture of the novel.
most of the things u said was true, but i think the plot was great!
I'm so glad to see someone else agrees with me about this book. I was seriously disturbed by most of the 4 and 5 star reviews on this site, Amazon, and B&N.
I think it's a same not to read the entire thing if a book does make you angry. Surely that's the point of fiction? to produce emotionally charged responces. The point is that is the fiction had been written well then the historical accuracy wouldn't have mattered. It's only when the quality of fiction is so poor that the complete disregard for any historical qualities comes into question. I think it's a bit rude to just call someone an idiot aswell.
