Monday, June 9, 2008
Book Thief--Death as Narrator
Is it important or fitting that Death narrates this story? Comment upon Zusak's decision to have Death narrate. What qualifies him to tell a tale like this one? Why is he so interested in this particular story (of Liesel Meminger) in the face of so many others? Is Death truly omniscient, as the reader's guide suggests? How can omniscience be determined? What does Death reveal about humans in this story? What does he reveal about himself? What questions might we have about Death that are not addressed or answered in the novel? Is he an effective narrator?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
74 comments:
To continue with the conversation about death from the style page, I agree with Alex. Death is an ironic narrator. He feels sorry that Rudy dies. Death says, "On many counts, taking a boy like Rudy was robbery" (242). Death is not normally thought of as having compassion and regretting that someone had to die. He even says, "You see? Even death has a heart" (242). Death is usually portrayed as a dark character with no goodness inside of him.
Death reveals a deeper side to himself in much of the book. In his 1942 diary, Death writes, "I do not carry a sickle or scythe. I only wear a hooded black robe when it's cold. And I don't have those skull-like facial features . . . You want to know what I truly look like? I'll help out. Find yourself a mirror" (307). Instead of the dark, frightening image we see of death, Zusak shows death as human. Death as a human gives him emotions and brings him closer to the story of Liesel. I think that this makes death an effective narrator because it makes him part of the story.
I agree with Brittany that Death is an ironic narrator. In most other peices of literature death is a cruel and dark character with no heart whatsoever. But Zusak shows a different side of death.
"They say war is death's best friend, but I must offer you a different point of view on that one. To me, war is the new boss who expects the impossible. He stands over your shoulder repeating one thing, incessantly: 'Get it done, get it done.' The boss, however, does not thank you. He asks for more."(309) This shows that even death has a negative view on wars. Wars demand more of death, yet people think they go great together. But death doesn't think so.
As Brittany pointed out, death is personified as human. But death also has a dark side. "I most definitely can be cheerful. I can be amiable. Agreeable. Affable. And that's only the A's. Just don't ask me to be nice. Nice has nothing to do with me."(3) Death is saying here that he will be anything but nice, this shows a dark streak in death. And death is dark. Death is the perfect narrator because he can show the dark view, the pessimistic view, but still remain almost human.
I agree with Brittany that Death's human emotions make him a more effective narrator. Like Holly said, "Wars demand more of death, yet people think they go great together, But death doesn't think so," his reaction towards WWII is the same as readers. Wars show how uncompassionate and selfish humans can be, towards themselves and towards Death. He hates his job but has no control over it. Humans do though.
As the narrator of the story Death states, "[Humans] increase the production of bodies and their escaping souls. A few bombs usually do the trick." War is the main cause for the pile up of bodies which makes more work for Death, who has to carry their souls. Reading Death's thoughts on war provides insight into his side. WWII is a complicated topic to discuss and Markus Zusak's novel with Death as the narrator helps show a new perspective on people in war.
I agree with Marisa. Death is the perfect narrator for World War II. Death was a major part of the war because of the high death toll. Since many people died during all of the years of the war, death has been around and has seen all of the war. Because he is a big part of this time period; death is the perfect narrator for the book.
Another characteristic death reveals about himself is that he notices colors first. The first thing death tells the reader is "First the colors. Then the humans. That's usually how I see things. Or at least, how I try" (3). Seeing colors first is an artistic trait, so death is shown as an artist. Once again, death is shown ironically because death is never shown as a creative person, much less as an artist. at the begining of each chapter in the prologue, told from death's point of view, he mentions a different color he sees. All of those colors are part of the Nazi flag: red, white, and black. This is death's darker side that Holly mentioned coming out. He also talks about colors before Liesel is introduced. This shows how important color is to death, which is a deeper side to him.
Let’s stir things up.
I disagree. I do not think that death is a very appropriate narrator for this book. Brittany H W said that, “Death is the perfect narrator for World War II. Death was a major part of the war because of the high death toll. Since many people died during all of the years of the war, death has been around and has seen all of the war. Because he is a big part of this time period; death is the perfect narrator for the book.” It is true that Death was around and very busy transporting dead people throughout the war. But he was not living through the war like Leisel and all the characters in the book did. He had no part in the war other than cleaning up the mess the humans made. He had no part of the Fuhrer’s propaganda, the fear, the politics, the prejudice, and the emotional confusion of the war. How then can he accurately portray what it was like to live during that time?
Death also, has a lacking ability to explain the feelings and thoughts that Leisel is feeling and thinking throughout the book. Because he is an outside character, he cannot describe the feelings and thoughts of someone who actually lived through the war. He can only tell what he sees: actions of characters. That is hardly enough to give the reader a good idea of what it was like to live at this time in Germany. He has never lived. He’s giving us personal observations and his own interpretations when he himself has never experienced life. We get a better idea of people’s thoughts and ideas trough Leisel’s interpretations of people’s thoughts and emotions through her comments in her diary.
I think the main reason Zusak used Death as the narrator was to be different and to make his book stand out from the rest. He did succeed in that aspect. He did describe Death as no other book has as Brittany H W said, “Instead of the dark, frightening image we see of death, Zusak shows death as human.” However, I think that this has taken away from the book more than it has added to it.
Christine M makes some interesting points here. First of all, she is right on when she says "the only reason Zusak used Death as the narrator was to be different." In a note about Zusak inside the back cover he states, "I wanted to write something very different." He certainly succeeded, but I agree with Christine that he may have made some sacrifices to accomplish that.
Death is a very complex character and this makes him difficult to understand and even unreliable at times. He states very early in the novel that he is only "a result" (6). This leads me to believe that he would therefore have no interest or bias in any of the souls he picks up. He's there to take them away and do the finishing touches, not linger in their previous lives and collect stories. However he does just that. Death falls into what he describes as "the most elementary of mistakes" (7), interest. Interest in the lives of the "leftover humans" (5). The ones he does whatever he can to stay mentally disconnected from. He intentionally distracts himself, goes on "vacations in the colors" (5), but still sometimes makes mistakes and gets attached. This attachment is where his bias and unreliability are born. He develops the closest thing possible to a relationship with these people and stories. "I saw the book thief three times" (5). This does not happen by mere chance. His interest in her draws him there time and time again, learning more of her each time and getting closer to her. This leaves Death as not the most reliable narrator to say the least.
Christine does make a few good points, and I do agree with some of them. However, it comes to my attention that Brittany also makes a good point. It is true that Zusak gives Death a personality. He shows us that death is not what most people think he his. "***A Small Piece of Truth*** I do not carry a sickle or scythe. I only wear a hooded black robe when it's cold. And I don't have those skull-like facial features you seem to enjoy" (307). This shows us that Death portrays a very different character in The Book Theif. THis makes him an interesting narrator for a story that takes place during World War II, where Death is so relevant.
However, I must say that Death is not the best narrator for the Book Thief. Death was a very important part of World War II. Still, I have to mention that this story isn't only about the war. While the War and Death play an important role in The Book Thief, it does sometimes seem that it is a somewhat minor role. This is the story about a girl who discovers books and the power of words in the midst of troubled times. Death often portrays Liesel's feelings in a very unrelieable way. I have to say that in a novel, it is important that the feelings and thoughts of a protagonist are often very important to the story. Death is not the most qualified narrator for this specific aspect of this job.
Finally, there is the fact that Death is an outside character. Plus, he is incapable of connecting to this story. Even though, Zusak has given Death a human-like personality, there is still the unavoidable fact that death is not a human. Therefore he does not really feel. Despite the fact that Death says, "You see? Even Death has a heart" (242) Death can not truly connect to the thoughts and feelings of Liesel, Rudy, the Hubbermans, or the other characters for that matter. So, I must conclude that while Death makes an interesting narrator, he is most certainly not the best one for the Book Thief.
I disagree with Lari, Alex, and Christine. Death is a reliable narrator and he is the best one for "the Book Thief". Death may not share the thoughts and feelings of the characters, as Lari pointed out, but I think that is a good thing. Suppose the novel was narrated by Liesel. If that were the case, we would only read about Liesel's thoughts and feelings and we would only know what she knows. Since death is the narrator, we hear about more characters and learn more about the time period in which the story is set. One example of this is "The Secret Life of Hans Hubermann". Liesel does not know about Hans Hubermann's army days, which helps the reader understand more about Max and Hans. Even if the story was told by a different character we would still miss a part of some other character. Death gives the reader a third-person view on the story, but with more personality.
Christine said that, "[Death] had no part of the Fuhrer’s propaganda, the fear, the politics, the prejudice, and the emotional confusion of the war". Death may not be able to talk about living during the war, but not having a part in the emotions listed above makes death unbiased and able to tell the story the way it happened. However, I do agree with Alex that death has an unusual interest in Liesel, which would make him biased in that way. Nevertheless, death still is a better narrator than one of the other characters for this novel because of his partially unbiased attitude, his outside knowledge of the story, and his personality that makes him different from other images of death.
I also disagree that Death is an unreliable narrator. Any narrator will have biases and opinions, even if they are not human. Death gives us not just Leisel's life as Brittany said, but he also gives us the whole picture of the War.
We have Death's Diary giving us images that paint Death as a very humanesque narrator. "I actually feel quite self-indulgent at the moment, telling you all about me, me, me...On the other hand, you're a human- you should undertand self-obsession." (pg. 307) He, though not a creature who often has time to self-indulge, and when he does, does not seem to be proud of it, still experiances it. This is just one of many human emotions he feels. "There is death...On the surface: unflappable, unwavering. Below: unnerved, untied, and undone." (pg. 309) Zusak shows us what is beyond that persona Death has in the Book Thief. Underneath that stigma we have of death, there is a character that we can relate to. A character we normally would not be able to do so with.
So I think Death is qualified in the sence that he can feel, contrary to what Lari said. He can connect to the characters. He may not really understand humans- but then, does anyone? However, he does try. He picks up human stories and he remembers them, acuratly I assume. As the last five words say "I am haunted by humans."
Brittany H W argued my point that Death is not a good narrator for The Book Thief by saying, “Since death is the narrator, we hear about more characters and learn more about the time period in which the story is set. One example of this is "The Secret Life of Hans Hubermann". Liesel does not know about Hans Hubermann's army days, which helps the reader understand more about Max and Hans.” Even in the chapter she mentioned, Death being the narrator added no extra insight into what was being said than any other regular third person perspective would have. Death is just relaying the events that happened. He did add some insight into the feelings of Hans Hubermann, but that was all guess work. Death even gives the reader choice as to what happened. On page 174 it says, “I never even came close to touching Hans Hubermann. He was either too lucky, or he deserved to live, or there was a good reason for him to live.” Death also uses words like I think. “As for Hans, I think he was doing his best to avoid me.” Even in the special blurb by Death that is supposed to give the reader extra useful information about the characters that was titled, “The Thought Process of Hans Hubermann” was all just a list of Hans’ actions. A regular omniscient narration can give just as much and more information to the reader than Death does.
Brittany H W argued my point that Death is not a good narrator for The Book Thief by saying, “Since death is the narrator, we hear about more characters and learn more about the time period in which the story is set. One example of this is "The Secret Life of Hans Hubermann". Liesel does not know about Hans Hubermann's army days, which helps the reader understand more about Max and Hans.” Even in the chapter she mentioned, Death being the narrator added no extra insight into what was being said than any other regular third person perspective would have. Death is just relaying the events that happened. He did add some insight into the feelings of Hans Hubermann, but that was all guess work. Death even gives the reader choice as to what happened. On page 174 it says, “I never even came close to touching Hans Hubermann. He was either too lucky, or he deserved to live, or there was a good reason for him to live.” Death also uses words like I think. “As for Hans, I think he was doing his best to avoid me.” Even in the special blurb by Death that is supposed to give the reader extra useful information about the characters that was titled, “The Thought Process of Hans Hubermann” was all just a list of Hans’ actions. A regular omniscient narration can give just as much and more information to the reader than Death does.
Yes, it is important that death is narrarating this story but death as the narrarator is not fit. Death portrays an unbiased story about leisel. But that is just it! (Alex A F, I agree with you and Christine M.)
Death as the narrarator, is supposed to have this unbiased story when as Christine M said, "Because he is an outside character, he cannot describe the feelings and thoughts of someone who actually lived through the war. He can only tell what he sees: actions of characters" and as Alex A F said, "Death is a very complex character and this makes him difficult to understand and even unreliable at times." Death is unrelieable. He has this interest with the book theif that leads him to see her three times. His habbit of seeing colors first makes his omniscient narraration a bit questionable.
I find that omminscience can be determined by being given the feeling and sense that whomever is narrarating knows EVERYTHING, and not just the basics of everything: in depth of everything possibibly connectable to the topic. Death doesn't do that.
I found that death is sort of just guiding you though the story and quite a bit of the time, not even telling it. I want to know how death can tell a better, more omnisciet story than a third person anonymous narrarator because I see a slight bias with death towards the book thief and a not-so-onmiscince narrarator in Zusak's composition. Sometimes a third person perspective isnt the most efficient. I would definitely have to agree that death is in in fact a way to draw attention and making death the narraratior as Christine M concludes (that using death makes it stand out.) The idea of death as narrator makes this tale just a little outlandish (and interesting) but, I just don't see how there could be a decrease in the execution (or presentation) of telling this story with just a third person anonomous, in fact, I might even say that the story could be a little better laid out without death as the narrarator.
It is both important and fitting that Death is the narrator for the story. It is important because Death was there for all of this and was able to see everything that happened. Then it is also fitting because who better to explain what was all happening then the man who picked up all the dead or dieing men and women. Now I agree about how wierd it is that he is all about Liesel and not the other people but that is how the story goes. For Zusak to chose Death to narrate it is very different and not usually seen. The reason death was most likely chosen to tell the story about Liesel is in my mind because after her supposedly seeing him take her brother live he was amazed with her. Death reveals that humans never fail to surprise him in what they do. What Death reveals about himself is that he does have a heart, even more heart than most humans.
Death is an interesting narrator. However, I still believe that he his not the most suitable narrator. I completely agree with what Christine said. "Because he is an outside character, he cannot describe the feelings and thoughts of someone who actually lived through the war. He can only tell what he sees: actions of characters" I still stand by what I said. Death can not tell us the thoughts and feelings of characters. This makes him unreliable at times. Despite the fact that he does try.
Continuing on what Brittany said, "Since death is the narrator, we hear about more characters and learn more about the time period in which the story is set." This is true. However, if Zusak did not use death as a narrator, he could have found a way to reveal the important events outside of Liesel's story in a different way. This is why I will keep my opinion that Death is not the best narrator. Even though he does make an interesting one.
Alright, I think we all need to take a step back and evaluate this discussion. I think that it is completely irrelevant whether or not Death is the "best possible narrator." The feeling that I get from peoples' comments is that they want a narrator that tells every aspect of the story exactly as it happened. The feelings, the conversations, and emotions. Death obviously does not do this, but what kind of narrator would? A book narrated this way would not stimulate the mind in the least bit, or in my opinion even be interesting to read. The fact that Death leaves so much up to us to decide is what makes the book a good read. He does not intentionally leave emotion or detail out, it's just one of the side-effects Zusak obtained from choosing Death. A book I read recently in my French class titled "Le Petit Prince" is a perfect example of this. The narrator is barely a friend of this mysterious Prince and therefore allows the reader to question and decide much of why or how certain things happened. It's the same way in "The Book Thief."
One very valid arguement here is how reliable Death is. His reliability, or unreliability though, does not determine whether or not he is the "perfect narrator." As Alex M said, "any narrator will have biases and opinions." His reliability is only a point of interest, not a flaw. My question, in an effort to direct the discussion away from pointless argument, is what does Death's (un)reliability add or take away from the novel? Does it let the reader see the world in a different way-events through colors for example? Or perhaps show a side of Germany not commonly seen in this era? Reliable or not, this is the story and we must read it as such.
I think, In response to Alex A's question, that Death's "unreliabliity" adds to the story.
Since Death does not tell us exactly what the characters are felling, we get to figure it out. By not putting it in black and white, every reader can connect with the characters in their own way. We, from the little things that Death does tell us, and by adding in our own experiance with emotion, can meld that all together and connect the dots for ourselves. It makes us think harder. The book then becomes different for every reader, every time they read it. Every time, the reader has more experiance with feelings to add to how they can connect with Zusak's creations.
For example, on page 34, Death gives us facts about Rosa Hubermann. She's 5"1', wears her hair in a bun, does washing, can't cook, is annoying. But the one thing not so factual- she does love Leisel. We might guess that even though she shows it in a strange way, she loves her, but couldn't know for sure. But because Death did tell us this, we can see past the coarse exterior, and know that the things she does to Leisel is not to be mean to her, but because she knows it is good for Leisel, because she loves her.
So we get to be in more of the action because Zusak, unintentionally or not, has given us the oppertunity to make the book our own.
I agree with Alex A and Alex M that the narrator not sharing the feeling of the characters is good because it doesn't give a bias to the story. I also agree with Shelby m that death is the perfect narrator for this story because death is a reoccuring theme in this book. Death takes a special interest in Liesel." I became interested. In the girl. Curiosity got the best of me, and I resigned myself to stay as long as my schedule allowed, and I watched." liesel is connected to death. First she loses her brother and then becomes attached to the mayor's wife, and Max who have both lost people like she has. Death is a great narrator for the very reason that it comes in contact with liesel so often. Death is also the root of this story because it is what brings max to the Hubermann's. When Max's father saves the life of Hans and dies himself, Hans makes a promise to help his family. Erik Vandenburgs death causes the story at 33 himmel st. to take place. This is what makes death a fundemental part of the story and the perfect narrator.
I also agree with Alex A and Alex M, the fact that Death does not disect the emotions of the characters is helpfull when trying to see things as they really are. Just because Death does not share the feelings of the others does not meen he himself is void of them,"i became intrested. In the girl. curiosity got the better of me, and i resigned myself to stay as long as my schedule allowed..." (7). Also while Death does not explore the feelings of the other characters he does however, give insites by telling us bits of information we would have not had otherwise. "***PAPA'S FACE*** It traveled and wondered but it disclosed no answers. Not yet." (71).
I do think that Death is indeed a very appropriate narrator for "The Book Thief", mainly because Death is one of the greatest themes in WWII due to the devestaiting death tolls. Death would have been kept very busy through the duration of the war. Also by using Death as the Narrator Zusak shows us a side of death not offten seen my most people. "You see? Even death has a heart." (242). Death also stays nutral and has no bias, therefore making him a very reliable source. I agree with Brittany H when she said "Death as a human gives him emotions and brings him closer th the stoy of Liesel". I also do not think that Death is unreadable. It is of course, a different type of reading using a voice not offten seen in litterature but i find this to be refreshing.
I will admit right now that I have been sort of in between opinions concerning the subject of Death as a narrator. I started off with an opinion that death was not the best narrator. This was when I had only started reading the book. As I moved through the book, my opinion about Death as narrator began to change. Now that I have finished the book, I believe that Death is a great narrator for the Book Thief.
I have said before that Death is not the most suitable narrator because he can not truly connect with humans and their feelings. While this is true, when I finished the book I started to think that maybe Death not revealing all of the characters feelings is a good thing. Like Alex M said, "by adding in our own experience with emotion, can meld that all together and connect the dots for ourselves. It makes us think harder. The book then becomes different for every reader, every time they read it."
I realize that she was right. It is more interesting to connect with characters in different ways.
Then of course I said that Death was not a reliable Narrator, because he did not know much about humans and their nature. As I read the book, I started thinking of this as a positive. Death gives us the whole picture. Instead of only telling us about Liesel and her surroundings. I found that this is important to the events in the book.
Finally, I must admit that I feel a bit embarrassed for changing my opinion. However, my opinion was not open to new ideas. So, after finishing the Book Thief, I think it is appropriate for me to say that Death is an excellent narrator for the Book Thief.
I am in agreement with Grace P P's statement that "Death is a very appropriate narrator" for the novel. Others that have posted on the topic and have commented upon the idea that "Death was a major part of the war" (Brittany H W) and is thus a good narrator, however, I find Death to be a more appropriate narrator for more than this. Death itself, as the human interpretation of a state of being, has been a character in many forms of mythology and can be seen as a figure frequently seen throughout modern media in various forms. These forms are mainly the same single form being the classic image of Death having a skeleton like face, wearing a long black robe, and carrying a scythe. This form has been interpreted in many mainstream shows and cartoons, portrayed mainly as a comically callous character that serves a single purpose, which is to carry one into the next plain of existence. Therefore, some could say that Death is used as a narrator to serve this modern fascination with Death. However, this is the most unlikely case as to why Death would be chosen as the narrator for the novel. The most important detail as to why Death is an appropriate narrator is that Death is definite and is a guarantee. In short, all living creatures on this planet eventually run their life's course, die, and meet Death. Death as the narrator acknowledges this fact in stating, “You are going to die” (3) and that “You will know me well enough and soon enough” (4) to the reader. This proposes the truth behind why Death is the narrator and that is because Death is one of the few things that all people have in common with each other regardless of their economic status or the power that a person may have over other people. In the indefinite end, all of us, the readers, meet the same demise, which is Death. Therefore, the choice to have Death as the narrator is to serve as a universal narrator to which people can connect to on an intimate level.
In another topic, Death is qualified to tell the story from the respect that he is close to people dying and said people are close to Liesel. The people that are dying close to Liesel are the Jews being taken to Dachau, as describe in the chapter “The Long Walk to Dachau” (389). Dachau was one of the many concentration camps to which Jewish people were sent to in Europe to be forced into long, hard labor, and were eventually executed in gruesomely inhumane ways. Therefore, Death is able to tell the tale because he has to go past where Liesel lives to collect the souls of the executed Jews.
While I, along with almost everyone else agrees that death is a good narrator for this novel because death itself was such a large part of World War 11, and while I also agree with Zach H when he said, "the truth behind why Death is the narrator. . . is because Death is one of the few things that all people have in common," I also think that Zusak had a few more reasons for having death narrate. Everyone so far seems to feel that Zusak made death human-like in order to let the reader better understand "him" and so that it would make sense for death to be revealing human aspects, for he is like us. While this is probably one of his reasons, I feel that he also made death human-like in order to show us that this scary, monstrous thing that we all run from and dread is only so terrible because of us.
Death himself as several have already noted is not evil, but compassionate. It pains him to take people's souls. He does not rip our lives away, we do. We force him to continue to do his job, before our time, because we murder one another all the time. Death says to look in the mirror when we ask what he looks like for he looks like us. We, people, are death. I also think that the reason death focuses on colors is so that he can avoid looking at the people,it is his distraction. It is "[his] one saving grace. . . it keeps [him] sane" (4). Zusak is trying to show us that it is ourselves that we should fear and not death for it is death who saves us from ourselves, he is the one who "[kisses] the smaller ones good night" (530). This is what I feel Zusak wants us to realize, and that is why he chooses death as a narrator. He wants to make us see just who or what it is that we should fear.
I agree with Mira W F when she concludes that Death is presented as a narrator to show us that it is "ourselves that we should fear and not death”. It is quite true that Death is not the one that people should fear for Death is quite natural and normal in his own right as a state of being and the manifestation to which we apply to him. Death is the completion of the circle, as I have stated in prior blogs about this topic, and is the way that the world keeps a relative balance to maintain its integrity. Death is also a force that is, as he states, “nothing if not fair” (3) in the manner at which he, Death, occurs around the world. When people are ill and are dying because of the illness, Death relieves their pain by ridding those whom are suffering of their pain. In this way, he is beneficial and is, as Mira W F stated, “is not evil”. Thus is why he is given the light, in the book, as one whom “has a heart” (242) as a means to establish his helpful service to the world as a whole and that he is here to aid the suffering and dying people.
When Death states that if one wants to see the true face of Death that one should “find [oneself] a mirror” (307), it is not to establish that we are Death but to establish a different idea. From the manner in which Death is presented in the book as carrying souls away, we, the readers, can not become him. To become him would be implicative of one becoming a higher entity and would thus have to have come from a higher plain. What Death is implying here is that we are the instruments of Death, the ones whom are doing the actual killing and destruction. Throughout the course of the novel, Death is not the one killing the people it is the other humans whom make “the bombs [come] down” and made the result that “Himmel Street was flattened” (498). The humans are the ones whom give him a job and a purpose because of our violent and hateful nature. We are not Death but are simply the instruments that make him so readily present and possible. Therefore, it is correct that we should fear each other from the respect that we give him lives to carry off and are the ones doing the killing and destruction that he makes his living and sole purpose upon.
Sources:
W F, Mira
Zusack, Markus. "The Book Theif". Copyright 2005. United States of America. Random House, Inc.
I like Zach's interpretation of what death meant when he said to look in the mirror if we wanted to know what he looked like. I also agree with Zach when he says, "Death is quite natural and normal. . . [he] is the completion of the circle. "While this is completely true, the novel itself is about a time when death was not "natural and normal," and I think that death gets his compassion and his heart from this lack of naturalness. As I was reading the scenes in which death has to take away the souls of people who did not die naturally, I couldn't help but wonder why death was so upset. Yet, I think it is because death does not like death when someone should still have a life. If everyone died when it was their time, when it was right, then I don't think that death would have such a heart. Yet people kill, especially during World War Two. And, as death says, "so many people chased after me in that time . . . asking m to take them with me. . . there was nothing I could do" (503). Death does not want that, he hates that "[the soldier] killed himself for wanting to live" (503). To death we are "poor souls," (470) we "have punctured hearts. . . beaten lungs" (5). I think that death pities us because he sees how we ruin our lives, and ironically, I think that he realizes better than any of us just how precious life can be. Towards the end of the novel, death says that "[he's] always finding humans at their best and worst, [he sees] their ugly and their beauty, and [wonders] how the same thing can be in both" (491). Yet what he does not realize is that he has become the same as us. We have created death that is both beautiful and ugly. Death can be an escape or a tragedy. Because people and death are so connected, and because people are not simple beings, neither can be death.
I'd like to go wayback to when Alex a f said "I think that it is completely irrelevant whether or not Death is the "best possible narrator." I agree completly with this statement. There could have been a better narrator. However, as Death blantantly points out several times in the book, humans are flawed. So I think this is one of the best choices Zusak could have made for a narrator. Maybe a narrator who could tell all would have been good, but that would leave no pesonality and leave the book a little dry.Now back to my first point. It is irrelevent whether or not he is the best narrator possible. The question really is, is he ONE of the best. What it really gets down to is that any narrator would have strong and weak points. There could have been many other choices, and any of those choices could have been good or bad. That is what the original question was about. If Death was a good or bad narrator for this book. Not if he was the best or the worst. It would be immpossible to make the perfect narrator, but that doesn't mean he can't be a good one.
On that note, I'd like to express my opinion that he is a good narrator, despite some of his flaws. First off since the story takes place during a tragic time, you need a narrator that can easily be seen as dark. You wouldn't want a cheery, optimistic, narrator for this book, it'd take away drastically from the mood of the book and would seem like a mockery of the tragic events that happened. There has been quite a bit of disscusion of the question "What does Death's (un)reliability add or take away from the novel" by Alex a f. I believe that this question is just one of the many points in proving whether or not death is a good narrator. The whole point of my blog has been to steer the conversation toward the other aspects of death's persona that will help prove whether or not he was a good or bad choice for narrating this book.
I would like to ask Donald F why he does not think that death is the "best" narrator but only "ONE of the best." Donald says that a narrator who knew everything would have been better. Yet then he also goes on to say that if the narrator did know everything then the novel would have had "no pesonality and [it would have left] the book a little dry."
I have a problem with this because death is an all knowing narrator. Death knew exactly what was going to happen, who was going to die, and who was going to survive from the beginning, for he had been there. The reader knows this because death foreshadows events such as "We'll give him seven months. Then we come for him. And oh, how we come," (128) or "he must have loved her . . . so hard that he would never ask for her lips again and would go to his grave without them" (303).Both of these narrations prove that death did know everything that would happen, so why is he not the best narrator? And eventhough he knew how this story would end, it is not as if death had no personality. He had plenty. Death is sarcastic, humorous and compassionate. He hates and loves people. He can recognize that "taking a boy like Rudy was robbery-so much life, so much to live for" (242). I think that death was a good choice for narrator because eventhough he knows what happens in Liesel's story, he cannot stop reading it. And I think this is because he is able to see our complexity, and it amazes and disgusts him. He is "haunted" by how people "[can] be so ugly and so glorious, and [our] words and stories so damning and brilliant" (550). And it is because of this often damaging fascination with life that death is our narrator, for he continues to watch our stories out of a desire to see the goodness in people, since he is forced to be there for the bad.
I agree with Mira on the point of Death being an all knowing narrator. Not only is he telling the reader Liesel's story, he's helping the reader understand how we as people take in the death as a loved one and comparing it to how he takes it in. His emotions change with every soul he colllects. He never expresses joy when taking a soul. Death also exlpains that that " a single hour can consist of thousands of different colors"(4). Death explains that no one could replace him and therefore creates distraction for himself. Distracton is his vacation. Death pities us because he sees that every day our race is slowly self destructing.
As Mira and Kassidy said, Death is an omniscient narrator. He can think and feel, love and hate. But Mira asked why Death sticks around to see Liesel's story unfold when he knows what's going to happen.
I think that it's very interesting that Death knows exactly what's going to happen in Liesel Meminger's life, and yet he can't tear himself away from her story. His job keeps him incredibly busy during the war, and yet he chooses to spend his time telling the story of this little girl who fascinates him. But my question is, why does her story interest him more than all of the other people in the world? I think that the answer to this question is that she shows so many different sides of human nature: kindness, meanness, selfishness, cruelty, love, compassion, and regret. Liesel is showing Death the depth of mankind’s minds. She yells at the mayor’s wife, showing the side of her that’s mean, and not nice like the woman thought. “… she noticed the obvious fury in Liesel’s usually pallid face.” (262) Death realizes that humans have many different personalities and are actually very complex creatures.
Hope F thought it was interesting that Death "can't tear himself away from Liesel's story." and that he "chooses to spend his time telling the story of this little girl" during the war. However, Death tells us this story after it takes her soul. So though he always is busy collecting souls, it is told to us many years after WW2.
On the last pages of the book he mentions that he wonders how such beauty and such evil can be shown by humans. So I think that Liesel showing different facets of humantity is part of the obsession with her.
But, what makes up the rest of Death's obsession?
I find it very interesting, as Mira F pointed out, that Death is “compassionate.” This is not the normal sense in which we would normally view Death, and Zusak does a masterful job at showing his compassion. Certainly, as Alex F says, “Liesel show[s] different facets of humantity,” and this is important because this story proves to Death that humans are really worth all his trouble.
As Death plucks souls from the chimneys of concentration camps, he is “unnerved, untied, and undone” (309). The fact that so many humans are dying at once is certainly unnerving, especially since most of these people are dying for the “crime” of being Jewish. Death feels man’s inhumanity to man, and that man is not worth his trouble if they are going to be so horrible to each other. However, Liesel’s story shows him everything that is right about humans. Liesel is kind, selfless, thoughtful, driven, eager to learn. These are the values that make every human unique, every soul a different color.
Death remembers these colors for every soul he has ever carried “on.” Since there have been quite a few deaths in human history, this is quite remarkable (even for an immortal being like Death). The very first lines of the book state, “First the colors. / Then the humans” (3). From the start Death puts emphasis on the colors, the colors which are unique to every person. The diversity of the world is reflected in the “whole spectrum” Death sees when a person dies (4). He observes, takes note, and relishes these colors. This is a further example of his compassion.
The Holocaust certainly alarms Death. However, Liesel’s story is “one of a small legion” of stories that is “an attempt—an immense leap of an attempt—to prove to [Death] that you, and your human existence, are worth it” (14-15). This is why Death is a perfect narrator. As humans, we believe that we are worth the trouble to be carried “on.” The man who actually does the job, however, believes differently. This is startling, shocking. It forces us to realize what is right about being human. It forces us to see the values of being a good human being. It forces us to think, “Are we worth it?” If we are worth it, we must show every other human the same compassion that Death shows human souls. If we are worth it, we must never forget our past mistakes. If we are worth it, we must learn. At the end of the novel, Death wonders “how the same thing be so ugly and so glorious, and its words and stories so damning and brilliant” (550). This is humanity. The good is mixed with the bad, the ugly with the beautiful. Humanity does have its redeeming qualities. We must remember to rejoice in them, and learn from our past mistakes. Then, we will be worth it.
I completely agree with Mira W on the fact that Death is an "all knowing" narrator. To add on to what Mira was saying, Death had a huge personality and he shows the reader this by complaining about his "job". He says, "Don't you see I've already got enough on my plate" (308). He explains to his reader that he doesn't enjoy his work all the time especially during war. He also explains this by saying, "To me, war is like the new boss who expects the impossible" (309).
I also agree with Kassidy C when she said, "His emotions change with every soul he collects." At one point in the novel, Death describes June 23, 1942 and a group of French Jews in a German prison. He shows his compassion when he says, "Please believe me when I tell you that I picked up each soul that day as if it were newly born. I even kissed a few weary, poisoned cheeks. I listened to their last,gasping cries. Their vanishing words. I watched their love visions and freed them from their fear" (350). Kassidy's statement that Death "never expresses joy when taking a soul" is true. He almost feels sorry for the souls he takes in many cases. I think that this is because he sees the human race's flaws and all the devestation we have caused our race and the destruction we have done to each other.
To attempt to answer Hope F's questoin of why Death is so attached to Liesel's story, I believe that he's using her story as a distraction from his never ending job. As he said in the beginning of the book, he uses distraction as his vacation.
I disagree with Ashley S on the point that Death is complaining about his job. Although it's true that he can't ever stop or take a break. But you can also tell that Death throughout his days and going through his souls that he is learning and understanding the human culture.
Liesel's story helps Death understand that humans have meaning and are "worth it"(181).
I disagree with Kassidy C P on the idea that Death is not complaining about the job that he has to carry out on a day-to-day basis while the human beings continue to increase the number of souls that he has to carry on into the next plain. Death does indeed complain to a degree about what he has to do for a living however his complaining comes in the form of not as much as what he says, it is more of what he does that exhibits a sense of distaste and complaint about his job. There are the moments when he does directly complain about what Death has to do or exactly whom he works for, the highest authority. He plainly states “God” and continues to say that “I say His name in a futile attempt to understand” and “he never answers” referring to God’s inability to answer when he questions God (Zusak 350). Death is at a dislike for his job but cannot receive answers for why he has to do it and therefore creates the distractions as many bloggers have noted in the texts of their posts. This distraction is the colors, which he states that it is “First the colors” he sees (Zusak 3) and not the humans. Others have previously noted that Death uses this as a distraction but the answer has varied one way or another. I believe that he uses these as a distraction to avoid the humans of whose lives have been destroyed by the atrocities and violence of the other humans. This is where I agree with Kassidy C P that the colors are his “distraction for himself” but that these are to avoid the destruction that he witnesses when collecting the souls. This can be seen when he is in the camps of “Auschwitz” and “Mauthausen” gathering the souls “shower after shower” (Zusak 349). It is important to note that the shower is the instrument of death that the Nazis used at many of the concentration camps.
Death is at a clear dislike for his job but still the answer as to why has yet to truly arise from observation. Surely it can be noted that he is singular and is thus faced with the daunting task of collecting all of the world’s souls as their numbers grow towards the infinite but I believe that it stems from the humans that are, as I stated before, “the ones whom give him a job and a purpose” in this world. He refers to tiring himself out when he questions himself and he also states that humans “increase the production of bodies and their escaping souls” (Zusak 308) and thus leads him to the conclusion he “needed a vacation” (Zusak 307). Therefore, it can be determined, in a manner of thinking that, Death dislikes his job because the humans like to kill and increase the number of kills to a point of exhaustion and ludicrousness. Extending from this it could be also stated that it is during said times of increased destruction that tire him and Death only dislikes these periods of the finite time expanse. Either reasoning is up to the reader to determine which applies to Death, as he is complex and changes his emotions quickly throughout the text and can mask his true feelings at the moment.
Sources:
Zusack, Markus. "The Book Theif". Copyright 2005. United States of America. Random House, Inc.
Zach H F said in his latest blog that ,"it could also be stated that it is during said times of increased destruction that tire him and Death only dislikes these periods of the finite time expanse" when talking about whether Death likes or dislikes his job. I agree with this statement in the fact that Death does not like his job during the time of WW2. But I think the part that he doesn't like about it is that it is men taking away other men's lives. Death doesn’t like being forced to do more work than is made natural by God. For example, Death said on page 308, “You might argue that I make the rounds no matter what year it is, but sometimes the human race likes to crank things up a little. They increase the production of bodies and their escaping souls. A few bombs usually do the trick. Or some gas chambers, or the chitchat of faraway guns.” Those are the times when Death does not like his job. Those times do not necessarily need to be during war, they just happen whenever humans choose to be inhumane. However, there is one time in the Book Thief, that I didn’t detect any sense of remorse for taking a soul, another friend of Leisel Meminger’s: Max Vandenberg. “*** A LATE NIGHT EXCERPT *** I realized much later that I actually visited 33 Himmel Street in that period of time. It must have been one of the few moments when the girl was not there with him, for all I saw was a man in bed. I knelt. I readied myself to insert my hand through the blankets. Then there was a resurgence – an immense struggle against my weight.” Death was going to take Max’s soul before he was even dead. Maybe he was just trying to get ahead in his work. Maybe he figured “’Your time will come’” (308) anyway. Why not get you out of the way now? But whatever Death’s reasoning, he had no problem with taking Max’s soul because he was not killed by another human. He was dying a natural death of sickness. Those kinds of times are when Death doesn’t mind his job, as opposed to when humans are being killed and slaughtered by other humans.
I agree with Zach H. and Christine M. on the fact that Death does not enjoy his job during WWII. To share a quote with Christine, Death says, "You might argue that I make the rounds no matter what year it is, but sometimes the human race likes to crank things up a little." I think that Death is telling his reader that he watched the destruction we were laying upon ourselves and all the damage we were doing to each other during the war. I think he is explaining that not only is war painful for us but for him as well because he also sees the damage we create and he has to carry all the souls that us humans are responsible for handing over to him. To support this Death says "I complain internally as I go about my work, and some years, the souls and bodies don't add up; they multiply" (308).
It’s been pretty well established in this discussion that Death doesn’t like his job during WWII. But I’d like to argue that Death doesn’t ever like his job. Death says on page 309, “In all honesty (and I know I’m complaining excessively now), I was still getting over Stalin, in Russia. The so-called second revolution- the murder of his own people. Then came Hitler.” Stalin killed his own people even when Russia wasn’t at war. Even then, Death still says that he hated his job.
Ashley S said that war is painful for us as well as for Death. I found that very interesting. Throughout the book, Death always said things like, “He didn’t deserve to die the way he did.” (241) People hate it when their loved ones are taken away. But Ashley S suggested that maybe Death hated taking away loved ones.
I agree with Hope that Death doesn’t like his job at times. Death hates the workload that war brings to him, “To me, war is like the new boss who expects the impossible. He stands over your shoulder repeating one thing , incessantly: ‘get it don’t. Get it done.’ so you work harder. You get the job done. The boss, however, does not thank you. He asks for more.” (309). The war keeps bringing him more and more work to do. Death has to finish his job, but can he ever truly be finished? Yes, Russia wasn’t at war when Stalin was killing people from his own country.“The Gulag system is believed to be responsible for millions of deaths. That is more than the amount of Americans that have been killed in all wars combined. That amounts to almost three times the amount of people that live in the New York City area. It is truly a gruesome part of Soviet history that has routinely been overlooked or ignored.” says one historical website (http://www.essortment.com/all/historyrussiag_rfpb.htm). He has killed more of his own people, than Hitler did at the concentration camps. With the time frame so close to each other Death is worn out from taking peoples souls away.
I think that Ashley brought up a good point. Death does care about the people that he takes away, he has a heart. I think he respects the dead, but has pity for how people can be so cruel to each other, because Death does not understands how people can have that much hate for everyone when Death is completely un-prejudice. Death views everyone as equal, Death doesn’t care who you are, what religion you are, what color your skin is. Death will find you, somehow.
As stated by a lot of students in this section, Markus Zusak shows Death as something most other authors don't do. The classic vision of Death would be that of the grim reaper; a scythe, black cloak, and a skeleton like figure. But Zusak uses a more human description. In my opinion Death seemed kind and even caring to a certain degree. My favorite passage with death would have to be when he states, "In the darkness of my dark-beating heart, I know. He'd have loved it, all right" (242). It really shows that Death has the compassion and ability to understand how the human heart works. It even seems that he respects the way Rudy would of thought. Death also appears to have a sense of humor. When Max was a kid he said "When death captures me, he will feel my fist on his face." Which Death responded to himself by saying "Personally, I quite like that. Such stupid gallantry. Yes. I like that a lot." This could have been a way that a human would have responded.
To me Death is the perfect narrator for this story. The way he tells the story in unique and very interesting. It also fits since the book begins with death and for the most part ends with death. He tells the story in such a way that you can understand most of the emotions every character is going through. And even when he "spoils" the end of the story by revealing the fact that Rudy will die and how he dies (241-242), he does it in a way that it doesn't ruin the story (to me at least). What interested me the most was the very last thing Death states in the book "I am haunted by humans." (550) This is the exact opposite of what most people would think. To me death has been something most humans fear and want to avoid, that is to say they are haunted by Death. It completely flips things around when Death is haunted by humans. By having Death say this Zusak opens up a whole new train of thought and makes you think way outside the box.
Death with the role of narrator put a gloomy humor on things. When Death would state things in his ‘announcements’ Death would take away the unknown because Death doesn’t enjoy mystery. Death would also bring up recollections of picking up a soul such as:
“***THE FILES OF RECOLLECTION***
Oh yes. I definitely remember him.
The sky was murky and deep like quicksand.
There was a young man parceled up in barbed wire,
like a giant crown of thorns. I untangled him and carried him
out. High above the earth, we sank together,
to our knees. It was just another day, 1918.” (145)
It was very fascinating that ‘Death’, who wasn’t human, felt emotion toward the humans. How Death couldn’t understand the way we could live with such grief. “How could that woman walk? How could she move? That’s the sort of thing I’ll never know, or comprehend-what humans are capable of.” (25). Or the way, as Hope F P put, Death hated taking away loved ones. Hope F P’s quote, “He didn’t deserve to die the way he did.” (241), Death feels for Rudy in a way that I only thought a human could. “You see? Even Death has a heart.” (242). Death definitely brought a sense of heartache to The Book Thief.
Upon what kathleen A P said, I would have to agree. Death does bring heartache to the book. His sense of disliking mystery makes it quite harsh on the reader when presenting grave news. I had stayed up reading the Book Thief one night and the new of how Michael Holtzaphefel died was very blunt. Rudy Stiner's death practically ripped my heart out with the frankness of the news. Death is very to the point and (even though I do not believe that death was the best narrator for this book) the way he presented the book was intense.
Death's announcements, for example, helped the consistancy of the story. Death certainly lives up it's name and image in this book.
Markus Zusak really does a great job forming this story using death as the narrator (although I think it could be better) it certainly makes it more than mediocre.
I really enjoy death as a narrator, for me it really helps the pace of the book. If it had been narrarated by any other character i feel it could of dragged on and gotten really wrapped up in the small and boring aspects of the book.
Where as with death time really isn't an object for his story telling. He continually jumps around and gets to the point. Skipping to the important parts of the story.
"Flash forward to the basement, September 1943. A fourteen-year-old girl is writing in a small dark-coverd book... He(Papa) says, "You know Liesel? I nearly wrote you a reply and signed your mother's name" I really enjoyed that, it helped make the story more of a page-turner.
He does get emotional in this book for the character, but for the most part he is non-biased. This really leaves it up to the reader to decide how they feel about the situations. Instead of being told how to feel.
I have a hard time seeing this book the same way as it is, if it were told by a different narrator. I feel this narrarator is very great not only because it makes the book very unique but it gives good perspective on the story.
I agree with Hannah T when she said that, “Death is very to the point.” I think he often tends to go into more detail about the aftermath of the death then the actual death itself. In Michael Holtzapfel’s case, Death describes how, “a returned soldier was discovered to be dead. he was hanging from one of the rafters in a laundry up near Frau Diller’s. Another human pendulum. Another clock, stopped. The careless owner had left the door open. ***July 24, 6:03 A.M.***The laundry was warm, the rafters were firm, and Michael Holtzapfel jumped from the chair as if it were a cliff.” He continues to describe the aftermath of his death on pages 503-505.
Death also, very briefly, describes the aftermath of Frau Holtzapfel, Frau Diller, the Fiedlers, and the Steiners deaths on page 530.
Rudy and the Hubbermanns a lot more elaborately. Death tells how he found Rudy on the edge of his bed with his arm around his sister and how he isn’t great at that comforting thing but how he tried a little harder with Rudy, then he watched the contents of his soul. “He does something to me, that boy. Every time. It’s his only detriment. He steps on my heart. He makes me cry.” (531)
Lastly, the Hubbermanns. Death goes on to tell how he could see the silver in Papa’s eyelids and how he picked up Rosa midsnore. Pages 531-532.
I think that death as the narrator was very ironic because, “***A Last Note From Your Narrator*** I am haunted by humans.” (550) Aren’t humans haunted by death?
I agree that Death really elaborates on the death of certain people in the book. With some characters, Death doesn't really explain too much about them or their death, but with some he really explains how he felt as a certain person died.
When Death was taking Rudy he says, "I'm not too great at that sort of comforting thing, especially when my hands are so cold and the bed is so warm. I carried him softly through the broken street, with one salty eye and a heavy, deathly heart. With him, I tried a little harder" (531). I think that here, Death shows his compassion and sorry feelings toward Rudy and realizes himself that he is "haunted by humans."
Madeline S. did make a good point about the irony of Death being haunted by humans and humans being haunted by death. It is very true, especially in this book with the war and so many people dying. The reader definately gets a completely different perspective of Death while reading this book.
Are humans really haunted by death? According to dictionary.com, haunted is- preoccupied, as with an emotion, memory, or idea; obsessed; disturbed; distressed; worried. I would say that most people are not obsessed with death or even preoccupied. But, I think it is true that many people are diturbed or worried by it.
So with that in mind, are we as haunted by Death as Death is haunted by humans in "The Book Thief"?
I would say...no.
Death's job revolves around humans. He sees us "...be so ugly and so glorious, and [our] words and stories so damning and so brilliant." (550) He collects souls that die from natural causes and those that die from each other. He is espescially haunted by a certain few in his handfull of stories, such as Leisel.
We do not have to think about Death 24/7/365, but unless he distracts himself, humans are all Death thinks of. The average person is not faced with that level of death-carring people away every day. We see people die, sometimes people we love, but never like Death. Never on that scale.
Perhaps that is why Death likes Leisel so much. She has everyone she loves die by the end of the book (execpt Max). She is faced with death on an abnormal scale for one so young.
Going back to what Hope F P said on July 17, I agree that Death doesn’t like to take the souls away. I believe that Death is very compassionate. Like other peoples example, I formed this belief when Death said “On many counts, taking a boy like Rudy was robbery – so much life, so much to live for – yet somehow, I’m certain he would have loved to see the frightening rubble and the swelling of the sky on the night he passed away.” and also on the same page “In the darkness of my dark-beating heart, I know. He’d have loved it, all right.” (241) when he was talking about Rudy’s death. My next example comes on page 336, “I carried them in my fingers, like a suitcase. Or I’d throw them over my shoulder. It was only the children I carried in my arms.” He is carrying the dead people of Köln and his “boss” just keeps telling him to “get it done, get it done.”I have a question though, how can Death be collecting souls and still watch or know what these people are doing?
Hannah T said the death was “very to the point.” This makes sense for a lot of the deaths in the story. While some were very descriptive, like Rudy’s, others were brief and simple. One I would like the focus on is the death of Liesel’s brother. Death put it like,
“***HOW IT HAPPENED***
There was an intense spurt of coughing.
Almost an inspired spurt.
And soon after-nothing.”
This is the only description of what happened as the young boy died-the rest goes on to say what happened prior to the death. Another thing about this passage that I noticed was what Death emphasized. He wrote “Almost an inspired spurt.” Inspired is in italics, which makes the reader think that the boy was coughing with intent. As if he was welcoming death.
I agree with Marisa B when she said that death described Liesel's brother as welcoming death. The text definately leads to this asumption. Which brings me to my point. Should we welcome death? I pesonally think we should. When we die it's our time to die. Why should we fear it, because it is unknown. You can't really know what death is like, unless you've died. But why are we so scared of it, why do we do everything we can to get away. Like the Narrator states in the first page of the book "You are going to die." I belive one of the goals Zusak was trying to achive when he chose Death as the narrator was to help us to be less afraid of death. That may also be the reason that death is sometimes shown as compassionate, is to help us not be so afraid and intimitated of death. By all means though, I'm not sayig death is a good thing. It can be very hard for loved ones. I also belive it is wrong to take another person's life. It is not for you to decided that someone should die, even yourself. The main point I was tring to make is that Death as the Narrator could help the reader be less afraid of death.
Personally I agree with Donald becuase in the novel Zusak creates the character of Death to be somewhat caring. It says,
"I wanted to stop. To crouch down.
I wanted to say:
"I'm sorry child."
But that is not allowed" (13).
It's obvious that Death,in this passage, seems to feel compassion and sorrow for Liesel. And as for what Donald said about Death being a natural cause, I believe that Death shouldn't be feared because it is a way of life and Death knows nothing else. Everyone is normally afraid of dying, and that seems to be based on our instinct to survive and our will to live,but at the same time dying isn't always bad. I mean if someone has a bad disese and is suffering all the time, then of course they would welcome Death without hesitation.
But another reason that I believe that Death is actually somewhat simpathetic is beacuse it says,
"***ASMALLANNOUNCEMENT***
ABOUT RUDY STEINER
He didn't deserve to die the way he did" (241).
But I have a question too. Throughout the book there seems to be an almost selfish or childish nature about him. But because he is Death, shouldn't he of all people accept the fact that death is a part of everyday life? And apart from that he seems to use some childish behaviors at certain points of the book. Is Zusak trying to make Death this way?
This is Aaron L F:
Michael L had a question, "how can Death be collecting souls and still watch or know what these people are doing?" To answer this, it is because he is an omnicient narrator. He knows what people think and can seemingly tell the future. This is because death, through Zusak's perception, is almost a god-like figure. Death knows what is going on at all times in this novel because, to be blunt, it is fiction. Zusak could have made death an observant, watchful narrator, but for these purposes, he chose death to be omniscient. Death says in the first chapter of the novel, "I hand suspended, until a septic truth bleeds toward clarity" (14). By saying this, it is very clear that death is omniscient and all-knowing. This informs the reader of what characters in the novel are thinking or planning. Without this all-knowing element to the novel, the reader would be left in the dark about everything from the guilt that characters feel to the backgrounds of every character.
Also, to respond to Shelby G's questions on the subject of death being a part of everyday life, death has probably already accepted this fact. I do not think that death has to accept this fact since it is the purpose of death-to take life. We have to remember that death is not human, and, therefore, we cannot know death's emotions even if death has emotions. Furthermore, I do not think that death really feels compassion for its victims. Rather, death is merely being unbiased and illustrating the situation for the reader like it is. Zusak could make the reader want to think that death has compassion and cares for humans and this is why he writes as if death has emotion. I do not think that the purpose of death "as the narrator was to help us to be less afraid of death," as Donald F states. Death is used as narrator to show that death is all around us. Death is as common as humans on this Earth and that is what Zusak is trying to depict. Death is blunt and frank and takes life because that is death's purpose.
There is a small debate going on about the irony of Death being haunted by humans, and humans being haunted by death. Maddie S brought up this point, and Ashley S thought it was appropriate because it related to the war. Alex M said that she did not agree, but she made a good point that we don’t constantly think about death, but Death must deal with us constantly. I think the situation depends. Certainly, in a time of war, people must live with the constant fear of dying, and so they are haunted by it. However, Death must deal with so much more than that fear. He says, “Yes, I have seen a great many things in this world. I attend the greatest disasters and work for the greatest villains”(549).
Although he cannot die himself, he deals with death (he is death) everyday and must watch the unfairness and suffering of the world.
For my post on July 21, my quote is on page 20.
Sorry!
This is Aaron L F:
Many people have been pondering the subject of humans being haunted by death. Marisa B states, "[humans] don’t constantly think about death, but Death must deal with us constantly." While this statement is somewhat accurate, humans on a general basis have to deal with death many times a day. So many millions of people die every year. It is no burden to death, not being real, to take life. This is death's one and only purpose in the world of human beings. Therefore, death cannot be haunted by humans because it is death's job, purpose, and life-if we can classify its existence as being so- to collect souls. Humans are naturally curious about death and if there is an after-life etc. So, naturally, we are the ones haunted by death since people have no solid, factual idea of what occurs before, during, and after death. Death is all around us every day-on the news, in the paper, on the internet. We build death up to be a horrifying occurence, but Death assures us, "I am . . . attempting to be cheerful about [death], though most people find themselves hindered in believing me, no matter my protestations" (3). However, as death says, humans do not accept death as being a positive idea. Death is incredibly hard to deal with for most people, especially if it is a loved one that has passed away. Death is simply a part of life though and it is human curiosity and beliefs that put death on a pedestal. We are haunted by death because we do not know what death is and Zusak attempts, through this novel, to explain death in a way. However, it could have made the readers of this novel more interested and curious about death than ever.
What I have noticed is different from most of the earlier comments, because I was wondering about Death's view on seeing colors first instead of humans.
Death from the very beginning states how he sees the colors first showing it has a very large significance to the story. However, I'm having a hard time knowing what that relevance is, because Death does not say why he sees the colors first. Someone said earlier how "Death is creative", yet I don't see it as being creative. I see Death as someone who can better understand us then ourselves, because he has some human traits that he probably picked up while studying them. I don't think Death is haunted by humans either because he would act more fearful of us than curious. His interest in us has brought him closer to being a human and through this he sees the colors first. Zuzak is trying to get across a message through Death, I'm just haveing a hard time discovering what it is. So, if someone could assist me with this that would be great.
Markus Zusak says in one of his interview questions that asked him about using death as the narrator and he replied, "Here's a book set during war. Everyone says war and death are best friends. Death is ever-present during war, so here was the perfect choice to narrate The Book Thief....death was to be exhausted from his eternal existence and his job. He was to be afraid of humans-because, after all, he was there to see the obliteration we've perpetrated on each other throughout the ages- and he would now be telling this story to prove himself that humans are actually worth it."
Aside from Zusak using Death to prove that humans are "worth it" I don't think there is any other messages that aren't apparent. I'm not too sure about the whole color-first vision with Death affecting this message but I hope this helps answer the question about Zusak's abstruse message in Death narrating.
Shannon O wonders about Death and the colors he sees when he carries a soul onward. I would suggest that because all the colors are different, they highlight the uniqueness of every human being. As discussed before, Death is a compassionate narrator—something we do not expect from someone with a morbid reputation. However, Death exhibits human qualities throughout the novel. Humanity is on his mind, in a time when the real humans have forgotten each other. Ironic: the only non-human character in the book is the only one (except perhaps Hans) who cares about humanity. It pains him to collect souls of those who are not ready to die, like the Parisian Jews, for example. He feels he “frees them from their fear” as he carries them on (350). In this way, Death sees himself as almost a savior to the suffering humans, almost angelic. He says that in the end, he will “carry you gently away” (4). This is a human way to treat humans, something we do not expect from Death, which has traditionally been depicted as callous and unfeeling.
However, the colors are first a “distraction” (4). Death sees the human atrocities and is disgusted. They are also unique to each and every human. They are “a billion or so flavors, none of them quite the same” (4). Death sympathizes with the humans he has to carry on, and the colors he sees are “the whole spectrum” and he cares for every one of them (4). These colors teach us reverence for life, something that is absent in a time of war. These colors teach us humanity to our fellow man. These colors are us and everyone around us—they make us unique.
Nick's point that Death sees the whole spectrum of colours and feels compassion for all human beings is very interesting to me. Here is Death, a being whose sole purpose is to cater to dead peoples, whose view of humanity is narrowed down to the very end of a human life, still feeling compassion. He sees how we cause great pain to one another and end lives before they have barely begun, but treats the good and evil humans the same. This suggests to me that as an adept observer of death, that Death realizes that everyone becomes an equal when they die. Sooner or later, all people die, and the poor and rich, smart and unintelligent, all lie together facing the same judge.
Thus, Death is an ideal narrator for a story such as this becasue he views all characters as equals. Max, the Jewish refugee living in a basement is truly equal to Hitler, the Dictator living high in his Eagle's Nest. His impartial observations create a better environment for the reader to really observe how the fates of all the characters end regardless of their previous leanings. Who better than Death to show you that everyone dies sometime, and that we all go together.
Death is the perfect narrator for this novel because he is the only storyteller that truly knows everything that has happened in the story. He knows everything that happens to Rudy, Liesel, and Hans in the present, as well as every part of the past as well. The greatest narrator is one who is omniscient, as only God and death really are.
Death is all knowing in every aspect of the novel, making it the ideal story teller. He fills us in on every hidden part of the story, including Hans' promise to a friend, leading to Max, and the way he continuously escaped his fate and managed to hide from death.
Death, himself, shows great love for the characters of the novel, giving the readers the idea that the interpretations of death that once exsisted are now not as true as we once had believed. Like Brittany h said, death did not carry a scythe or wear a hooded black robe. Nick A also pointed out that while our idea of death may be of a cruel and unforgiving individual, he has a heart and feelings that we have not seen before.
Death has feelings of sadness just as many people do, but he tells us that it is mearly his job.
On page 174, he gives a "small but noteworthy note" that states the fact that during a war, "...so many young men over the years who think they're running at other young men..." are really running to him, and to their eminate death.
Zusak chose death as a narrator in order to tell you the entire story, because no other narrator could have possibly been there through every endeavor that every character faced, except for maybe God. Death was the only option for the narrator, because God telling the story of World War II would not have been appropriate.
I find Death to be a talented narrator. Like Megan said”… because he is the only storyteller that truly knows everything that has happened in the story. He knows everything that happens to Rudy, Liesel, and Hans in the present, as well as every part of the past as well.” I think Death knows about their futures, too. “Preemptively, you conclude, as I would, that Rudy died that very same day, of Hypothermia. He did not. Recollections like those merely remind me that he was not deserving of that fate that met him a little under two years later”(241-242). This is how I came to my conclusion that Death could see in the future.
I think that Death doesn’t understand why humans kill each other. Death says on page174,” They’re strange, those wars.
Full of blood and violence- but also full of stories that are equally difficult to fathom”. He doesn’t understand why we fight, he is un-prejudice how could he. I agree with Samantha h w when she said on July 18 that, “Death views everyone as equal, Death doesn’t care who you are, what religion you are, what color your skin is. Death will find you, somehow.” You will meet him sometime.
I think the reason Death is so interested in Liesel is that she too is a “good” thief. Like Death she takes thing because she has to; it is who she is. But what is interesting is that along with being like Death, Liesel is also one of the things he does not like. She is a survivor. Death says, “It’s the story of one of those perpetual survivors—an expert at being left behind” (5). Liesel stands out against the others because of who she is and what she believes in.
Death is only partly omniscient. He knows all the facts, the hard evidence; but he does not understand completely the thoughts and human emotions behind the characters in his story because he is not human. On one of his offsets he says, “* * * A REASSURING ANNOUNCEMEN * * * Please, be calm, despite that previous threat. I am all bluster—I am not violent. I am not malicious. I am a result” (6). Death is more of a spirit that has no affect on the world but is the effect of the world. He does not see the world as a man does and he does not think as a man does. But as a narrator he is effective because, as I said before, he has no affect on the story; he is simply an outsider to their live. It is like he is looking though a window.
I think that Annie made a good point in recognizing the similarities between Leisel and Death. The main similarity that I saw was knowledge. Although it is different between the two, it is still something that they share, and obsess over. Leisel is obsessed with learning and reading, trying to find out everything that she possibly can, resulting in her thievery. Death is not obsessed with knowledge he is surrounded by it. Death is constantly gaining knowledge from all of the souls that he is taking away peoples soul. They both try to gain as much knowledge as they can and they both are “good” at stealing. Like Annie said, "Like Death she takes thing because she has to; it is who she is" Her thievery is what makes Leisel, Leisel. She couldn't be the same person if she did not steal the books.
Death is such an interesting character in the novel, because he doesn't sugar coat anything. Death tells you everything that happens. He isn't heartless, he just does not share the same emotional problems that humans have. Annie is right. Death is a reliable narrator because he does not see the problems that everyone else sees, he is just looking at them from a birds eye view. he is not distracted by all the emotions that humans would let take over their lives. He tells you exactly what he knows.
Upon finishing the book my thoughts continued to grow about Death as the Narrator. My idea about Death being kind was strongly reinforced when I read the sentences, “It was only the children I carried in my arms” (336), and “Please believe me when I tell you that I picked up each soul that day as if it were newly born. I even kissed a few weary, poisoned cheeks.” (350) You can tell that he feels pity for all of the innocent people that fell victim to the war.
To me Death reveals that humans can be somewhat of an annoyance. Although Death never says this out loud, when he compares war to a new boss that is standing over your shoulder saying, “Get it done. Get it done,” (309) it can be interpreted as that. He’s basically stating that when humans start wars it just causes more work for him and wares him out, with not so much as a thank you (of course you wouldn’t really thank death but you get the picture).
A question I had about Death that was not answered in the novel was how did Death get The Book Thief that Liesel wrote? Through out the story Death doesn’t seem to come in physical contact with anyone or anything except for souls. So how is it that he was able to “climb quickly up and take it in his hand”? (539) Then he even returned it to Liesel’s soul. (549)
In answer to Leah S's quetion about how death could come in contact with the book, it's simple. The book is fiction, not everything makes sense. Death says on pages 7-8, "I resigned myself to stay as long as my schedule allowed, and I watched. Twenty-three minutes later, when the train was stopped, I climbed out with them." There is no way death could possible have twenty-three minutes to stay. People are constatly dying everywhere, so he'd never really have time to himself. That to me shows that to have death as the narrator a few things had to be unrealistic.
The next thing I'd like to say is that I don't believe Death is a completly omniscient narrator. I don't believe he can see the future. Sure he knows that everyone will die but he doesn't know everything. The only reason he can foreshadow so many things is that he is telling us the story in the present. He already knows what will happen to all of the characters because it has already happened, not because he can see the future as Michael L stated previously.
I agree with what Doald said about Death not being all-knowing. because Zusak told us on page 5 that he "saw the Book Theif three times." Past Tense. Death knows what happens because he is in contact with the souls; perhaps they tell him their stories, their lives.
Most of you may argue that there is not enough time to tell the stories while he ferries souls but remember it is a story. He has time enough because he is as real as Santa Clause.
Also, you may consider that people do not go directly to Death. Philip Pullman in his series His Dark Materials suggests that when you die you simply move to a different plane of existance, not heaven or hell but somewhere in-between where you have to tell your stories to the guardians of that place in order for your soul to "move on" again.
Devon S F
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I agree that Death is not all-knowing. I mean, the definition of omnicient is having complete knowledge or understanding of somthing. He seems to have full knowledge of the entire story and what happens to everyone in it, not just what happens to Liesel Meminger. It doesn't necessarily mean he needs to know the future. And even if it did, we could never know because we are being told a story of the past. So saying that he cannot know the future has no foundation because we can never know either way. As far as the story goes, he seems to know everything about it. It's not just when others die. Think back to the chapter when the men in coats are trying to get Rudy's father to let him go to their school. There was no one dying there, and yet Death still seems to know about it. He says, "Alex and Barbara Steiner would not disclose what was said while the dominoes were falling like dead bodies in the living room. If only Rudy had kept listening at the door, just for another few minutes . . . it might have changed everything," (410 - 11). Clearly, Death knew what was being said that Rudy didn't hear, thus he dos not just know what happens during deaths or in what Liesel wrote. Because Liesel never knew what was said behind the door, nor was anyone dying.
Also, I would like to give my opinion on another topic of discussion. The question has been raised of how Death has the time to tell this story. It is not fair to say that as a fictional story, some things have to be unrealistic. For a further explanation, I do not believe that Death exists inside time. He even refers to years as human years, so obviously, he is not bound by the same time restraints as we are. Death is not so much a person as a reality. It's more of a metaphor, a personification, if you will. Death is ever present in our lives, whether we fight him, as Max Vandenberg does, or sit up to greet him, as Hans Huberman and Liesel Meminger both do. Not so much a person as a metaphor. I may even go as far to say that I also think that this story exists outside of time as well. A story for the ages.
Devon S said that perhaps death is not all knowing and understanding of everything, and I agree in part with her argument.
I think that death sees every minor and major detail of the world, but as for an understanding of what each thing means, I don't really think he has the full grip of the human world.
Death not only seems to have a confused outlook on humans, but a bit of a disgused one as well. He takes away the souls of the dead people, but "it's the leftover humans. The Survivors. They're the ones [he] can't stand to look at." (5) and they are the ones that he does not quite understand.
The part of this theory that I must disagree with is the part of Death that sees everything. I believe that death really does see every tiny insignificant thing that goes on in the world. Which, again, makes him the most appropriate narrator for this story.
Seeing as how Megan H said that she believes that, "death really does see every tiny insignificant thing that goes on in the world" I also beleieve that Death does see every detail because it says,
"***ASMALLTHEORY***
People observe the colors of a day only at it's beginnings and ends, but to me it's quite clear that a day merges through a multitude of shades and intonations, with each passing moment. A single hour can consist of thousands of different colors" (4).
Okay, so to me I believed at first that the colors might've been human souls but after thinking awhile the thought occured to me that maybe these colors could be events that are passing. Like the start of the day could be the starting of a certain event and the end, well, pretty much the same thing.
But if this is true then these events must be based on colors for certain regions, the amout of deaths and any other factor that might be based on the event. These colors may just tell Death what is going to happen and what has already come to pass just as Ian V had stated, "Past Tense. Death knows what happens because he is in contact with the souls; perhaps they tell him their stories, their lives."
On the other hand, by assuming that the colors just happen to be souls, I believe that people are given a certain color made only for them. These colors are never the same because they could be based on a hundred different factors such as race, personality, skin type, ethnicity, etc. But no matter what I think I will always suspect that these colors have to do with how Death sees and experiences the world almost as if he/she was just like everyone else.
Meghan H. “believes[s] that Death really does see every tiny insignificant thing that goes on in the world.”I disagree with her on this point. Although it seems that he is around for a lot of events that happen, there are some points in the story when he was not there, but he creates an image of what he thought it would have been like. One example is “Often, I wonder what page she was up to when I walked down Himmel Street in the dripping- tap rain, five nights later. I wonder what she was reading when the first bomb dropped from the rib cage of a plane. Personally, l like to imagine her looking briefly at the wall, at Max Vandenburg’s tightrope cloud, his dripping sun, and the figures walking toward it. Then she looks at the agonizing attempts of her paint-written spelling. I see the Fuhrer coming down the basement steps with his tied-together boxing gloves hanging casually around his neck. And the book thief reads, rereads, and rereads her last sentence, for many hours” (528). If Death has complete understanding of parts like this, wouldn’t he have known what Liesel was doing at the time? Also many of the things that Death told about in the book were acquired by reading Liesel's book. In the beginning he even says, “I climbed aboard and took it in my hand, not realizing that I would keep it and view it several thousand times over the years. I would watch the places where we intersect, and marvel at what the girl saw and how she survived. That is the best I can do- watch it fall into line with everything else I spectated during that time” (14). What I am trying to say is that Death seems to know some things by what he has found and putting the pieces together, not by observing them directly.
Whether or not Death is omnicent is, on the whole, irrelevant. It matters not that he knows if Rudy will die by bombs (hello, he’s Death, he was there). Death is the only character in the novel that experiences compassion. This is ironic because, well, he’s not human. There is so much killing and atrocities that is pains Death to take these souls. They are helpless. Many of them are victims because they committed the “crime” of being Jewish. Humans should feel compassion for each other, but many do not in this novel. Death is the only one, except perhaps Hans Hubermann who “helps the helpless” (418). This is what makes Death a great narrator. Not the fact that he knows everything. He feels for the humans. It is a lesson we could learn from him. Man’s inhumanity to man has been a recurring theme throughout our history. We need to learn to respect each other and feel compassion for others. If we fail to learn this lesson, history will again be doomed to repeat itself.
I think that Nick made a very good point about how, "We need to learn to respect each other and feel compassion for others. If we fail to learn this lesson, history will again be doomed to repeat itself." It is true that a lot of the characters are unwilling to help the helpless but not all of the characters are against helping and respecting other people. What about our two main character Rudy and Leisel? they are not completely heartless. They even try to follow Hans' example by also giving bread to the marching Jewish people, "but the Jew saw it. His ragged hand reached down and picked a piece up and shoved it deliriously to his mouth" (440). The children show there is always love somewhere in the world, another theme that I thought Death tried to highlight in the novel.
The thought that has been expressed many times throughout this blog, is that Death is a loving character, “***a small piece of truth*** I do not carry a sickle or scythe. I only wear a hooded black robe when its cold and I do not have those skull-like facial features you seem to enjoy pinning on me from a distance” (307) . I agree with nick when he says, "There is so much killing and atrocities that is pains Death to take these souls. They are helpless. Many of them are victims because they committed the “crime” of being Jewish." Death, with all of his knowledge, doesn’t understand why there is so much pain and hate in the world, when there is such little love.
In the story Death reveals that he is not evil. I do not think that it is that simple. I think that it is more that he is not good or evil; he is simply there. I have stated before that I do not think Death is capable of human emotions. I think the reason for this is stated on page 550,
“* * * A LAST NOTE FROM YOUR NARRATOR * * *
I am haunted by humans.”
This passage almost suggests that Death’s world is a mirror opposite of ours. In the human world, we are haunted by death; in Death’s world, he is haunted by humans. Because of this reversal, we can not accurately decide if he is evil or not. I personally believe he is half and half; perfectly balance of good and evil.
Death reaveals that humans, however, are not balance. Take for example the time period in which Death tells his tale. The line between good and bad is too clearly defined. I think that there has to be some grey area in the world, otherwise there would be chaos.
Aaron L F:
On the subject of Death being evil versus good, Annie B remarks, "I personally believe he is half and half; perfectly balance of good and evil." While this may be true in a sense, we have to take Death's perspective on this matter. To Death, there probably is no good or evil. Death is not human and assuming that Death has the same feelings or outlooks on life is erroneous. Death merely is doing what death does, which is take life.
Also, I would like to expand on \ Nick A's remark that "We need to learn to respect each other and feel compassion for others. If we fail to learn this lesson, history will again be doomed to repeat itself." I do believe this is true and we could all take heed of this lesson. However, I think it is simply human nature to fight. As long as humans exist, there will be fighting. Humans are an incredibly competitive race and people are always trying to gain superiority and this is mainly achieved by war. As we see in The Book Thief, Hitler tries extinguish the Jews and many other minorities from the world. He attempts to create dominance over other people. While I do believe this behavior is incredibly detrimental to our entire planet, as long as humans exist, people will constantly battle for superiority.
Post a Comment