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?
Absolutely loved this book! Written perfectly and went by so fast. Every chapter had me wanting to know more of what Bruno would discover or what the author would reveal.
I do think the fable style story telling was perfect. I think this allowed people to view history in the eyes of someone so young. It lessened the impact throughout the story until the end.
I think the author intended for the reader to keep wondering if Bruno would ever really ask Schmuel what he was doing there. It was the cliffhanger throughout the book. I think the message was showing us that someone saw this exactly as it was… befriending a boy that looked lonely and in return Bruno found comfort and joy in returning to the fence everyday. It gave him purpose and I think if he knew what was really going on, he wouldn’t have kept going and in turn not being friends with Schmuel.
Pavel and Schmuel represent two people that helped him. One physically and the other one emotionally with friendship. I really don’t think he understands the camp and just sees these two people as people not like everyone else sees them.
I wondered that too. Why didn’t anyone ever notice he was gone? I kept thinking that the father would follow him or appear at the fence when he was there, but I think they didn’t know he was there. Or they did, and wanted him to figure out things on his own???
I think Pavel was killed and I think it happened in front of everyone, which made me very sad. With the lieutenant, I don’t know. It seems like he vanished!
Amazing story that most of us already know, but it was done in such an innocent way that you’re only focused on the two boys and hoping they are okay in the end, and not the brutality that really occurred. Looking back, I probably would have gotten fed up with Bruno’s ignorance if it had been written differently. It was powerful and honest in the way Bruno is presented to us and also showed that children don’t see all the negatives. They see people for who they are (totally cliche I know!). He sees Pavel as someone who helped him and he sees Schmuel as a friend that needed a friend as well.
Great pick! Can’t wait for the next one!
Love your comments Val! You’re right, it was perfectly planned in its execution as a story. You brought up a great point, that we are all familiar with the story of the Holocaust and yet we still believed that the outcome for Shmuel would be different. Do you that we as a society have the same hopes when we hear about atrocities in Syria, Iraq, etc? Do you think that’s why we are in our innocent little worlds believing that these things don’t happen anymore? Is Bruno a reflection of us?
Yes, I think that we are always hoping for a better outcome with world events. You hope that you can rationalize some of these things, but in the end you can’t since most are so devastating. It’s very hard to believe that all of the violence and hatred is still happening. Every one talks so badly about the Holocaust and the reality of it is that we are still living in that type of world. The Holocaust is almost held as a very distant memory, but we are currently living in a world that’s way too similar. I think we are all part of Bruno, but as adults now, after witnessing so much and watching the news constantly, we are much more aware that there are possible bad intentions with everyone, not matter racial background. That makes me sad, but it is the reality that we all currently live in.
Agree. We have an ideology of perfection and very defined notions of right and wrong; however, our actions don’t always embody those ideals. We talk about how the Holocaust will never happen again, but isn’t it happening right now? Its a strange reality that we can condone our inactions because its not “as bad” as the Holocaust. Hmmm….it makes me wonder about the world I am raising my children in. Will it ever be better or are we destined to continue the cycle?
Valerie, I loved reading your responses. The thought of Pavel being killed in front of everyone never crossed my mind, but now I am thinking about it and it is so disturbing.
In my naivety I imagined that Pavel was severely beaten and taken away, never to return to the house again. I imagined that he died in the camp from his injuries. He was already so weak and feable and could barely stand or poor a glass of wine, so I think being beaten could have easily led to his death within the death camp. This is how Bruno was able to maintain his own naivety and innocence despite the ordeal. Had Pavel been murdered there at the dinner table, Bruno would have witnessed the horrors that everyone was trying so hard to shield him from and the book would have taken a different tone.
I appreciated this type of literary format far more than I would have thought. Had it been anything else, I would not have been able to endure Bruno’s naivety. What is ironic is that this book had to be presented to me in fable format to be believable, yet these types of atrocities still happen today… Rwanda, Darfur, Chechnya, Syria. Perhaps if these events were occurring on my back door step I would also have a hard time believing they were real?
I believe Bruno had to stay naive throughout the novel or his character would have to react to the reality of the situation. Either by ending his friendship with Schmuel because he could not face the horrors beyond the wall or by revealing his secret friendship and speaking out against the atrocities. Either way, it would have caused a significant change to the storyline. I believe the author wanted to focus on Bruno and Schmuel’s friendship and let the readers ponder these choices internally.
For this very reason, the author also does not dig deeply into where Bruno’s family thinks he is every afternoon. I feel as though everyone in the house, to include Maria, believed that Bruno’s ignorance was bliss. They felt that as long as Bruno was occupied, it didn’t really matter what he was doing or where… just as long as he was away from the camp and didn’t know what went on inside. Almost an “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” mentality. Whatever Bruno was doing was working so why change it?
My initial impression was that the Lieutenant had an affair (or beginnings of an inappropriate relationship) with the mother and that is why he was sent away. The Commandant saw them getting too close and reassigned the Lieutenant. Although it could also have had something to do with the Lieutenant’s father and the Commandant finally discovered the truth. I wish we knew more about this.
I really enjoyed this book. I have to admit that I was very frustrated with Bruno’s ignorance as to what was happening around him. Throughout the entire book I was frustrated. I was frustrated because I knew what was happening and Bruno didn’t. I knew he was at Auschwitz and he didn’t. And I knew people where being starved, tortured and murdered and he didn’t. Then I read the last sentence of the book and realized that I am perpetuating the exact same behavior. I know atrocities are happening around us everyday, yet I choose to put on my blinders and focus on my toys, food and games just like Bruno. Because that is what I know, that is what is safe, and that is what is easy. Just like Bruno.
Great points Jess! I think that Pavel is a pivotal plot point in the story because it demonstrates that not one person was willing to stop the madness. Everyone witnessed it, they didn’t like it, but they didn’t stop it. It does tie into our current state of the world and how we as singular people can make a change or can perpetuate its evolution. But if you had been in Bruno’s position as a young boy, what would you have done? What could you have done? And what would have been the consequences? What would have happened if Bruno’s father had known he had befriended a Jew?
Really good points. Totally agree with the affair between the mother and the lieutenant! I feel like that was the whole reason that they didn’t realize Bruno was leaving everyday.
Funny how major things happen when we’re not paying attention!