Month: December 2015

Wow, talk about thinking a book is one thing but it totally surprises you with a twist.  In the beginning, we automatically think this book is only about Lydia dying and who did it, but the plot thickens as we move towards a motive for her death.  There are so many details in this short little book and each one of them is devastatingly important to Lydia.

We are introduced to a pushy mother who is living out her dreams through her oldest daughter.  We have a father living out his social ineptitude through his oldest daughter.  And we have two siblings who are forgotten ad ignored, yet are fulfilling the parent’s desires without notice.  The pressures placed on Lydia by both of her parents are the undoing of this family.   I think this story truly provides reflection on how our individual actions affect others around us.  In this case, we have two selfish adults (the parents) who are clearly so self-involved with their own angst and self-pity that they have projected their insecurities onto a child.  We all want our children to do better than ourselves, but at what cost?  It seems that the parents have convinced themselves that for their one child to succeed, she must do everything they always wanted to do but couldn’t.

This book touches on racial divides, gender expectations and suicide.  It is so easy to see the domino effect of our actions and our choices.  This book has the actual end result of projecting our desires onto our children.  A very well written story with so much detail and dysfunction to make us all question our true motives with our children and the potential effects it will have on them.  Lydia states on page 225 that “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”  For every push towards something, there is a pull away from it.  And Lydia’s mother finally concedes that after seeing everything in Lydia’s room and knowing everything that she had wanted for Lydia, that it “had dragged Lydia underwater at last” (page 247).  A very solemn conclusion but a final realization of what they had done to her.

 

What was your first thought about Lydia’s death?  What are your initial thoughts about Lydia’s parents?

Who is responsible for Lydia’s death?  Is 16 too young to make your own decisions?  What age makes you responsible versus blaming actions on your parents?

What is your final assessment of Lydia’s parents?  Do you believe the parents will change knowing what truly happened to Lydia?  Why do you think that they both chose Lydia as their symbol of success and not Nath or Hannah?

How do you think their relationships with Nath will change?  How will it change with Hannah?

If you are a parent, how did this story affect you?  Did you reflect on your own relationship with your child/children? Where do you draw the line with your kids on pushing them to do better?

What do you think of the title of the book?

I am so glad that I chose this book as our first because, as you found out, this little book has so much to say!  I am blown away by the impactful message this story conveyed and I am equally as inspired by its storytelling.  When you opened this little book, I hope that you noticed that the author labeled it as a fable.  By definition, a fable is a morality tale but is usually told through animals or inanimate objects.  This fable was told through a naïve young boy and this may have been the author’s effort to give us a naïve vessel to convey his story.

Nonetheless, this story was captivating from beginning to end.  We have a young boy telling a Holocaust story through his inexperienced eyes.  We don’t really know that it is a Holocaust story at first but little hints provided by the young boy, Bruno, lead us to that conclusion.  Even in the boys inability to say Auschwitz (he continually says “Out-With” even when corrected), shows the reader that Bruno has not been marred by the inexplicable things that are happening right outside his door.  Despite the evidence that something evil is happening in “Out-With”, Bruno remains untouched and unscathed.  Bruno is presented, time and time again with evidence of the happenings on the other side of the fence and yet he continues to live in his own bubble.  In Bruno’s discussions with Shmuel, Shmuel continually tells Bruno what is happening from his perspective and Bruno does not hear him.  Bruno continues to discuss his feasts, toys, three story house, etc.  These two boys are narrating their lives without expecting a response. Hey are each providing the pieces of the puzzle that links the two worlds at “Out-With” but they are not putting them together to help one another.  If they had listened, primarily Bruno to Shmuel, they may have understood what was actually happening there.

The message here can be as simple as a retelling of a Holocaust story or it can viewed as a deeper reflection of our current world and how, we as a society, can overlook the suffering of others by being self-involved and egocentric.  We can choose to be removed from crimes against humanity or we can choose to help.  Bruno could have stood up to the Lieutenant and claimed his friend, he could have told his family about Shmuel, and he or any of his family could have stopped Pavel’s beating.  Sometimes we don’t act until it’s too late and it directly affects us.

 

Do you think that that the fable presentation successfully helped to tell this story?  Would you have enjoyed it if it had been in a different literary format?

Why do you think that the author keeps Bruno naïve until the very end?  What does that say about society as a whole?  Is there a bigger message?

Why is Bruno blind to the concentration camp even when presented with Pavel and Shmuel?  What do they represent?

Why is Bruno’s family and Maria unaware of Bruno’s friendship?  Where do they think he goes to explore?

What do you think happened to Pavel? What happened to the Lieutenant?

What did you think of this story?  What message did you get from it?