The bell at the nearby elementary school is sounding as I settle in to begin my review of John Boyne's novel,
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. I suddenly find myself thinking of all the eager students sitting at their desks, eager, in part, to get on with the day but also because the winter break begins as soon as that final bell tolls at the end of the day. My mother was busy wrapping little presents for her classroom of 1st and 2nd graders last night when I called. 'Tis the season and all that.
I can't help but think of Bruno and Shmuel though, nine year old boys from very different backgrounds. Shmuel is Jewish and from Poland, forced from his home into a ghetto and then later to Auschwitz (or rather Out-With, as Bruno calls it), an extermination camp during the late 1930's and early 1940's. Bruno is a German boy, the son of the Commandant put in charge of the camp. The two boys form an unlikely friendship when they meet, one on each side of the fence. Bruno is bored and misses his friends. Shmuel is trying to get away from the horrors of the camp, at least for a brief while. How different life would be for them had they grown up in a different time, under different circumstances.
In the book, Bruno does not meet his Shmuel until about the half way point. Up until then, the focus of the novel is on the Bruno's family's movie from Berlin to Poland and their adjustment to their new home. While the main of the story may seem to focus on the friendship between the two boys, it also is very much about Bruno's family and their own relationships and experiences during such a tumultuous time.
I suppose reading a book about the Holocaust is not ideal holiday reading. And yet, I think it is in its own way. It's a reminder of the suffering both in the past and in the present. It makes us more grateful for what we have today and perhaps feel more compassion for others. I wish more than anything I could pull those two boys out of the book and set them in the elementary school down the street. Imagine them playing a game of soccer during lunch recess: no worries and no one to tell them they cannot be friends.
I have heard quite a bit about
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Initially the reviews were glowing but recent reviews have been more critical. Bruno is awfully naive. Can a boy really be so innocent and ignorant of the war and what is going on around him? Can he really not know what the camp outside his bedroom window is? Why the men in striped pajamas are behind that fence?
I confess I wondered that too as I read. Bruno seemed much younger than his 9 years. The author specifically set out to make Bruno that innocent, that ignorant. He wanted to counter the extreme evil of the Holocaust with extreme innocence. And I think he succeeded in that. The novel, written in third person, is told from Bruno's perspective. What he sees and thinks and feels is what is relayed to the reader. It's a very limited view, especially because Bruno is confused much of the time, unsure about what he is seeing and feeling, but it's also effective.
I also couldn't help but think back to
The Welsh Girl, which I read earlier this year. The German prisoners of war were made to watch newsreels of the death and concentration camps as the war ended. Many of them would stare disbelieving at the screen, angry and frustrated, some even accusing the Allied Forces of forcing lies and propaganda down their throats. They had no idea what had been taking place. They may have heard rumors and whisperings here and there, but even they were shocked at the extent of the horrors they were seeing.
During the war, the Nazis showed films portraying a rather happy and carefree life in the camps, not at all revealing what really went on behind those fences and in the ghettos. The Nazi government perpetuated lies and sometimes swore those involved to secrecy about what was really taking place. They kept the truth hidden--at least tried to on some level. As the author, John Boyne, pointed out in an interview at the end of the book, we, today, can't imagine not knowing and it is hard for us, as a result, to conceive of some of the people who lived back then not knowing--or, in some cases, not wanting to know, whether from complacency or outright denial.
Considering who Bruno's father is and where Bruno is living, it does seem a bit of a stretch that he would be so in the dark about the goings on around him--shouldn't he have an inkling? I would think so, but I don't believe this is a book meant to be analyzed too closely for accuracy or depth of character. That isn't to say the novel shouldn't spark thought or conversation. I think it is meant to do just that. Think of this novel more as a fable, if you will.
I have read criticism about Bruno, the type of boy he is, that he isn't very likable. Having grown up as he has, he does have a sense of entitlement which can be off-putting. He can be self-centered, which, I think, comes with his age to some extent. It makes sense though, given his upbringing and his naivety. What Bruno does have is compassion, even if he is confused by the idea and not quite sure how to act on it. From the bits we learn about his family, I get the impression that he was not raised in an anti-Semitic household, not exactly anyway, even despite his father clearly having adopted that attitude..
The ending of the book did not come as a surprise. While no one spoiled it for me exactly, I expected there to be tears on my part (and there were many) as I cry at both happy and sad endings, and I guessed early one what would happen. When I was the boys' age, history was glossed over and made pretty in the guise of making it age appropriate. Not being a parent nor an educator, I do not know for what ages this novel would be best for. The author himself denies that this is a children's book or an adult's book. When he wrote the novel, he had neither in mind. While written in simple text, this is a dark story that touches on a very terrible time in our history. It is in no way graphic, although much is implied, nor does it skirt the truth.
I had the opportunity to watch the movie soon after reading the book. The movie was very close to the book with only a few minor additions and changes. In my mind, the movie filled out the characters, making them more three-dimensional. The novel is limited in viewpoint, limited to Bruno's observations, whereas the movie offers a more full picture, getting a better feel for not only Bruno but his family as well.
Asa Butterfield played the role of Bruno, reduced to the age of 8 in the movie version. He is stunning in the role--his eyes are so full of his unspoken feelings and thoughts. His Jewish friend, Shmuel, is played by Jack Scanlon. His part, too, is well played. He seemed so old and yet so young, just as his character in the novel.
The relationship between Bruno and his father is much more palpable in the movie--at least it was for me. The book does go into Bruno's admiration and respect for his father and then later mixed with his questioning of his father's character, wondering how, if he is so good, he can let bad things happen, but seeing it on the screen made it seem all the more real.
When I first began reading
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, I was a little put off by the writing, but I eventually eased into it, and the story became a part of me. The movie was just as moving, adding more depth to the story and characters. The two complement each other well, and, in some respects, go hand in hand.
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is about friendship, and how friendship can bloom between anyone, anywhere. It is also a story about racism and lost innocence, topics that are forever relevant.
