Nine-year-old Bruno knows nothing of the Final Solution and the Holocaust. He is oblivious to the appalling cruelties being inflicted on the people of Europe by his country. All he knows is that he has been moved from a comfortable home in Berlin to a house in a desolate area where there is nothing to do and no one to play with. Until he meets Shmuel, a boy who lives a strange parallel existence on the other side of the adjoining wire fence and who, like the other people there, wears a uniform of striped pyjamas.
Bruno’s friendship with Shmuel will take him from innocence to revelation. And in exploring what he is unwittingly a part of, he will inevitably become subsumed by the terrible process.
A golden opportunity to write a book for children about an important subject which is ultimately squandered.
Let’s get down to business. The allegorical friendship at the heart of the book serves to demonstrate the capability and resilience of children in the face of such a hateful regime. Two boys who should have despised each other based on societal pressure and political ideology are instead drawn together precisely by their childhood innocence. They aren't defined by the barriers which inflict adults: that of identity and culture. Bruno and Shmuel become friends in spite of the adversity of the Second World War which rages around them. Sounds good, right? It is an undeniably important message, especially when aimed at young readers. However, it didn’t work its magic on me.
Author John Boyne gets into the child mindset very well; the thought processes, actions and family relationships are all suitably childlike (although Bruno is often more like a five-year-old than the ripe old age of nine that he should be). That’s where the good stuff ends. I didn’t find Bruno endearing, charming, cheeky, engaging, innocent, or anything along those lines. As the narrator I found him mildly irritating, stupidly unobservant and wholly unbelievable. The son of a camp commandant who doesn’t know what Heil Hitler means? What Jews are? Who refers to Auschwitz as ‘Out-With’ and the Führer as ‘The Fury’? PLEASE. It wasn’t cute and innocent. It was unnecessary and patronizing. The exaggeration of Bruno’s “child” label is so extensive that he ends up bordering on ludicrous.
Bruno’s ignorance (whether wilful or deliberately nurtured by others) is a metaphor for entire nations ignoring what was happening right in front of them: the persecution and mass murder of sections of society who did not fit in to a rigid ideal. Again, it’s an idea worth expressing yet I don’t think it was presented in the best possible way. The whole story is groaning under the weight of slapdash, heavy-handed metaphors and allegories which aren’t adequately developed and explored.
The fact that The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas is fictional and described as a “fable” means that there is a certain level of artistic licence in order to convey the overall “message”. However, this feels at odds with the historical aspect of the story. A large part of me doesn’t want injustice to be served against the actual events of the Holocaust in favour of an author’s amateur attempt to show the uncorrupted virtue of children in the face of war. It’s certainly a tricky angle to come from, so if you’re a history purist then avoid this book at all costs.
I get the distinct impression that The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas is celebrated because of the subject that it chooses to convey (after all, the horrors of the Second World War could never be over exposed) rather than for the actual quality of the story and the skill of the writing. The book tackles such an emotive, raw topic that I was hesitant to write such a critical review for fear of sounding like a cold, unfeeling bitch. Again, this demonstrates the gravitas of the subject matter which may mask the realistic accomplishments (or lack of) that the story actually offers.
Although I completely understand what Boyne was trying to do, and he is successful in some respects, I just couldn’t immerse myself in the story. I disliked the way it was written, I disliked the events of the story and I disliked Bruno. As some form of fable I don’t think the book was as wildly successful as it intended, and it certainly lessens the tragedy of the wide variety of victims by prioritizing Bruno in the victim role. The relationship between Bruno and Shmuel wasn’t special enough to carry the crux of the story, ultimately making everything feel distinctly flat. It’s as if John Boyne was uncertain of the intelligence and maturity of his intended readership, so opted to write the most basic, patronizing fable which ultimately comes across as blunt and manipulative.
I applaud Boyne’s attempt to tell the story from a different perspective in order to introduce younger readers to a difficult topic, but it feels entirely misplaced and not truly harnessed. If there were alternating viewpoints from both Bruno and Shmuel, that may have worked better. As it is, the idea is a strong one but it’s so poorly executed that I finished the book and wasn’t moved or contemplative; I was just plain annoyed.