Please use this page to post ideas or topics you have discovered but that are not addressed in the other posted topics. Share your insights, opinions, commentaries freely, but continue to generate a discussion rather than a list of separate ideas that do not interconnect.
62 comments:
One idea that I found interesting and has not been discussed yet is night. I found night in this story to have two opposite sides. The narrator states the two sides when he says, "the midnight class began at the end of each nightmare" (69). Liesel has nightmares of her brother every night. These nightmares represent suffering and pain. But when she awakes Hans helps Liesel read which helps her form a friendship with him and learn the power of words.
Because these events both happen at night they contrast each other. Night can be viewed as a time of suffering and pain as well as a time of happiness and learning.
Another thing that I noticed is how the difference and simalarity in pain and suffering between the Germans and Jews.
How both Leisel and max have nightmares. But they are different but also the same. Leisel dreams about her brothers death. Max dreams about leaving his family and that last "good bye". In this they are different. When I looked harder I relized they were the same they both left someone or some people that were very close to them, and will never see them. This also has something to do with marisa l w's response of how she sees night in the book. How both of them have nightmares in the dark.
I find Marisa's idea on the opposite sides of night very interesting. I agree with her comment on how Liesel finds freindship and suffers from pain during the night.
Liesel finds friendship with Hans Hubermann, but also Max because night is the only time that Max comes upstairs out of the basement. Once Liesel gets up the courage to talk to him, they both discover that they have much in common and they find a deep love and friendship in each other.
Shelby M makes a good point too that both Max and Liesel have nightmares about people who they love and had to leave behind. They find they can share each other's suffering of nightmares because they are about people they love and miss.
The night is also a time for learning for Liesel because she is taught to read by her papa. Learning to read helps boost her confidence in school. The time for her to learn the most was during the night after her suffering of nightmares.
I see how opposites exist in the night, but what I also noticed is how pain and suffering lead to happiness and learning. If Liesel wouldn't have expressed her pain through nightmares, she would not have had the same opportunities to build a relationship with Papa. During the day Liesel is at school and at night Papa leaves home to play his accordion. The other times, when they are both home, Rosa is also home and she seems to keep them from growing closer. Zusak writes, "The girl knew from the outset that Hans Hubermann would always appear midscream, and he would not leave" (37). This passage shows that the pain Liesel was experiencing brought Papa to her and the fact that he would not leave her shows where their relationship grew from. It is also her extreme pain that causes Liesel to wet her bed. Again, this is what brings Papa to her and if she hadn't wetted the bed, Papa would have never found the black book changing the sheets. He also never would have offered to teach her. On the same night, and by the same pain, Liesel grows in another way. For the first time, she says thank you (68). Liesel finally feels comfortable enough to express appreciation, even where none has been shown to her. So as Marisa said, night is a time of opposite emotions, but these opposites are directly connected. Without her pain and suffering, Liesel never would have experienced the same kind of happiness and learning.
To bring up another topic, I think it is interesting how Zusak divides the book into ten parts. It seems he is breaking up the most important times in Liesels life. It also gives you a sort of foreshadow on what the upcoming chapters are going to be about.
I also think it is interesting on pages 243-266 how Zusak relates gambling to hiding a Jew. Zusak states, "It started with gambling. Roll a die by hiding a Jew and this is how you live. This is how it looks." (243) By hiding a Jew, the Hubermanns are taking a "gamble" that they will not get caught. But he uses a seven-sided die, not a six sided one like we are used to playing with. Do the Germans have a specific game using a seven-sided die?
Like Caitlyn R, I also noticed Zusak's interesting division of the book and use of foreshadowing. Something that was really interesting to me was the way the Prologue was a very revealing foreshadowing of three major events from the rest of the text. I noticed this also happened within many chapters. The first paragraph or two will state something that happens. Then the chapter will go back and tell what happened before, usually finishing with the actual event. I found it interesting how the meat of the text is not made up of large events, but rather the causes of the major events.
Caitlyn brought up the point that Zusak compares hiding a Jew to gambling. I think Zusak uses gambling in other parts of the novel as well. One example of this is in the cover art. The front of the book shows a line of dominoes about to be knocked over. Dominoes are a form of gambling. Gambling brings us to Steph’s comment that “the meat of the text is not made up of large events, but rather the causes of the major events”. Much of gambling is cause and effect. To go back to the cover example, the dominoes are cause and effect. One domino pushes over another, which in turn causes another one to fall. Liesel’s story is like the falling dominoes. Her brother dies, which causes the first book to be stolen. Since the first stolen book brings Liesel closer to her brother, Liesel learns to read. This in turn causes Liesel to steal more books. The entire novel is made up like this; one event causing the others to occur.
I find it quite interesting how Brittany H W brings up the idea of the domino effect in "The Book Thief" and how it pertains to Liesel’s events in her life. The domino effect is the idea that one event leads directly to another and in turn causes the next event directly as in the falling of dominoes. It would be important to note at this moment that the name of the effect is derived directly from the setting up and falling of dominoes. Thus, in many respects, Brittany H W is correct in stating that “one event causing the others to occur” in Liesel’s life throughout the novel. However, the life that Liesel has is not the only one in “The Book Thief” where a domino effect like style can be interpreted. Others lives in the novel are also domino effect is context and progression including that of Hans Hubermann, Liesel’s foster father. Hans Hubermann’s life early on was only hinted upon by Death’s comment that “He had already cheated [him] in one world war” (33). However, the event surrounding his cheating of Death was the one that established his domino effect life and that event was that Erik Vandenburg, a Jewish officer in the military in World War I, suggested that Hans do some work for a superior, which allowed him to live. The domino effect came into play when Erik and the others “went into battle” and “none of them came back” (176) resulting into Hans feeling indebted to Erik for making him stay behind on that day. This feeling of debt would lead to two events in a domino effect progression: one, Hans would not embrace the hatred towards Jews and two, Hans would take in the son of Erik, Max, when the Jews were being persecuted by the Nazis. From these two events, it can be seen that his life is a domino effect progression but Hans’ no hatred leads to the vent of him giving bread to the Jews on their way to Dachau. This event can be interpreted as a stimulus for Hans receiving a statement which read as “We are delighted to inform you that your application to join the NSDAP has been approved” (417) and was thus able to serve in the German military. However, his acceptance into the party can be also seen as Nazi Germany’s overall domino effect of an aggression towards nations that led to Hitler violating the Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and Russia. The invasion of Russia led to a decrease in the number of soldiers in the military because the German soldiers were suffering from an encounter with a Russian winter. As a result, more soldiers were drafted to aid in the war effort and serve Nazi Germany. This is the most likely reason as to why Hans was admitted into the NSDAP and was drafted into the military. These long strands of domino effects can lead to a conclusion about “The Book Thief” as a novel: events in the novel are apart of a series of domino effects that feed together into a single strand of dominoes and branch out leading to events in the characters lives being affected by outside chains.
Caitlyn R brought up how Zusak relates gambling to hiding a Jew on pages 243-266. She also brings up the seven-sided die used to divide this chapter. Many people say the number seven is unlucky as does Zusack in this novel. On page 257 Death states, "Seven. You roll and watch it coming, realizing completely that this is no regular die. You claim it to be bad luck, but you've known all along that it had to come." The use of a regular die would make this gamble a fair one, but I believe the seventh side makes this not a gamble at all. Unlucky seven has to be played on this die which makes the player know his fate when he walks into the room. Gambling is supposed to be chance. But a person gambling with a Jew in Nazi Germany already knows that they will lose; as Death puts it, "You hide a Jew. You pay. Somehow or other, you must" (758). Knowing the fate of a gamble makes it not a gamble anymore.
As Brittany H said, Liesel’s brother’s death started a domino effect in her life. One thing that struck me was how one decision that she made affected so much of her future. His death caused her to steal her first book, “The Grave Digger’s Handbook.” Stealing that book changed her life in two ways. One is that it gave her the desire to read; and the second is that it started her down the path of thievery.
Stealing the first book caused the first domino to topple. But instead of feeling guilty about stealing all the books, she realized that she enjoyed stealing what she felt was rightfully hers. “She didn’t care about the food… It was the book she wanted. The Whistler. She wouldn’t tolerate having it given to her by a lonely, pathetic old woman. Stealing it on the other hand seemed a little more acceptable.” (287) This passage shows that Liesel had a desire to steal. Her first decision to steal “The Grave Digger’s Handbook” caused her to want to steal more and more books, resulting in the domino effect.
I am starting to see a lot of examples supporting the same idea, so I would like to introduce a new topic. I noticed how tobacco carries a lot of the books weight. Hans' showing Liesel how to roll cigarettes on her first night at their house (33) breaks the ice for their relationship. Also, Hans sells his cigarettes to buy Liesel her second and third books (89). These are books that she reads many times over and books that help her to become a better reader, "her pace increasing ever so slightly by the end of such prolific readings" (89).
Both her relationship with Hans and her desire for books have been discussed to some length in this blog and so these examples show how Hans' cigarettes act as a catalyst for Zusak's novel.
I would like to elaborate on the subject of Liesel's relationship with Hans Huberman.
Hans was the one who coaxed Liesel out of the car when she first arrived. "Hans Huberman had her by one hand. Her small suitcase had her by the other."(28) This shows that Liesel placed her trust in Hans on that very first day.And Liesel also knew she would have no trouble calling Hans papa(35).
Hans also came in and sat with Liesel every night to comfort her from her bad dreams. "Some days Papa told her to get back into bed and wait a minute, and he would return with his accordian and play for her."(37).
Holly definitely touched on the subject that made me most curious in this book.
The relationship Hans and Liesel have is very unique and very close. Throughout the book, we see that Liesel opens up to Hans more, rather than her "Mama." Since Liesel was hurting from her brother's loss, she had trouble opening up to people, and Hans' gentle nature coaxes her out of her shell and helps her become the (generally) happy kid she should be.
Another idea that I don't believe has been talked about is Max's daydreams. At first, when Hitler and Max are introduced in the ring, the ringmaster proclaimed, "Undefeated! Over many a Jew, and over any other threat to the German ideal!"(251) This shows the strength and intimidation of Max's opponent. Then, as the fight begins, Max is getting beaten but finally says, "Come on, Fuhrer"(253), but then Hitler faces the crowd and invites them to join him in defeating "this enemy together" (254). I think that even though he wanted to face this enemy, Max again saw the intimidation and power of his opponent and with everyone on Hitler's side, he felt overwhelmed and weak.
He did make an interesting comment, though, when he tells Liesel about his daydreams. Liesel asks him, "Who wins?" and at first he wants to tell her that no one does but then changes his mind and says, "I do" (256). I think that this was his way of making a decision and telling himself that he wasn't going to give up or give in to Hitler and that he was going to get through the pain and the suffering that he had endured in the past and was currently going through at the time.
I think that Ashley brought up a very good point about Max. The fight scenes show a lot about Max as a person, that he will never give up and he is extremely dedicated. Every day he trains by doing push-ups and sit-ups (250), preparing himself for his daily fights with the fuhrer. I think that these fights are what keep him sane and they give him something to live for. He needs something that keeps him moving, and makes him feel like a person rather than an animal living in a hole. Its interesting that when he is doing the most animalistic thing, by fighting, he seems to be more of a man.
I would like to bring up another topic about the pictures that Max draws on the pages of Mein Kampf. On one page there are two children standing on a pile of bodies saying that it is a lovely day (280). I think this drawing is interesting because its showing what is happening in Germany at that time. The drawing shows how the German people can stand above the Jewish people and be fooled by propaganda. The other drawing is also showing Germany from a birds eye view. This picture is showing the Fuhrer above everyone being a conductor (279). I think that this is a good metaphor for Germany because, the conductor is the leader of a group, and everything that the conductor will do, you have to follow or you will be off tempo. I think Max brings a new perspective to the novel that no one else has before.
Samantha brings up a good topic with the pictures. The picture of the fuhrer as a conductor was intriguing to me. A conductor in music keeps the beat, and keeps the band together on the correct tempo. That metaphor was one I wouldn't have expected coming from Max's character. Max is a Jew hiding in a basement in order to stay alive. Why would he feel that the fuhrer and a conductor are at all alike? They control people? They keep them together?
The picture of the two children holding hands standing on the pile of bodies saying "Isn't it a lovely day....." (280) was just as intriguing. One of the first things I noticed on that page was the swastika in the sun. It's the Nazi's sun illuminating the bodies. But I agree with Samantha when she says that it was a metaphor for the Germans stanging above the Jews. Maybe the swastika refers to that instead?
I both agree and disagree with Danielle in regards to what the pictures that Max drew truly meant. The first picture is, as she said, the Fuhrer conducting the people. But I think that he conducting them is more a metaphor for how everyone was following Hitler and obeying his commands. He, like a conductor, was commanding the people to do what he thinks is right. Danielle said that, “A conductor in music keeps the beat, and keeps the band together on the correct tempo.” I disagree with her idea that a conductor keeps the group together on the RIGHT tempo as much as the conductor keeps the group together on what they desire the tempo to be. Hitler had a great hate for Jews, and he thought that all of the world should come along side him and eliminate Jewish people from the world.
The other picture that Max drew was, indeed, an odd picture. And I think that Danielle was on the right track, in terms of what the picture symbolized. I do think that the swastika being the sun is a symbol for the Nazi’s reign over much of Europe and the Jews, at the time. But I think that the bodies that are piled up symbolize the destruction that the Germans were doing. It also symbolizes the ignorance and/or looking the other way of some of the German people. Liesel had no idea what Germany was doing to Jews and to its own citizens. When she finds these pictures, she’s startled by the thought that something like this is actually going on in the world. “You scared me, Max.” (281)
Max also wrote the book, "The Standover Man", which was a late birthday present for Liesel. I'd like to elaborate on that book.
Max tore out and painted forty pages from "Mein Kampf" to create this book. He does this because the book, "Mein Kampf" means nothing to him and he wishes to create something special for Liesel.
"But there is one strange thing. The girl says I look like something else." (232). What does Max mean by this? In "The Standover Man" he draws himself as a bird. This is because Liesel told him "His hair,Is like feathers."(224). He draws himself as Liesel sees him, different.
It is also ironic how Liesel sees him s a bird. Birds fly free in the sky, soaring to where their dreams take them. But Max is stuck in the basment, hiding.
I thought it was interesting that Holly said, "it is ironic how Lisel sees [Max] as a bird". I think Liesel sees how Max wants to be. He wants to be free like a bird; free from his nightmares and free from hiding.
However, I disagree with Holly in one point. she said that, "'Mein Kampf' means nothing to him". When Max left to find Hans, "Mein Kampf" was one of his only possessions. The narrator says, "[Max's] fingers smelled of suitcase, metal, "Mein Kampf", and survival" (185). Even though the book was written by Hitler, who Max hates, it still is all he has. It is also ironic that the book brings Max to Hans, with the key in the front cover.
I also think it is interesting how the pages of "Mein Kampf" create one of Liesel's favorite presents and Max's sketches. It's ironic that Max's sketches are about the bad things happening in Germany, but they are drawn on parts of a book written by the man doing all of the wrong things.
I would like to begin by continuing a part of the conversation about the interesting nature of the two pictures that Max drew in his sketchbook. The first that Max drew of Hitler leading the crowd in a musical fashion was quite thought provoking in the nature of the context of the drawing. Beneath the actual drawing, Max wrote that Hitler was “not the Fuhrer – the conductor” to add emphasis to the content of the piece (Zusak 279). I agree with the statement made, by Hope F P, that “He, like a conductor, was commanding the people to do what he thinks is right” referring to the Fuhrer’s leadership over the German people. In many ways, the idea of calling him the conductor is correct from the respect that a conductor’s purpose is to keep order and guide those whom give him the purpose of leading. The music notes inside the word bubble are representative of his words that he spoke at his speeches, which flowed from his mouth as music would from a conductor of an orchestra. Hitler was known for being a well-rehearsed and well-practiced orator during the war because his speeches could motivate people to do what he wanted them to do. This is what I believe that the first picture means as far as the context of the novel and the war.
The second picture is a far more interesting and is disturbing in its content as far as what Max has drawn. Others have made comments on how this image symbolizes what Hitler and Nazis were doing in World War II, which was controlling much of Europe as he invaded one country after another. I believe that the piece that Max drew is more of a foreshadowing of events that could occur if Hitler succeeds with his plan of total conquest. Many have commented upon the nature of the swastika in the sun as being symbolic of the Nazis dominance during World War II. This is correct but does not apply to the idea of the foreshadowing that Max presents. The Nazi sun is symbolic of Hitler’s goal to take command and control the entire world when the war ended, but the outcome could only occur if the end of the war was favorable to Hitler and then could he attain dominance. The mountain of bodies upon which the two people stand is symbolic of another one of Hitler’s goals; to eliminate all of those deemed inferior by his ideals and to eliminate all who stood in his way of complete domination. Hitler wanted to create a superior race and at times often referred to the Germans of Nazi Germany as the Master Race. This can be seen when the nurse examining Rudy explains that they want to create a “new class of physically and mentally advanced Germans” (Zusak 414). Hitler wanted an elite class so that he could command his forces with great ease and dominate all of his opponents and the only way that he believed this could be done was by killing all others. Therefore, Max’s sketch in his book is a nightmarish premonition of what the world could be like if Hitler succeeds.
One last thought that I have for others to consider is this. I have realized that many have begun conversing about the imagery of Max being compared to a bird through his appearance as dictated by Liesel. I too agree with the statement of Holly H P that “Max is stuck in the basement, hiding” while the bird imagery creates that sense that he should be free and thus brings me to this thought that Max is symbolic of a caged bird that his kept out of sight. This then leads him to become “the Sky Stealer”, finding brief glances at the outside world while the others hide away (Zusak 379). Therefore, it is ironic how Max is a creature of the sky, a bird, one that commands it and should be in it but is forced to be kept away for his own safety when he should be able to go freely about his domain without worrying about danger.
Sources:
Zusack, Markus. "The Book Theif". Copyright 2005. United States of America. Random House, Inc.
I really like Zach H's idea "that Max is symbolic of a caged bird that is kept out of sight." This reminds me of the saying "A caged bird never sings." Max only hopes to be free one day and sing of his happiness. As Zach H said, "This then leads him to become 'the Sky Stealer', finding brief glances at the outside world while the others hide away" (Zusak 379). This displays Max's hope to be in the sky like a bird should be. A caged bird doesn't sing because it is trapped. It has no freedom just like the Jews in Germany.
Max's lack of freedom is Hitler's fault, who I believe can be considered a standover man. He stands over all of Germany's citizens. This brings me to the idea of The Standover Man. The novel begins with, "All my life, I've been scared of men standing over me" (224). Max has always lived with MEN standing over him until he meets Liesel. I find it interesting that Max discovers friendship with a girl who stands over him. Liesel gives the gift of friendship to him which leads him to say in his book, "It makes me understand that the best standover man I've ever known is not a man at all..." (235). When reading this I immediately wondered how people would have reacted if Hitler was a female dictator, a standover woman like Liesel. Would she have been different and offered friendship?
love the comment that Marissa posted because I've thought about gender roles in the novel also. I think women in Maxes life have always been caring and loving so they do not seem to be "stand-over women" but as his family, even Mama is loving towards him sometimes. Like when Max is sleeping in Leisels room, Mama would take care of him no matter what, "now listen to me, Leisel. I didn't take this man into my house to watch him die. Understand?" (315). Even though mama has been described as an unloving woman throughout the entire story she is still taking care of him as though Max was her own. I don't think that the women in this story can be stand over women because all the women in this novel are characterized as loving people some how. The mayors wife is one example, she purposefully leaves the window open, even during the cold, so Leisel can come in and steal books from the library (328). Maxes own mother is another example, she did everything she could to support her family, even though it meant giving up her love for music. Women in this story are very stereotypical: loving, nurturing, and helpful. So maybe, like Marissa said, if Hitler was a woman she might have offered friendship, in this story.
I agree with Samantha that the women in Max's life have been shown to provide nothing but care to him, but I disagree with her on some points. While it is true that Mama was very nurturing to Max while he was sick, and wouldn't let him die,I wonder how much that has to do with her not being able to take care of her own son. Hans Jr feels that his family isn't loyal enough to Hitler, so he leaves(106). When Mama is nursing Max, she doesn't know if her own son is alive, or dead, or where he is. I believe this is the reason she's so kind to Max. I do however disagree with Samantha when she says that women are presented in the stereotypical sense, "loving, nurturing, and helpful." On the contrary, I think women are presented as distant and reserved. Both Leisel and Max's mothers sent them away, albeit to save them, without another word. The next mother character we encounter is Mama, who is often harsh, and brutal. I believe all these characters go towards the opposite of a stereotypical woman.
I would like to further develop the roles of woman in the text. The woman seen the most, besides Liesel, is obviously Mama. She is not like what one would expect of a stereotypical woman though. She curses in almost every sentence, treats her husband and foster child like trash, and could even be said to look for reasons to argue. Because of these traits she is the dominant person in the household. Especially this long ago, a woman being the dominant of the husband-wife relationship is very peculiar. While her and Hans both work and bring in money, she almost takes on both roles. She cooks, cares for Liesel-if you can call it that, works, and really controls the house. We don't know too much about the Mayor and his wife, but we do know that the wife is willing to go behind his back and allow Liesel to read books that shouldn't be allowed. This rebellion also suggests her power in the relationship, able and ready to go against his will. Whether these attributes ware off on Liesel, or it's in her nature as well, she also begins to have a very dominant personality. Liesel often defies Rudy and does things her own way, including stealing books, stealing food, and power from the Fuhrer. Death puts the words in Rudy's mouth in saying, "Who did Liesel Meminger think she was, telling him she had to take the washing and ironing alone today?" (143) yet he does nothing against it but goes to play soccer. He never gets his kiss and she nearly always gets her way.
Samantha H and Danielle F are debating the fact of whether or not women, in the story, are shown as “loving, nurturing, and helpful” or as “harsh and brutal.” I think that the women are portrayed as both. On one hand, there are people like the mayor’s wife and Max’s mother who are shown as kind, compassionate women. But on the other hand, there are women like Mama and Liesel, who are kind and caring sometimes, but at other times they are quick to anger and brutal. Liesel constantly showed Max love and compassion when he was sick by bringing him gifts that she found (317-324). Contradictory to this act of kindness, she beat up a kid at school. Mama regularly cursed Liesel and her husband whenever she was even the slightest bit angry, and yet she looked after and cared for Max when he was sick and refused to let him die. Therefore, women are shown as kind and compassionate, as well as cruel and brutal creatures.
I would have to agree with both danielle f p and alex a f. In the book women are both brutal and caring. Liesel's step mom and real mom show how brutal they can be. Liesel's step mom calls her all kinds of names and punishs her a lot for different reasons. Then their is Leisel's real mom who had to leave her and even when her son died went on with it without a bat of the eye. The both show that they are doing the caring and most important thing for Leisel but they are also doing it the brutal way. Women in the book are also caring and nurturing shown by Leisel's step and real mom's and by frau Hermann. Leisel's step mom could have called the party to come and take max away but she didn't, instead she took care of him and feed him. Leisel's real mom showed she cared by taking Leisel to a new home so she would have a chance to live better. Last but not least Frau Hurmann Showed she cared by letting Leisel take the books for her education. She didn't call the police or anything, then toward the end she wrote a letter saying she was sorry and that Leisel can take and keep the books.
I believe that not only are the women described as being brutal and compassionate in the novel, but the men are also described this way. I think that Hans Hubermann is the best example of a compassionate man in the novel. He would stay up with Liesel, helped her learn how to read, helped her adjust to life on Himmel Street, and gave up his tobbaco for her even though he is described as "love(ing) to smoke" (pg.33)
These are great examples of the compassionate side of men in the story.
While Hans is just one of a few good men in the story, there are many, many more examples of the brutal evil nature of man in the story, most of them from the Nazi Party and Hitler, many of these which have already been describe, so I won't keep on repeating.
Another thing I'd like to note is that it's odd Hans and Rosa are a couple due to the very different personalities they have.
Donald makes a good point when he noticed Hans and Rosa’s odd relationship. If you refer back to the book, Death noticed, when she began to take Rosa’s soul, that Rosa Hubermann did in fact have a heart, page 532. “She had a bigger one than people would think. There was a lot in it, stored up, high in miles of hidden shelving.” Death mentions the fact that Rosa was the one who had the instrument strapped to her body when Hans had been drafted. Rosa was always thinking of Hans if it meant thinking of him every night, every day, and almost every minute. Although most of us assume that Rosa is the one ruining the relationship between the old couple, I really don’t think she is. In fact she has to be helping it. Relationships don’t require perfection at all time, and maybe that’s what Hans sees in his wife. Someone that’s not perfect, but someone who’s perfect in their own way of showing it. Who knows? Donald brings up a very good point, and I’m sure many of us have opinions all our own. But for now, this is mine.
Both Donald and Ryan bring up a good point. Often when thinking of relationships, there's a stereotype that comes to mind. Relationships are often shown as without any problems, and in this book you see many relationships with multiple problems. Hans and Rosa, for example, fight constantly throughout the book. She yells at him, calls him names, and he puts up with it. However, when he is drafted, you see a very different side of the relationship. It seems like Rosa misses Hans, worries about him constantly. In Liesel and Rudy's relationship you see something very different from what we would term "best friends". I wonder if the relationships Zusak uses aren't another tool used to show how stereotypes were broken during that time.
This is Aaron L F:
Danielle F brings up a good point when she says, "Relationships are often shown as without any problems, and in this book you see many relationships with multiple problems." Zusak does this to show the reality of the people's lives during World War II. This war era was no easy time for anyone and Zusak accurately depicts this through his illustrations of not only Hans and Rosa's relationship, but Rudy and Liesel's also as Danielle mentions. In doing this, Zusak shows how, ultimately, love or friendship (depending on the relationship) will prevail and sustain over petty fighting.
Also, Danielle notices, "[Rosa] yells at [Hans], calls him names, and he puts up with it." Despite their constant name-calling and bickering, we must remember that, as the narrator points out, "[Rosa's] way of showing [love] just happened to be strange" (35). In essence, Rosa's way of expressing her love to Hans and Liesel is to bash them with "words at various intervals" (35). So it is not so much that Hans or Liesel put up with Rosa's vulgar name-calling, it is more that they know that these profane words are her expression of love towards them. She really means no harm or abuse. Rather, it is just the opposite.
The relationship of Hans and Rosa Hubermann illustrated the complexities of marriage. At times, the two seemed to truly hate and despise each other. I agree with what Danielle said about relationships: “Relationships are often shown as without any problems, and in this book you see many relationships with multiple problems.” The Hubermann’s relationship was a perfect example of this. Their problems made their marriage seem more realistic. No relationship is completely perfect or flawless - and the Hubermann’s demonstrated this well. Rosa was verbally abusive, constantly belittling Hans and Liesel. She constantly told him that Hans that he was too much of a pushover. On the other hand, they shared many similar opinions and values. They both hated Hitler. They both loved Max. They supported each other through the hardships they faced with Max, and again with their son, Hans Jr., demonstrating their love and commitment to each other.
I agree with what has been said about Hans and Rosa's relationship and how they accept each other as they are. How Rosa really did have a heart and how they really did deeply care for each other. I just would like to add a few more comments. I'd like to bring up the old saying that oppisites attract and how Rosa and Hans could really be described in this manner. Most of the time this the apperance they give. Total oppisites that give each other unconditional love. Though I agree that there are some similaries if you look deeper and that maybe they could be a horrible example of this saying, I'm looking for your opinoins on that. The other thing I'd like to say is that I agree with what has been said, that they do show the complexities of marriage and how it's not perfect. I think Rosa and Hans are great examples of the different sides of marriage. Just like the disscusion earlier about how the women and men in the book portray the brutality and compassionate sides of people, I believe Rosa and Hans do the same thing, just with marriages instead.
As I was reading through everyone’s comments, and in Danielle’s comment she said that, “In Liesel and Rudy's relationship you see something very different from what we would term "best friends". On the topic of relationships, this statement made me realize and think that I see a little of Rosa and Hans in the two children, Liesel and Rudy. I say this because if you think about it, the two children go through the same things Rosa and Hans also go through. Arguments come between the two, but that’s what brings them together. They know how to get along, but they choose not to. They both like each other a lot, but they never want to show it. There are differences between these two relationships, yes, but similarly, I see the duplicates these two relationships share. Think about it.
I think that Ryan and Danielle both made really good observations. Like they said, Leisel and Rudy's relationship isn't the typical "best friends" relationship. They pick on each other incessantly, putting each other down as much as they possibly can. Trying to show that they are the tougher person. Leisel and Rudy, do show a lot of similarities of Hans and Rosa. They constantly call each other bad names, and fight and bicker, but in the end they love each other. Leisel and Rudy do love each other, and I think that love is same for Rosa and Hans. Rudy and Hans are completely willing to show there affection towards Leisel and Rosa, but they still try to be the top dog, by calling each other names and things. Rosa and Leisel are different from the two men. They try and conceal their love as much as possible by putting up a hard outer shell. In the end they love each other, Rosa is there for Hans no matter what would happen, and Leisel will always support Rudy and love him even after his death.
As many of you havesaid there are differences in the reletionships in this story. So I think i this book that there is a large importance of friendship such as Leisel and Rudy or Hans and Rosa they each need that support system, or have themselves challenged in unfamiliar ways.
I think that almost every relationship in the novel is important to how the story develops. Liesel sees and shares many relationships with all the people she comes in contact with.
The reader is first shown a very strong realtionship between Liesel and Hans Hubermann. He begins the relationship on the very first night when Liesel wouldn't take a bath and he asks her, "You know how to roll a cigarette?" (33). This gains some of Liesel's trust and the relationship continues from there. The reader also sees how Liesel forms strong relationships with Rosa Hubermann, Rudy, Ilsa Hermann, and Max. All these relationships form Liesel's life and give the story more depth and meaning. The relationships made really shape who Liesel becomes in the novel.
It's true that the relationship's within the novel seem to move the story along and help it progress andthere are many good points but one of my favorite topics was colors. I know I'm such a kid, and you all might have covered this so far, but the colors seem to reflect some of the moods within the book,yet at the same time I love how Zusak sets the mood by using the colors. I mean I don't like going back to the beginning of the book but I found it interesting how he chose to start it.
So in the very beginning, Zusak introduces us with the color white, "First up is something white. Of the blinding kind" (6). Of course we all know that white can be a representation of innocence or purity,so it's almost
as if that this page is showing how innocent the world might seem, then a few pages later it says, "Next is a signature black, to show the poles of my versatility, if you like. It was the darkest moment before the dawn" (9). These two moods seem to be contradicting eachother because, of course, black is the complete opposite of white and is a universal symbol of evil.
But the way that Zusak said that "it was the darkest moment before the dawn" this goes back to the topic of night and somewhat proves that the "black" he's talking about might not be evil. What I mean is that night, in history, was sometimes compared to the holocaust which made me think that the "black" Zusak is talking about might be a symbol of sickness and death.
Now my favorite on the other hand,is red. It seems to be pretty self-explanatory but it says, "The last time I saw her was red. The sky was like soup, boiling and stirring. In some places, it as burned. There were black crumbs, and pepper streaked across the redness" (12). The sentence, "the sky was like soup,boiling and stirring" is like sunrise, or an end to the sickness and the despair.
These two notions, of night and sunrise, are pretty ironic because sunrise comes after the night and to me this seems like a new beginning.But, like I said this may seem pretty childish but there definately seems to be a deeper connection of these two notions throughout the story.
I agree with shelby m on some of those ideas such as color and mood.
But another thing I wanted to talk about was mood its self. See what i tended to notice was that with each characters mood change that changed another character which changed the direction of the actions of the story. It was almost like an indefinite pattern that each person continued because they all had different moods throughout the book.
This is Aaron L F:
Many people have pondered this idea that Liesel and Rudy are very much like Hans and Rosa. Ryan P notices, "I see a little of Rosa and Hans in the two children, Liesel and Rudy." However, no one has attempted to explain why the two relationships might be so oddly similar. An apparent explanation for this is that Rosa's vulgar diction greatly influences Liesel to reflect what she hears. When Liesel first came to the Hubermann home, she did not act similar to this whatsoever. Now, after some time spent listening to Rosa's outbursts all day, it is almost inevitable that she will start to reflect this in her dialect as well. Thus, being close to Rudy as a friend, Liesel expresses her fondness of Rudy the only way she knows how--profane language. This is a possible explanation for the two relationships being somewhat similar. Does anyone else have any thoughtful notions on this topic?
Shelby G also presents a mindful notion of color setting the mood for many different settings in the novel. I would like to continue her thoughts on a much more symbolic level. Shelby mentions that on page six, white is brought up to depict innocence and purity. However, in the context of this novel, this is not what white symbolizes. In fact, this section of The Book Thief is actually referring to the death of Liesel's brother. In this instance, white is symbolic of death in the sense that "the blinding kind" (6) of white is much like what many people think to be seen when one enters the gates of heaven after death. Almost as if it is waiting for Liesel's brother, she "studie[s] the blinding, white-snow sky who stood at the window of the moving train" (7). By illustrating this blinding white that is lurking outside the train, Zusak makes it appear that the gates of Heaven are waiting for someone in the near future. Also, in a more literal sense, white represents the notion of cold and bitterness like snow in the context of this section in the novel.
Furthermore, Shelby notices that the colors red and black were also used as symbolic devices. First of all, the colors red, white, and black "fall on top of each other" (14) on the Nazi flag. So this is a notion that denotes Nazism most clearly. However, each color individually means something more important. The contrasting black and white illustrate the two opposing sides of the war. Shelby saw this pretty clearly. Red, however, to me does not mean an "end to sickness and despair" as Shelby believes. Red is symbolic of blood-shed. The last time the narrator "saw [Liesel] was red" (12). This is depicting Liesel's death and blood. After all, the narrator is death. Every time red is seen, blood-shed is somehow involved.
I am in agreement with Shelby G W when she states that Zusak "sets the mood by using the colors" throughout the course of the novel as Death tells the story. This idea is true from the idea of how Death sees colors when he collects the souls of those who have died and how the colors tend to reflect the scenery at the time of his or her death. Other posts have noted that certain colors are symbolic of certain emotions or events in the lives of characters in the novel. One of the more interesting comments I found pertaining to the subject of this was that of Aaron L F when he states that “red is symbolic of blood-shed” as the color relates to the events in the novel. It is easy to understand as to why the color red could be symbolic of blood shed because of the color’s relationship to the text. As all bloggers know and understand, the text takes place during the Second World War, which was one, the most destructive wars in the history of the world. The color red would therefore be representative of all of the blood spilled during the battles fought between September 1, 1939, and August 9, 1945. The quote to which the symbolism is attached to is when Death states, “the last time he saw [Liesel] was red”, red being the reference to the color that he sees (Zusak 12). However, while I admit that the destruction of Himmel Street was filled with chaos and death, the red color is not used to symbolize bloodshed but anger. This is the anger rising from the survivors of loved ones whom had been killed by the bombs that destroyed the street on which Liesel lived. Red is, as a color, symbolic of anger and power since red is a violent color in the way that it has the ability to do certain things to a person. Red has been shown to raise the blood pressure in most people when they see it. It was the anger and hate towards what Hitler was doing and in what he was accomplishing in the war that drove the Allies to attack Germany directly beginning in 1943 and ending in 1945 when Germany surrendered after Hitler “delivered himself into [Death’s] arms” (Zusak 548). It would be proper to note that Hitler committed suicide to avoid being killed as Mussolini did when he was captured in Italy. Therefore, I disagree with Aaron L F’s idea that “Every time red is seen, blood-shed is somehow involved” from the idea that red is not symbolic of the bloodshed but the anger behind the bloodshed seeing how it is the anger that is driving the motions of the war.
Sources:
Zusack, Markus. "The Book Theif". Copyright 2005. United States of America. Random House, Inc.
I agree with Shelby G on the thought of how the colors set the mood throughout the novel. All throughout this book, Death explains to the reader all the colors he sees when he is collecting souls. These colors give us a picture of what things were like at the particular time that he was collecting a certain soul(s).
At the very beginning, Death describes three colors: white, black, and red. Each color gives the reader a different feeling of what is happening. Like Shelby mentioned, white is representing innocence; black shows the reader that there was a death and mourning. I agree with Shelby too when she said, "The sentence, 'the sky was like soup,boiling and stirring' is like sunrise, or an end to the sickness and the despair." I think that after finishing the novel, the reader makes that connection that Liesel is making a new beginning and starting over.
I loved the idea of night that Marisa L brought up. I hadn’t really thought about it that way but when I read what she wrote I completely agreed. Memories of the death of Liesel’s brother haunt her every night and in the beginning she woke up screaming, crying, and even wetting the bed a few times (63). Yet every night, after the nightmares, Hans teaches her how to read. This becomes a happy time for Liesel and something that she wants to do every night. Night is a perfect reflection of Yin and Yang. Fear and happiness.
I also like what Steph O wrote. The idea of pain and suffering leading to knowledge and learning is brilliant. It really fits with the whole night topic.
Nightmare = pain
Midnight classes= learning
It goes a lot with real life too. A lot of lessons are learned from making mistakes, sometimes painful ones. Yet if you embrace those mistakes and learn from them you can become more knowledgeable.
Leah brings up a very interesting topic that I believe is just as important as all the others. “A lot of lessons are learned from making mistakes,” Leah mentions. It’s true! Throughout Zusak’s novel, he introduces the idea of learning from your mistakes from Liesel, to Hans, to Ilsa, and even Rudy.
Hans makes a big mistake in the chapter, The Long Walk to Dachau, where Hans makes his way through the pool of Jews and stands before one of them, “holding his hand out and presenting a piece of bread, like magic” (394). As his punishment, Hans is whipped inside the pool of Jews by a soldier who briefly noticed him presenting the small amount of bread. On the outside, Liesel and Rudy watch in horror. Later in this section, the actions Hans Hubermann decided to make, led up to the decision of causing Max Vandenberg to leave the Hubermanns house. In Liesels dictionary, the word Nachtrauern-Regret is defined as: Sorrow filled with longing, disappointment, or loss. And that’s exactly what teaches Hans to learn from his mistakes. Because of his actions preformed on the street of Munich, the old man felt disappointment in himself, understood the concepts of loss, and felt the longing for his punishment.
Explaining this segment of the novel just helps to provide and example of learning from your mistakes. It also helps to show that Leah makes a good point, and I believe this is an important topic to go over because it does shape the story in several ways.
I also belive the novel shows how learning comes from sorrow. This is a simple fact of life that Zusak shows expertly in his novel. I'd also like to thank Ryan P for his great example of this. What I'd like to ask is why do we learn from trials and sorrows. I think it is the same principle that applies to knowing history. If you know things that have happened before you can avoid them in the future. This is most helpful when you learn from someone else's mistakes so you don't have to go through that specific thing yourself. We can help others learn also when we are the ones to make the mistake. That is really the whole point we are here is to learn and help others learn. That means trials and sorrows can be some of the most important times in our lives even if they are the hardest times too.
Going back a little bit, I like how Aaron L said that red was infact, in this case, "is symbolic of blood-shed". And the thought had occured to me that not only could red symbolize an end to the destruction but it could actually mean destruction itself. For example, when it states, "Yes, the sky was now a devastating, home-cooked red. The small german town had been flung apart one more time" (13). The notion of destruction within the novel is present with the emotion of hatred and is syncronized with blood-shed. If there is destruction there is always blood, of course.
And this may seem a little naive, but blood and destruction always seems present and they do relate to one another in real life.
I do agree with many of you when you discuss about night being a very symbolic thing in the novel. I don't think however that it is just simply feeling pain and then goes to a softer side of happiness and learning.
When night is seen in the novel it is shown as the "lesson of Death" as I like to call it. Like when Death talked about the plane crash in the beginning of the novel he says, "next is a signature of black, to show the poles of my versatality" (9) First of all this shows Death can be seen as Night, that in night it is the end of the day, almost as if the day is dying and a new one begins. He also compares a human's death to an eclipse when he says, "You see, to me, for just a moment, despite all of the colors that touch and grapple with what I see in this world, I will often catch an eclipse when a human dies. I've seen millions of them. I've seen more eclipses than I care to remember." So it's not just the night but anything black or dark can be seen as death I think.
Another thing I would like to discuss is the different sides to darkness. When Liesel has nightmares about her brother it inflicts a great deal of emotional pain on her. Then, her adopted father will come in to read her a book to calm her down and say that she loves him. When these things constantly happen Liesel learns from it and gives her more than a lesson to cope with the pain, but a greater sense of clarity. She can feel other peoples' pain and start to understand that pain is natural and so is death and we only see this by experiencing it.
I agree with Ryan and Donald that Zusak makes many points about learning about learning from mistakes and sorrows. And I agree with Donald that it applies to real life, with knowing history, but I wonder to what extent? 11 million people died in the Holocaust, and after we saw the complete and utter devastation and tragedy, we said we would never let it happen again. And we've stood idly by while two other major genocides took place.
But maybe we, as individuals learn from past mistakes and mistakes of others around us. For example, Rudy paints himself black and runs to be like Jesse Owens (57). However, after he is heckled, and his father punishes him, he learns from his mistakes, and never paints himself back again. So maybe Zusak's point is that we as individuals learn as mistakes, but as a country, or a whole, it takes us a while.
I like how Danielle pointed out that we also learn from others. I think it’s a big thing to learn from yourself, but it’s also very important to learn from others just as well. Zusak introduces this as well in his novel. An example of this is when Ilsa Hermann learns from Liesel that there are brighter things to look forward to when you forget the past. Ilsa struggled with the loss of her son for many years, and she spent so much time remembering him, causing her sorrow to take control of her. If it hadn’t been for Liesel, Ilsa Hermann would still be the silent women she use to be. Another example of this is when Liesel learned from Max and Papa the power of words that are brought to us. If it weren’t for the two men, I don’t think Liesel would be the character she is in the book. These words helped Liesel to recognize the true meaning of imagination and remembrance of her brother and Rudy. Not only do they provide Liesel with knowledge, but they provide her with the name she is recognized by. The Book Thief. There are people in this world, young and old, that can help you along your path of living a better life if you just take the time to learn from not only yourself, but the ones you love most.
I also agree with Danielle on her thoughts of learning from each other. If you think about it, learning from other people, rather through observation or interrogation, is the safest and best way to learn. Instead of making a bunch of mistakes and then learning from them, if you watch other people make mistakes then you will know what not to do. For example, you watch I kid shove his finger into a light socket and you see his hair stand up on end and his reaction of fright and pain. You will most likely not make the same mistake that kid did because you observed someone else make the mistake first. There are some things though that you do have to learn on your own through trial and error. “It’s a big thing to learn from yourself,” (Ryan P P) but if you can avoid making mistakes, you can avoid making yourself look foolish or bad. It does not even need to be someone you love. It could be anyone. Everyone in this world can help you in some way, even if you do not know them. You just got to stop and smell the roses.
I agree with Donald, Danielle, and Branden in the fact that you must learn from the mistakes of others as well as yourself. Although, with mistakes come the things you do that better you, and you can also learn from those. I disagree with the statement Danielle made about Rudy painting himself black being a mistake. The thing Rudy learned from this experience was that to fulfill his dreams and hopes, he didn't have to become Jessie Owens, he could just strive to make himself better.
My opinion on the things that people in this novel learn is that, with help from your family and friends, you can learn who you are, and with the help of enemies you can learn who you do not wish to be.
Because of the rasicm of the time, Rudy learns that wishing to be of another race is frowned upon by society, and so he realizes that he does not want to be one of the judgemental people of Nazi Germany. This also goes back to what Shelby m p said about suffering between Jews and Germans.
Rudy suffers and struggles to defeat Hitler just as much as Max seems to, in order to better himself.
This is Aaron L F:
Learning from one's own mistakes are probably the most valuable lessons a person can learn. Learning from other people's mistakes, however, may not grind in a lesson as well as a person learning for themselves. Everyone makes mistakes. We are only human. And we all have learned from our mistakes in the past. Growing up, as the reader sees Liesel and Rudy accomplishing quickly, children make the most mistakes of their lives. This is the time that children grow and mature though-they lose their innocence through their mistakes. As we see with Liesel, she makes the mistake of believing that her mother will respond to her letters almost out of desperation. However, Liesel learns "that the whole exercise had been pointless" (97). To learn from this melancholy ordeal, Liesel realizes that false hopes can simply lead to more despair. She desperately wants to reach her mother in any way, shape or form, but she comes to the realization that she is probably a Communist-the people Hitler swears against. Rather than "choosing to ignore the sense of foreboding that was quick to accumulate inside her" (95) while Liesel writes the letter, she should never have had false hopes in the first place. She learns this later when she receives no letters back from her mother. Despite the painful distrust that Liesel experiences, she does learn a highly valuable lesson from her mistake. Learning from one's own mistakes is the quickest and most steadfast way to learn a lesson and this is clearly proven not only through Liesel, but almost every character in the novel.
I agree with Aaron on the fact that making mistakes ourselves "grinds" in the lessons better. It is harder to learn from other people then from yourself. Think of some real world examples for a minute. Ever since elementary school, we have learned drugs, smoking, and drinking are all harmful to your body. Yet even though this is drilled into our heads constantly, people still end up doing it anyway. Why would they do this when they know it's harmful to us. The answer is they didn't learn from other people. Either they didn't want to learn or they just didn't pay attention. On the other hand there are those people who did listen and follow the counsel that was given to them. Those are the people who become successful and happy in thier lives. They are the people who are able to learn from others mistakes. Sure they still will make mistakes of thier own, we all will. Listening to others though helps us avoid those mistakes and then we make different ones so we get much more learning from many more places. Nothing would ever have been accomplished if no one passed on learning. We would still be very primitive and have no technological advances. Thats why dictators like Hitler try to take knowledege away. Knowledge is power. If people have knowledge they start to think for themselves and then might try to change things and rebel aginst the dictators that are in control. Thats why an evil ruler, dictator, whatever it is, can't win. You can never end learning no matter how hard you try, there is no stopping it and that is why good will always win.
According to Donald F people learn from their mistakes from watching other people, but is that really true? As Aaron L states, "Learning from other people's mistakes, however, may not grind in a lesson as well as a person learning for themselves" I also believe that learning to correct the mistakes ourselves is the best possible way. I mean yes, there are a few individuals who do learn from other peoples mistakes by using guidance or any other method but, at the same time, the other few people make repeated mistakes even if they see the after affect over and over.
The truth is while we make mistakes and fix most of them, there are many mistakes that we honestly don't realize we are making. We see the truth how it appears to us and not other people.
And about three-percent of the time it's this particular mistake that could cost us our lives. But of course this statement is based on my own experiences and, let me tell you, some of these are not pleasant.
Based on my personal experiences many people don't have enough time or don't have any motivation to change who they are, and before you know it it becomes a habit, an addiction even.
But Donald F is certainly right about knowledge being power, we are constantly trying to make things different and new, but take away all of that and we would really be defensless beings.
For example, in The Book Thief, Leisel gains knowledge through her experiences in life (and the many books she kept). These experiences helped her and as she learned, the story progressed. Zusak states, "It was the pleasure and satisfaction. Of good stealing" (366). By collecting and reading those books she gained the knowledge that she needed to know in order to survive in the real world.
Ryan P wrote that he "sees a little of Rosa and Hans in the two children, Liesel and Rudy." I agree with this and I would also like to point out another similarity between the two relationships. They both go through significant amounts of change as they spend more time together. An example of this is Rudy becoming more mature. "In the tree shadows, Liesel watched the boy. How things had changed, from fruit stealer to bread giver"(440). Another point in the book that tells of change in Rudy is, “Years ago, when they’d raced on a muddy field, Rudy was a hastily assembled set of bones, with a jagged rocky smile. In the trees this afternoon, he was a giver of bread and teddy bears” (518). Liesel changes too, as she falls in love with Rudy. Though Rosa Hubermann doesn’t go through any big changes in the book, it indicated that she did at some point in time. “He said that she was beautiful once, and actually very quiet-spoken” (355). This tells how Rosa, who in the book is very outspoken, once had a softer personality. I think that from this book, we obtain a good idea of how relationships change as the people in them do.
I would like to coninue on what Marisa B P said. She said,"I think that from this book, we obtain a good idea of how relationships change as the people in them do."
I agree with her.
Through liesel and Max I see this. liesel starts off shy towards Max, of course she would be somewhat shy because who wouldn't be with a total stranger who has the key to her home. She begins to get to know him and then befriends him.
This book very much so shows the message of how relationships change.
In another topic blog (still the same book blog though) another hidden message thoughout the book has been said (well it was apperent too). The message was Zusak using death to show that humans were worth it.
My question to my fellow bloggers is: are there any other messages that are being projected towards the reader?
To start it off, I think another message is (as corny as this may sound) that kindness and respect for others[mankind] can pull together different races and encode friendship.
Max and Liesel are two completely different races but are united though kindness and respect that was gained in time. They became friends none the less.
Devon S F
Hannah T asked earlier if there are any messages being projected towards the reader. Obviously there are many points that the author is trying to get across, but the first one that came to my mind was that there is more to people than meets the eye.
I guess the most obvious example of this would have to be Rosa Huberman. At first glance, one might describe Rosa Huberman as abusive,profane, and just plain rude. But as the story progresses, the reader slowly discovers that there is much more to Rosa Huberman that a vocabulary of saumench and saukerl. She really does care about Hans and Liesel, she just doesn't show it as well as some. An unforgettable example of this is when Hans has been sent to war. Liesel wakes up and hears movement in the living room. "There was no denying the fact that Rosa Huberman was sitting on the edge of the bed with her husband's accordion tied to her chest," (429). This powerful image of the love that Rosa has for her husband ismade even more powerful by the realization that it is show without speaking, without words. Just a woman and an accordion and silence. Rosa is one thing when her mouth is abusive and cruel, but she is another thing entirely when she is silent and alone.
Even the narrator is an example that you can't judge a book by it's cover. Death as a narrator. Even the idea of it sounds creepy and wierd, and the last thing a reader expects from it is a happy, positive story, yet here it is. Although the stereotype of death, as he points out, is not an evil, creepy monster whose only intent is killing and destruction. He says, "I do not carry a sickle or scythe. I only wear a hooded black robe when it's cold," (307). In fact, he loves colors and he enjoys stories of children and friendship.
There are many more examples of this, from grumpy, door-spitting neighbors who end up just needing a companion to read with, to a cold, distant mayor's wife who really enjoys reading and books. There are children who steal apples, food, and books, who actually love instead todonate pieces of bread to starving jews. Even a Jew, who is viewed as lowly, the scum of the earth, ends up being a living, breathing human being who writes books for a little girl, paints on walls, and loves to look at the stars. This is a book about breaking boundaries, about destroying false assumptions, and about revealing the qualities and characteristics of people that otherwise would remain hidden. The author is really trying to say that one should try to see the good that is inside people, rather than accepting what they present to the world as who they are inside. As the saying goes, don't judge a book by it's cover.
Hannah T and Devon S spoke of messages being projected to the reader. One thing I noticed was that the author tries very hard to let us know that every small detail leads to something immense later on, essentially, that everything happens for a reason. Marisa L discussed that nightmares, something Max and Liesel both share, make the night a very painful experience. However, without those nightmares, the two comrades would have never become friends.
Everything from hatred to love can benefit someone's future. An example of this is the first time Hans Hubermann escaped death. A man named Erik saved his life the first time by volunteering him to stay out of the battle. "His writing was abiltiy was dubious to say the least, but he considered himself lucky." (178), Hans didn't realize it at the time, but his friend had saved his life with the smallest of gestures.
The author tries to project the message that each little thing has a vast effect on the future.
The second time Hans Hubermann's life is saved is by pure hatred. If that man had not have been rude enough to steal Hans' seat, he would have lived, and Hans would have been dead. But, if that had happened, the story would have ended and death would have had no story to tell.
Aaron L F:
Megan H makes a great point that " the author tries very hard to let us know that every small detail leads to something immense later on." This plays into a few different other themes in the novel as well. The foreshadowing that Death as the narrator constantly presents to the reader subtly explains to us at parts how or why a certain action affects a specific character's future. When Liesel steals her first book, The Grave Digger's Handbook, Death warns the reader through foreshadowing that this is just "the beginning of an illustrious career" (29). From this one act of taking a book, Liesel begins a long career of stealing books due to her thirst for knowledge. This one book is the catalyst for her curiosity for the world around her. Thus, because of this one action, Liesel steals books periodically throughout the entire novel. If she had not stolen this one book, she probably would not have the motivation to learn and read as she so adamently does.
Also, on a much larger scale, the actions that Hitler takes to brainwash and manipulate the people of Germany into the mass genocide of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people, etc. affects almost the entire world for years. Hitler's rise to power not only sparks the Second World War, but ultimately results in the deaths of approximately 48,231,700 people ("Estimated"). Hitler's initial action of manipulating the people of Germany caused so much destruction and violence that it can probably be classified as one of the greatest catastrophes in the history of mankind. This is probably the best example that people can learn from in terms of people's actions affecting their future.
Aaon L F makes an good point saying "This one book [The Grave digger's handbook] is the catalyst for her curiosity for the world around her. Thus, because of this one action, Liesel steals books periodically throughout the entire novel." Curiosity leads to many discoveries whether they be good ones or not.
I found that as I was telling my cousin about this book and explaining the full-length story that another message Zusak is potraying is that many hardships and unkown paths can lead to the betterment of life.
You see this thoughout the entire story line. liesel starts off as a girl on the train wondering what shes doing and why. Her mother is giving her away. She sees her brother die before her eyes and it creates such a tramma for her that she has to play it out in her dreams so her brain can accept it. Eventually, she is "seeing" her brother help her -her brother skins his knee and then hes tellling her to make things right, etc. (250-253) but as a result of this tramma liesel becomes a stronger person.
liesel is adopted; shes doesn't want to be, by the struggle to get her into the Hubermanns' home. She adjusts none the less and eventually loves her foster parents as though they were her birth ones maybe even more. I'm sure that never seeing your mother again and then having to digest that you have a new set of parentals, is hard to swallow especially being the girl she was.
leisel was illiterate when she arrived at the Huberman home. She was teased and humilliated and sent to a class with a lesser age group than she was. She struggled with this and eventually beat up two boys over it. ("The Heavy Weight Champion of The School Yard"73-80) With the help of Hans, she turned out to love reading and this plays role in reinforceing her own writing.
These examples prove that hardships and unknown paths can lead sometimes, but not all the time, to the betterment of life.
Post a Comment