FATHER BRESSANI CATHOLIC HIGH SCOOL: A SCHOOL FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND ADVANCED PLACEMENT CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Post #2: Reflections- novel
Students are required to spend some time reading and reflecting on peer's initial posts to Boy In The Striped Pajamas. Please comment on two peer posts . For each of your posts begin your comments/reflections with, " My response to Post #1 written by (name of student) is..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My responses are to Post #1 written by David Jardine and Thomas Hewitt.
ReplyDeleteI liked how, in David's response, he mentioned the way in which the author describes events through a naive pair of eyes, and as such leaves the story incomplete. I think that with John Boyne's carefully crafted, vaugue desciptions of Auschuwitz and the House, the empty holes can be filled by our own understanding and opinions of the holocaust, adding to the experience.
I also agree with David's reflection on the meaning of "Heil Hitler", and how the german public should not have been saluting such an evil man. On the other hand, we must consider that Hitler was though to be the saviour of his people, saving them from the great depression and leading them into an age of great prosperity. There are two sides to every arguement, and it could have been completely rational to praise the hero of germany(especially iif you had little to no knowledge about the holocaust)
I especially liked how Mr. Hewitt brough up the topic of bruno's ignorance, and more specifically, how it might have come about. It is a well known fact that the Nazi party used a wide variety of means to propagate their ideals on jews and the aryans. Why, then, would the son of a high-ranking official be so clueless to even the opinions being spread around them, let alone conform to them. perhaps, unlike our beliefs at first glance, his parents are not as strong a pair of Nazi sympthizers as we thought. Indeed, we see bruno's mother defending pavel the waiter, so obviously she does not identify with Hitler's teachings. If someone like her ended up marrying someone like him, then perhaps they both stood neutrally on this serious issue, and the father is in fact not in support of the holocaust, simply a man doing what he has to, because he has little choice.
I also liked thomas' forshadowing of the end of the novel, asking wether bruno will be contaminated or obliterated by the world around him. This raised the question in my mind, which is worse?
My response to Post #1 written by Samantha Cesario is in response to her comment about how the entire story had a sense of “gray” to it. I completely agree with her because the Holocaust did set a gloomy mood, not only to the Jewish people in the concentration camps, literally seeing, being and living in all gray but to the rest of the whole world who was affected by these actions of the Nazis. Also, when I was reading her blog, I thought of something I hadn’t when I was reading the book by myself. When I think of gray, it’s not white or black, it’s in the middle so it almost puts a shade or doubt, if you will, over my eyes because I am not quite sure exactly what it is made of. I think this is how most of the world felt about the Holocaust, because just like Bruno, although they were provided with a lot of clues and hints, that we reading now think are so obvious, they did not really know or even see for that matter what the Holocaust was made of, what it truly was about and what Hitler, along with many, but not all, Germans were doing.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Post #1 written by Erica Smenderovac is in regards to when she expressed the concept of “happily ever after” and how the novel is about the Holocaust, so they are virtually non-existent but I disagree with this statement. The author uses Bruno’s naivety and ignorance as a decoy from the ugly truth, but when I look at the miracle that took place between Bruno and Shmuel, Bruno was right about everything not being as bad as people think. The story did somewhat have a happy ending. The reader learns both Bruno and Shmuel die at “Out-With” and although, their death is not a happy ending, how Bruno even ended up in that Gas Chamber is a miracle. Bruno and Shmuel had met simply by coincidence, Bruno was exploring, Shmuel was trying to get away but their friendship wasn’t. They talked for a year and met almost everyday. Bruno provided his friend with food and a sense of fake hope that there might be a “happy ending”, that is father is coming back and that he will be able to come to Berlin one day with Bruno, ultimately he kept Shmuel alive. When Bruno learned that he was moving back to Berlin, the boys made a plan for Bruno to go over on Shmuel’s side of the fence. That day both boys went home in high spirits. Now soon after this same event, the boys die and their deaths are not the part that make the happy ending but they both died happy that they were finally with each other, and this makes the happy ending because it was something that throughout the whole book they could never say until that moment. They may have died but at least they got to do what they for one whole year had wanted to. People criticize Bruno’s naivety and ignorance, but if he wasn’t naïve and ignorant, he wouldn’t have been exploring that day, he wouldn’t have met Shmuel, I wouldn’t have learned what I learned and the story wouldn’t have been as heartbreaking and moving as it is.
The two blog posts that I found I agreed with were Megan Zanette's and Sarah Natale's.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Megan. While reading the book I was also frustrated. Bruno kept discovering things and there were no answers for him. Bruno kept asking questions and no one gave him straight answers. I found the most common answer was "your father's work is very important" What kind of answer is that? Not only was it frustrating that no one gave him proper answers, it feels wrong to just lie and hide the truth from your children. Especially when the truth is so terrible. It was also incredibly frustrating for Bruno to be so naive. There was the biggest mass murder in history happening in his backyard and he thought there were old women knitting in rocking chairs and children playing in the streets. It was frustrating yet I also enjoy how Boyne used this ignorance and naivety to show how everyone is equal.
In response to Sarah Natale's post, I also find it amazing that the nine year old was so correct without knowing it. I think that the Fury is a much better name for Adolf Hitler. He killed over 10 million people. I think he was definitely a Fury. Coincidentally (or maybe not) The Furies in Greek mythology were The God of the Deaths servants. Fury is definitely a name that i would use to describe Hitler. I some-what agree with Sarah's interpretation of Out-With. I saw it as Out With the wrong and bring in the good and the right. Out-With is also, In my opinion, a good name seeing as millions of lives were taken here. Out-With the lives of the 'wrong' in Hitler's eyes.
My response to post #1 written by David Jardine is that he is completely right. During this time period, majority of the population was kept in the dark to what is happening around them. After finishing the book, I realized that if this fact wasn't true, then Bruno would not have died. But it seems that at the time, no one knew exactly what was happening. I believe that not everyone knew that the war affected people on both sides of the fence. Although the story of Bruno may not be true, it gives us an example of what could have happened to what people thought was the stronger side. Like David said, Bruno was told to say "Heil Hitler", without the slightest clue to what he was saying. It makes me think, if people actually knew what was happening, could it have been prevented?
ReplyDeleteMy response to post #1 written by Megan is that I agree with her, when she said that she was frustrated by the book. Looking back at it, I see that throughout the majority of the novel, Bruno was not told a lot of things. For example, although he asked many times, no one would tell him what his father’s job was. Even when people did answer him, they sugar coated the answers, making them seem less horrible than they were. Shmuel never once told Bruno how they were treated on the other side of the fence. I don’t believe it was because Shmuel didn’t know; rather, he wanted to protect Bruno from the harm that his own father was creating. It seems like Shmuel wanted to leave Bruno the way he is,naïve to the on-going war around him. It’s frustrating to read a book, knowing what is happening, but then seeing the story told from a young boy, who thinks the world is too good for any harm.
This is my response to Post #1 written by Erica. To begin with, I completely agree with her feelings about the novel being “dark”. When I was reading the novel, especially at the times where the author was describing the concentration camp, including the low huts and people in striped pajamas, I could not help but remember my trip to Auschwitz. A few years ago, I went on vacation with my family to Poland and one of the places we visited was Auschwitz concentration camp. The experience was so different and insightful and moving and emotional that to this day I still remember it clearly. The one thing that surprised me the most about the camp was how, even though it was a bright, sunny day, the atmosphere was very dark and sullen. Despite the fact that the Jews were liberated over 60 years ago, the terrible and inhumane things that happened will never be forgotten. The darkness will never fully be overcome, and this is something that came across very clearly to me in the novel. In addition, I found her remark about how there won’t be a “happily ever after” ending quite intriguing. Although at first I did “roll my eyes” at how seemingly stupid and obvious this fact was, as I read on, I realized that she had a good point. When I think about it now, I did have a tiny glimmer of hope inside me, despite the circumstances, while reading the book. By presenting the Holocaust through the eyes of an innocent nine-year-old boy, the reader is faced with a moment of false hope, which unfortunately is quickly shattered as reality sets in – that nobody, not children, not the elderly, not one man or woman, were spared when it came to the cruelty of the Nazis during World War II. Finally, I really enjoyed her last few sentences about the window and the fence. I thought they were very well composed and they really got me thinking about how the major theme in this novel applies not only to what happened in the past, but also to what is currently going on and to what is bound to come in the future.
ReplyDeleteMy second response is to Sarah’s comment on Post #1. While reading the book, I did not thing much of the names Bruno (and other people) were using to describe certain places and people. Before reading the comments posted by my peers, I had no idea that Hitler was referred to as “Der Fuhrer”, which means leader in German. Reading her post in particular interested me because she focussed on ideas that I barely thought about while reading the novel. When she related “Out-With” to the phrase “Out with the old, in with the new”, it gave me a new perspective on the term. At first I thought it was used only as a simple substitute for the name Auschwitz, but her theory in regards to the new government was very enlightening. Also, I definitely agree with everything she mentioned about Hitler; in fact, I used some of the exact same words in my Venn-diagram when comparing Germans to Jews.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Post #1 written by Isabelle Nicholls is that I am grateful for the fact that she made the connection of Out-with and Auchwitz. If not for her, I would've never made the connection. This too is not my first time reading the book, and I have also noticed major points that never occurred to me in the past. I think Isabelle and I have the same viewpoint on so many matters. All of the labelling in this story also struck me in the worst possible way as well. The Germans had no right to take all over their anger out towards the Jews. The fact that they were to wear the star of David on their sleeves to represent their culture so that people know to treat them wrongly disgusts me. I know that I cannot change the things that have happened to these people, but I still wish I could take all of their pain away.
ReplyDeleteMy next response to Post #1 written by Martha Pulnicki is that once again, I agree with her entirely. Bruno may very well be the most naive nine year old boy in the world at this time period, but if his parents refused to answer all of his questions, how was he supposed to know better? His parents were wrong in keeping everything from him, but after a while I begun to feel thankful for this. Imagine what would've happened if Bruno's parents had told them of their distaste for the Jews and about the tragedy that was happening behind the fence. Do you think Bruno and Shmuel would've developed their friendship the same way if they did? Bruno idolized his father and I think that if he was told to hate the Jews, Bruno would've hated Shmuel. His innocence to what was happening to Shmuel may've saved their friendship without them even knowing it.
My responses to Post #1 are written by Thomas Hewitt and Kyle Nguyen. In response
ReplyDeleteto Thomas’s post, I agree with how the book started out. I was expecting to see a more detailed beginning of the book, something that would grab my attention and be overwrought with emotion. The beginning was very simple and this simplicity is because of Bruno, the boy who we are viewing this world through. His naïveté does cast a different light on the subject. Instead of the ruthless Nazis, we are viewing soldiers, in shiny boots and pressed uniforms, as protectors of the “Fatherland.” I also agree that the lack of knowledge that Bruno has about his surroundings is unnatural. A child of his age should not be kept in such a state of darkness, where they are unaware of the true nature of the happenings directly outside his window.
Although the story does have a cloud of impeding doom suspended over it, I think that this novel shows a stronger feeling than despair. It also portrays how being innocent does not protect you against the horrors of life. It does not save you from death; it does not prolong your life. Instead, innocence can lead you to believe there is never anything truly evil. Bruno’s lack of knowledge to the horrors on the other side of the fence end up killing him, because he does not see the soldiers as killers. Despair, sadness, fright, these are all words that can be used to describe this novel, yet the cloud that is surrounding this seems to overpower all others.
In response to Kyle Nguyen’s post, I also found that Bruno came off a spoiled little boy, and that he is stubborn and immature. Readers also should be aware of his age and his behavior is typical for a 9 year old. He does however seem a little too naïve for his age. He is being exposed to a new world, but I don’t find this a decent excuse on Bruno’s naïveté. I think that his parents should have given him a little more insight on the reason why they were staying at Auschwitz. I agree that a powerful statement is when Bruno salutes his father. This shows how incredibly sheltered he is. He believes that saluting Hitler is a greeting. The place where Jews are being tortured and murdered, the most infamous death camp, is right behind his house. Yet he has no idea what is going on, or why. Bruno blindly follows his parents, and believes what ever they tell him. I think Bruno’s belief in his father is shown when he and Shmuel are talking, when Shmuel tells of the soldiers. Bruno asks if Shmuel hates his papa. This shows how Bruno believes that his father, a Nazi who leads the death camp, is a good man.
My response to post #1 written by Martha Pulnicki. First of all, I agree that the use of simple and repetitive language (from the perspective of a nine year old boy) certainly added to the reader’s emotions and sense of connection throughout the story. Also, I shared Martha’s feeling of extreme frustration and anger towards Bruno’s parents’ vague responses. I, like her, get annoyed when I do not receive a sufficient answer to my question. However, Bruno was simply too naïve to understand anything but what he was told. This is quite unfortunate because I strongly believe that it is better to know the truth (how hard that may be), than to be suffocated by lies. I also found myself having a great urge to speak to Bruno and Gretel and tell them “No! You’re wrong. You’re knowledge is nowhere close to the truth; this is what really happened…” However, in some weird way I was happy that Bruno was as naïve and curious as he was, because without that, the story would not be as compelling. It was like a smack in the face to readers, seeing how such scary and drastic things could be going on without much understanding of people so close to it.
ReplyDeleteMy response to post #1 written by Sarah Natale. I agree that Bruno seemed like a spoiled little boy living in the confinements of his school, home and market. And I believe that this was the main basis of his naïve nature. On many occasions Bruno remembers his many explorations in Berlin. However, in the true sense of the word, they were not explorations. He did not go outside his limits and discover new concepts and scenarios, but simply found new locations he’s never seen before. When Sarah commented on Bruno’s feelings about moving to Out-With in relation to his father’s outlook on the situation, some words really caught my attention: “his father is a Nazi, a person who was making millions of Jews feel the way his son was feeling.” This reminds me of the idea Mr. Racco and David were discussing today in class. David pointed out that Shmuel was a prisoner, unlike Bruno who has no idea what it must feel like. However, when looking deeper into it, Bruno was a prisoner, in his new house, in his thoughts, and even in his relationships. An example of this, like Sarah said, would be his mispronounced words. If Bruno had more knowledge on the matter, he might be able to break free of the jail – or in this case concentration camp – of naivety.
I agreed with several posts however I felt that Sofia Tijanic and Michelle DiCeglie both brought up very interesting and enlightening points. My response to Post #1 written by Sofia Tijanic is that I thought that her opinion on Bruno’s father was spot on. When I stopped and thought about it, I realized just how damaging of an impact he was making on the life of his very young son. By constantly sending Bruno the message that he was too busy and important to talk to him, Bruno’s father’s actions inadvertently resulted in his son’s death. Bruno felt so utterly alone and friendless at Out-With that he defied his father and explored the area around the fence. There he met Shmuel, a person who he could confide in and talk to, a person who did have time for him. Although this friendship did lead to many good things, like the breakdown of preconceived notions about culture and race, it did ultimately lead to the death of Bruno. It seems to me, that if (like Sofia said) Bruno’s father had chosen to listen to and spend time with his son, this story may have had a very different ending.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Post #1 written by Michelle DiCeglie is that I wholeheartedly agreed with her post about how Bruno is always very polite and respectful to everyone but is then treated with absolutely no respect. I believe that if someone goes out of their way to be polite and respectful you should extend the same courtesy to them. The golden rule to treat others as you would like them to treat you is something that Bruno’s family should follow. For them to expect him to be a model son while doing nothing in return disgusts me. I believe that his parents need to lead by example and help Bruno understand what is really going on around him. I also agree with her comment about how the family seems broken. This is demonstrated time and time again when Bruno’s father fights with his grandmother and especially his mother. To me, it seems that not even the Commandant’s wife supports what he is doing. She definitely does not want to raise Bruno and Gretel in such a sinister environment and finally manages to convince him to let her take the children and return to Berlin. To top it all off, she is not even faithful to her husband, which is demonstrated by her affair with Lieutenant Kotler. To me, it seems as if the catalyst which has driven the family apart is Out-With. It is because of Out-With that this once happy family has become fractured and it is because of Out-With that Bruno’s family lost him at such a young age. It seems as if the all-consuming evil that characterized the death camp of Auschwitz, an evil that tore countless families apart, was so powerful that it contaminated even those who ran it and by doing so tore yet another family apart.
My Response to Post #1 written by Ryan Baldinelli completely in my opinion captured what the reading was trying to symbolize using the fence. Ryan stated that the setting depicted both a "physical and delusive" fence. This physical barrier was there to keep Bruno and his family "safe" from the Jews, the 'bad ones'. Although there is this physical barrier it frustrates me that Bruno is still so naive about the people on the other side. What I mean about being naive is that he still does not see the slightest difference between his life on his side of the fence and Shmuel's life and on the opposite side. We continually see this comparison throughout the novel with Bruno saying that his life was oh-so- similar to Shmuel, with the move away from home, being both nine years old, having the same birthday and many more. Although some of these comparisons may be true, there are many that are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. For example, Bruno's "move" was to help situate his father closer to the concentration camp that he was in charge of while Shmeul's move was TO the concentration camp. I also agree with Ryan's interpretation that the author was creating a very dark setting.
ReplyDeleteMy Response to Post #1 by Isabella Socci is along the same lines as my opinion because I too agree that the author uses Imagery in a wonderful way that truly allows the readers to picture the most accurate setting of the novel. In this case, the author uses imagery to create a very dark, gloomy image that in my opinion truly describes the concentration camp. Isabella also says that Bruno goes through a shock which I completely agree with. Through this shock, Bruno becomes unaware of the situation his country is and exactly where is new home 'Out-with' is located-- next to the largest concentration camp, where innocent Jewish people were murdered.
All my peers' responses were very well done but I felt as though I could most relate to Ryan and Isabella.
My response to post #1 by written by Veronica Cesario was indeed a clear statement of what I was thinking. I felt that Veronica truly did mention the most important thing in all of these statements that I have read. In my opinion it was the part where she had said, "It also frustrates me that Bruno, a young child was forced to say 'Heil Hitler' and 'hail' a man who did such awful things to innocent people. " This is ENTIRELY true in my mind because he did not know what he was doing it for. For example, Bruno had been taught to salute the soldiers and 'The Fury' with a clear voice, stern hand and straight legs put together standing tall. But, as Bruno had said, he thought that it was a way to express, "Hello, talk to you soon." The child was so naive, and I assure you that if he knew who Hitler was, and why he was saluting him, he would have thought twice.
ReplyDeleteMy response to post #1 written by Mary Ann Bui was another clear statement as to what I was thinking. I especially agreed with the statement in which Mary Ann had written, "I found that Bruno, for a rich little boy, was polite and listened to his mother properly. His sister however has made me disgusted with her comments of how 'filthy' they looked (pg 37) and how she is friends with her brother's bully." This really made me think that even though Bruno is offered so much and has been treated with all of the best things, he is still a down-to-earth boy looking for reasonings to many things. I found it so hurtful that Gretel is so mean to Bruno, and of course being an older sister myself, we can get like that sometimes. I saw that even though Gretel the 'hopeless case turned not so hopeless' really started showing her true feelings and colours as soon as Lieutenant Kotler had left. The part that made me hurt the most inside was when Bruno was gone, how miserable Gretel was, and how much it ruined the family. I truly believe that Out-With really did ruin their perfect family.
My responses are to post #1 written by David J and Thomas Hewitt.
ReplyDeleteI completely agreed with David on how its an aboslute concern that Bruno was being given instructions, rules and regulatios so blindly and can't even explain why. It feels as if Bruno and Gretel don't even know who they are. As David refers to being put in the dark from the truth and meaning behind what was really going on was completely wrong on the parents behalf . It is unfortunate how Bruno and Gretel along with the majority of the German nation had to suffer because of poor decisions made by their leader. Furthermore, Bruno's innocence in saying "Heil Hitler" was said without hesitation. He was told to say this and like most children his age he obeyed and used it as an everyday gesture to say a simple goodbye. Overall, DAivd's point in my view was that Bruno was completely isolated from the truth of who he was and what he was doing. Unfortunately, his ignorance got the better of him, but it also brought him a friendship that would change his life.
I grew of interest expecially in particular the last sentence. "I look forward to finishing the novel and learning what will happen to Bruno and if the surrounding evil will contaminate or obliterate him." This made me think about how Bruno's surrounding of such evil may effect him. He is ignorant and naive to the world around him, but this may be for the better. Bruno's ignorance brought him ultimately to death but in turn brought him a best friend and compassion that seems near the impossible. Despite the tragedy of his passing was it all worth it? Opposed to going through the motions of life not knowing who you are, what you're doing, not associating with specific people with no other reason other than just because.
My response to post #1 by Melissa Paul is that yes, I do agree with her statement that the novel "The Boy in The Striped Pajamas" somewhat starts on a random page. Without giving us background information on the characters, settings or how the plot may lay out the book kind of just begins without warning. In doing so though, the author sets a mood for the readers of darkness and depression, not only in Bruno eyes, but also in the eyes of those around him.
ReplyDeleteWhen Melissa states "Knowing that war is going on all around you is something that is very hard to live with," she is absolutely right. I wouldn't be surprised if Bruno did not even know that a war was going on around him. In his parents' defence I understand them trying to keep his innocence and scare him by telling him their situation and his father's position in the war, but they should at least shed a little light on the matter because his lack of knowledge could eventually get Bruno into lot of trouble.
My second response is to Zachary Smarts' post and I was very fascinated by the fact that he assumed "out-with" was really Auschuwitz. Although this assumption may be very obvious to some people, I did not come to this realization until Zachary bought it up. It just proves what an unknowledgable little boy Bruno really is. But of source as I mentioned earlier, it is not entirely his fault. His parents should have told him as little as the country they were moving to because I'm pretty sure he is oblivious to this too until Shmuel reassures him of it.
Some of my previously commenting peers said that
they like to think of Bruno as a spoiled bratty child who thinks life on the other side of the fence is better than his own, but I do not think this way. The only reason he acted this way was because this is the way he was brought up and it is the only way he knew. He was upset about his move so he reacted in a way I think any nine-year-old boy would react. He is only being a boy and that's what boys do, all boys except the ones on the other side of the fence of cource.
I agree with most of my friend's comments when they had replied that the feelings that have come from the book are mostly negative; fear, anger and despair. However there are two of the #1 posts that I would like to comment on. They are written by my peers Sofia and Megan.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sofia when she had stated that the simplicity of the book 'can be interpreted for the deeper more complex themes'. I found it to be extremely interesting to piece the puzzles together from Bruno's naivities and witnesses. Because the author had put together the book in such a vague form, the reader is free to imagine what is taking place and paint their own picture using Bruno's knowledge as a guide.
Although I do agree with Megan in her post, there was something that I would like to point out when she had said how she was frustrated when his mother did not give him answers he "deserved".
Keeping in mind that he is only a 9 year old child, you also already know that he is extremely naive and innocent. Even today, many parents keep information from their children to keep them "safe". The children are not old enough to carry the burden of the heavy knowledge that their parents do. And their parents do not wish to make their children worry about problems that they don't need to think about.
I do not agree with how the mother refuses to inform Bruno about anything, but I can understand why. His mother already made signs that she does not completely support the idea that Hitler has thrown out. Perhaps she does not think it is wise to tell Bruno what she believes because being as innocent as he is... he would most likely spill the secret to anyone who would listen. Yet at the same time, she does not want to tell him the truth of the corrupted situation for fear of him believing and thinking like the Nazis. Therefore, she gives out vague answers to avoid any problems. One thing that she went terribly wrong with is underestimating his curiosity and overestimating his obedience. He is a young boy that loves to explore, with a concentration camp nearby this could only lead to tragedies.
My response to post #1 by Michelle DiCeglie about the line "The family seems broken, there's no trust and although there is respect shown in mannerisms, there is no respect shown at a personal level." I agree completely with this statement because it shows the lack of humanity in the world of Hitler induced individuals. The fact the family cannot function with levels of respect that each member deserves seems a bit robotic like To me it seemed that the family, or at least the mother put great importance on respect; Bruno was constantly reminding himself not to interrupt her or to raise his voice while speaking to her. The rules of respect also applied to his father's office and the fact that he was not supposed to enter. Ironically though these mannerisms did not seem to apply to his Father, because Bruno gives evidence of rude interruptions and loud voices when his mother and father were having a discussion. Also, the fact of respecting someone is also telling them what they have the right to know, which leads into the trust issue that the family has. I understand that the parents may be trying to protect their children from the horrors of the world which ironically is happening in their own backyard. Yet, the trust between these family members seems to be invisible because each question is either avoided or answered vaguely. Which gets me to ask myself if there was really trust in this family even before they moved? Nevertheless, as the reader i sometimes want to step into the book kind of lift the curtain, so to speak from Bruno's eyes and reveal what is really happening. His ignorance, naivety and simple foolishness, sometimes make it hard for me to really believe that it is really true. I, as a child seemed to have been very curious(as I am told), and I think most children are, so why is Bruno not?
ReplyDeleteMy response to post #1 by Melissa Paul to the line "To be honest, as I started reading the book I was confused. It seemed as if I had just opened the book and started reading on a random page." I understand her point and actually paused at the beginning to try to gather my bearing and surroundings. I have always like for the author to give a little background information on the characters and their personal history. This is only because that I have found that I can relate to their experiences faster and easier if I know a little a bit about them. Furthermore, when i learn about the character on the fly it does not enable me to fully comprehend the story the first time; it usually takes me two times to catch many symbols and hidden meanings that i might not have seen the first time. That is because the fist time I am focusing more on the fact of interpreting the story. I feel that when the reader is given the right amount of the right amount of framework to the story (not to much to bore or to little to guess what the meaning may be) it helps them connect without having to spend to much time searching for more information, which in turn ruins the experience and the enjoyment of the book.
The first post by Michele is one I would like to take the time to write about for there are many points with which I found myself wholeheartedly agreeing. I really enjoyed her point about respect, or rather the apparent lack of it. She explains to us the obvious respect Bruno has for any person, granted this may be due to the fact he is too oblivious to have preconceived notions of anyone anyway. Yet, by focusing the point of respect to within Bruno’s family, allows me, as a reader, to draw connections and apply this theme to the rest of the novel and beyond. Not only is respect non-existent in Bruno’s family, this is also one of the main injustices of the Holocaust (coincidence, I think not), that being the fact that people refused to respect one another. Respect doesn’t mean loving and agreeing with everyone (we all know that we are too difficult for that), it means taking the time to learn, to understand, to create your own opinions based on your own un-bias observations. Then you can decide to agree or disagree, like or dislike. Notice I say like and dislike, very different from love and hate. This means no matter who the person is, you respect them. This doesn’t mean you have to like them or love them or whatever, but it does mean that you remain interacting and attempting to understand one another. What I think is a great guideline to follow if one wants to avoid megalomania and mass murder, but that’s just my opinion. Anyhow, I also like the fact she brought up about the father, more specifically the words she used to describe her reaction to him, “And his father? I feel a sense of disgust towards him.” Yes, I certainly do. Then she continues to make a point about Bruno’s obliviousness, which is, ironically, one aspect of the novel to which no reader is oblivious. This makes me want to point out that no character in the book is stranger to Bruno’s naivety either. That demonstrates a blatant disrespect to Bruno, who has become so frustrated and confused, while nobody cares enough to tell him (in a way he is sure to understand) what is happening. Back to my final comment, I enjoyed the way she concluded her point, with the line “Who knows, maybe Bruno will begin to get some of the answers, and respect he deserves.” An eloquently clear way to bring up her initial reaction and provoke inferences from the readers as to what the future of the novel will hold.
ReplyDeleteThe next post I would like to write about is Megan’s. The thing that struck me most about her piece was the quote she brought up, the one about the different views from two windows in the same house, one that stuck with me and challenged me since the beginning of the novel. There is Gretel’s window, where the forest seemed like a good place for exploration and picnicking. Then there was Bruno’s window, framing the perfect view of a concentration camp where the merciless extermination if countless people occurred. This brings a whole new meaning to casual sarcastic sayings such as, “How can you not see it? It’s practically under your nose!” It is quite literal in the case of “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas”. I understand Bruno is naïve, mostly because anyone who knows something (practically everyone he interacts with) refuses to tell him anything, so his ignorance is forgivable. This, however, raises the interesting point about those who aren’t naïve yet still plead ignorance. Thus, ultimately bringijng us to the age-old debate…is ignorance truly bliss. I refuse to take a definite stand on such an indefinite topic, but there are a few points I would like to get across. A, Bruno seems to symbolizes the group of Germans, whom albeit being surrounded by painfully obvious signs, did not understand the Holocaust (no, I am not counting those with long- or short-term memory loss because that qualifies as a mental illness, so there were all euthanized at that point). B, Bruno indirectly symbolizes the group of Germans, whom albeit being surrounded by painfully obvious signs, insisted on pretending they had no clue what was going on. C, there were people whom understood these painfully obvious signs and decided the hide Jews in their cold cellars, homes farms, factories. D, don’t forget the Nazis and Hitler and Mussolini and all the others we weren’t told the names of, who did the unspeakable things I don’t want to speak about in this sentence. Keeping all these points in mind, revisit the statement “Ignorance is bliss.” What do you think? Thank you Megan for making me think about this concept too, even if I reached this conclusion through the things you were saying hidden within the words you typed.
ReplyDeleteI would like to make a few more comments (then I swear I’m done). I just want to thank Martha and Megan for commenting and providing me with two different interpretations on an interpretation of my own. I totally understand the way Megan’s thinking (but she knows that already) and I really appreciated Martha’s agreements and personal connection (I have always been intrigued by your trip to Auschwitz). Finally, Zach your last question in response to Thomas’ response was brilliant, I was definitely thinking the same way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Post #1 written by Megan Zanette begins with my attention to the frustration which she feels throughout the initial 50 pages this story. More particularly, Megan’s analysis of Bruno’s mother: “It frustrated me that Bruno’s mother did not provide her son with the one thing he truly deserved, answers to why his life was being completely changed in such a short time.” Looking at the story from Megan’s perspective, I understand completely what angel her frustration derives from – watching Bruno ask questions to which his own mother will not honestly answer can be very frustrating. However, the perspective from which the entire story is written can be deceiving. Reading each scene as it plays out in this story through Bruno’s 9-year-old mind may cause the reader to pick up on all that he is experiencing without stepping back to observe each situation in its entirety. I believe that truthfully, Bruno’s mother was keeping many answers from her son purely for his own good. Having said this, I do realize that it is Bruno’s lack of answers which kills him. To this I also have an answer; at least for the time in which Bruno did live, he was free spirited and curious about all that he didn’t know – his knowledge of the cruelty in the world never held him back from being the best 9 year old that he could be. Furthermore, he accomplished something that grown men were not mature or wise enough to do, and that was to grow a relationship with one on the opposing side of the fence. Now had his mother omitted his frustration by laying out the truth about everything that was happening in that day and age, Bruno would never have had the courage to set off and befriend Shmuel, but his deficit of knowledge essentially opened up the doors to the most wonderful opportunity for Bruno during his lifetime. Relating back to my initial point, I would suggest that Bruno’s mother hid the truth from Bruno in hopes that it would conceal him from the tragedies that come along with the answers to his questions. Overall, Megan’s response was very accurate with relations to the story and I truly grasped the perspective which she revealed throughout her response.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Post #1 written by Sam Cesario takes into hand her reaction on the mood of the story. Samantha says, “When reading the book, I kept picturing it in my head with an overall sense of dullness and an underlying tinge of gray.” I concur with this statement as a general remark on the book; everything in this story sets off a sense of hopelessness. Everything except Bruno! To me, Samantha’s observation is present in all but Bruno himself, and the more that I learn about Bruno, the greater contrast I feel that he sets to this “greyness”. To me, Bruno is like a light of hope in this story. He was the one character that I was drawn from the beginning, to and while others looked upon his naivety as a bad trait, it represented pureness and hope in my eyes. Without knowing to become the enemy of the Jewish people who did no wrong, Bruno is able to ignite such a strong and innocent friendship with Shmuel. It is true that he was killed because of this lack of understanding, but at the very least he lived a truer and more meaningful life than any of those ‘powerful’ soldiers could have ever imagined. In the mind of Bruno, the world around him was like a playground, and all was his to explore and learn about, meanwhile others of his time discriminated and separated. Had everyone had the basic mentality of Bruno, perhaps things would have shaped up differently. They did not however, and they greyness which Samantha addresses is derivative of this. All in all I agree with Samantha, but would continue to say that Bruno was the red crayon in a box of grey colours.
I am responding to two of my peers, who have posted on Post #1, are Megan Zanette And Thomas Hewitt.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Megan’s post I realize, that I feel exactly the same as her! I am extremely frustrated with the book “The Boy In The Striped Pajamas.” Frustrated by how unclear the book is, how many mysteries in the book, Bruno’s naivety and his behaviour in general, Bruno’s forceful father, his crumbling mother, his obnoxious sister. But that is what makes the book so intriguing, how the author continuously including a lack of information. Mr John Boyne is a genius writer, to say the least. We, as readers, are somehow always ahead of Bruno, we know the gist of what is about to come. And with that it torments us, wracking at our brains, making us want to know more, even though we know we probably will not. No doubt anyone was not frustrated with Bruno for knowing so little and not asking to know more. I mean seriously by the end of the book he still had no clue of what was happening and died with blissful ignorance. He did not even know what his father did as a career and had no idea how horrible soldiers were. He lived beside a slaughter house unaware of anyone’s death. We know sad things will come out of the book and when they finally appear, they are all sad but none the less not surprising.
There were two main things I agree about Thomas’ post: that it is interesting and different for a Holocaust story to be told from a child’s point of view and that the book was surprisingly simple. Even though “The Boy In The Striped Pajamas” is a fictional novel it does obtain some truth in it. It has never been done before and I think Mr. John Boyne did an excellent job. He uses childish mentality, behaviour and mostly the naivety of children. Also I agree with Thomas on how simple this book is written. It is in no way, shape, or form a difficult book to read, only thing that would make reading the book how frustrated and misty-eyed you could get. I expected the book to much harder to read but it was an easy read which kept you reading until the very end. The simplicity of the book is what makes it an easy read. It allows then childish talk of Bruno to kick in, the vague descriptions, and especially the void of information he left out, to show how little Bruno, and Germans in general, knew about the Holocaust and the massacre of innocent Jewish lives.
My response to Post #1 written by Melissa Paul. I realized that the book was confusing at first, and I understand how puzzling the book was to open, since it is only written in the perspective of a nine year old boy. However, as the novel continues, she (and I myself) noticed that the writing was not as “random” and it seemed. She says that, “Viewing this time (referring to the Holocaust) through someone who is not old enough to understand it is an interesting way to see war.” I feel that this is very accurate, and I have the same opinion as her. War in a story is usually portrayed through the eyes of an adult who fully understands the concepts and consequences that are occurring around them. However, Bruno is nine years old, and he is continuously wondering what his purpose is at Out-With. He doesn’t realize the actuality of the scene, as would an older individual, and this is intriguing to read. I was also disturbed when recognizing what Bruno had to say when saluting his Father. It was inappropriate and horrendous that Bruno had to speak these words, regardless of the fact that he had no idea what they meant. Bruno was too naïve to comprehend the whole scenario, and personally, I don’t see why he would anyways, since he’s only nine years old.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Post #1 written by Megan Zanette. Her emotions are very similar, if not exact, to mine when reading the first 50 pages of “The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas.” Frustration is the key feeling when reading the novel, and I feel that Megan approached it perfectly. I see eye to eye with her when she said, “It frustrated me that Bruno could look out two different windows in his own house and be confronted with completely opposite realities, a bright afternoon and a day full of misery.” This is true, since he was swept away from his house in Berlin with no explanation and no realization of the reasoning. And as she stated, his different views outside of his window really pinpoint the difference in the place he lived in before and loved, and the place that he lives in now and despises. I also think that frustration is evident when noticing that Bruno’s Father will not tell Bruno any information in regards to where he is and why he is there, even though he has a right to know. It is unfair to Bruno and Gretel that they have to live in acceptance for something that they cannot and will not accept.
I agree - “Grey” is the color I see also, “it almost puts a shade or doubt, if you will, over my eyes because I am not quite sure exactly what it is made of. I think this is how most of the world felt about the Holocaust.” Right on, Megan!
ReplyDeleteMartha, this is a priceless experience…congratulations, “The one thing that surprised me the most about the camp was how, even though it was a bright, sunny day, the atmosphere was very dark and sullen. Despite the fact that the Jews were liberated over 60 years ago, the terrible and inhumane things that happened will never be forgotten. The darkness will never fully be overcome.” What you say is something I hope all students thing about, learn about, and hopefully do something about, “Finally, I really enjoyed her last few sentences about the window and the fence. I thought they were very well composed and they really got me thinking about how the major theme in this novel applies not only to what happened in the past, but also to what is currently going on and to what is bound to come in the future.’’ We must put our words into actions; remember King’s words, “"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. "
Sam you bring up an important point: ““No! You’re wrong. You’re knowledge is nowhere close to the truth; this is what really happened…” Is our knowledge about the Holocaust and about the Jewish and German culture complete? Or are we simply listening to the single story? We’ll discuss more about the single story when we view the TED Talk. Stay tuned.
Great comment Sofia - bravo! “Bruno, he accomplished something that grown men were not mature or wise enough to do, and that was to grow a relationship with one on the opposing side of the fence.” Absolutely, we need to do what Bruno did with culturally diverse individuals – understand, tolerate, and understand that among differences there exist similarities. Hopefully our Venn Diagrams show us this very point.
Great writing and reflection everyone.
My response to post #1 written by Martha Pulniki is that I've noticed many things reading that she has observed and written about, especially in the notation of the form of writing. Right from the beginning I noticed that the use of vocabulary is very elementary and simple, and that things are repeated several times, like how Bruno's mouth shapes into an "O" and he's hands spread apart to his sides when he is surprised. The reason why this occurs in this novel is described by Martha, she stated that the book is to be seen as through the eyes of a nine year old boy, maybe not as him personally explaining what is going on and the emotions, but as a third person floating in the sky depicting what is taking place both emotionally and physically. The narrator though speaks as a nine year old would almost as if is he/she is both viewing what is being thought and taking place, but also putting him/herself in Bruno's shoes "speaking" or narrating like a boy Bruno's age would. Keeping this in mind and also the interesting use of the narration of the third person, I find the basic vocabulary and repetition makes the book much more intriging viewing the holocaust through Bruno's mentality. Another thing Martha mentioned was the anger she felt on the fact that Bruno's mother and father seem to steer Bruno away from the truth in which they live in while he continues to ask questions about their own life. I completely understand the anger she feels that they won't explain to him why they moved far from home and comfort, what is his father's job, who are those people who live in the huts, because it must be frustrating for Bruno to not get answers for questions in which he has the right to know and for the audience to see how naive Bruno is to the massacre and chaos his father is responsible of. I completely understand this point of view that Martha is explaining about the anger she feels when reading this book due to the fact that Bruno is being hidden from the truth and answers about his own life and family due to his parents, and in the end who wants to be lied to from the people who you are supposed to trust. I though am not angry about the fact that he is not being told the truth about what his father represents and does, why they moved, or who the people he sees in the backyard are because this protection from the truth has made him naive yet kind hearted and innocent. If Bruno grew up learning to hate and discriminate the Jews he would have probably grown up with the same mentality as his father which is evidently wrong. He probably would have never met Shumeul and treat and regard him as a lower being and wouldn't be able to look past differences and cross borderlands, he though was able to do that in which a typical nine year old boy in this time period would probably never do without the protection of the truth. Shmuel also doesn't tell him the truth about what Bruno's father does to him and his people, and his horrible life beyond the fence because he realizes that his innocence makes Bruno the kind person that he is , and he probably doesn't want Bruno to be harmed by the truth of what a dreadful thing his father is doing at put him in the position of being against his own father and dear friend. In the end though both Bruno and Shmuel pass away due to the fact that Bruno didn't know any better by crossing the fence and the danger he would put himself through, resulting in their tragic death but Bruno was able to do something amazing in his life, he crossed the fence and borderlands and seeing past cultural differences but embracing them without him even knowing. This nine year old boy was able to do something millions of people didn't do. In the end I believe that innocence in some way is bliss.
ReplyDeleteMy response to post #1 written by Veronica Cesario is that I can relate and I share the same thoughts on how horrible and inhumane Bruno's father's mentality and actions are. I today find it mind-boggling how one person's evil thoughts can convince millions to agree and follow in a plan of killing millions of innocent people. It really infuriates me when I think of the power of one man's evil thinking. Bruno's father is one exactly one who puts himself under the influence of evil and acts like a robot treating people with no respect and dignity, calling the jews he unjustly imprisons "not really humans", and others around him as if lower beings in which they are not, because in reality we are all equals in God's image. The only thing for which I am glad is that the human race knows that this sort of mentality of injustice and cruelty must never occur again.
ReplyDeleteMy response is to post #1 by Melissa Paul. I agree completely with how she felt in regards to the detail, or lack of, presented in the beginning of the book and how it began to get clearer as the book progressed. I also agree with Melissa, and many other students as well, that it was disturbing to witness a young child honoring someone he knows nothing about. She also made a good point that no one in his family was planning on telling him why he suddenly had to move. This and the lack of detail interlink, I find, because the author is trying to put us in Bruno's perspective.
ReplyDeleteMy other response is to post number one by Megan Zanette. I completely agreed with her when she expressed her frustration. It was frustrating that Bruno's mother did not provide him with the truth. It was frustrating that Gretal thought her father could never do anything wrong. That was really the only feeling I had present throughout the novel and was glad Megan expressed it in such A clear manner. PS: I'm sorry this was a day late.