Monday, June 9, 2008
Book Thief--Theft
Discuss the idea of theft in the novel. Is it truly a crime? In some cases theft is necessary, in others it is used to pass the time, and still others it is a form of adventure or even revenge. Thefts are both literal and figurative, and things stolen range from books or food to the less tangible, like memories or innocence, or even to life itself. Comment on what it means to steal in the novel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
67 comments:
The concept that theft is ever necessary or "right" is arguable. For example, we could use Rudy's situation of starvation as an excuse for him to steal food. However, using our own judgment of right and wrong, we know that if we do something wrong, it creates negative feelings of guilt. On page 152, the conversation between Rudy and Liesel conveys the message that Liesel is hesitating to steal, which means she knows that it is wrong.
"Come on then!"
"I can't!" Hesitation. "Rudy, I-"'
This wasn't the first time that Liesel stole something, but it was the first time that she consciously made the effort to steal and knew it was wrong. When she had stolen the book at her brother's grave, it was out of pure instinct, becoming attached to the only object at her brother's grave, and therefore taking it even though she didn't know how to read.
Again, on page 164: ‘“Do you feel bad?”……
“Of course I do, but I’m not hungry anymore, and I bet he’s not hungry, either. Don’t think for a second that the priests would get food if there wasn’t enough to go around at home.”’
All thefts were crimes. Despite the fatal situation of starvation, literal theft in this novel, of both books and food, is a crime. If it wasn’t, the kids would not have felt guilty at all.
The novel discusses the idea of theft in many different ways. For example, in Rudy's case when he heard the news of Hans Hubberman coming home and not his father, and also the idea that both Liesel's father and Rudy's father were drafted into the army, he set out in rage to steal and he thought that stealing would make him feel better.
Rudy explains to Liesel, "That woman lets you in. She even leaves you cookies, for Christ's sake. I don't call that stealing. Stealing is what the army does. Taking your father and mine." (482)
When Liesel asks who he is going to steal from, he replies that he is going to steal from "All those rich Nazis up there, on Grande Strasse, Gelb Strasse, Hiede Strasse." (482) He feels that since the residence of these places are part of the Nazi party, who also "stole" his father, then stealing back from them will satisfy his hunger for wanting his father to come home.
Yet, when Rudy reaches his destination, he feels a sense of guilt about what he was planning to do and does not go through with his action. I think it was just the thought of stealing something back which made Rudy feel better than actually theft itself.
In Rudy's situation, theft in the novel is not a crime because he does not actually steal, he just sets out to. The feeling and thought of theft is what satisfys Rudy, not the action.
Mary makes a good point that if theft wasn't a crime the kids would not feel guilty about what they have done. Liesel steals knowing that she is doing something wrong, but she also seems to have a good reason for it. When Liesel steals her second book from the fire, she feels like she is saving the book more than stealing it. To her, it is wrong to be burning books. "Something inside told her that this was a crime." (109) The book portrays theft, in the literal case, to be an act of innocence more than a crime. Liesel steals because she is young and she acts on her instincts. She sees the book and takes her opportunity to save it.
Death of an innocent person is also shown as an act of theft in the book. Death steals the life of Liesel’s young brother because he is to young to have his life taken. ”A small soul was in my arms.”(8)He was just an innocent little boy . He hadn’t experienced much of life. To take a young life is treated as a crime in this book.
In the book stealing something is not only a way of servival for some It also is a releive and a way to remember someone or something important. When Leisel steals her first book it is like a way of remembering her brother. When Leisel and Rudy go steal some food by themselfs torward the end of the book. It is like they do it to releive the stress in their life at that time. This is when both Leisel and Rudy's papa's were recruted for the party, and Rudy was going to try and kill the father.
I agree with Mary that the concept of theft is necessary or right is arguable.
Liesel steals the book from Ilsa Hermann's library as an act of revenge for the Hermanns firing her mother but Ilsa gives Liesel a dictionary and thesaurus with a letter stating, "I was glad you took what was rightfully yours. I then made the mistake of thinking that would be the end of it. ." (369)
In a way Ilsa Hermann is justifying Liesel take the book from her library. But does it make stealing the book any less a crime? Leisel feels guilty after taking the book from the library, proving she does know that stealing is never right.
"You don't deserve to be this happy, Liesel. You really don't. Can a person steal happiness? Or is it just another internal, infernal trick?" (370)
I agree with Holly when she says, "Liesel feels guilty after taking the book from the library, proving she does know that stealing is never right." Liesel does feel guilt after stealing each book, but when she knows that Ilsa Hermann know she is stealing from her, so she feels it is a bit more justified than if Ilsa Hermann did not know.
In contrast to Rudy, Liesel is satisfied when she steals a book, when Rudy is satisfied with just the thought of actually stealing. Rudy also likes to accompany Liesel when she steals the books because it makes him feel important and helpful, but does not have to actually steal.
Both Liesel and Rudy know it is wrong to steal and they feel guilty, but when they steal from Otto, while he is delivering food to the priests, their hunger overpowers thier guilt.
Rudy justifies, "'All those priests...They're all too fat anyway. They could do without a feed for a week or so.' Liesel could only agree...she was pretty hungry herself." (152)
Hunger seems to justify thier thievery and make them feel less guilty about stealing.
I think that most of us agree here that the literal theft in this book is a crime, no matter what the circumstances. However, I believe that there is a type of figurative theft that cannot be helped and must be done: death. On page 531, Death describes Rudy's death as "robbery."
"Where was Rudy's comfort? Where was someone to allevieate this robbery of his life? Who was there to soothe him as life's rug was snatched from under his sleeping feet? No one. There was only me." (531)
Rudy did not consciously allow Death to take his soul. He had no control over it when he was dead. Therefore, it was robbery.
Also, I got the impression that Death does not like his job, although it must be done.
"I wanted to stop. To crouch down. I wanted to say: 'I'm sorry, child.' But that is not allowed. I did not crouch down. I did not speak. Instead, I watched her awhile. When she was able to move, I followed her." (13)
Death is often misunderstood because humans view him as the horrible grim reaper who has no mercy and steals our souls away. However, Death doesn't even want to do his job. He tells about all the work it is and how hard it is to view all of our human destruction. He wants to be kind, but he can't quit his job of taking our souls, because who else would? Plus, how can we blame Death when: "I am all bluster- I am not violent. I am not malicious. I am a result." (6)
From this evidence, I am confident in concluding that death may be theft, but it cannot be prevented forever, and it must occur. Death's job is not a crime, although he feels bad about it. He is not in control of who lives and who dies, and he can't get out of his job of "stealing" our souls.
Theft in today's society is never right; however, this story is about a completely different culture and time. The majority of "theft" that occurs in "The Book Thief" is not really theft.
One type of theft is that of another's life. Just because killing somebody is theft does not mean Death is stealing anything when he comes to collect the souls of the dead. As Death says, "Here is a small fact: You are going to die" (3). The death of somebody is not always the result of theft, many people die of old-age and other natural causes. Mary C. is on the right track when she views Death's "taking [of] souls" as a job, but I would describe his job more as collecting souls. He is not taking anything from anybody because the lives of the souls he collects are already over. I choose to believe that he is helping these souls find their way to another life. Although you may choose to believe that Death does something else with these souls, he is not stealing anything. The only thieves when it comes to the theft of life are the actual murderers. In this particular story, Hitler, who starts the war and so forces both Germans and the rest of the World to fight and die. Stealing a life is the worst form of thievery, but Death is not the criminal.
Just as Death is a natural part of life, theft is a part of life for the people in "The Book Thief." Obviously, World War II is raging during this story and the German people are well accustomed to theft. Husbands and fathers and sons are stolen from the German people everyday. It is extremely hard on those related to these men, but to the rest of the country, it is normal, a part of life. The people do not know anything different. As Mary C. said in her first post, the people who steal, such as Liesel and Rudy, do feel guilty momentarily but it does not bother them long. This shows that, yes, the people know that during good times stealing would be very wrong, but now . . . it's different. Most of Rudy and Liesel's escapades, such as stealing books from the Mayor's house, are not the best examples of "okay" stealing, but the times when they steal food are. These two were not in dire need of the food that they stole, but they were hungry. Many of the German people at this time were much hungrier than these two, and one of their only ways to survive was to steal. Stealing is a crime and should not be labeled "good" but for the characters of the book, it is a part of life.
After reading Becky S.'s previous comment and thinking about her statement: "Just because killing somebody is theft does not mean Death is stealing anything when coming to collect the soulsof the dead," I have come to a new conclusion. I said before that Death was stealing souls and it was not a crime, but now I believe that he was "collecting" souls that were both either ready to die or killed by other people, and it was still not a crime. The only way a soul could be stolen was if another human killed the person.
Also, to further justify, comes a situation involving anyone like Michael Holtzapfel who commits suicide. Death would not be stealing souls if they had willingly given themselves up to him anyway.
So now I am left to wondering: what kind of figurative theft can occur if not Death? Especially in Nazi Germany?
One thing that I think has been overlooked in this topic is the theft of life. Not the literal death of a person, but look at Max Vandenburg, and every other Jew in Nazi Germany. Hitler stole their lives from them. Is this any different than the rest of the thefts in the book? All of them are wrong, but everyone who steals in this book comes up with a way to justify their actions. Like after the theft of Otto's food, on pages 163-164, they justify themselves. Arthur makes the claim "We might be criminals, but we're not totally immoral." He justifies himself by saying that what he does is wrong, but there are much worse things that he could be doing. And Rudy makes the claim "Of course I do [feel bad], but I'm not hungry anymore, and I bet he's not hungry, either." Rudy's claim here can be used by the shoplifting child in today's times: "I'm not taking enough to hurt the companies earnings!" Whatever the justification, stealing is wrong in every situation. One could make the argument that Rudy's situation warrants stealing, but he is hungry, not starving to death. From a purely philosophical standpoint, there are certain situations where stealing is truly justified, but from a purely religious standpoint (specifically Mormonism, but this is true of most religions that stress goodness and morals I do believe) there is no such thing as justified stealing. But to go on with that could take pages get more off topic than I already am.
I disagree somewhat and feel that the thievery was entirely justified. I’m not saying it was right and that they should not feel guilty for it, but because of the situation that Hitler put his country in, the theft was a necessity to stay alive. Rudy was always hungry because of the state of poverty Germany was in which was prevented his family from properly supplying him. As Becky S F noted, "this story is about a completely different culture and time".
One topic that has come up was the theft of life. I really don't think that was the greatest thing that Hitler stole from both the people he prosecuted and the people of Germany. Much more importantly he stole their way of living and their identity as death states, "a man or woman - no, they were not men and women; they were Jews" (392). They were only Jews and to be a Jew meant to be nothing. It isn't so horrible to die, even be murdered, because it happens and we cannot prevent it. But to entirely loose everything including your right to be human, let alone your previous life of striving for prosperity is a lot more cruel and tormenting than the gas showers in the concentration camps. This pain is shown when death narrates, "The suffering faces of depleted men and women reached across to them, pleading not so much for help - they were beyond that - but for an explanation. Just something to subdue this confusion" (392).
In response to Mary C P’s question when you ask “What kind of figurative theft can occur if not death? Especially in Nazi Germany?” I think a figurative theft was Hitler’s stealing of his people’s hopes and later, pride. He lied to them and manipulated them to believe that what they were doing would save their country. As this deception became more evident when times got worse and worse, Hitler had taken from them their hope of a better life. After his dream failed, he took their national pride from them because now the world saw Germany as a monster for what they’d been deceived into doing. Hitler humiliated the people of Germany.
I have to disagree with Anthony S P’s post. You said “Whatever the justification, stealing is wrong in every situation . . . From a purely philosophical standpoint, there are certain situations where stealing is truly justified, but from a purely religious standpoint there is no such thing as justified stealing”. My problem with this is that WWII was hardly a time for religion. For the Germans it was a time of a new race and ideas. If anything but on the simplest level, it was an extermination of religion. Religion doesn’t play a part in making thievery unjust when the world is in such a horrible state as it was. The instinct to survive was more important than what one felt was right or wrong. That’s why Liesel and Rudy felt guilty for stealing (as it has been quoted numerous times) but did it anyways.
Keenan e f is right it is not totally wrong in the way stealing was used. Hitler put his country in the worst poverty that it got to the point were they had to steal what they needed. In some families such as Rudy's he was almost starveing to death. It may not be the totally right thing to do put people aren't going to just starve, they will try to do something. When people stole food, clothes, and other things needed to live it, in my mind, was ok. But when Leisel starts to steal the books thats were it crossed the line. She did it for revenge not to live. I understand that she wanted more for her education but she could have asked.
I disagree with Shelby. I don’t think that Leisel crossed the line when she stole the books. In the letter to Leisel from Ilsa Hermann it says, “I was glad that you took what was rightfully yours.” Ilsa Hermann was basically giving Leisel permission to take the books. It’s not stealing when someone tells you its okay.
I’m not disagreeing with Shelby completely, I agree with her when she said that they had to steal what they needed. People have stolen “what they need” all throughout history. Sometimes you do what you have to do to survive. Things aren’t always black and white, in this case stealing is a means of survival, not just something they’re doing because they’re bad people. In this situation I feel their stealing is a gray area.
I wanted to further a point which Keenan previously made. In this book, there is more than just the presentation of figurative stealing in that lives are stolen by death, but people’s ways of life our stolen as well. For Hans Huberman his life was stolen as his painting business failed when his clients were dropping out. His business started to fail when it was not supported by the Nazi Party; “Hans blew it . . . Everyone knows you weren’t supposed to paint over slurs written on a Jewish shop front.” If not part of the Nazi Party, business was very hard because there was little money in the economy and without the Nazi’s support cliental was limited. As Hans’ son tells him, “You’re either for the Fuhrer or your against him.” The Germany presented in this book allows no individuality and everyone must agree with the Fuhrer. This was how citizens of Germany lives were stolen from them. A citizen had no control over their own life for they had to be in accordance with the Fuhrer or pay the ultimate price.
The Citizens of Germany however were not the only people who had their way of life stolen. The Jews were obviously faced with this same problem. They were forced to quit their businesses and to leave. It started out as taking the freedom of choice for where they lived. They were forced into the ghettos but it turned into robbing them of more than just their way of life. It progressed until their lives were stolen from them by death. Max’s life is not stolen by death in the book, but rather his life is stolen in the sense that he has to live in the basement leeching off a family to survive. The only time he is even able to see the sky is when there is an air raid. His way of life was reduced to merely survival with no hope of thriving and limited to the dark confines of a basement. Hitler stole not only lives which were collected by death, but there were ways of life which ceased to exist when he got power.
This is Aaron L F
I can't make an account
To address the overall topic that everyone has seemed to be debating over on whether or not theft is truly a crime, it varies on the type of theft. For instance, literally stealing an item that another person owns is, in every case, a crime. This is as simple as theft gets. When Rudy and Liesel steal apples, they are consciously aware that they are stealing. In fact, Liesel does not want Papa "thinking that he had a compulsive criminal on his hands. So she ate" (153) the apples. This sort of stealing is obviously a crime and I think everyone can agree on that.
To reach further into the subject, a figurative type of stealing such as the theft of "people’s ways of life," as mentioned in Lauren R's post, is not literally a crime. There is no law that states that people cannot influence other people to act a certain way. Relating to this book, this sort of theft is merely an incredibly influential speaker (Hitler) wisely evoking his thoughts upon other people. Now, I am not saying that these preachings were good, I am just trying to say that this type of theft is ultimately the fault of the citizens of Germany. After all, it is their choice, as we see with Liesel and Hans Hubberman, to rebel against having their individuality stripped from them. The citizens of Germany that do CHOOSE to conform are letting Hitler and the Nazi party steal their individuality. This figurative sort of theft is not truly a crime since the people have the right to decide to conform or not.
However, it is terrifying to read how easily the people of Germany during the World War II era succumb to Hitler's preachings. In the novel, Zusak presents this idea of losing one's individualism by depicting how people's identity--especially Nazi soldiers--is recognized by something on them. Instead of a person speaking, "a uniform [speaks] to [Liesel] at one point" (119). In doing this, Zusak illustrates how the soldier has no identity due to the fact that his identity was stripped and stolen from him.
I think that Aaron L perfectly summed up what the book is trying to say about theft. Bottom line being that literal theft (physically stealing an item belonging to another) is a crime, which Liesel is well aware of. "Beneath her shirt, a book was eating her up." (122) When she stole the book out of the fire, not only did it physically burn her, but the guilt of her stealing it ate her inside. But the crime of having one’s identity stolen (in the context of Nazi Germany) was a choice that each citizen had to make - whether to follow what Germany, at the time, taught was the right thing to do or to stand up for what they truly believed in. Hans Hubermann was one of the few people in the book to stand up against Hitler’s idealism and to fight back against the cruelty that Germany was committing against the Jews. "The Jew stood before him, expecting another handful of derision, but he watched with everyone else as Hans Hubermann held his hand out and presented a piece of bread, like magic." (394)
I do agree with Aaron L F’s idea that the theft of something figurative is not a criminal act even though it could be considered stealing where as a literal theft is a crime, but was it a just action despite its malice? It seems there is a general consensus that stealing is a crime and a bad thing to do whether it is something literal or figurative, but was it okay for the characters that stole because of the situation Hitler put them in? Is it, as Madeline S P calls, “a gray area”?
I consider there to be only one ‘true’ thief of the story: Victor Chemmel. Victor “was the kind of delinquent who had no other reason to steal except he enjoyed it”. Victor is not suffering financially at all in comparison to the other characters who steal like Liesel and Rudy. Victor is practically stealing as if it was a hobby, where as Rudy and Liesel feel so much guilt that they wouldn’t even think of stealing unless they needed to. Rudy later makes the snide comment, “Would I be here if I was rich enough to own a watch?” (273) after death had just noted that “Victor Chemmel had it all . . . He had money. He had cigarettes” (273). Because Victor is so wealthy and continues to selfishly want more he is a true thief. All the boys who steal with him as well as Rudy and Liesel need what they can get their hands on just to survive.
Victor even brings up the interesting point that there is “no crime in wanting a little more” to back himself up and claims that “wanting more is our fundamental right as Germans . . . We must take what is rightfully ours!” (273). Although his logic is a little deranged it is rather sound from what the Führer had instilled into the Nazis. Hitler was simply able to convince the masses that stealing so carelessly was okay, even if it meant taking everything a person had.
In reference to what Becky said, you can always make stealing sound okay with a good excuse.
One could easily say that the first time Liesel "stole" a book could hardly be considered stealing. It says "a black book fell innocuously from his coat pocket without his knowledge" (23).
You could say this was okay, since it FELL from his pocket and Liesel just picked it up. More of a "finders keepers" deal.
I think that's riduculous.
No matter how bad of a situation Liesel was in, she knew she was stealing and she knew it was wrong, but she did it anyway.
No matter what her motives, stealing is a crime, and guilt comes with intentionally doing that crime.
Like Mary pointed out, on page 164, ‘“Do you feel bad?”……
“Of course I do, but I’m not hungry anymore, and I bet he’s not hungry, either.”'
These kids knew they were doing something wrong which is why they felt guilty. Making excuses might be a way to lessen the guilt, but that does not justify the crime or make it any more okay.
I'd like to go back to the topic of figurative theft. I agree with Keenan E F when he says, "I think a figurative theft was Hitler’s stealing of his people’s hopes and later, pride. He lied to them and manipulated them to believe that what they were doing would save their country. As this deception became more evident when times got worse and worse, Hitler had taken from them their hope of a better life."
Hitler, with many accomplices, robbed millions of people of their identities and lives. When I think of Holocaust prisoners, I think of the people as empty shells, with no emotions left because their lives were basically taken away from them. I know that these people still had emotions and feelings and everything, but it's as if the Nazi party made the Jews appear as "empty shells" to the rest of the world, trying to convince everybody that they weren't people that mattered. That, in my opinion, is worse than literal theft, and could, in fact, be considered a literal theft.
Therefore, I disagree with Aaron L F when he says, "To reach further into the subject, a figurative type of stealing such as the theft of 'people’s ways of life,' as mentioned in Lauren R's post, is not literally a crime. There is no law that states that people cannot influence other people to act a certain way."
What Hitler did is most definitely now considered a literal crime. He imprisoned millions of people and forced them to work in concentration camps. The result: "stealing" people's lives away from them. Those people should have gone on with their original lives, working and raising families. Therefore, taking their lifestyles away from them was a literal crime because it would be a literal crime to imprison people under unjust circumsances, based on race, religion, or any other defining characteristic.
One word: Genocide. The complete and total slaughter of an entire race. Every race has their own basic lifestyle, and when you destroy the race, you take the lifestyle as well. Jews have very specific ways of living because of their religion. Kill them all, and you have removed that way of life from the practical world and sent it to the history books. Genocide is considered a crime by just about everyone.
But Hitler didn't just take the Jews out of the world. He also tried to take out everyone that was contrary to what he and he only thought was right. Doing so, whether it be through the literal removal of such people to concentration camps or forcing them into the straight line of Nazism is a violation of basic human rights. Hitler took away all right of the people to choose freely. You still had a choice, just there was a punishment for not making the right choice and the government told the people of Nazi Germany what the one and only right choice was. Here in America we can't choose everything that we want to choose, but the government does not tell us what the only right choice is. Take for example the upcoming election. Everyone can choose who they want to vote for, and the person with the most votes wins. Hitler was a candidate in the German's political race in the 1930's. He did not win by popular vote. He lost. But he lied and cheated his way into power and told the people that he would make everything right, then slowly stole their freedom. He started out as being the people's friend with his hand on their shoulder, but he came out as a bully as he slowly moved that hand from the shoulder to the neck.
The Book Thief is a Holocaust book in its own right, and if Hitler hadn't committed suicide, he would have been tried and convicted along with his top men at the Nuremberg trials. I agree with Keenan E [f] when he said "he [Hitler] took their national pride from them.... Hitler humiliated the people of Germany." He stole what was most precious to them: their pride.
But even if the people were beaten down and trodden upon, they were still able to stand up in the end after the war as Liesel points out when she picks up the toy soldier, is the whole point. "Even with injury, it could still stand up." (320) The people of Germany felt guilty about what had happened, but unlike Liesel and Rudy, they had no justification.
And I'm not even going to touch to the subject of religion because I don't feel like starting a theological debate in the blog.
We have definitely described what theft is, but I think that theft was a huge part of the book in more than just helping us to define what it is. The amount of theft in this book was at points overwhelming as the reader holds his breath again and again as Liesel puts herself in harms way for one item or another. As she reaches for the book among the ashes I know personally I was holding my breath hoping the Nazis would not see her. This stealing is “wrong” as we have discussed, but I was intrigued with why she did it. What was the significance of her thirst for knowledge?
Liesel is only a small girl, the picture of innocence. As the story begins we see that Liesel will unfortunately not be able to keep her innocence for long. Death introduces us to Liesel; “There was one mother and her daughter./ One Corpse.” We are first brought to the picture of the mother and daughter which seems peaceful and appropriate. It is then contrasted with the corpse. The word “corpse” is harsh and helps to show that the picture first painted is not innocent, it is contaminated by death. Liesel’s innocence is stolen by a life which was stolen. There is a cycle of stealing throughout the whole book which helps to set the atmosphere of war. To show what the German people were going through. This was a time when children stole for entertainment and the government stole for domination. All the stealing throughout the book helps to show how this attitude seeped even into the most innocent of them. Everyone was a victim and everyone was a perpetrator.
The most obvious act of "theft" discussed in this novel is the way in which Hitler killed six million people. I think that we can all agree with that. And as Anthony S has said, Hitler did not merely kill all of these people. He "humiliated [them]. He stole what was most precious to them: their pride." And that is why the Holocaust stands out from all of the other genocides that this earth has known. Yet Hitler as many here have said, did not just steal the lives of the Jews, he stole the lives of his people, as Lauren R has said.
Eventhough Hitler directly stole people's lives, what I feel is worse is how he was able to completely monopolize Germany and its people, and yet the people are the ones who feel guilty. Many of you, such as Shelby M and others feel that "when Leisel starts to steal the books thats were it crossed the line." And in the story, the kids too felt guity for stealing the books and the apples, as it has been previously noted. True, stealing is bad. But why should these kids feel any guilt at all for for stealing an apple because they are starving, or stealing a book because they are so desperate for knowledge? It is Hitler who has taken away the food, it is Hitler who has burned the books. Yet it is Liesel, as Hope F has noted ,who felt she was being eaten up by her guilt (122). Instead of hating Hitler for what he has forced them to do, they end up thinking that they are theifs, that they are the ones who are guilty. This to me, is the most damaging to the people of Germany who were not Jewish : the fact that they should feel guilt for what was being done to them. It is almost as though Hitler is too all powerful to blame. He is untouchable, but the people who are suffering due to him are not.
This is also what I think Rudy realizes when all of his "criminal greatness was unfurling before his eyes" (483). To me, he was not "[feeling] a sense of guilt about what he was planning to do,"as Caitlyn R said a while back, but was realizing that nothing he stole would ever add up to what they had stolen from him; his father.They, like their houses, were too "dark and huge" (483). He could not touch them, yet they could so destroy them.
Thus I will not blame the children of Germany for stealing apples or books, for the only thing wrong here is the fact that they had to steal them in order to attain them. To me, that is the true crime.
There is one part in the book that I’d like to bring up that I find somewhat interesting to think about. As some of us have mentioned, punishment does eventually catch up to Liesel one way or the other. By Liesel stealing The Shoulder Shrug from the pile of hot ash, (121-124), punishment caught up to her by burning her under her clothes. Also, when Liesel made a habit of stealing the books from Ilsa Hermann’s library, punishment caught up to her by realizing the power that’s held within the words themselves. Yes, the actions Liesel is doing in the novel is wrong, but there are other actions that Liesel decides to make that are right in the wrong way. Such as this :
Part Ten introduces one of the most emotional parts in this novel, one of the parts that leaves me thinking. Way of Words. In this chapter, the parade of Jews marches through the small section of Munich, this time bringing Max Vandenberg along with it. Like always Liesel steps outside in search for Max. She finds him, and grabs his arm. “I’m here Max,” she said again. I’m here.” (511) A moment later, a soldier had spotted Liesel and Max and separated them from each other. Once again Liesel ran after Max. This time, the soldier had torn them apart, first punishing Max, and then eventually punishing Liesel. Why though?
My curiosity steps in here; Hitler’s known as the protagonist in my mind. For something Hitler has stolen from Liesel and Max, why are these two punished? In this part, people don’t realize that theft is also shown here. The separation of two people who see each other as family. Instead of Liesel, theft is used by Hitler. I guess what I’m trying to conclude is that even though Liesel has done nothing wrong, she is still punished in the form of thievery that hasn’t even been taken into her own hands. Why?
One of the true powers of this book is to show the struggle which the German people faced. As Mira pointed out, “It is almost as though Hitler is too all powerful to blame.” As Liesel learns the power of words she recognizes what the Fuhrer is doing. Her stealing is what leads her to realize the power which the Fuhrer holds. Hitler was a powerful leader because he was able to manipulate the minds of his people. Max helps to illustrate the power which the Fuhrer had in manipulation in his story “The Word Shaker.” He writes, “The Fuhrer decided that he would rule the world with words” (445). Through the knowledge which Hitler had he was able to steal the minds of his people and mislead them.
Liesel is exposed to using this power as she reads to the families in the bomb shelter. They are all captivated and calmed by the words which she utters and even the sound of the bombs is placed in the backs of minds as they listen to a small girl tell a simple story. The same words which gave Hitler power to take over Germany and steal the lives of people, Liesel uses to calm and distract the people. This wouldn’t have been possible except for the fact that she stole the books. Through her stealing of the books, she is able to escape parts of what Hitler is stealing from her family.
Stealing has a lot to do with empowerment. To steal from someone helps to show that you are dominant over them. You find that they are not worthy of whatever it is you stole, or that you are more worthy of it. In Hitler’s case he stole the lives of the German people and all those who didn’t fit in his plan. This theft helped to demonstrate that he was in charge and that he was untouchable. Theft is such a central theme for this book because of the time which it is set. War is a power struggle for who is stronger and who can control who. Hitler was stronger than the German people, and then forced dominance over any who did not fit his perfect race. Liesel’s somewhat trivial theft helps to contrast the bigger theft which was occurring and show the pollution of innocence which Hitler was causing. Theft helps to show not only the strain put on those who didn’t fit the perfect race, but also the pressure which was part of being the perfect race.
I agree completely with Lauren R when she says, "Theft helps to show not only the strain put on those who didn’t fit the perfect race, but also the pressure which was part of being the perfect race." I think this idea is made most clear when Liesel exclaims that she "[hates] the Fuhrer," (115) for that is when Hans, who belongs to "the 10 percent who didn't" show "unflinching support for Adolf Hitler," (63) "slapped [her] squarely on the face . . .and. . . [contemplated] one of the most dangerous dilemmas a german citizen could face" (116). Even though he too hates Hitler, one must never make that hatred public, for Hitler will have you arrested.
This crippling fear came close to becoming a reality when Hans gave the piece of bread to a Jew who was on the verge of death (394). After he had been whipped, Papa realized that now the Natzis would know that he was a so called "Jew lover" and would come to his house, where they would discover Max hiding in his basement. It is because of his German heritage that the Natzi's would suspect him, for if you show any sort of pity or humanity towards a Jew, and you are German, than that means you are against Hitler. To them, a Jew deserves no pity, for they are a damned race- they are not worthy of the title human. And Hans realizes this for he later says, "Oh my God, Liesel, what have I done?" Although he hates Hitler, and is disgusted and appalled by what he has done, he wishes that he had never hinted at his hate, for now his family is in danger. And that is the biggest "strain" for the German people : the fear that if they are suspected of being against Hitler and his perfect race then all that they love will be destroyed. Hitler stole peoples' right to individuality, for they must all conform or face death.
Mira W raises an interesting point- of either conforming to Hitler’s ideologies or being discovered that you’re a “Hitler- hater.” This is something that Hans Hubermann obviously struggled with throughout the entire book. He and many other Germans, that were too scared to admit it, hated Hitler. But Hans had to pretend that he loved the Fuhrer, even though he hated him just as much, if not more, than Liesel. I wonder what caused him to make a stand and go help the Jew that was dying in the street?
When Hans first helped the Jew on the street, he didn’t realize the consequences of his actions. He simply gave the Jew some bread, but he didn’t think that this would cause himself a beating, or that Max would have to leave because of that action. He was just being a kind person, but being kind to a Jew wasn’t acceptable. “’I am stupid,’ Hans Hubermann told his foster daughter. ’And kind. Which makes me the biggest idiot in the world.’” (402) From this experience, he realized that not only is it foolish to help a Jew, but it’s also foolish to try to stand up to such a great power. Hitler demanded conformity to his ideologies. In this sense, he stole from the German people their freedom to make even the simplest decisions regarding their opinions, feelings, and desires. They could still make choices – but if they weren’t in alignment with Hitler’s regime, there would be serious consequences.
Throughout this discussion, we have steered the topics from Liesel's theft to Hitler's theft. I thought of an interesting point to be made that describes how Hitler stole more than the lives of people. He stole their sense of identity, happiness, and much, much more. We can refer to this as figurative theft. So how did he commit so much "figurative thievery?"
I think the main weapon Hitler used was both physical and verbal abuse in order to brainwash and torture Jews and other parties. He didn't only want them to die. He wanted them to suffer for their supposed "faults."
The physical abuse was sending these people to concentration camps and making them work under unfair, cruel, and harsh conditions. This must have made people feel like they were robots, not human beings. I think they would have felt as if they had no identity in the real world, and they were nothing more than animals.
The verbal abuse was, of course, Hitler's words. He said terrible things to these people, and his Nazi party called them horrible things. This would make anybody take a hit on their self-esteem.
Using these methods of abuse, Hitler stole people's self-esteem, happiness, identities, and other things.
One example of taking the identities away from many people is in NIGHT, by Elie Wiesel: "We received no food. We lived on snow; it took the place of bread. The days resembled the nights, and the nights left in our souls the dregs of their darkness. The train rolled slowly, often halted for a few hours, and continued. It never stopped snowing. We remained lying on the floor for days and nights, one on top of the other, never uttering a word. WE WERE NOTHING BUT FROZEN BODIES. Our eyes closed, we merely waited for the next stop, to unload out dead."
(100)
It sounds as if they are just lifeless objects who are not human beings. This came from physical and verbal/emotional abuse.
As the recent posts show, people have agreed that Hitler definitely stole the German people's lives. He stole their happiness, pride, and in many cases, the means to support themselves. Although I believe this, I think Aaron L's first comment, about how German's DID have a choice about whether or not to be ruled by Hitler, warrants discussion.
Hitler never would have gained, and kept, power without support. Hitler gained power in part due to his influential speeches, but also because the German people were suffering and eager for someone to blame. This someone was the Weimar Republic, who had signed the Treaty of Versailles, which was the cause of all of Germany's suffering. At the time, Hitler only said what the people wanted to hear. He had a plan to end the people's suffering and to restore their pride. Because the people were desperate, Hitler had a lot of supporters when his reign first began.
Towards the end of his rule, however, support was more often forced than freely given. Aaron says that the German people do have a "choice, as we see with Liesel and Hans Hubberman, to rebel against having their individuality stripped from them." When talking about the beginning of Hitler's reign, I think this is a very true statement, but at the time when "The Book Thief" takes place, this statement is not accurate. Yes, people could have fought, but in the end, their lives were stolen. Hans was sent to war after he gave bread to the Jews in the parade to Dachau. Rudy's father was also sent to war when he tried to prevent the Nazis from stealing Rudy. Hitler even stole the Hubermann son. Their son may have willingly joined the party, but because of his willingness to follow Hitler, he alienated his family. People everyday were choosing not to follow the Fuhrer's lead, but in the end, some part of their life was stolen from them.
Although I do feel that some Germans really felt that they had no choice but to go along with what Hitler was doing, and not stand up to him for the sake of their families, I feel that the German people who chose to be Natzis as Becky S says, "warrants discussion."
These people, like Hans' son and Frau Diller who keeps a framed picture of Hitler on her wall (155) , did not join the Party out of fear for their lives or their families. They joined because they very much believed in what Hitler was doing. They believed that Jews were stealing their customers and destroying their lives, and they too wanted to be rid of them. They as Hitler said in Max's dream beleived that they could "see that what [they] face is something far more sinister and powerful than [they] ever imagined" (254). And it is for these people that I have no sympathy an no pity. For they did not simply follow Hitlers orders. They are the ones that made "so many people [chase] after [death]. . . calling [death's] name" (503). They wanted to help Hitler, as Mary C said, make the Jews "suffer for their supposed "faults."
The one example that sticks out in my mind the most that clearly shows how the Natzi's made it so that the Jews would not only die, but would be torn apart, inside and out, is in the film "Sophie's Choice." This portrays the evils that the Natzis inflicted painfully clear, for a woman is forced to choose which one of her children will be sent to death And if she refuses, both will be killed. The Natzis, if anything, knew how to make people dream of death, for after that, who in their right mind would want to live? Hitler created monsters, and it seems, stole people's hearts.
This is Aaron L F:
To clarify and respond to Mary C, in my last post I meant that Hitler's manipulation of the citizens of Germany during the World War II era is not literally a crime. Not the extermination of the Jewish people. This is so because the people gave in so easily to him. I do completely agree with Mary C that "what Hitler did is most definitely now considered a literal crime. He imprisoned millions of people and forced them to work in concentration camps." Sorry for any confusion.
In response to Becky S's comment that people really did not have the power during the time of The Book Thief to choose whether they wanted to support the Nazi party or not is entirely true. This also plays into another sort of theft that Hitler was the catalyst for. This is the theft of the citizens of Germany's freedom. In the setting of the novel, almost every person it appears almost worships Hitler. This is evident in the most obvious cases such as the shop owner Frau Diller who's golden rule is that "if you walked into her shop and didn't say 'heil Hitler,' you wouldn't be served" (50). So many people similar to this throughout Germany made it incredibly difficult for people such as Hans and Liesel to choose for themselves. Their freedom was stolen from them almost entirely. They both despise Hitler, but publicly displaying this could get a person killed or slapped as we saw when Liesel slipped up (116). In this way, Becky S makes an excellent point. Hitler severely limited people's freedom. He stole it from them in many cases. Hitler had too many supporters by the time this book takes place that a successful rebellion could occur much less an anti-Hitler campaign. In essence, people in Germany during this World War II era could choose to be pro or anti-Hitler, but they were so suppressed that their opinion hardly even mattered since the general concensus was pro-Hitler.
To steal in The Book Thief is an opportunity to rebel. Rudy and Liesel found many opportunities to steal on the days that they spent walking through town.
Rudy and Liesel’s hunger for theft really hit when they joined Arthur Berg and the gang that was recognized as the group that stole. They went to farms and stole food and shared their findings equally. This type of pilfering was necessary. Rudy and other children in that group were poor and starving. Though, with our moral standards, stealing is still thought to be wrong and they all knew it. Nevertheless, they also knew that they needed that food. Soon Rudy and Liesel would no longer be apart of this thievery because of the new leader of the group Viktor Chemmel.
Another type of theft was found up at 8 Grande Strasse. This was the type of stealing that was used for revenge. Liesel stole from the mayor’s wife’s library because they fired her mama. This is where Rudy gave Liesel her nickname ‘The Book Thief’. Liesel would sneak through the window in the library and take, as Ilsa Hermann put in her letter that came with the dictionary and thesaurus “…what was rightfully yours.” (369). She meant the book The Whistler; the other books were still Ilsa’s. Liesel then realized it wasn’t stealing at all because she had Ilsa Hermann’s knowledge and permission to take books from the library.
Rudy and Liesel used stealing to pass time or as a form of adventure either at Frau Hermann’s or they would develop a plan such as setting a trap for Otto Sturm to take his basket he planned to give to the priests. I agree with what Mary C P said about all the thefts being crimes. However like the quote she mentioned, “Do you feel bad?”…“Of course I do, but I’m not hungry anymore, and I bet he’s not hungry, either. Don’t think for a second that the priests would get food if there wasn’t enough to go around at home.” (164), it was in a way necessary.
As a response to Kathleen's comment about how thievery was a method of rebellion that Rudy and Liesel used to pass the time, survive, and a form of adventure. While I do agree that they used thievery to rebel I also think that it is interesting that in other posts people have said that " Yes, people could have fought, but in the end, their lives were stolen." (Becky). While there was crime in the story on the small level of Himmel street, there was also crime on a grand level in regards to Jewish people and other actions taken by the nazis.
There is also discussion of how thievery is not morally right, (Kathleen), but it was necessary for survival. This I also agree with but Where is the line that seperates good stealing from bad stealing? Rudy and Liesel stole food from a priest and only had a touch of conciousness, But Nazis stole food also. Liesel stole books from the Mayor's wife, and Hitler burned them in the streets. I believe that it is a moral barrier that draws the line. In the case of the children, they were too poor to afford good clothing or food. But Hitler stole and burned for the sake of his own ego and his lust or power. Thievery in the book is not just a simple question of survival or power, but also a moral decision. That has as much to do with your soul as it does your stomach.
As a response to Kathleen's comment about how thievery was a method of rebellion that Rudy and Liesel used to pass the time, survive, and a form of adventure. While I do agree that they used thievery to rebel I also think that it is interesting that in other posts people have said that " Yes, people could have fought, but in the end, their lives were stolen." (Becky). While there was crime in the story on the small level of Himmel street, there was also crime on a grand level in regards to Jewish people and other actions taken by the nazis.
There is also discussion of how thievery is not morally right, (Kathleen), but it was necessary for survival. This I also agree with but Where is the line that seperates good stealing from bad stealing? Rudy and Liesel stole food from a priest and only had a touch of conciousness, But Nazis stole food also. Liesel stole books from the Mayor's wife, and Hitler burned them in the streets. I believe that it is a moral barrier that draws the line. In the case of the children, they were too poor to afford good clothing or food. But Hitler stole and burned for the sake of his own ego and his lust or power. Thievery in the book is not just a simple question of survival or power, but also a moral decision. That has as much to do with your soul as it does your stomach.
Thievery in this book is not always a crime, but in some instances it is. The stealing in this book though, is mostly for the good of a poor hungry person. As in the case of when they stole from farms and the fat priest. When they did this they always split it evenly and took as much as needed. Even when she took the Grave Diggers Hand Guide I still wouldn’t call it stealing because she did it to have something to remember her brother by. What Brandon W W said, about the crossing of a line, I believe to be true. For example, Liesel steals The Whistler just because she wanted to extract revenge on the mayor’s wife I believe is crossing this line. She did it because her mother got fired, not to help hunger issues as Rudy wanted.
Michael L said that “thievery is not always a crime.” I personally don’t think that this is, in any way, true. You can justify reasons for stealing, but it’s always a crime no matter what way you look at it. There are always reasons to explain why you chose to steal, but it’s still stealing. Even though Liesel had a reason for stealing everything that she did (books and food), it was still theft. Every book that she stole was justified in her mind: [The mayor’s wife fired her Mama so she wanted revenge on her. (286) Or when Liesel stole The Grave Digger’s Handbook, she justified this by telling herself that she needed a way to remember her brother (24)].
Michael L said that “thievery is not always a crime.” I personally don’t think that this is, in any way, true. You can justify reasons for stealing, but it’s always a crime no matter what way you look at it. There are always reasons to explain why you chose to steal, but it’s still stealing. Even though Liesel had a reason for stealing everything that she did (books and food), it was still theft. Every book that she stole was justified in her mind: [The mayor’s wife fired her Mama so she wanted revenge on her. (286) Or when Liesel stole The Grave Digger’s Handbook, she justified this by telling herself that she needed a way to remember her brother (24)].
Inside and outside the book Hitler was a thief. At first not so big of a crook, but he did steal the German peoples’ minds or more captivated them with his grand speeches; so he could get into a position where he could do as he pleased. Hitler feed the people information they wanted to hear; like blaming the people that were thriving while everyone else became deprived of essential life items. In the book Hitler rallies support to defeat Max in the boxing match; “Can you see that this enemy has found its ways- its despicable ways- through our armor, and that clearly, I cannot stand up here alone and fight him?”(254). He is trying to fix a puzzle with the wrong answer. During the war he took more: family members, money,and lives. He took family members either because they had Jewish relatives, helped Jews, or rebelled against him. He took their money to aide in the war and in doing so starved the people that could not afford to give their money up. Hitler, in my opinion, was one of the biggest thieves in that era.
This is Aaron L F
Many people have debated back and forth on the subject of the legality of stealing. Hope F comments, "[thievery] is always a crime no matter what way you look at it." However, this view on thievery is very narrow-minded. The act of stealing is not always literal or factual. It can be something as simple as being late to a job. Is this stealing other people's time? Of course it is; however, it is not a crime. There are so many different forms of thievery that are not classified as crimes that almost everyone on Earth could be labeled as thieves.
Looking through everyone's posts, I do not believe that anyone has talked about being punished for stealing in The Book Thief. This is an intriguing topic since it seems that almost every time a character steals in the novel, that character is castigated in some way or form. This is evident when Liesel and Rudy steal the apples and "consume six apples apiece within half an hour" (153). Inevitably, they throw up since they are so "unaccustomed to such luxury" (153). This form of punishment is not dealt by the law or by police or by any sort of authority. Throwing up acts as Liesel's castigation for her wrong-doing. In doing this, Zusak attempts to subtly preach to the reader that taking from another human is immoral. An even more readily apparent example of this is when Liesel steals the smoldering books from the mound of burned ash. Initially, Liesel's obvious punishment is that the "book was eating her up" (122) from the heat it was producing. To further punish her, "Every minute, every hour, there was . . . paranoia. Criminal activity will do that to a person" (129). It is clear that Liesel is being punished thoroughly not only by her own conscious, but the books themselves. Again, Zusak attempts to depict to the reader that thievery is dishonest and morally wrong. So while many characters do steal throughout the novel, it seems that in almost every instance they are punished in some way.
The idea of theft in this novel varies from different points of views. For some it was the only way to continue living, for others it was a source of amusement. A good way to think of the idea of theft as being good or bad is when Liesel and Rudy go with the other boys and steal from the farm (152). To the children it was a way to get food in order to stay healthy and more importantly not be hungry. That being the case, you could justify their theft as necessary for survival. On the other hand, if you flip to the farmer’s perspective it is a crime. To the farmer those children are taking away from his food supply and source of income.
In some cases you don't even have to consider it theft. When Liesel steals her first book (24), I didn’t quite consider it theft. Sure, it isn’t right to take things that you find that aren’t yours, but that’s just it. She found the book. And it seemed to me that at that moment stealing was the farthest thing from her mind. She just saw the book in the snow and in her state of mind, found it as something to cling onto as a small replacement for the lose of her brother.
I agree with Hope.
Whether or not Liesel was stealing for survival or revenge, it was still stealing. There are not two different kinds of theft. It's a crime all around. It all depends on how you look at the situations in which Liesel was stealing.
Imagine being the farmer that Liesel had stolen from. It's obvious that since the kids were stealing his food, there was not much to go around at home. (That or they were picky eaters.) Look at that from the farmer's point of view. Food is pretty scarce, and on top of not having that much food yourself, a bunch of kids come and help themselves to your share.
On the topic of literal theft in the book - if anyone could justify the stealing (which, by the way, is a crime worldwide), try having someone steal from you, and then try to stand up for them.
I believe that stealing in this book is a very necessary practice for the characters. Olivia says, "Try having someone steal from you, and then try to stand up for them". At this time in history, everybody was stealing from one another just to survive. Governments were taking food from farmers to feed soldiers, soldiers were stealing food from other soldiers, and ordinary citizens were acquiring food from farmers, soldiers, and their government. As such, popular sentiment was for stealing as a sort of "two wrongs do make a right" situation.
Many others things were stolen beyond basic food. Liesel, for instance, stole books in addition to food. However, I feel that for liesel, books became synonomous with food in that they kept her alive in the troubled times she lived in. From the moment after her brother's funeral to the end of the book, liesel always had a book to escape to, as if the fictitous writing gave her a more perfect world to live in.
So liesel and all the other hard-pressed people affected by the war stole not for wealth or greed, but to survive in a world that was constantly taking from them.
I found Aaron L’s take on thievery to be very interesting, and his points triggered my own question about how many innocent people were murdered during WWII and how murder is often referred to as ‘stealing a life.’ Death says, “Where was someone to alleviate this robbery of his life? (531). Aaron says, “…it seems that almost every time a character steals in the novel, that character is castigated in some way or form.” I find this to be true except when it comes to stealing a person’s life. I’m not sure exactly where or if Zusak is able to show any type of “castigation” or punishment for murder. This made me think about who is punished for this kind of thievery? Like Aaron L says, “Zusak attempts to depict to the reader that thievery is dishonest and morally wrong,” but when it comes to the theft of a life, whether in the novel or not, is there any true punishment? With WWII and the Holocaust there were the Nuremburg trials and others similar to it in attempt to put some of those responsible for so many deaths to justice and with any type of murder there is usually a trial, but I am not so sure that a fitting punishment exists. I understand that murdering a person versus stealing a book or apples fall on completely different levels of morality, but there is still question on the matter.
"Can a person steal happiness? Or it is just another internal, infernal human trick?" (370) This sentence really struck me when I read it. It makes me curious as to what makes a thief happy. Are they happy just because they stole something? Or are they actually stealing the happiness of others? It seems that a true thief would be happy when they steal, but losing a possession makes the victim unhappy, so happiness is being transferred from the victim to the thief. But Liesel and Rudy don't feel happy when they steal, so does that make them any less criminal? Liesel even tries to talk herself out of being happy on page 370: "You don't deserve to be this happy, Liesel. You really don't." Does her lack of happiness at stealing further justify her stealing, or does it prove even more that what she is doing is wrong? I'm really not sure of the answers to those questions.
People are punished when they do something wrong so that they learn not to do it again. Rudy and Liesel, though, do not learn from their "punishments." As Aaron pointed out, they do get sick when they eat all of the apples, and the book from the fire does burn Liesel, but neither of these events stop them. Liesel and Rudy steal food again, and Liesel steals more books. The two of them are never truly punished. Yes, they may feel guilty for a little, but their guilt does not force them to confess, it does not even stop them from stealing again. Personally, I don't feel that there were any "punishments" in the book.
Sticking with the lack of punishments theme, it is important to look at the punishments for those who steal a life, as Grace H brought up. Now, I don't want to start a big political debate or anything, but I really do not see what the death sentence accomplishes. I guess it might feel good to exact revenge on somebody who stole a loved one from you, but doesn't that make you just as bad? Would you really want to put the murderer's family, who had nothing to do with the theft, through the pain that you just suffered? The murderer should be punished, I agree, but I personally feel that a lifetime in prison is much better than the death sentence. Both punishments are terrible, but at least this way only one life is completely stolen. The murderer may suffer, but I personally would not want him out in the world, or the guilt of taking his life completely.
I agree that Liesel and Rudy are never punished and therefore they see theft as an accomplishment." Liesel meminger was criminal. But not because she'd stolen a handful of books through an open window. You should have knocked she thought, and although there was a good portion of guilt, there was also a juvenile trace of laughter."(370)Her initial reaction is happiness that she has gotten what she wanted and that she has no consequence for it. Liesel feels guilt for her actions, but not a lot. She continues to steal several times because the Mayor's wife has allowed her to get away with it, even rewarded her for it.
In response to Becky comment, A life taken is never a good thing, even if it the life of a bad person. In this book lives are taken constantly (mostly from innocent people).”They were broken bodies and dead, sweat hearts.””Some of them I caught only halfway down. Saved You, I’d think.” (349)Death shows that it is not the criminal here. That he tries to save lives but “death waits for no man-and if he does, he doesn’t usually wait very long.”(350) He can’t and if death is not at fault, who is..
Not to move off the current discussion but I just simply want to put a point out their that I think is true. When Liesel is stealing books, I believe she is not really stealing.First off the grave book wasn't stolen it was originally lost therefore no theft.
Second is when the book from the fire is taken that is not theft in any particular way.What i really consider it is an attempt at denying the Nazis their wish to burn, not stealing their wish.Lastly is this letter
“***The Letter***
Dear Liesel,
I know you find me pathetic and loathsome (look that word up if you don’t know it), but I must tell you that I am not so stupid as to not see your footprints in the library. When I noticed the first book missing, I thought I had simply misplaced it, but then I saw the outlines of some feet on the floor in certain patches of the light.
It made me smile.
I was glad that you took what was rightfully yours. I then made the mistake of thinking that would be the end of it.
When you came back, I should have been angry, but I wasn’t. I could hear you the last time, but I decided to leave you alone. You only ever take one book, and it will take a thousand visits till all of them are gone. My only hope is that one day you will knock on the front door and enter the library in the more civilized manner.
Again, I am sorry we could no longer keep your foster mother employed.
Lastly, I hope you find this dictionary and thesaurus useful as you read your stolen books.
Yours sincerely,
Ilsa Hermann”(369)
In this letter is clearly stated that she is allowing the books to be taken. So if this theft is allowed is it really theft? I don't know this is what i've observed so let me know what you think.
I like Jeff's idea that when Liesel took the books, she wasn't in fact stealing. In my mind, books are carriers of knowledge. As such, I believe one cannot really steal knowledge, but rather acquire it from another entity. By taking books Liesel was just acquiring knowledge the only way available.
In my opinion, when she rescued the book from the ashes, Liesel was transfering the knowledge from the Nazis to herself. This transfer is called stealing only because people consider knowledge as property and think that you can own it, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Consider that Hybrid Car technology was once dominated By Toyota, but now any large automaker has at least one hybrid model out or in production. You can't steal knowledge because anyone willing to get it can find it, like Liesel.
I completely disagree with Jeff J when he says that the first book that Liesel stole doesn’t really count as stealing because it was lost in the first place. It’s as simple as this: it counts as stealing if something’s not yours and you take it. Death narrates, “Buried beneath the folded layer of clothes in that suitcase was a small black book, which, for all we know, a fourteen-year-old grave digger in a nameless town had probably spent the last few hours looking for. “I promise you, “I imagine him saying to his boss, “I have no idea what happened to it. I’ve looked everywhere. Everywhere!” I’m sure he would never have suspected the girl, and yet, there it was—a black book with silver words written against the ceiling of her clothes” (29). I know that this is all hypothetical but my point is that maybe someone somewhere was missing that book. I think that it does count as stealing because we have no idea where it came from or who lost it. “Finders keepers” does not apply here.
The next question that Jeff J asked got me thinking for a while.I think the original question was, “If this theft is allowed, is it really theft?” I’ve come to a conclusion: before Liesel got the note it counted as stealing. After, permission was granted, thus it isn’t stealing anymore. So, to answer the question directly, no it doesn't count as theft. Ilsa Hermann basically told Liesel that it was ok to “steal” her books. She even gave Liesel a dictionary/thesaurus, a tool to help her understand her new books.
I disagree with Bryan about not being able to steal knowledge. It can be bought and sold and taken from someone just as anything else can be. Just because the mayor's wife gives her the letter saying that she didn't care about Liesel taking the books, (Jeff), that doesn't mean that the mayor would have given her permission. In essence the Mayor's wife was stealing information from her husband to give to liesel. In order to acquire information and knowledge from someone that person had to take it from another person. It isn't just floating around for anyone to grasp.
I would have to agree with Bryan W W that knowlege cannot be "stolen" but rather obtained. The act of stealing is performed, yes, but as Jeff J pointed out the question of whether it was an actual theift can be questioned.
liesel was never quite punished for taking the books and in most societies, theivery is a very costly crime. In some cultures if you were caught stealing (as liesel was) one's hand might be cut off completely, one might be lectured sternly, one might be thrown in jail, pay a hefty fine, or even exicution. she had none of this happen to her except a warning of what might come and that was it.
knowlege comes in many forms and is aquired so many ways. leisel Meminger's methods of gaining knowlege just dont seem like theivery and even the mayor's wife thinks so.
Yes, she literally stole books (the title had to come from somewhere) but she knew better and knew it was wrong, which probabily would have stoped her from taking many books at once at her whim if she had the opertunity. She only took them when she needed them and then when she fufilled her needs with them [reading them] she tried to give it back to the community. Liesel read during the bomb shelter durations. which I think makes the reader overlook her stealing. Basically, the need for somthing [the books] called and caused for the theift. I believe that the book thief wasn't actually stealing but taking something that did not belong to her for the sake of herself and others (both the reader and the frightful basement ocupants).
I disagree with the general idea that knowledge can't be stolen. If someone steals a book from a library or say, your school history book, because they are stealing the book, the contents (knowledge) are being stolen as well. I understand that they aren't stealing any knowledge previously acquired by a person from the book, but they are stealing what the book is including the knowledge it withholds.
Although this agrees with Brendon W's thoughts, I disagree when Brendon says "In essence the Mayor's wife was stealing information from her husband to give to Liesel" because it is the mayor's wife library, not the mayor's as we see from Liesel's epiphany "This is your room, isn't it?" as Ilsa confirms with "[the books] are mostly mine. Some are my husband's, some were my son's" (461). It's a reasonable misunderstanding as Liesel "always thought [the library] was the mayor's room" (461) and up until this incident it is referenced as such.
I also disagree with Hannah T’s argument that “the book thief wasn't actually stealing but taking something that did not belong to her for the sake of herself and others”. Liesel was never intending to ‘give back to the community’ after stealing the books. Her motive for stealing the books was in no way pure and selfless. It just happened to work out that her possession of the stolen books brought much comfort to the people around her, namely Max and Frau Holtzapfel. The only reason her taking books from the mayor’s wife’s library isn’t stealing is because Ilsa Hermann allows it and hopes “that one day [Liesel] will knock on the front door and enter the library properly in a more civilized manner” (369). It only looks like stealing because of how Liesel goes about getting them.
Stealing is always a crime even if the motivations are acceptable at least that is what I believe. That is why I disagree with Jeff J when he said that Liesel was not stealing when she found the “lost” book. Why I consider this stealing is because it is like someone who finds and keeps a wallet that contains credit cards and cash. That wallet belongs to someone not the person who took it just like how the book Liesel steals belongs to someone too. Although a book and wallet are different items that have different values it is the same situation. I think that people sympathize with Lisle because she’s a little girl or because at the time she found she was distracted by her brother’s death but whatever the reason people sympathize with her it doesn’t change the fact that she took the book. No matter what taking anything without asking is stealing although some thieves are easier to forgive than others.
Although I don’t agree with Jeff J I do agree with Lucy H when she says, “I’ve come to a conclusion: before Liesel got the note it counted as stealing”. Like I stated before taking without asking is stealing so that’s why Liesel taking the book from Ilsa’s library before she gave permission is stealing. Rudy points out that Liesel is not a thief when he says, “That women lets you in. She even leaves you cookies, for Christ’s sake. I don’t call that stealing. Stealing is what an army does. Taking your father, and mine” (482). His father was taken from him, making this a different type of stealing, kidnapping. Their fathers were taken not because they wanted to go rather they were forced to. This is why Rudy can’t see Liesel as a thief because Ilsa wanted her to take the books. After she gets the note I would consider the books she takes as gifts from Ilsa, so Liesel stealing the books before they were given is forgiven.
I agree with Keenan's sentiment that Liesel wasn't stealing for the good of others, but rather for her own gains. When she first breaks into the Mayor's house Rudy reminds her, "THe food. Find the food. And cigarettes, if you can". To this Liesel thinks to herself, "Both items, however, were the last things on her mind. She was home, among the mayor's books of every color and description". She went to the house with Rudy, however she had no intention of stealing anything for him when she was faced with the prospect of an eternity of books to be taken and read.
Conversely, when Rudy takes food, he always finds a way to share it with Liesel. His reasoning behind stealing is simply survival, and because of this he finds it easy to help out a fellow human being in this struggle. Liesel, I believe, has a deeper meaning behind taking the books, possibly to help disconnect herself from the world. This meaning isn't shared by Rudy and as such, she doesn't feel a moral obligation to share with him the spoils of her exploits.
When Bryan says that Liesel had no intention of sharing the spoils of her stealing with Rudy it makes Liesel sound like a mere criminal. Yes stealing is very wrong anyway you look at it. But even if she didn't share her spoils with Rudy she shared them with either her family or the community as a whole. When the bombs started to rain down on Himmel street she calmed the masses and gave them a strange kind of hope when she read to them in the shelter. She didn't have to expose the fact that she had books to the people but she did and performed a selfless duty. And when Liesel and Hans stayed up at night reading or practiced her writing skills that gave Hans an escape from the outside world and helpped him to carry on.
I agree mostly with Mary C about theft and it's standing in the categories of right or wrong. Whether or not thievery is wrong is up to interpretation depending on who happens to be stealing what. I disagree with Lauren R said about the book that Liesel stole from the ashes being wrong.
The Nazis of Germany would frequently take books and other things portraying Jewish people in a good light and dispose of them in a very public display of hatred, usually by burning.
The book The Shoulder Shrug that Liesel took from the ashes was part of that burning and I don't believe it to be stealing if that said novel was bound to be destroyed anyway, and on page 84, death tells us that "Liesel was not ashamed to have stolen it", and that the book had given her "apparent happiness".
And although bryan w is correct in the way that Liesel was stealing for her own gain, I think of it as something to be respected. After all, Liesel does not steal from poor or needy people, she only takes things from people who have more that enough to share... Which is what Robin Hood did, and no one was angry at him.
I find it interesting that stealing, something almost always associated with crime and punishment, can possibly be respected, like Megan H suggests. When stealing for good – for the poor or the hungry – why should a little thievery not be respected? Especially when desperate times call for desperate measures, stealing seems to become a necessity.
However, regardless of the situation, stealing is stealing. Before Ilsa Hermann allows Liesel to take her books, Liesel takes something that does not belong to her. It was wrong, and she should not have taken any of the books.
On the other hand, when Liesel steals The Shoulder Shrug, it does not seem wrong at all for her to take it. Since that “novel was bound to be destroyed anyway” and it had already been stolen from somewhere in the first place, it was a good thing for Liesel to save the book and make use of it (Megan H).
It is easy to respect a thief when what their doing benifits you. Look at Robin Hood: the poor respected him, but the rich were angry at him. When Liesel steals the book from the mayor's wife, she respects Liesel for taking what was rightfully hers because the mayor's wife wanted her to have the book. Others, even though they didn't know it was stolen respected her for using it to bring peace to the bomb shelter. Also, people tend to respect thieves when they feel that their motives are reasonable. When Liesel steals the book from the fire, the mayor's wife doesn't turn her in because she respects Liesel's desire for knowledge. It is also in human nature to be more forgiving to people they like, as when Rudy gives Liesel the title of "Book Thief". The act of thievery can never really be a respectable action, but the people who commit such an act can be.
This is such an interesting idea that stealing can be respectable depending on the motives of the stealer. Grace H said, “Especially when desperate times call for desperate measures, stealing seems to become a necessity”. So, I think that yes, people do need to steal some things. I want to talk about the farmers that Liesel, Rudy, and numerous other people steal from on a regular basis. I guess that that stealing could probably be justified because Liesel and Rudy were incredibly hungry, but the point was brought up that Liesel only steals from the wealthy and “people who have more than enough to share”. I wonder if the farmers were poor. And, while they did have enough for themselves and their families, they also had to sell their crops to other people to make an actual profit. Just a thought.
I do agree though that stealing the book from the fire wasn’t really stealing at all. It was going to be destroyed anyways, might as well put it to good use.
Lucy H is probably correct in that stealing from the farmers was not necessarily stealing from the wealthy, after all, you hardly hear of millionaire farmers.
Even so, Lielsel stole books to better herself and others.
Another person who was spoken of as a thief was Max himself. During the second air raid, all of the citizens of the town were hiding out for their lives, while Max was at the Hubbermanns home "stealing" the sky.
In this case stealing can not be considered a bad thing, or even something remotely immoral because the sky itself cannot truly be stolen, partly because it is so vast, and partly because it's not a material object like a book or food.
On page 381, death tells us as "a nice thought" that in the best friends that lived on Himmel Street, "one was a book thief, the other stole the sky".
Lielsel and Max stole things to comfort themselves and the other people around them.
Max stole the sky to show himself a better world than the one he was trapped in, and Liesel stole books to read to the people stuck in the basements of the world Max was seeking comfort in. When Liesel reads to the hidden people of Himmel Street, it comforts them. Death tells the reader that reading to the people "is [her] accordian".
I think stealing for Liesel is much more than finding comfort... She steals them because it teaches her what to feel when certain things occur. Such as when she steals the first book "The Grave Digger's Handbook" it is symbolic of her brother's death, the only physical memoir left of him. I think it teaches her to move on, to "bury the corpse the right way" as said in the handbook. Also, when she steals the second book it is about her anger, a fiery hate towards Hitler for taking away everything she's ever loved. Remember right before she found the book, she had helped Ludwig after he hurt his leg. This moment gave her a new feeling, an emotion that arose after her great realization that Hitler was the source to all of her loss. Then, when she found the book, you can say in a manner of words that it paralleled her feeling of anger towards the nazi party. There you have it, please comment me if I missed something, it's a working idea.
When Liesel steals it actually benefits her. Like Shannon O has stated “I think stealing for Liesel is much more than finding comfort... She steals them because it teaches her what to feel when certain things occur”. Stealing the books helps her get through her problems. When Liesel steals form Ilsa’s library it helps bring her to face Ilsa about all the terrible things she says to her. If Liesel never broke into the library she probably would not have ever got the chance to say she was sorry. Liesel’s family obviously didn’t have much food so stealing the food was good for Liesel. Stealing from the farmers was horrible because like Lucy H said we really don’t know if they’re wealthy or not but in the end that didn’t stop Liesel and that helped he get nourishment from the food. Another time stealing benefits Liesel is when she takes The Grave Digger's Handbook. It helps like Shannon O says serve as a memory of the last time she sees her brother and mother and its how she starts to learn to read. Stealing is wrong but it really has helped Liesel out in many situations.
To touch and quote on what Whitnee N just said I just want to add this. Yes stealing was perhaps her sanctuary through the book.Its what allowed her to cope with loss. What gave her strength to live. Also her thievery allowed her to help others.But she also didn't just steal for herself.Even if it was sub contentiously.Every time she stole a book she saved a piece of her world.Each book contained knowledge that could be used and read.These books also held little pieces of people.When Liesel get them they each come from a person some how. Now when those books are taken I think its feasible to say that no matter what happens to the person that they will have a piece of them in that book therefore they will always have a piece of them in the world.
I would have to disagree with Whitnee on some aspects. Like when she says, “When Liesel steals form Ilsa’s library it helps bring her to face Ilsa about all the terrible things she says to her.” I don’t believe this to be true. In the book it said’ “It was the book she wanted. The Whistler. She wouldn’t have tolerated it given to her by a lonely, pathetic old woman. Stealing it, in a sick kind of sense, was like earning it” (287). To me these sentences meant that if she took it because the mayor’s wife felt guilty for firing them, then Liesel would have been saying that it was okay to do so. In this instance I think Liesel just wanted revenge. I do agree with Whitnee on the fact that Liesel stole the food because their wasn’t enough at home and she need the nourishment.
Touching on all the talk of putting the book that was to be burned to a better use, this is not entirely true from a Nazi Germany perspective. All Liesel did was put it to a different use. The Nazis did not destroy books for the sake of destroying books, but because they believed that that was the only use for some books. By taking it from the fire, she did not rescue the book, she simply put it to a different use, like taking an old dusty book that someone else put on the shelf off the shelf and reading it: the person who put it there and left it to rot thought it served no other purpose than to sit there and rot, but by reading, you show your opinion of the book's uses.
Devon S F
I hate to disagree, but I have to when it comes to the last thing that Michael L says and what Whitnee N says about stealing food. Michael says that Liesel stole food "for nourishment." Although it's true, I don't think that that's the entire reason. I mean, when you think about it, they never really go stealing when they're dying of starvation. Yes, they do eat it and it helps them not to starve, but they go stealing more as a way to pass the time. It is more of a bonding experience than necessity. It all goes back to what I've said in previous blogs in other sections. Liesel is constantly looking for the good in things. In this case, she's searching for happiness in a time of sadness and strife. Stealing is a way to bond with her friend. She and Rudy steal food and books together as a way to cope with the outside world. As children, they really haven't learned any other way to cope with stress, and in Liesel and Rudy's case, stealing is one of the only ways that they know how to. As death also does, Liesel and Rudy are just looking for a distraction, of sorts. Maybe for this reason, the type of stealing that Liesel and Rudy do isn't necessarily wrong.
I disagree with Devon S when he says that “[Rudy and Liesel] go stealing as more of a way to pass the time. It is more of a bonding experience than a necessity.” On page 150 in the book, it says, “The depressing pea soup and Rudy’s hunger finally drove them to thievery. It inspired their attachment to an older group of kids who stole from the farmers. Fruit stealers”. I guess that it could be used as a bonding experience and in some parts is it used as such, but I think that it was mostly used for nourishment purposes.
I agree with Michael L when he says that when Liesel stole from Ilsa it was for revenge. She couldn’t really cope with her mother getting fired, or didn’t know how to at least. (I actually think that Devon touched on that a little bit).
Post a Comment