Categories: books
Date: 09 March 2008 00:10:54
This book was chosen by my bookgroup quite a while ago. I have been reminded of it by something else I'm reading at the moment (review to follow when I've finished!).
This book by John Boyne, an Irishman, is written for children and is described as a "fable". It isn't a fable in one sense of the word because it is not a myth or legend but arguably in another definition of the word it is a fable because it is a "false, fictitious or improbable account" at one level. I said the story was written for children - in fact the blurb on the back of my copy says it is not a story for nine-year olds. It is certainly not a cosy story for nine-year olds.
Essentially, the story centres on a nine-year old German boy whose father has been promoted by the "Fury" to be the Kommandant at Auschwitz in 1943. Bruno, who is depicted as a typical lad of his age, is cross about having to leave his friends and school in Berlin and go to Poland (which he claims never to have heard of) with only his 12-year old sister, a Hopeless Case, and his parents for company. When he arrives in "Out-With" as he believes it is called, he cannot understand who all the people dressed in "striped pyjamas" are on the other side of the fence. As the story progresses, he makes friends with a boy, Shmuel, from the other side, who was born on the same day as he was. They have much in common in some ways and yet there is a yawning chasm between them in terms of life experience. The two boys meet at a point where the fence is not patrolled and, as Shmuel explains he cannot leave his side of the fence, they sit and talk and over a period of a year build up their friendship. Shmuel has the weight of the world on his young shoulders and realises that he cannot tell Bruno the stark truth of what is going on because Bruno is blissfully ignorant of such horrors - and crucially, shows no sign of understanding.
And this is where the book in my view is flawed. I was astonished that the members of my bookgroup (ages 30ish to 60ish) failed to see the flaws and horrified that their general level of knowledge about the Holocaust was so sketchy. I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch but my main problems with this story as a credible tale seen through Bruno's eyes were that Germans had been indoctrinated about the infallibility of Hitler since his coming to power in 1933. His official political title was Kanzler but he was called der Führer (leader) from early on. Anti-Semitic measures had been slowly introduced since his rise to power and gradually Jews had been denied access to all sorts of things including public transport, food, certain types of housing, entry to parks, etc. A German boy, particularly one whose father was in the SS would have certainly been taught to despise Jews, he would have known about various military campaigns and, even if he didn't really understand what was going on in the concentration camp, he would have understood that the inmates were the enemy of the state. Bruno would have known all these things and even if we allow ourselves to believe that he was naive and rather slow to make rather obvious connections, I for one could not believe in his innocence.
"Heil Hitler," he [Bruno] said, which, he presumed was another way of saying "Well, goodbye for now, have a pleasant afternoon." Likely? I don't think so.
I couldn't really imagine either that there was a part of the camp fence which was unguarded to the extent that it would allow two boys to sit chatting for whole afternoons at a time.
Another less than credible part of the story is that Bruno's sister has a bit of a flirtation with one of the soldiers assigned to the camp. It is hardly likely that the soldier would risk his career to be caught chatting up the Kommandant's daughter. In fact, without wishing to ruin the entire plot, there is another incident involving this soldier which is even less credible, but I'll let you find out what that is for yourself!
There is one part of the story which *does* hold water and that is where Bruno senses that it would not be prudent to let his family know about his friendship with Shmuel and so it remains his secret.
Bruno is so naive, so innocent and has such a sense of fair play that it seems that he has dropped in from another planet rather than having been taught all these horrors from an early age. These are the reasons that I think it is an "improbable account" - i.e (to belabour the point) that the author allows Bruno to live in a fantasy world where childhood is not tainted by wickedness even though unspeakable crimes are being committed under his very nose.
Given the above criticism, you may find it hard to believe - but I was deeply moved by the story. Bruno is a sort of "Just William" character with his lovable vulnerable innocence, unfailing faith in what is right and good and bewilderment at the world of grown-ups and especially of his pre-pubescent sister. The story is of course devastating and not really appropriate for children under 12 or 13, I would say, because it is too gruesome. But it is a story which has to be told to prevent such events ever happening again. And I would recommend you read it because despite its flaws, it will make you think.
Warning: can I suggest that if you are sufficiently interested to read other reviews before reading the book that you proceed with caution. There were a couple I read (after I had finished the book, fortunately) which contained massive spoilers.
As a sort of postscript, I spotted a copy of this book translated into German when I was in Vienna in September. I was interested to know how the translator had tackled Bruno's mishearing of "Out-With" (Auschwitz). I don't know his/her name - but my hat was well and truly off to this person. The translation was "Aus-Wisch" which is actually much cleverer than the English original because it means "Out Wipe". How utterly sobering.