John Boyne: The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas

[Mirabell]

t's one of the worst books I've read in a while and I regret every second I spent with it. The writing is mostly decent, the construction clever, but its many flaws overshadow the rest so much it's barely worth mentioning the positive aspects in such a short review. According to interviews he gave, John Boyne wrote this one in a matter of days, on an inspiration, without constructing it beforehand as he usually does. Instead of devoting a certain amount of thought and consideration to a topic that has been the subject of much writing so far, he basically wings it. Reading The Boy With The Striped Pyjamas it's quite obvious what the idea was. Not working on it, thinking through the kinks, making it work, however, has marred the book, making it into the mess it is. Not that that's any concern to Boyne, who made it big with the book that sold incredibly well, and was both generously translated and made into a high-profile movie. So, seen from that angle, the book is a huge success, and its flaws go a long way in explaining why that is the case.

Good German: John Boyne’s ?The Boy in the Striped Pajamas? shigekuni.


God I hated the book.

 

[Clarissa]

God I hated the film!

 

[Daniel del Real]

I was about to be to read the book, but I guess you showed me the light M.
Thanks!

 

[Mirabell]

God I hated the film!

and from what I gather, it's better than the book. hehe

 

[miercuri]

I know someone who loved this book so much that he read it in English, Spanish, Catalan, French, Hebrew, plus Portuguese, German and Dutch, the last three being more of a linguistic exercise. Still pretty much insanse though.
I haven't read the book myself and it's so strange coming across such contrasting opinions...

 

[Colette Jones]

Well, miercuri doesn't know me, so there are two people who love this book.

I picked it up when first published and didn't realize it was a YA novel. I started it on a Sunday morning and finished the same day. I would recommend it to anyone, but it is important they do not know what it's about before they start (like the protagonist).

 

[Mirabell]

Well, miercuri doesn't know me, so there are two people who love this book.

I picked it up when first published and didn't realize it was a YA novel. I started it on a Sunday morning and finished the same day. I would recommend it to anyone, but it is important they do not know what it's about before they start (like the protagonist).

As my review makes clear, I think no-one should ever pick up this book. =)

 

[Heteronym]

God I hated the film!

James Horner's score was great, though, especially the music playing in the end.

 

[beelzebubbles]

I don't remember the score, but I did like their beautiful Bauhaus home.

I guess what distressed me about the movie (no, I never read the book) is that it presumes that the audience will find it more distressing for the little German boy to be inadvertently killed than for the little Jewish boy or all the Jewish men to be rounded up and gassed.

And I am sorry that is the presumption whether the filmmakers recognize it or not.

Isn't that what makes everyone queasy about this book and movie?

Or am I just stating the ridiculously obvious?

 

[Mirabell]

I guess what distressed me about the movie (no, I never read the book) is that it presumes that the audience will find it more distressing for the little German boy to be inadvertently killed than for the little Jewish boy or all the Jewish men to be rounded up and gassed.

And I am sorry that is the presumption whether the filmmakers recognize it or not.

Isn't that what makes everyone queasy about this book and movie?

Or am I just stating the ridiculously obvious?

I think in my review I said that Boyne makes the Shoah judenrein. Because yes, you're right.

 

[Clarissa]

The story belongs to what I call 'Shoah business'. I loathed it - the film, I mean. Never went on to read the book. The whole thing seemed so dishonest.
If anyone wants to read a book on the subject, for goodness sake, read Primo Levi or Imr? Kertesz. At least they wrote about what they knew - and both are/were fine writers to boot.

 

[Mirabell]

The story belongs to what I call 'Shoah business'. I loathed it - the film, I mean. Never went on to read the book. The whole thing seemed so dishonest.
If anyone wants to read a book on the subject, for goodness sake, read Primo Levi or Imr? Kertesz. At least they wrote about what they knew - and both are/were fine writers to boot.

I don't think that this is necessarily the problem. I don't have a problem with people who write about the Shoah without actually having experienced it. BUT this book has a clear moral point to make and this point, no matter how long you call it a fable, is historical as well. This book severely distorts historical contexts and as unimportant things as 'cause' and 'effect'. Suggesting that the two boys' roles could well have been reversed is almost evil in its distortion of the fact that that is not true. There is a reason why each has his or her own place there, and that reason is historical and cultural. The book is part of a broad effort currently to read the Shoah as a general catastrophe, with Jews only a small group among many many others also affected. This disapproval of dead Jews, in turn, is usually used in broad attacks lauched at living Jews. Tova Reich, in her masterful, but sharp satirical novel "My Holocaust" has eloquently attacked the 'me, too' attitude in respect to the Holocaust, as well. It's, by the way, a great way to sound out people's prejudices. Hand it to someone and if, after a third, he loves it and tells you: "YEAH, she's right, those Jews do misuse the Holocaust for their greedy goals", you know whom you have on your hands. Happened four times now. He. I should review that book. It's really, really good.

 

[Clarissa]

I don't have a problem with people who write about the Shoah without actually having experienced it.

Neither do I but as you say, Mirabell:

... this book has a clear moral (???) point to make and this point, no matter how long you call it a fable, is historical as well. This book severely distorts historical contextsand as unimportant things as 'cause' and 'effect'. Suggesting that the two boys' roles could well have been reversed is almost evil in its distortion of the fact that that is not true.

That is precisely what I meant when I said I found it dishonest. Added to which the film was shockingly bad.

If it was supposed to imply 'there but for the grace of God go I', it failed miserably.

 

[Jane]

My response is extremely late. I recently read the book in Dutch. I have to admit that it is the first novel I have ever read in Dutch, so I cannot claim to have read it in both its original form nor as a native speaker. However, I found it intriguing enough to disagree with the position some of you have taken. I've never watched the movie so I can't comment on that.

However...I find the book was misread and its main thrust was misinterpreted.

This book severely distorts historical contexts and as unimportant things as 'cause' and 'effect'

Firstly, the book is not meant to be historically accurate. It's fiction. The book, as I have read it, was meant to portray the humanity in evil. John Boyne took the effort in several ways to portray the humanness of all characters both “evil” and “good”. Even the innocent protagonist, Bruno, distanced himself by refusing Shmuel's call for help when Lieutenant Kotler asked whether they were friends. Nevertheless, he knew it to be wrong. It came to him as an instinct to protect himself.

Suggesting that the two boys' roles could well have been reversed is almost evil in its distortion of the fact that that is not true. There is a reason why each has his or her own place there, and that reason is historical and cultural.

Secondly, the "role reversal", if you can call it that, was not meant to distort facts. It was meant to show that at the heart of it all, they were not so different from each other. I don't think it should be called “role reversal” simply because neither Bruno nor Shmuel switched places. There was no reversal of roles, only a meeting of friends, as equals, as humans on the same side of the fence.

These points are further enforced by Boyne's last two sentences in the book. In the Dutch version it says "Natuurlijk gebeurde dit allemaal heel lang geleden en kan zoiets nu niet meer gebeuren. Niet in onze tijd." (Translation: Ofcourse this all happened a long time ago and something like this can no longer happen. Not in our generation.) There seems to be a sort dark humor within these last few words. To me, he throws the whole humanity prospect into completion, by portraying that something like this is always unexpected no matter how much we try to prevent it. Because, of course, genocides still do happen.

The book is part of a broad effort currently to read the Shoah as a general catastrophe, with Jews only a small group among many many others also affected. This disapproval of dead Jews, in turn, is usually used in broad attacks lauched at living Jews. Tova Reich, in her masterful, but sharp satirical novel "My Holocaust" has eloquently attacked the 'me, too' attitude in respect to the Holocaust, as well. It's, by the way, a great way to sound out people's prejudices. Hand it to someone and if, after a third, he loves it and tells you: "YEAH, she's right, those Jews do misuse the Holocaust for their greedy goals", you know whom you have on your hands. Happened four times now. He. I should review that book. It's really, really good.

This, I do not find within the book. It sounds as if you yourself have your own prejudice. Is it so wrong to claim that many people were effected by WWII, by the Holocaust? In Russia, Japan, Germany...etc? I find it always weird that Germans in particular still feel so much guilt that this guilt runs deep in their national identity. We should accept and learn from mistakes. Why is it such a sensitive subject? Why hinder free speech? Why is it so wrong to say that some Jews do use sympathy to benefit. Isn't that normal? People have used sympathy to benefit for years.


Of course, I don’t claim that the book was the best book I have ever read, but I would like to give it some justice. It was an interesting read and I think it had a very valid point. In the right circumstance, anyone can be “evil.”