Examine any or all of the parts of the Readers Guide (Questions for Discussion, Internet Resources, and A Conversation with Markus Zusak) at the end of the book. Once you have done this, respond specifically to questions or ideas from this section which have not been addressed in our other Blog topics.
Some areas you might consider: What does the conversation with the author do to add or take away from your reading? What can you find on the Internet resources that relate to your reading? Do any of the questions for discussion spark a comment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I would like to answer/coment on a question from the readers guide. Question 3 asks What does the act of book thievery teach Liesel about life? How does stealing books from the mayors house lead to a friendship with the mayors wife? Explain Rudy's reaction to finding out Liesel is a book theif. Explain how Liesel's own attempt to write a book saves her life.
Stealing books from the mayor's house leads to a friendship with the mayor's wife. Every time Leisel stole a book, Ilsa Hermann knew about it.The library was Ilsa's, not the mayors. Ilsa was the one to convince Liesel to write a book of her own, after Liesel destroyed a book in her library.Ilsa had no anger towards Leisel despite the books Leisel took and ruined. Leisel took Ilsa hermann's advice and began to write a book. This book saved her life. Ilsa "gave her a reason to spend time in the basment-her favorite place, first with papa, then Max."(524). The book was called The Book Thief and it was at least 175 pages long. Each night Leisel would go down into the basement to write.Himmel Street was bombed and Leisel's Mama and Papa were dead. Rudy was dead. Leisel was saved because she was in the basement, perfecting her book. In a way, words saved her life.
I went to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website. One interesting thing the website said was that, "'Holocaust' is a word of Greek origin meaning 'sacrifice by fire'". I thought this was interesting because of all of the book burnings in the novel and in Germany at that time, as well as the burning of people. The victims of the holocaust were burned after they died and books were burned to keep people from being educated about certain topics. Liesel, however, saved books from their "sacrifice" and in turn the books helped her and saved her life, like Holly said.
When I was skimming through the questions for discussion in the Reader’s Guide the first question that made me stop and think was number 4. It asks about Liesel’s different relationships with her foster parents.
I believe Liesel grows closer to Hans first because of how he sat up with her late into the night after a nightmare about her brother. He quickly gains her trust and love towards him when he begins to play her the accordion, to teach her to roll cigarettes and to read and write. Staying up late reading through book after book and writing words on the wall made for great bonding time. They took joy in joking around with each other about Rosa. He took Liesel under his wing. This trust helped Liesel to begin calling Hans ‘papa’ without any hesitation. It is a possibility that Hans used Liesel to fill the hole in their family that his own children left. Liesel seemed to achieve a new place in their family soon after the bond with Hans was established. She was no longer the ‘replacement child’ but their new daughter.
Rosa, on the other hand, took much longer to show her love to Liesel. Rosa begins her relationship with Liesel by calling her a saumensh or a saukerl. Although ‘Death’ pointed out by the end of the book “If she’d seen me, I’m sure she would have called me a saukerl, though I would not have taken it badly. After reading The Book Thief, I discovered she called everyone that. Saukerl. Saumensh. Especially the people she loved” (532). One of the first times Rosa really shows her love towards Liesel is when she comes to see her at school all dressed up and starts yelling at her but then says “You told me to yell at you. You said they’d all believe it.” (332). She is referring to Max waking up. It showed her love for her because she knew how worried about Max Liesel was, and to show up during school to tell the good news was very thoughtful of her. By the end of the book, after bonding over the sadness of Hans leaving for war and Max being gone, Rosa and Liesel knew that inside that they had a certain love for each other.
In the Questions For Discussion section, question number 9 stood out most to me. In this section it asks:
1. How does it take courage to oppose Hitler?
2. How do the Hubermanns demonstrate courage throughout the novel?
For question number one, I believe that courage is a requirement in order to oppose Hitler for a few reasons. The first fact of the matter is how you are extremely out numbered. As stated on page 63, “90 percent of Germans showed unflinching support for Adolf Hitler.” Plus there is the constant fear that if you do anything to upset Hitler or his many followers they would come for you and take you away. There are also people like Hans Junior. These people are in the mindset that you are either for Hitler or against him, and judge you based on that information. Such as on page 105 (the discussion between Hans and his son.)
The Hubermanns show huge courage on many different levels. For starters they let Liesel keep the book she stole from the Nazi book-burnings, despite the trouble they could get into. If that weren’t risky enough they go as far as to hide a Jew in their basement. That act alone could get them all killed. Not only that but in my personal opinion just living takes courage. In that time period things got pretty tough and any lesser family might of just given up hope. Yet through all the hardships the Hubermanns never gave up hope and most importantly they were there for each other in their own way.
Question 5, in the "Questions for Discussion" section talks about how abandonment is a central theme in the novel. The question asks "At what point does she understand why she was abandoned by her mother? Who else abandons Liesel in the novel? Debate whether she was abandoned by circumstance or by the heart?" (5)
I would like to answer these questions. In Liesel's mothers case, her mother abandoned her by both circumstance and by the heart. The circumstance being that she couldn't support her children, by the heart being that she wanted to try and find a better life for her children.
Liesel is also abandoned by Hans and Rosa Hubberman, This of course happens when Himmel Street is bombed. "*** The Next Discovery *** The bodies of Mama and Papa, both lying tangled in the gravel bedsheet of Himmel Street" (536) Liesel is the only survivor of the air raid. So this abandonment is by circumstance.
Finally, she is abandoned by Max. This abandonment was by the heart. Max leaves Himmel Street after he realizes just how much danger he is putting Liesel and the Hubbermans in. "***The Last Words of Max Vandenburg*** You've done enough" (398) Max leaves Himmel Street because it is his choice. He knows that he has put others in danger for too long. Thereforehis abandonment is of the heart.
I went to the Jewish Virtual Library website and first went to the "Burning of Books" page. One thing that really struck me was that at the top of the page there was a quote by Heinrich Heine. Heine said, "Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings". This goes along with my last post about how they burned people and books.
However, I believe that Heine was also talking about burning people figruitively as well as literally. The website gives a list of some authors of books that were targeted during the burnings. These authors included: Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Jack London, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, and others. The writers of the books put their thoughts, feelings, and in essence, themselves. Therefore, when each copy of a book was burned, part of the author was burned. So, the Nazi party was burning people. Liesel saved the writers by retrieving books from the fire and by reading and learning the authors words. These words that she learned were the author's thoughts and feelings which in turn made Liesel write her own book and put herself in the book. Liesel was "The Book Thief", just like the other authors were a piece of their books.
I would like to talk about question five, which discusses the theme of abandonment.
Leisel was abandoned by her mother and brother first. Leisel never had any real siblings to grow up with, just the memory of her brother who died (therefore abandoning Leisel.)Leisel's mother abandoned her for her own good. Leisel's mother couldn't take care of her. This was to save Leisel so it came from the heart.
Leisel is also in a way abandoned by her foster father, Hans Huberman. He leaves her to go fight in the war, but he comes back to Leisel, until he dies in the bombing of Himmel Street.
Leisel deals with being abandoned through books, another theme in the novel. Leisel steals "The Grave Digger's Handbook" to deal with the empty hole in her heart by her brother and mother. When Hans leaves for war, Leisel reads to others in the bomb shelter to cope with this loss.
I would like to comment on Zusak's inspiration to write a novel about a "hungry, illiterate girl who has such a desire to read that she steals books"
Zusak talks about all the stories about the different things that people experienced in Nazi Germany. Such as peaple huddled in bomb shelters and being punished for giving Jewish people bread when they were on their way to concentration camps. then he says "but i also heard a story about a book thief set in my hometown of Sydney." He put the ides together and got his story about the book thief. Zusak continues to say that, "I thought of Hitler destroying people with words, and now i had a girl who was stealing them back."
I think that this is an interesting concept. The Book Thief gives readers a new experience in Nazi Germany. The Book Thief offers a new point of view. I think this is what makes the book so interesting. Zusak's inspiration for Liesel's character is a very good one. She rebels by taking back words after Hitler uses them to destroy people. The fact that she does this with a young Jewish man makes it all the more interesting.
Zusak's inspirtation, helped him create an amazing story that is both realistic and that is still a fictional story. It offers a reader new points of view on Nazi Germany This book is very well written and full of insight into both Human nature and the power of words during World War Two. I only have one thing to say, bravo.
Question 11 stood out to me most.
How does Zusak use the literary device of foreshadowing to pull the reader into the story?
To foreshadow is to show or indicate beforehand, according to Dictionary.com.
In a way, forshadowing in the Book Thief made me both want to read on, and stop reading at times.
In the end, I think foreshadowing was a good way, since death was the narrator, to make the deaths in the story a little less shocking and hard on the reader. It helped to know that Rudy and the Hubemanns were going to die, although it made me a little disappointed to know that there wouldn't exactly be a happy ending to Rudy's and the Hubermanns' stories.
"*** THE LONGEST THREE MINUTES IN HUBERMANN HISTORY ***
Papa sat at the table. Rosa prayed in the corner, mouthing the words. Liesel was cooked: her knee, her chest, the muscles in her arms. I doubt any of them has the audacity to consider what they'd do if the besement was appointed as a shelter. They had to survive the inspection first (344)."
Certain passages throughout the book, like this one, help you stay interested in the storyline and the events, and Zusak keeps the reader interested in the story by adding little passages like the one on page 344 to help keep the reader curious about what could possibly happen.
In addition to Kathleen A P’s ideas about Liesel’s relationship with her foster parents (Question 4) I also feel that Hans simply didn’t demand anything from her. Hans is very passive from the very beginning when Liesel first arrives at their house and “it took nearly fifteen minutes to coax her from the car. It was the tall man who did it. Quietly” (28). Hans is very passive as well when he is getting a lot of work from people including the rich. There is one house that claims they are too poor to pay him and instead offers him champagne (which he shares with Liesel). Instead of arguing with the wealthy people, he just lets things be and accepts the job anyway. This passiveness is greatly contrasted with how much Rosa demands things from people. I’m not meaning that she’s needy, but more so very aggressive and expects Liesel to just go with the flow as can be seen when she queries “What’s wrong with this child?” (28). Rosa can’t realize the difficult emotions Liesel is going through and so she continues to demand from her such as when she requires Liesel to call them ‘Mama’ and ‘Papa’ and for help with the laundry jobs. This gives Rosa a very tuff love kind of persona (I personally feared for Hans’ life when he threw the snowball at Rosa in the basement during the snowman scene).
I think she also probably feels that she has failed her family as a mother throughout the book. Rosa might not be as anti-nazi as Hans is, but it’s clear she doesn’t approve of the party’s ideas because she’s so willing to help Max. This heavily contrasts their son’s beliefs and she being a mother is probably blaming herself for the rift in the family. Perhaps she is just hard on Liesel because she doesn’t want to have their relationship go wrong.
To answer question 6 there is guilt from many characters throughout the book ranging broadly from minor guilt to guilt so massive it alters their lives horrifically. The character that is brought up in the question is Hans Hubermann who has the guilt of Erik Vandenburg’s (Max’s father) death. Because Erik was the one who told their superior officer that Hans had great penmanship, which caused Hans’ life to be saved, Hans feels that he is in debt to Erik and failed Erik for not being able to save him. This introduces the classic ‘if only’ regret scenario where a person feels that a horrible situation could have been saved if they’d only done something different. Rudy’s father also feels this guilt at the end of the story after Rudy has died and he thinks “if only I’d let Rudy go to that school” and he knew “that he’d have done anything to have been on Himmel Street that night so that Rudy survived rather than himself” (547). Instead of dwelling on Erik’s death, Hans vows to pay him back for saving his life by helping him however he can which ends up being the Hubermanns hiding Max.
As for Max, he feels guilty because he feels he has abandoned his family selfishly in an effort to be saved only to leech off the Hubermanns. Although his state of life isn’t that desirable, he feels that he is draining to much from his saviors and doesn’t realize that he is also giving them a lot as well by being there for Liesel and just simply being alive. Max gave them a purpose to keep fighting the torrents of nazi anti-Semitism that surrounded them.
Liesel and Rudy feel a slight sense of guilt unlike that of Max or the other characters (who are overwhelmed by it) quite often after they have stolen such as when they steal the food meant for the priests as well as when she steals a book from Ilsa’s library and thinks “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). However, unlike much of the guilt present in the book, their guilt passes rather easily after their desires for what the stole overwhelm any sense of regret.
Quite possibly the most devastating guilt is the guilt which consumed Michael Holtzapfel. Michael Holtzapfel “was worn down not by his damaged hand or any other injury, but by the guilt of living” and because of it “he killed himself for wanting to live” (503). Michael felt very guilty for wanting to live and being alive when his brother Robert had died in Stalingrad where he was only injured. This endless suffering made each sleepless night “like poison” as death imagines him “lying awake, sweating in sheets of snow, or seeing visions of his brother’s severed legs” (504). Michael’s final moment is even filled with guilt for dying as he asks his Mama “Can you ever forgive me?” (504) in his suicide note. Michael was trapped in such a horrible situation that he felt guilty for killing himself and hurting his mother in the process, but felt even more guilt for living in the wake of his brother’s death. The latter form of guilt eventually overpowered Michael and sent him to his death.
Unlike Alex Steiner and Michael Holtzapfel, Hans made the best of his guilt and turned it into a positive force in his life rather than something that he’d regret.
Another question that sparked my interest was question number ten. This question is mainly about the relationship between Liesel and Rudy. In this section it asks:
1.Describe their relationship.
2.How does their friendship grow?
3.What does Rudy want from Liesel in exchange for their friendship?
4.Why is it difficult for Liesel to love Rudy?
I think that Liesel and Rudy’s relationship is extremely strong. Upon first impression you wouldn’t quite see them becoming such good friends (48). Yet over time they became really close. They began hanging out more and Rudy even defended her at school (76-77). Stealing becomes another part of their friendship, since they like to do a lot of their thievery together (153, 162, 283). But all of this doesn’t come freely. Rudy swears that he will get a kiss from Liesel and on countless occasions tries to scam one out of her. For Liesel it isn’t that easy to offer a kiss. One reason, I think, is that most girls with a certain level of pride try to protect their first kiss. More importantly is the fact that she seems to care for Rudy on a brother sister bases.
I don't feel Liesel and Rudy's relationship is really a brother sister type as Leah S says. I think it started out as a little bit of a rivalry, which is why they have such a competitive and aggressive relationship (such as the name calling and bickering) but it grew into a deeper friendship because they both needed someone who they could depend on. Liesel was there for him during his hotheaded moment when he planned to steal from Gelb Strasse. Rudy was frustrated because "The commitment had disappeared, and although he still watched the imagined glory of stealing, she could see that now he was not believing it" (483). Rudy was in such a state of turmoil and Liesel was able to say just the right thing to where he was "trying not to laugh, despite himself" (484). From what everything Liesel and Rudy were going through because of WWII, I think they just needed somebody else to help keep them sane. Part of it for Rudy was the fact he loved her, but I don't think Rudy wanted a kiss as much as he wanted Liesel to love him. Rudy wouldn't be content with a kiss from Liesel if it didn't mean anything. I think that Liesel wasn't willing to kiss him, at least at first, because it would symbolize her accepting defeat against her rival. Once they'd grown to be close friends and weren’t really rivals anymore, I think she was afraid how the kiss would change things. Liesel thought she was okay with their relationship as it was and didn’t realize how much she would regret not kissing Rudy until it was to late. Their relationship is very complex and difficult to read which I think is partly why it is so painful and tragic when Rudy dies. It’s not the classic friendship or love story. Despite the intended irony from Death, “A snowball in the face is surely the perfect beginning to a lasting friendship” (48) and it started something truly unique between Rudy and Liesel.
I would like to comment on the second question in “A Conversation with Markus Zusak.” It asks about what he wanted young adults to understand about Liesel’s story and the time period. Zusak responded that he wanted readers to understand the other side of Nazi Germany where people disagreed with Hitler and would help Jewish friends and refused to fly the Nazi flag. He wanted to explore the untold stories of Nazi Germany.
I thought it was interesting that he used several different ways for the characters to defy Hitler: Rudy pretended to be Jesse Owens; Liesel stole books; Papa refused to join the party; the Hubermanns hid Max in their basement. This book does not tell the common tale of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany; it tells the little thought of parts. There were people who did not believe what Hitler believed. By writing about this side of the story, Zusak bring to the front the idea that there is not just on side to a tale, there are many. This book shows that the world is not black and white, there are grey areas; there are no man’s lands. Even during their darkest era, Germans were not all crazed lunatics like their leader. There were still some like Liesel’s family who still valued human life.
I am glad that Annie B brought up the “Conversation with Markus Zusak,” because I think this adds the most to the novel itself. As Annie expertly stated, Zusak clearly is trying to show the “gray area” of Nazi Germany, that “[t]here were people who did not believe what Hitler believed” (Annie B). But I think that this conversation adds to our understanding of the whole book, not just the small aspect that Annie touched on. We gain insight into the author’s mind and what he was thinking while he constructed this novel. Zusak discusses everything from Death as the Narrator to figurative language to stealing (which all happen to be blopics).
One aspect I found interesting about the conversation was that Zusak describes his characters as though they actually existed. His enthusiasm for them is clear throughout the conversation, but never more than the discussion of Rudy. “From the moment he painted himself black and became Jesse Owens, [Rudy] was my favorite,” Zusak says in response to “who is Liesel’s most unforgettable friend” (Reader’s Guide 10). Zusak implies that he was not the one in control of Rudy’s actions. Rudy’s actions are his responsibility alone. These characters are Zusak’s dream, but they are real, and young people should “never forget the characters” (RG 9). Zusak makes these characters likable—even lovable—and through his “effortless” style of writing, attachment to these characters is only natural (RG 11).
Another aspect of the conversation that I found interesting was Zusak’s idea that “Hitler destroy[ed] people with words,” and Liesel “was stealing them back” (RG 9). This is an idea I never considered before. Since Hitler was a great orator, it makes sense, but was her act more defiant than Hans giving bread to the Jews on their way to Dachau? Her defiance seems more subtle, and I am curious to see what others think about defying the Fuehrer.
The question " How does Zusak use the literary device of foreshadowing to pull the reader into the story?" caught my attention as well. I noticed A LOT of foreshadowing throughout the book. Olivia B thought that foreshadowing was appropriate in the book. It definitely made the ending a lot blunter, because you had the general idea of what was going to happen. I both agree and disagree with her. The use of foreshadowing definitely made me want to read the full description of the upcoming event that the book depicted would happen. As an example, it talks about the books that Liesel came to posses. “Of those ten, six were stolen, one showed up at the kitchen table, two were made for her by a hidden Jew, and one was delivered by a soft, yellow-dressed afternoon” (30). Throughout the book, you find more descriptive accounts of each book, and though you knew it was coming, it was good to read exactly how Liesel obtained them. However, some parts were spoiled completely by foreshadowing.
“***THREE POSSIBILITIES***
1. Alex Steiner wouldn’t have suffered the same punishment as Hans Hubermann.
2. Rudy would have gone away to school.
3. And maybe, he would have lived” (411).
This passage tells you that both Alex and Hans suffer some sort of punishment and that Rudy dies when he could have survived. Olivia says that it would makes it less shocking for the reader when the actual event happens, but you have to keep reading until you get to the event knowing that it WILL happen, which I found somewhat distracting.
Devon S F
Both Olivia B and Marissa B have already commented on question 11, but I think that there is a deeper reason for Zusak's use of foreshadowing. Although Marissa argues that foreshadowing spoils the ending in a way, and Olivia argues that it helps the deaths in the book a little less shocking to the reader. Although both of these points are very valid, and I experienced both of these emotions while I was reading as well, I do not believe that this is all that Death's foreshadowing accomplishes. It shows that the ending of the book isn't as important as the book itself. What's in between is what matters. It's the journey, not the destination, so to speak. There are numerous examples of this scattered throughout the novel. Our first introduction to Liesel even shows this ideology. Although the journey on the train ended with Liesel's arrival at the Hubermans's house, the importance of the train ride was the death of her brother on the way. She lost her brother, but at the same time, opened the door to reading and words in her life. Also, during a war where people have no money and are dying all over the place, Liesel still finds a way to enjoy the journey to what would soon be the loss of her family, friends, and entire neighborhood at the end. The narrator takes an entire chapter to explain one little event that had nothing to do with the outcome of the story about the day that Liesel and Rudy found a coin and were able to buy a piece of candy. " 'This,' Rudy announced at one point, with a candy-toothed grin, 'is the good life,' and Liesel didn't disagree," (155).
There is an even bigger picture to my argument, however. The author is trying to portray to the reader that there is more to a story than the ending, there is more to a war than the winner, there is more to a person than their outward appearance, and there's more to a life than the death. He uses foreshadowing to show that giving away the ending doesn't matter, because it's how one gets to the ending that's important. Once one knows what's to come, they're free to concentrate on what's happening now. The first sidenote of death exemplifies this belief is a great way. "***HERE IS A SMALL FACT*** You are going to die," (3). What he is really saying is, "So why concentrate on it?" There is definately more to living than dying. Actually the two are completely opposite. So this very blunt example of foreshadowing paints an image in our heads that one should not concentrate on the end, but on what leads to it. And if that doesn't get the point across, just a page later, Death sums it all up with this sidenote:
***A SMALL THEORY***
People observe the colors of a day only at its beginnings and ends, but to me it's quite clear that a day merges througha multitude of shades and intonations, with each passing moments. A single hour can consist of thousands of different colors. Waxy yellows, cloud-spat blues. Murky darknesses. In my line of work, I made it a point to notice them. (4)
Devon S covers the topic of foreshadowing very nicely. The idea that foreshadowing makes “the reader [realize] that there is more to a story than the ending, there is more to a war than the winner, there is more to a person than their outward appearance, and there's more to a life than the death” is very interesting (Devon S). However, I wish to turn the discussion to question nine of the reader’s guide, which asks, “How does it take courage to oppose Hitler” (Reader’s Guide 5).
Everyone knows the popularity Hitler gained within Germany in the early 1930s. His speeches enraptured people. He was forceful about his views and his vision for the future was clear (as cruel as it was). This is exactly what the German people needed at that point in their history. The Treaty of Versailles beat them down, and inflation was exploding. Hitler was the hero of Germany. Not everyone agreed with him, however. Zusak shows that there were some who saw through his eloquent speeches. Some like Hans Hubermann and others “who helped the helpless” or refused to join the Nazi Party (418). And it required courage. Lots of courage. Nearly everyone in Germany revered Hitler. It is not easy to stand up for what you believe in when your beliefs are contrary to the beliefs of your country. People like Frau Driller hate you because you do not agree with the Führer. People like Hans Junior who believes that “you are either for Hitler or against him” (RG 5). You are isolated. You are alone. It is a scary position to be in.
These characters, however, are the characters Zusak is trying to depict. In his conversation he says, “I hope that readers…will see another side of Nazi Germany” (RG 9). Not everyone loved Hitler, some people were “unwilling to fly the Nazi flag” and others thought “Hitler Youth was boring and ridiculous,” and still others “did hide their Jewish friends to save their lives (at the risk of their own)” (RG 9). Hans, Liesel, Rudy, and even Rosa capture this side of Nazi Germany. It is touching, and powerful to realize this truth.
Devon S F
I completely agree how hard it must have been to oppose Hitler in Nazi Germany, as Nick A points out. However, I would like to change the subject to a question asked in the conversation with Markus Zusak which asks, "Liesel has an uncanny understanding of people and an ability to befriend those who most need companionship. Who do you think is Liesel's most unforgettable friend?" (RG 10).
The author's response was that although his favorite character was Rudy, wh is "also drawn to all of the relationships Liesel forms," (RG 10). It got me to thinking that in the book, Liesel seems to befriend just about everyone, even her rude neighbor who spits on her door. I realized that Liesel never really seemed to have any enemies, or at least not for long. It all seems to point to an ever-present theme in the novel, that there is something good in just about everything. The author tells many fun stories and creates lasting relationships in the midst of severe struggle and poverty. One of the first examples of this overwhelming theme can be found amidst maybe the saddest moment of Liesel's life (aside from the bombing of her neighborhood): the death of her brother. During the burial, which is a very heartwrenching experience for anyone, Liesel still finds the good in it: she finds "something black and rectangular lodged in the snow," (24). It was her first book.
Liesel continues to find the good in things when her papa leaves for war, which was a very difficult time for their family. Although she is missing her papa, she discovers how kind and loving Rosa Huberman can really be. In the words of the author, "The moment when she sees Rosa with the accordion strapped to her . . . is when she realizes exactly how much love her foster mother is capable of," (11). When most people would be grieving, Liesel ends up strengthening her bond with her mama.
This whole topic is summed up with the narrator, who is a constant example of the morals that the author is trying to portray. Death, whose job is somber and morbid, still finds the good in death. Instead of concentrating on the sadness of it, He instead fouses on colors and stories. He constantly relates to the reader how much he loves distractions. At the very beginning, he says, "I do, however, try to enjoy every color I see - the whole spectrum . . . It takes the edge off the stress. It helps me relax," (4). Again, another example of concentrating on the good instead of the bad. His job may be taking the lives of others, but he still finds time to enjoy the beauty of the moment. This ideology applies to the rest of the book as well. Just something to think about.
I would like to discuss number nine in the reading guide. It says: Hans Junior, a Nazi soldier, calls his father a coward because he does not belong to the Nazi Party. He feels that you are either for Hitler or against him. How does it take courage to oppose Hitler?
I think that Hans Jr. is the real cowered because he is for Hitler. A true coward is not only selfish he is also close-minded. Hans Jr. says, “’It’s pathetic—how a man can stand by and do nothing as a whole nation cleans out the garbage and makes itself great’” (105). He automatically believes who ever has the most power; he follows blindly, not making his own decisions about morals or the importance of human life. Hans Sr. is far from the coward his son believes him to be. Hans Sr. is courageous because he believes what he says a does. He respects human life and does not follow blindly in Hitler’s shadow like his son.
I would like to comment on Question 10. It asks: Why is it difficult for Liesel to love Rudy? Discuss why Liesel tells Mr. Steiner that she kissed Rudy’s dead body.
On the first part, I think it was so hard for Liesel to love Rudy because she was afraid that it would be like when she lost her brother. Rudy was almost a brotherly figure to her and if she loved him like he wanted her to, she would loose another brother and she could not handle that. I think that Liesel was also afraid of the pain she would feel if she lost him as her love.
As to the second part of the question, I think that Liesel wanted Mr. Steiner to know that his son died with someone loving him. I think it was a comfort to Mr. Steiner at the very least. And I think that in the end Liesel really did love Rudy. Why else would she kiss a dead body? I think that when she does kiss him, it shows that death does not stop love; it just puts it on hold for a while.
I disagree with Annie B's comments on question number 9. Annie claims, "A true coward is not only selfish he is also close-minded" but I don't think that defines a coward at all. A coward doesn't have to be close-minded or selfish; they simply need to be too afraid of the probable possibilities that their actions could incur so that they are unwilling to follow through with what they believe in, despite how much they may believe it to be true. Hans Sr. is certainly not a coward, as he is able to defy what everyone around him believes and throw his life on the line to protect his morals by protecting Max, as does the rest of his family for doing it as well. Hans Jr. is simply a pawn that feels what he is putting into motion is a just act that will put the German people in the superior status that Hitler argued they deserved. Because Hans Jr. is following through with what he believes, even if they are not of his own creative thought yet instead influenced by Hitler’s, he is not a coward. He has enough pride in what he believes, however delusional it may be, that he follows through with it to what would likely be his death as was the result of many who found themselves in Stalingrad for the glory of Hitler and the Aryan race. "Hitler was the Hero of Germany" because he was exactly "what they needed at that point in history" (Nick A.), but he was not strong enough for his own cause. Hitler was a true coward. He didn't have the self-appreciation and confidence required to go through with everything he set forth despite the fact it was falling before his eyes. If he’d truly believed in his cause he would have seen it to the end. We can thank God he didn’t. A coward can’t accept the possibility of an unpleasant future where as someone as courageous as those who stood up to Hitler could accept whatever fate was before them and have no regrets to the outcome that would follow their actions. A perfect example was “die Weiße Rose” (German for “The White Rose”). Die Weiße Rose was a group of students mostly based in the University of Munich led by Hans Scholl (the name might just be coincidence), Sophie Scholl, and Christopher Probst who revolted against Hitler and the Third Reich. They did so by printing and distributing leaflets that argued their disgust for what Hitler was doing and it brought them to their execution by beheading on February 22, 1943. There is uncertainty as to what happened directly up to their deaths but all of them depict them having great “courage with which they faced their deaths” (Wikipedia). That was the true courage that was required to stand up to Hitler and the heartless and
Source
Hornberger, Jacob G. “The White Rose: A Lesson in Dissent”. Jewish Virtual Library. The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. July 25, 2008
< http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/rose.html >.
Work Cited
“White Rose” Wikipedia. July 21, 2008. July 25, 2008
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose >.
I agree with Keenan E about cowards. Keenan said, “A coward doesn't have to be close-minded or selfish; they simply need to be too afraid of the probable possibilities that their actions could incur so that they are unwilling to follow through with what they believe in, despite how much they may believe it to be true”. I wouldn’t call either of the Hans’ cowards. They knew what they believed and they both stuck to it. I think that most of the characters in this book are very brave. The first thing that I thought of was Rudy and the Jesse Ownens incident. How strange for a little German boy to put charcoal all over himself and run around. He must have known that he would’ve gotten in trouble for it, but he did it anyways. Rosa is brave because she can keep Max a secret (I guess this counts for Liesel and Hans too), and Max is brave because, duh, he’s a Jew in such a difficult time.
To answer a question that’s part of number nine (how does it take courage to oppose Hitler?), it took much courage to oppose Hitler. People that did would probably have to face death, one of the things that man fears most. Another thing is that it would be having one person against a whole army of people. That’s another big fear: standing alone against many. To oppose Hitler would take much courage, and that’s what many of the characters in the book do.
Post a Comment