DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - John Boyne: The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas

**goldcigarettes** · 10-21-2009, 09:10 PM

The story belongs to what I call 'Shoah business'. I loathed it - the film, I mean. Never went on to read the book. The whole thing seemed so dishonest.
If anyone wants to read a book on the subject, for goodness sake, read Primo Levi or Imr? Kertesz. At least they wrote about what they knew - and both are/were fine writers to boot.

I don't think that this is necessarily the problem. I don't have a problem with people who write about the Shoah without actually having experienced it. BUT this book has a clear moral point to make and this point, no matter how long you call it a fable, is historical as well. This book severely distorts historical contexts and as unimportant things as 'cause' and 'effect'. Suggesting that the two boys' roles could well have been reversed is almost evil in its distortion of the fact that that is not true. There is a reason why each has his or her own place there, and that reason is historical and cultural. The book is part of a broad effort currently to read the Shoah as a general catastrophe, with Jews only a small group among many many others also affected. This disapproval of dead Jews, in turn, is usually used in broad attacks lauched at living Jews. Tova Reich, in her masterful, but sharp satirical novel "My Holocaust" has eloquently attacked the 'me, too' attitude in respect to the Holocaust, as well. It's, by the way, a great way to sound out people's prejudices. Hand it to someone and if, after a third, he loves it and tells you: "YEAH, she's right, those Jews do misuse the Holocaust for their greedy goals", you know whom you have on your hands. Happened four times now. He. I should review that book. It's really, really good.

10-21-2009, 09:10 PM	#12
goldcigarettes Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 516 Senior Member	The story belongs to what I call 'Shoah business'. I loathed it - the film, I mean. Never went on to read the book. The whole thing seemed so dishonest. If anyone wants to read a book on the subject, for goodness sake, read Primo Levi or Imr? Kertesz. At least they wrote about what they knew - and both are/were fine writers to boot. I don't think that this is necessarily the problem. I don't have a problem with people who write about the Shoah without actually having experienced it. BUT this book has a clear moral point to make and this point, no matter how long you call it a fable, is historical as well. This book severely distorts historical contexts and as unimportant things as 'cause' and 'effect'. Suggesting that the two boys' roles could well have been reversed is almost evil in its distortion of the fact that that is not true. There is a reason why each has his or her own place there, and that reason is historical and cultural. The book is part of a broad effort currently to read the Shoah as a general catastrophe, with Jews only a small group among many many others also affected. This disapproval of dead Jews, in turn, is usually used in broad attacks lauched at living Jews. Tova Reich, in her masterful, but sharp satirical novel "My Holocaust" has eloquently attacked the 'me, too' attitude in respect to the Holocaust, as well. It's, by the way, a great way to sound out people's prejudices. Hand it to someone and if, after a third, he loves it and tells you: "YEAH, she's right, those Jews do misuse the Holocaust for their greedy goals", you know whom you have on your hands. Happened four times now. He. I should review that book. It's really, really good.
	Quote