Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Start discussion here for All the Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr.

from Simon and Schuster

Summary

Ten years in the writing, Anthony Doerr’s All the Light We Cannot See is an epic work of historical fiction. With richly detailed language and characters who are both brave and heartbreaking, Doerr weaves together the stories of a French girl named Marie-Laure who has lost her eyesight and a German orphan named Werner. As Hitler’s occupied territory grows, Marie-Laure and Werner’s lives and families are torn apart by the war, yet this gorgeous novel is the story of people who, against the odds, find good in one another.

About the Author

Anthony Doerr is the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel All the Light We Cannot See. He is also the author of two story collections Memory Wall and The Shell Collector, the novel About Grace, and the memoir Four Seasons in Rome. He has won four O. Henry Prizes, the Rome Prize, the New York Public Library’s Young Lions Award, the National Magazine Award for fiction, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and the Story Prize. Doerr lives in Boise, Idaho, with his wife and two sons.

from Simon and Schuster

Discussion Questions

1. The book opens with two epigraphs. How do these quotes set the scene for the rest of the book? Discuss how the radio plays a major part in the story and the time period. How do you think the impact of the radio back then compares with the impact of the Internet on today’s society?

2. The narration moves back and forth both in time and between different characters. How did this affect your reading experience? How do you think the experience would have been different if the story had been told entirely in chronological order?

3. Whose story did you enjoy the most? Was there any character you wanted more insight into?

4. When Werner and Jutta first hear the Frenchman on the radio, he concludes his broadcast by saying “Open your eyes and see what you can with them before they close forever� (pages 48�49), and Werner recalls these words throughout the book (pages 86, 264, and 409). How do you think this phrase relates to the overall message of the story? How does it relate to Madame Manec’s question: “Don’t you want to be alive before you die?� (page 270)?

5. On page 160, Marie-Laure realizes “This . . . is the basis of his fear, all fear. That a light you are powerless to stop will turn on you and usher a bullet to its mark.� How does this image constitute the most general basis of all fear? Do you agree?

6. Reread Madame Manec’s boiling frog analogy on page 284. Etienne later asks Marie-Laure, “Who was supposed to be the frog? Her? Or the Germans?� (page 328) Who did you think Madame Manec meant? Could it have been someone other than herself or the Germans? What does it say about Etienne that he doesn’t consider himself to be the frog?

7. On page 368, Werner thinks, “That is how things are . . . with everybody in this unit, in this army, in this world, they do as they’re told, they get scared, they move about with only themselves in mind. Name me someone who does not.� But in fact many of the characters show great courage and selflessness throughout the story in some way, big or small. Talk about the different ways they put themselves at risk in order to do what they think is right. What do you think were some shining moments? Who did you admire most?

8. On page 390, the author writes, “To shut your eyes is to guess nothing of blindness.� What did you learn or realize about blindness through Marie-Laure’s perspective? Do you think her being blind gave her any advantages?

9. One of Werner’s bravest moments is when he confronts von Rumpel: “All your life you wait, and then it finally comes, and are you ready?� (page 465) Have you ever had a moment like that? Were you ready? What would you say that moment is for some of the other characters?

10. Why do you think Marie-Laure gave Werner the little iron key? Why might Werner have gone back for the wooden house but left the Sea of Flames?

11. Von Rumpel seemed to believe in the power of the Sea of Flames, but was it truly a supernatural object or was it merely a gemstone at the center of coincidence? Do you think it brought any protection to Marie-Laure and/or bad luck to those she loved?

12. When Werner and Marie-Laure discuss the unknown fate of Captain Nemo at the end of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, Marie-Laure suggests the open-endedness is intentional and meant to make us wonder (page 472). Are there any unanswered questions from this story that you think are meant to make us wonder?

13. The 1970s image of Jutta is one of a woman deeply guilt-ridden and self-conscious about her identity as a German. Why do you think she feels so much guilt over the crimes of others? Can you relate to this? Do you think she should feel any shame about her identity?

14. What do you think of the author’s decision to flash forward at the end of the book? Did you like getting a peek into the future of some of these characters? Did anything surprise you?

15. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once wrote that “the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.� All the Light We Cannot See is filled with examples of human nature at its best and worst. Discuss the themes of good versus evil throughout the story. How do they drive each other? What do you think are the ultimate lessons that these characters and the resolution of their stories teach us?

I read this book a couple of years ago, before it became so famous, and I really enjoyed it. The image of the blind girl running her hands over the model of the town so she could find her way alone is visually strong. I thought that the relationship between father and daughter was wonderful too.

I just finished this book and would give it 6 stars if I could. It fits my ideal of the perfect book. The story unfolded slowly and yet there was never a time when it failed to capture my attention. This is huge, as I have to fight to stay engaged with many of the books I read. Despite it's length, it never felt long. When it ended, I felt a huge sense of loss that it didn't continue. I don't re-read many books, but I know I will re-read this one soon.

I agree. Loved this book. I liked how it was WW II from a different perspective.

Loved it!

I read this book a while ago and loved it. I also liked reading the author interview that part of the inspiration for the book was that radio waves connect people more than you think.

Just finished it and loved it. It did take me close to 100 pages to get sucked in, but once I was there I finished quickly! Loved the different perspectives and date ranges.

I thought it was a beautiful book: very sad, but rich and quietly intense and somehow life-affirming.

I am currently listening to this book, and I am enjoying it. I like Doerr's style, very beautifully drawn.

Typically I try to avoid books about WWII but I must say I loved the book. Doerr has a gift for prose and capturing the world from a different perspective. Can't imagine life as a blind person but particularly through what the character, Marie-Laure experienced. The book spoke to the strength of the human spirit.

Dianne, thank you for providing the discussion questions. In response to Question 14, I like that Doerr ends the book with the flash forward. Personally, I always like all the bits and bobs wrapped up but I think it speaks to the legacy that the characters carry with them both Jutta and Marie-Laure, and Frederick's mutti for that matter - it may be in the past but still affects their life even all those years later. It seemed more realistic than a happily ever after tale.

I thought the author did a wonderful job of switching between timelines (Question2) and characters. The characters' stories build, but we don't know exactly what has happened until the details are slowly filled. The movement of the timeline influenced the way I felt about the characters. I simultaneously felt both compassion for each, while aware of the direction each would go, I felt their humanity through their decisions, or inability to make decisions, either perceived or real. Their circumstances were at once no fault of their own, and also completely in their control. At any moment they could make a choice to do things differently. Some of those choices would result in their own death. How many would make a choice that could end their lives, to do the right thing?


I love the quote, when Etienne says "...these are more than just numbers" about the radio broadcasts they make. And Marie-Laure replies, "But we are the good guys, aren't we, Uncle? It's a contrast to Hauptman's quote, "It's only numbers, cadet... you have to accustom yourself to thinking that way." Where Etienne chooses to see the truth, Hauptman chooses to deny it. Although the characters are weighted in some direction good or evil, few are just one, even the minor characters feel like real people, neither completely bad, nor completely good, partially the instrument of history. Through the story, I saw how war hurts all sides, even the people responsible for so much wrong-doing. If you don't open your eyes, you become the frog in the boiling water. The youth in the story get the worst of it, they are too young to be placed in this situation, and it takes their lives, whether they live or die. Unless they choose not to let it.

When I look at how Volkheimer survives, I wonder if Werner didn't get the better end. After all, how would his life continue, after it had been so ruined? What I can't decide is this.... Did Werner know he was stepping onto the minefield? I feel that he may have done so intentionally, knowing that he could have been so much more, had the war never happened. Although the school/war gave him his "out" from a life in the mines, it also ruined him. How would he live with all he did, helping Volkheimer to kill with radio triangulations, and the death of the innocent girl?

Amanda wrote: "Where Etienne chooses to see the truth, Hauptman chooses to deny it."

The way these two men chose to look at the numbers does produce an interesting dichotomy between accepting the truth and denying it that I had not considered. Thank you for that.

Amanda wrote: "Did Werner know he was stepping onto the minefield?"

Ugh. I had not really considered that Werner might have committed suicide. Yuck. One more reason for me not to like the ending. I just figured he was loopy from illness and starvation. Just another tragic war death. I think I'll continue believing that because I believe Werner could have still found happiness, even after the atrocities he witnessed/collaborated in. He seemed to have found a measure of peace in his brief time with Marie Laure. The postwar atmosphere would probably not have allowed him to remain with her in Paris after the war, but I could see him returning to his sister and making new broadcasts for others to hear on the unseen light of the radio.

Hi Chad,
I think ultimately you are correct, Werner's death was an accident. I was disappointed that he died, and was trying to make sense of why the author chose to end his life there. I think the author didn't want to give him a happy end because it's a book about a horrendous time, and most people didn't get a happy ending. The character of Werner was not evil, though his actions weren't honorable. Later Werner was redeemed because he finally found the ability within to make his own choices based on his inherent goodness. I was interpreting the death as Werner's feeling complete. Perhaps the author didn't feel he had a further function. I agree that it would have been satisfying to see his talents used for a good purpose. He might have continued the work of Etienne. I thought it was interesting how much those two characters had in common.

I liked the ending for the most part, because I felt compassion for most of the characters, even the mostly-despicable characters. The only character I couldn't relate to, on any level, was Claude, the Frenchman who betrayed everyone for personal gain. The author really didn't round out this character.

I listened to it a year or so ago and was entranced the entire time. It was like listening to poetry. I loved "seeing" the world through Marie-Laurie, without eyes, but with all other senses. I liked the ending, that it didn't go into the cliche of two unlikely people ending up together, but with a more honest, true-to-life type ending. I think I mostly liked listening to the beautiful descriptions, even of moments that were really difficult, because the words were just put together so well. You really felt for the poor young man blasted by his peers for his compassion, and wanted desperately for it to all work out, even when you knew it couldn't, and just felt pulled into it. At least, I did.

Alana, your assessment of the book agrees with mine. The book had to end the way it did, to be consistent with the rest of the book. I read this book before it became really popular and I am so glad it did. It deserves it.