Monday, June 9, 2008
Book Thief--Style
Zusak writes with an elaborate style heavy on figurative language. Note some of his countless metaphors, paradoxes, personifications, or even his use of juxtaposition and foreshadowing. Consider his use of dictionary definitions, asides by Death, the ten parts and subsections, “The Standover Man” graphics, and other elements of how the story is told. What effect does the style have on his purpose, his characters, or his themes in the novel?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
"***A SMALL ANNOUNCEMENT***
ABOUT RUDY STEINER
He didn't deserve to die the way he did." (page 241)
Death leaves nothing to the imagination. It simply tells you the outcome of the story. On the very next page from the quote above, the reader learns that there is "frightening rubble and [a swelling sky] on the night he passed away." Rudy dies in a violent environment. He finally gets the kiss he's always wanted from Liesel. This is no hint of bad things to come. This is someone telling you the ending of a movie or a book you have yet to see. In this senario, you can't cover your ears. "I don't have much interest in building mystery. Mystery bores me." (page 243) One just has to take Death's hatered of secrets.
Death in the hands of the taker seems to be the motive in the story. Feelings and emotions are expressed through colors and weather; grasping your confusion. Paragraph 3; Page 13 says "Yes, the sky was now a devastating, home-cooked red." This Passage repeatedly changes within the author's mind, to explain; with
metaphors, what his eyes may be feeling or seeing. "The Book Theif" is an extremely confusing novel; that actually makes it enjoyable. This is the kind of book that you don't wanna set down.
On Page 32, Leisel meets Hans Hubermann; the husband of Rosa Hubermann. Hans seems like such an easy going guy; someone who has time to appreciate things in life. On the other hand Rosa seems cruel. Do you think maybe something in her past built her up to such a woman full of hatred? Anyways, when Leisel meets her new family, she seems to show fear of abandonment. Do you agree? It seems as if her past wasn't the best thing ever, so the feeling of being alone lurk in her head. That may explain her nightmares, and attatchment to Hans[her father].
Mystery and confusion is my favorite. I love the feeling of wonder and eagerness; just waiting to turn the page to see what happens. I don't think Death is a secret. Hatred is the blackness of the night, and only time seems to reveal death.
I agree with Stacie c, theis book is a real page turner however i think that once you really get started with the book it says that on page 35 at the top there are facts about Rosa Hubermann. One of the facts are, "But she did love Liesel Meminger. Her way of showing it just happened to be strange." So i think that there might be something in Rosa's past that makes her look cruel. I think that one thing that is over looked is the relationship between Rosa and Hans Hubermann. How did these two people, who are complete opposites,come to be together? Is it true that opposites really do attract or is this there more to the story that we as readers don't know.
I really like how the narrator is death but at the same time i wonder why he pays more attention to Liesel when she is alive then to those who are dying. i also like how in the middle of a page there are little disclaimers and facts about the characters and what seems to be random facts. I think that the use of the German language really has an effect on the story and its interesting that after some of the German speech there is the samething said in english for the reader to understand what is going on.
I really like the way that the author wrote this book it really shows how hard life was for Liesel and how even in a better home and somewhat better environment she is able to make the best of what she has. I also think its interesting how some of the chapters are flash backs of another character, where as most books have the flash back in the chapter that is mentioned.
I think Death was chosen as the narrator for the novel because death is a completely outside person with no personal feelings about the story. This way, the reader can be sure that they are getting an unbiased account of what is happening.
Death also tells the story exactly how it is and does not hide anything from the reader. In the middle of the book, Death says, "[Rudy] didn't deserve to die the way he did" (241). The reader now knows that Rudy dies at the end. Death does not keep that fact a secret, like Alex M said, or try to make Rudy's death more dramatic. Rudy dies and that is it. This style of writing makes the story more belivable and makes it easier to understand.
Brittany H said that Death was narrating this story because it had no personal feelings for the events or people in the story. I think though that Death does have personal fellings-he is attached to some people, to Leisel here in this novel and others in his literary world. In Death's last chapter of the prologue, it says "in one of my vast array of pockets, I have kept her story to retell. It is one of the small legion I carry..." (pg. 14) He goes on to say it is one of a handful. The book, her story, I doubt he would have told it had it not meant something to him.
But he dousn't sugar coat it. It's all compleatly blunt.
I think Zusak chose Death to narrate this work because it's irony, it proves Death has compassion.
Death is sort of looked at as something one doesn't look forward to, an evil. "The Book Thief" is a book about a moment in human history that was not exactly one of our brightest moments. There was a lot of evil then. So, who better to adress it than Hitler's employee? (pg. 309)
But Death, despite all conotations, gives us a beacon of light in a dark time. Leisel. She's not your stereotypical German of the Nazi day. Neither is her adopted Papa, Hans. "He couldn't join a party that antagonized people in such a way."(pg. 180) He doesn't seem to think Jews are a threat to national security.
So by having Death, who takes people away, tell this story about people who take in an emeny of Aryans everywhere is, well, ... ironic.
I think he makes his point, don't you?
This discussion has steered away from its topic: style. The topic asks you to examine the language of the text and the conscious choices about language and narration Zusak makes to enhance his novel or manipulate the reader's thinking. Reread the original post for some suggestions about style.
For those interested in discussing the role of Death as a narrator of the novel, a new topic has opened for you to do so. Please continue your conversation there.
The language Zusak uses employs more of a sense that the reader is just an onlooker and it is ultimately a story when, in fact it might not feel like it(especially with such dictionary definitions!) when "The Standover Man" is presented, that onlooker stance is broken and the reader is allowed more of an insider stance.
The announcements that are made throughout the book shape the course and it adds more of a dramatic element. For example the announcement that of Rudy's death on page 241. "A small announcement about Rudy Steiner: He didn't deserve to die the way he did." It was openly given that he would die. I would have to agree with Brittany H that he doesn't hide much from the reader. This openness that Zusak gives to death to portray furthers the story's depth. Thus making the reader read with increased intensity.
Zusak's style is compelling and it clearly manufactures the important facts.
How do i even begin conversation about death? Death it self has taken the role as the narrator in the novel, and confuses me in many ways. As Bianca B says "I wonder why he pays more attention to Liesel when she is alive then to those who are dying." How would death describe itself? In the intruduction on page 4; paragraph 1says, "You will know me well enough and soon enough, depending on a diverse range of variables. It suffices to say that at one point in time, I will be standing over you, as genially as possible. Your soul will be in my arms." How do you begin to picture death as a being; like the narrator. How "death" talks with explanitory vocabulary, when hinting torwards something way off subject; or so it seems, is a complication with the language in the story.
When i'm reading this book, the Zusak; spoken language, indtrudes on the inside story. One miniute you understand what is going on, and the next your wondering what "g'schtinkerdt"[pg.41] means. The concentration level of this novel, is well off balance; but is enjoyable for me. Confusion ammuses me; due to suspence, and questioning.
I think it's really interesting that Zusak chose to divide this book into ten parts. The sections mark pivotal changes to Leisel and the story as a whole.
Like in the first chapter in part two about Leisel, we learn that she "had settled into life in Molching pretty well." (pg. 85) In addition Leisel's "reading and writing were definitely improving." (85) So she is progressing quite steadily from the anxious book-stealing child she was in part one to the confident book-stealing teenager she becomes in the rest of the book.
In part one, we start in January 1939. (pg. 21) At the start of part two, we are in late 1939. (85) Leisel is not the only one to progress, WWII progresses in that it really kicks off in part two. The War is a major theme in this book. So, from parts one to two, we move from expository to actual plot.
Any discussion regarding style must certainly take into account the fact that Markus Zusak chose to use Death as his narrator. However, fellow bloggers, we must also take into account that who is telling the story is certainly different from how he is telling the story. Zusak employs many rhetorical devices to illustrate his story, including irony, sentence fragments, personification, and other figurative language devices.
Personification puts a human face on everything. It is easy to forget the human face of war, particularly a war fought over 60 years ago. In history class, one learns of battle tactics, and famous generals, and turning points, and counter attacks, and retreats. Casualty totals are only fleetingly mentioned—at the end of the lesson. The bravery, the courage, the suffering, the humanity is glossed over. Zusak does not allow this to happen. He puts a human face on everything. Zusak compares a smashed soccer ball to a casualty of war “twitching on the cold, blistered road” (320). This creates the feeling of “disgust,” not only in the fact the ball is no longer usable, but it is also a “carcass” (320). By personifying the ball, Zusak seems to suggest that the ball suffered in its demise. This then reminds us of war victims, who undoubtedly suffer in their demise. The human face Zusak provides indicates a reverence for life and repulsion for war. By personifying objects, such as the ball, Zusak clearly conveys man’s inhumanity to man.
Personification is present even earlier in the novel. When Max first comes to live in the Hubermann’s basement, “the secret sat in [Liesel’s] mouth. It crossed its legs” (246). By giving human qualities to the secret, Zusak is able to convey Liesel’s discomfort for having Max in the house. Personification brings the secret to life, it is not merely a piece of information Liesel must live with. It actually lives in her mouth, and it even has legs. All of this amplifies Liesel’s initial discomfort for living with Max.
Personification makes Zusak’s story come alive. It makes us consider the complexity of topics, such as hiding a Jew in Nazi Germany or war, and helps us relate to them better. By putting a human face on these topics, Zusak emphasizes the humanity inherent in them. At times, we forget this humanity, but with personification, Zusak refuses to let us forget.
I completely agree with Nick A F and some of his interesting points. In this book personification is particularly intriguing and noteworthy. Death himself makes nearly everything human, "[the] streets were ruptured veins" (12), "[she] settled in the long arms of the grass" (71), "the graying light armwestled the sky" (11). The book is fillng over with examples like these. They suggest that Death truly affects everything. Whether it be the grass, a city, or a human, it reaches all. Not in a grim way, as Death likes to point out so often, but just as a fact of life. A Dave Matthews song echos this thought and states, "All good things must come to an end sometime." This is exemplified time and time again in "The Book Thief." Death has ultimate power over humans and in his unique way of making everything human, he shows that he will eventually have his way over everything.
As Nick A said, "who is telling the story is certainly different from how he is telling the story." However, if anybody but Death were telling the story, in the exact same style, a lot of the effect would be lost.
As Nick and Alex A. have been discussing, "The Book Thief" is full of personification. The very narrator, Death is personified. Because death is typically a force of nature and not a person, Zusak forces readers to acknowledge that the characters in his story are literally living with Death. As Nick pointed out, all of the personification used by Zusak helps what the characters are seeing and feeling come alive. Zusak does more than just that though, he brings the very environment alive. His characters live with Death, and have lived with it for much of their lives; he is a part of their environment. Most people cannot understand exactly what that feels like. By personifying Death, readers know that he is constantly near these people. Zusak's characters may not be aware of Death all the time, but his readers sure are. There is no escape from him, just like there is no escape for the German people, because he is the one telling the story.
Nick A, along with personification, also mentions the presence of irony in Zusak’s novel. This irony reveals the flaws of Nazi Germany. Liesel’s friend Rudy is described as a boy with “gangly blue eyes and hair the color of a lemon”(49). Blue eyes and blond hair were considered “safe” during this time in Germany. These were the characteristics Hitler wanted his people to have (though, ironically, Hitler had brown hair and brown eyes and a Jewish grandfather). Zusak reveals that controlling the appearance of his country does not make Hitler and his people any stronger.
On a side note, I would like to discuss an aspect of Zusak’s organization. Having Death as his narrator, we must remember all that Death has been through and seen. Zusak defines words and asks questions and lists reasons and describes people in separate bolded areas throughout the novel. He has an “Explanation of the Abbreviation” (40) and “A Small Addition” (115). Because this is all coming from Death, Zusak organizes his novel in such a way to make some order out of the chaotic world that Death must eternally endure. Just because he is not human and spends his days carrying souls to wherever they need to be, this does not mean he is by any means used to the horrors of mankind. The side notes Zusak uses organizes the world Death sees.
The world is a very chaotic place at all times. Jessica was right on the mark when she said, "The side notes Zusak uses organizes the world Death sees." This organization is absolutely necessary because, as all of the personification shows, Death sees more chaos than any human.
On top of all of the personification mentioned in previous posts, there is one continuous personification that stood out to me each and every time. One of the first times this specific personification occurs is when Death describes the "blinding, white-snow sky who stood at the window" (7). The key word in this quote, and the many others times a similar description of the sky appears, is the word "who". Zusak could have said "which stood outside," but by using who, Zusak shows that Death sees the world on a deeper and more chaotic level than us. Even parts of the world which are, to us, just there, are alive and are noticed by Death. Death is an all seeing entity and sees even more chaos than us humans so the only way for him to stay sane is to break the world down.
Since Death deals with humans all the time, is it possible that humans are all he sees? Death must carry souls off, “save” them; even carry each soul “as if it were newly born” (350). He sees human atrocities, suffering, and, well, death all the time. So, in essence, this is how Death relates to the world, the "world Death sees" (Jessica B). He sees humans everywhere, he is “haunted by humans” (550).
As Becky mentioned in her last post, the word “who” is frequently used to describe various forces of nature, and the like. This is clearly personification, but Zusak deliberately uses it to show how Death cannot escape humans. They are everywhere around him. He finds man’s inhumanity to man disgusting, but he is bound to do his duty, to carry souls onward. Because he cannot escape, he sees humans everywhere. This use of personification gives us insight into the Death Zusak wished to create. Death has feelings. Death is compassionate. Death is everything we do not expect. It is not Death who stalks us, we stalk Death. It is antithetical, and worthy of further discussion.
As for Jessica B’s idea about organization, I believe that Death is telling the story in a very intimate way. The way he narrates is very colloquial; Charles Dickens never would have considered writing like this. It is like Death is an old friend you haven’t see in twenty years, and is in town from New York. As such, he tells the story as if he were talking to you. He gets a bit sidetracked. He makes some obvious foreshadows. He uses a lot of sentence fragments. Just like a regular person. In this way, Zusak creates an almost friendly narrator, which, again, is something we do not expect from Death.
I really like how the author's contrasts the two styles of figurative and even poetic language; to literal and objective notes that are scattered throughout the book. "The point is, it didn't really matter what the book was about. It was what it meant that was more important.
*** The Book's Meaning ***
1. The last time she saw her brother
2. the last time she saw her mother." (38)
I agree with Jessica and Becky on how death views the world, this is how he orginizes what he views in the world.
It is the simmilarity to the choas that is always happening in this world to how we analyze and interpret the events and occurances that are going on. The author also adds dictionary definitions, which I think also represents a way of interpreting the world. A dictionary is very objective and only is based in logic and how things "are". Death constantly uses the dictionary because he is trying to be objective even though he has strong emotions for the humans. He is trying to be removed and almost "scientific" with how he views the world despite the fact that he feels strongly for the people in his story.
Zusak also uses the dictionary definitions to show how some things can't be analyzed objectivly.
"The girl knew from the outset that Hans Hubermann would always appear midscream, and he would not leave.
*** A Definition not found in the dictionary***
Not leaving: an act of trust and love, often deciphered by children
"The side notes Zusak uses organizes the world Death sees." said Jessica B. While Zuzak definitly uses this as a form of organization, I think he does this mostly for the reader. They not only give us additional information such as tranlations, (28) dictionary definitions as Stephen M mentioned,or those notes let us see inside characters that are not fully explained in the main body of the text. (33, 34) The result? We get to be more intimate with characters.
As Nick A said "Death is telling the story in a very intimate way...he tells the story as if he were talking to you... Just like a regular person... he is an almost friendly narrator."
This causes us to not only connect with the characters, but Zusak also compels you to connect with Death. It is certainly unusual for the reader to connect with the narrator unless the narrator is also a character. This is yet another reason that makes the book more interesting and ironic.
However, every now and then somthing in the prologue of each part seems almost compleatly for Death. Though not a side note, these blurbs give the same kind if information. "I offer you a glimpse of the end. Perhaps it's...to better prepare myself for the telling." (497) This forsadowing is supposedly to help Death. Zusak uses forshadowing as a tool for communicating with the audience. It helps "soflten the blow for later" for us.
Death is the perfect narrator, not only because he is all-seeing, but because he is compassionate. He cares so much about every single person in Liesel's story that he works hard to make sure all of the details are right. One of the ways he does this, as Nick A said, is by being a "regular person." "The Book Thief" is told as if some grandfather is telling his grandchildren one of his favorite stories. There is passion but also just the right number of explanations to make sure everybody understands. But one of the most important aspects of the novel that Nick commented on is all of the sentence fragments.
These fragments not only help make Death come alive, they add emphasis. One of the best examples of this technique occurs when Death is collecting all of the souls from Himmel Street. He says, "Lastly, the Hubermanns./ Hans./ Papa." (531). As if these sentences did not stand out enough, each one has its own line. These three lines stand out, like the many other times this same thing occurs throughout the novel. These fragments do not just provide emphasis though, they have more meaning than a full book could provide. There is no way to describe how much Hans, or her life with the Hubermanns, meant to Liesel. There is no way to make readers feel more emotion than with those three sentences. Hans is dead. Papa is dead. What more is there to say?
This is somewhat an expansion of the foreshadowing Death uses so often, as well as reasoning for it. It is well agreed that Death is not a typical narrator, his speech and style is very unique. Part of this is the foreshadowing. It's seen on countless occasions, "One wild card was yet to be played" (186), "There would be a fire" (101), "That was one war started. Liesel would soon be in another" (74). But why? In my opinion he's suggesting that human life is almost predictable. That our emotions and actions come as expected. Foreshadowing is one way he suggests this, as if it were useless to hold back the story. Another method is simply word choice. For example when Max arrives at the Hubermanns with Mein Kampf in hand, Death states, "Naturally, Liesel, while holding her dinner, couldn't take her eyes off it" (210). The word of interest-naturally. As if it were completely obvious that it was of importance to a girl completely oblivious to the situation, as if it was obvious that part of it would soon be a book for her, and as if obvious that it would have such an impact on the novel. Another example of this is right after Max arrives, when Hans tells her the situation, "Hans Hubermann's story . . . which involved a very obvious and necessary lecture" (202). The fact that Hans, who is extremely close and loving towards his foster daughter, must break and defeat her (204) through lecturing is obvious, is debatable. Predictable, yes. Obvious, probably not.
I think that we have effectively analyzed how death plays a role in the style of the story, but I would like to discuss the first inset story from Max to Liesel. It is exposed to is the little, “thirteen page booklet” (224). This story tells of Max’s inner feelings and how Liesel has been important in his life. The use of this story helps the reader to connect with Max which would not be possible in any other style. With the pictures and the writing of the story Max is shown as innocent and childish. The pictures are effective in that they draw attention to this section and help to define that it is different than the rest of the story. Through the pictures, the reader is also able to also see the inner feelings of Max. He is a bird while all the Germans are humans. This shows that he feels he does not fit in, but also that he is animalistic.
The style of the short story helps the reader also to feel as though they are more involved in the story. You can see the writing which Max painted over to then put his story on the page. As you turn the pages of this story you get confused whether you are in the novel or reading the small booklet in the basement with Liesel and Max. This is an interesting style that Zusak uses, but it is effective to let the reader know the characters better and get more involved in the story.
I am fond of the breaks in the reading for ‘short announcements’. Taking away from the mystery a bit helped to understand what was really happening in that part. Even just the parts that stopped to show a short conversation between two people helped to complete my concept on what had just happened. One of the things I thought Zusak did well in his writing was adding the dictionary definitions. It made clear what the state or condition the story was in.
“***DUDEN DICTIONARY MEANING #3***
Angst-Fear:
An unpleasant, often strong
emotion caused by anticipation
or awareness of danger.
Related words: terror, horror,
panic, fright, alarm.” (375)
Another thing I liked about Zusak’s writing was the way he cut the book up into parts. The approach of naming them after books was interesting. It was as if the storyline of the book that Liesel was reading in the part went along with what was happening in her life. Over all I think Markus Zusak did a remarkable job using metaphors like “He had windy hair and cloudy eyes…” (272), or how he put in The Standover man. The sketches and the painted pages made the book more interesting. I mean who doesn’t like a book with pictures? I was very pleased with the style of the book.
The Standover Man gives the reader an intimate look into Max’s life, as Lauren R aptly pointed out. Zusak uses these illustrations to bring the reader into the story. The faded words in the background certainly conveys the idea that Max painted over Mein Kampf. However, Lauren talks about Max seeing himself as “animalistic.” He does feel isolated and guilty that he lived and his family did not. He is closed off from the outside world for the “crime” of being a Jew. Even though Max portrays himself as a bird, I would suggest that there is a parallel between Max and Death. Death is ever-present, a lurking standover man. In the page following the short story, Max is described as a “noiseless shadow” (237). Sound like Death? In addition, the beginning of the story, there is a black bird-like figure standing over Max, casting a shadow over him. Now, this could be Hitler, but he is also an agent of Death to the Jewish people so, we see Max’s fear of death highlighted in the Standover Man. The Standover Man shows Max’s isolation as well. His nightmares consist of his family, his guilt for living. This is parallel with Liesel, who feels guilty that she lives while her brother does not. Isolation is used elsewhere in the book, and I would ask, fellow bloggers, to what effect does Zusak use isolation in the novel? Not merely the obvious use in Max’s situation but also for other characters, like Rudy or Liesel or even Hans.
I think that Nick A. brings up a great point when he relates Max to death, but I would like to stay on the topic of style. These short stories are used effectively because through the illustration the reader is able to pick up subtleties such as the relationship between Max and death easier. They also help the story to seem less fictional in that it feels as if you are actually looking at the article from history.
The other section of the novel which is actually a book from Max is The Word Shaker. This is formatted differently than The Standover Man. The pages in The Word Shaker are filled with writing and seem more mature, but also do not appear as true to what Liesel would have been reading. The sentences of the story are still simple; “Now the time had come. The Fuhrer was ready” (445). There are not very complex sentences and not all the sentences are grammatically correct. This adds to the sense that it is just a simple story written in the basement of a humble family. The story is also very accessible, helping the reader to envision how Max wrote this story with Liesel in mind.
The use of these stories seems very unique, but Zusak makes them add to the novel. They are not completely disjointed, but they stand out from the rest of the text as well. The use of pictures in the stories helps to tell the whole story. Although these insets are an innovative style to find in a novel, they help to involve the reader even more in the story.
In response to Nick A excellent question “to what effect does Zusak use isolation in the novel?”, I feel we must connect this isolation back to Zusak’s style, as this is what the topic of blogging is. We must also look again at Death as the narrator. This choice to style the narrator in such a way is genius, not only because it takes on a different perspective of a theme often explored but also because it goes deeper into this theme. That theme being, of course, war. Death is all knowing and all seeing in the novel, yet he never becomes close or intimate with any character of the novel, excepting those that are dead and therefore difficult to become intimate with. Death is the only narrator who could possibly narrate without knowing one of the characters. The closest Death comes to intimacy is when he comes to carry a soul away, and still he is completely isolated. There is a moment when he wants to comfort Liesel after her brother has died but then remembers, “That is not allowed” (13). He must remain isolated from all living things, as it is part of his role. The loneliness of Death is revealed a few pages later when Death waves to Liesel and her mother’s retreating backs but “no one waved back” (24). Zusak styles his narrator into a lonely, isolated presence that then encompasses his theme of war as a whole. War is isolation. As the novel progresses, Liesel is continually isolated from her family and friends as they die. Death comes to take them away but even he cannot comfort her. This is what war does. By using Death as his narrator, Zusak creates the utterly lonely and isolated feeling of war for his readers.
Jessica B F said, "By using Death as his narrator, Zusak creates the utterly lonely and isolated feeling of war for his readers."
Markus Zusak manipulates the reader to feel the atmosphere of war. Which is, I think is very genius.
Nick A F's call to reveal the effects of Zusak's use of isolation
is a good question relating to style.
Zusak uses isolation to create the
true feeling of war. I heard a saying that says divided we fall, together we conquer. This goes with war. Hans didn't respect Hitler and through Hans' expressions of not making much effort in becoming part of the Nazi party, though zusak's uses of isolation like Hans' toward Hitler creates an element that the reader can feel.
"***some crunched numbers*** In 1933, 90 percent of Germans showed unflinching support for Adolf Gitler. That leaves 10 percent who didn't. Hans hubermann belonged to the 10 percent. There was a reason for that." (p.83)
This element shows, like the standover man's (graphics included), that isolation is a very big part of this book. It {isolation] not only saved liesel's life but carried the book as a whole. Max could not defeat Hitler alone {without the help of liesel) and Hans could not resent Hitler by joining the Nazi party and without the isolation that Zusak very wisely put into the book liesel would not have become the book theif that she is.
Isolation is a part of war and though using it, Zusak has manipulated the reader's mind to feel the book thief's story and life (which takes place during a war.)
Liesel’s obsession with stealing books promotes a strong technique throughout the book: Irony. As Jessica B pointed out, the presence of irony was very noticeable. Hitler, during the time in the book, is taking away and banning books everywhere so that people won’t have knowledge of certain things. However, Liesel is stealing books to gain knowledge. So as Hitler tries to prevent knowledge Liesel is building it up.
Another example of irony I found in the book was the point when Hans Hubermann should have died. He offends a man, Reinhold Zucker, by winning a card game, and he wants to repay him by swapping "seats" in the truck. Hans does not want to make a big deal about it, so he moves to Zucker's seat. They are not ten miles from their destination when the tire blows and the trucks rolls many times. Zucker breaks his neck, and dies. "Over by a tree, a thin strip of intense pain was still opening in Hans Hubermann's leg.”It should have been me," he said. "What?" the sergeant called over from the truck. "He was sitting in my seat.'"(477) The irony comes out when Zucker dies because of a card game, while Hans survives with a broken leg, which causes him to be sent home.
Zusak writes with blatant honesty and precise detail. Death, as a narrator is very detail oriented; almost like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The style of writing is reminiscent of The Curious Incident of the Dog at Midnight, by Hark Haddon, with the offset of words or ideas in lists. Death tells the story of Liesel with mostly cold fact and very little emotion. It is almost as if the narrator has a mental disability such as OCD or Autism. Like Christopher in The Curious Incident of the Dog at Midnight, Death often focuses on colors; he may not hate a certain color like Christopher, but he often associates colors with death of people. He explains this on page four, “Your soul will be in my arms. A color will be perched on my shoulder. I will carry you gently away.” Zusak seem to be saying that, like the colors in the world, every soul Death carries is distinct. This highlights the clear-cut individuality between characters that Death describes.
Another way to see it is that because Death is not a man, his way of seeing and thinking is therefore different that a man’s. Zusak may have been trying to distance the narrator from the horrible events happening at that time so as to create a reliable narrator. But that would not be possible because if Death is not human he cannot understand human emotions, so his perception of events is clouded. Death never tells the reader the exact emotion that Liesel is feeling; just what he is able to see on the outside.
With Death being either mentally disabled or not human at all, the reader gets the truth of happens in the story. Even if he does not get the true emotions, he gets the true facts. Death is just a third party observer but with the way his mind works, he never tries to change the story for his benefit; he does not affect the world because he is the effect of it.
I agree with Annie B in the way that Death usually does not tell the reader exact emotions, however he does paint pictures and circumstances for us that are even more effective than exact emotions. When Liesel is first able to read in the mayor's library she says only four words yet with Death's description, "There was more silence than she ever thought possible. It extended like an elastic, dying to break" (134), her emotions are clear. She is absolutely shocked and amazed of the sight and can barely wait to explore its beauty. Without even saying it Death paints a picture of the girl, mouth open with amazement, slowly taking in the sight of the room. This power is seen again when Hans must lecture Liesel about the situation of Max. "[Hans] was certainly acting like a tyrant, but it was necessary . . . He had to remain hard, and he needed to strain for it" (203). The circumstance presented here is incredibly deep and full of emotion. Hans absolutely has to make sure Liesel understands the magnitude of their situation, and he realizes he even has to break her to do it. It is for the safety of them and so many they know, and so important because of it. This is so hard for him though because of his loving nature, especially towards Liesel. He wants to "pull her in and hug her tight" (204), but he knows he can't. Doing this to Liesel almost breaks himself. Situations like this show Deaths ability to present complex and deep emotions while barely understanding them or describing them himself.
We have only briefly touched upon the use of foreshadowing in Zusak’s novel, and I find it is a very important part of his style. Of course, using Death as his narrator is the most important part of this foreshadowing. In fact, Death does not as much foreshadow as tell us exactly what will happen. This is the case when he tells us how Rudy dies. Death tells us, “Of course, I’m being rude. I’m spoiling the ending . . . I don’t have much interest in building mystery. Mystery bores me” (243). He doesn’t care about giving us clues and leading us along in order to build the suspense. These are techniques for a less important and interesting story, one that needs to be built up in order to make it exciting. In the case of Death’s story, it’s what happens in every moment that makes it exciting. Knowing the ending doesn’t detract from what happens in the middle. As Death says, “I know what happens and so do you. It’s the machinations that wheel us there that aggravate, perplex, interest, and astound me” (243). In the case of this story, knowing the ending doesn’t make the journey to that ending any worse. Zusak uses this foreshadowing, as well as straight-out telling, to show that building mystery and creating suspense isn’t important in this book. What happens in the book is what is important. Knowing the ending already gives the reader more opportunities to learn from Liesel and her family and friends what needs to be known about this time period.
There is one aspect of Zusak’s style that I have yet to understand and that is his use of the “Seven-Sided Die” (Pgs. 243-55). Anyone’s interpretations of this chapter would be most helpful. What I understand is that the first six sides are seemingly simple stories. The seventh side is more complex, yet how can there be a seventh side to a die? Isn’t this impossible?
Our discussion seems to be mainly about the style choice which Zusak makes by having death as the narrator. This, however, is not the only unique style choice which Zusak uses. Hannah T P mentions “The Standover Man”, but she did not go into the style choices which were made here. The story inserts throughout the book are very unique. In the previous part of the discussion “The Standover Man” was mentioned with its connection to isolation. This is a very strong connection as far as the context of “The Standover Man”, but also the style helps to create this. The different style font as well as the pictures helps to isolate the passage from the rest of the book.
The pictures in “The Standover Man” as well as other pictures throughout the book Zusak uses to enhance the readers understanding. Graphics are not often found in novels but their use here helps to connect the reader to the story. This style choice also adds in that we connect picture books with childishness and innocence. In the novel the pictures are not innocent. Max draws a picture of a large pile of bodies with two people standing on top; one is saying to the other, “Isn’t it a lovely day . . . “ (280). This is a picture which Max draws with the intention of giving the whole book to Liesel. The picture, however, does not seem appropriate for a child. The fact that it is drawn with a child in mind shows how harsh the environment is. The pictures throughout the book are a unique style choice but they add to the readers understanding. If the pictures were only described it would not be as effective, because the reader would not get to see the picture and their interpretation would be different than what Zusak was envisioning. Also, the pictures help to connect the reader to the realness of Max and the whole situation. The inserts seem as if they are a normal person’s writing and drawing. They are not computer generated, but real and from the heart. The graphics in the story add a lot to the reader’s connection to the story as well as being able to understand the time in which the story takes place.
I thought it was interesting how Zusak uses simple sentences. He uses simple words and sentence structure but the power of them are astounding. On the first page of the book, Death says, “* * * HERE IS A SMAL FACT * * *--You are going to die” (3). This is not necessarily a profound statement, but it is powerful because we really are all going to eventually die. But what really makes this shocking is that Death says it. In general, most people are afraid to die, but with five simple words our fear is put before us with no protection. Zusak uses the simple writing to lay out the simple, inevitable truths of life.
Simple sentences also portray human nature. When Death is talking about his need for vacation, he talks about survivors. He says, “It’s the leftover humans. The survivors. . . . They have punctured hearts. They have beaten lungs” (5). Often the survivors of a horrible ordeal are damaged more often than not. When someone survives, say a car wreck, and their friend does not; they do not understand why. It is hard for Death to look at these humans because they came so close to dying, they are not afraid any more. Humans are programmed to survive, but at a price. If we do anything to survive we loose what is close to us: friends, family, and home. Sometimes we even loose ourselves to madness.
I would like to go back to Jessica B's question on the meaning of the seventh side of the die. As I understand it, the seventh side isn't literally there, but then again it always is. As Death explains, "you've known all along that it had to come" (257). All other sides of the die roll good, or rather, not too bad fortune. The seventh side is a little different. Seeing as the title of the chapter is "The Gamblers," it is fitting that it plays out exactly like gambling. No one can win forever, sooner or later a bad hand will come along. This is what Death is playing off with the seventh side, it's the inevitable, but completely expected, has to happen. It applies to gambling and even life, when everythings going perfect and it seems nothing can hurt you, is when your most vulnerable and when the seventh side of the die always falls.
Alex A F said...
"I would like to go back to Jessica B's question on the meaning of the seventh side of the die. As I understand it, the seventh side isn't literally there, but then again it always is. As Death explains, "you've known all along that it had to come" (257). All other sides of the die roll good, or rather, not too bad fortune. The seventh side is a little different. Seeing as the title of the chapter is "The Gamblers," it is fitting that it plays out exactly like gambling. No one can win forever, sooner or later a bad hand will come along. This is what Death is playing off with the seventh side, it's the inevitable, but completely expected, has to happen. It applies to gambling and even life, when everythings going perfect and it seems nothing can hurt you, is when your most vulnerable and when the seventh side of the die always falls."
This chapter is also like a representative of the book and saying Catch-22. This phrase is well known for being a dreaded saying. This is because Catch-22 is in literal terms your screwed either way. Which if you think about it can relate to the seventh side.You may gamble and be good but one way or another your money and opponents will catch up to you. These two saying may seem different but down and dirty their the exact same.My guess is that RUDY STEINER
was going for this kind of affect in this part of the book.
We have spoken about a seventh side of a die but there is not one there. What if there was? If we had such a thing it could mean that we could have red clubs or black hearts in our card decks. It’s no big deal right? But it could also mean that we are simply conditioned to know that a die has six sides. Our conditioning makes things sound different. If a child is given a dollar they are overzealous because they are not yet conditioned to know how much a dollar is worth. An adult will still be gracious to be given money but if you’re a waiter it can also be an insult.
English is very flexible and allows us to leave off huge parts of an explanation so long as we all follow the conversation. Have you ever walked in on a conversation half way through and what you hear happens to be really dirty or everyone laughs and you just sit there? If we were not so obsessed with things like sex or money, it would not have sounded dirty or they may not have laughed. Take one day out and relate every situation your in to a different subject like chess or soccer.
When you read and annotate it is in relation to where your mind wanders while you read. If you let it wander in different directions it can lead to different annotations. Try it and go to a random book a random page and read a paragraph. Annotate into a piece of paper and fold it up. When you go back to read your book all the way through the author has set the mood and place using his own style and it will give you a different ideas, feelings, ect. about the situation.
Zusak is really good at letting you feel for yourself by blatantly telling you a fact. “He [Rudy] did not deserve to die the way he did.” If we did not know Rudy it could easily be argued, but Zusak has given us all kinds of experiences with which to agree with him (241).
I really don't think that anyone likes coming into a conversation late, and I know I don't. And when that happens I really don't like when people mix a number of different humorous notions. I mean who would talk about why pigs can't fly and why ice rinks aren't made out of a million little igloos. That's stupid and not funny but I really like how Ian said that, "English is very flexible and allows us to leave off huge parts of an explanation so long as we all follow the conversation". In a way they say that English is the most difficult language to learn but based on experience I really don't beleieve that is true. In Spanish or German you have to say it like it is, the entire statement but in english you can take off so many words that people can understand you, and that's why I love it so much. You can say something and it can be taken so many different ways, it's amazing.
Zusak's style in a way is very down to earth and can throw us off however with all his figurative language. I've noticed when he's talking about people or an image he can really paint a vivid picture in your head. Equally so, he can destroy that image by throwing in a paradox or a metaphor that makes you stop and think what it actually means literally and symbolically. Sometimes even he will put both meanings in there and that's what throws me off because I look for the more abstract things in books. The most interesting part of his style is when he's talking about someone's future and Death will explain how they die or someone they love dies. This opens us up to more than what can be seen in the real world. Zusak can't capture everything but he's really close.
Post a Comment