The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas

I read 'The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas' by John Boyne a few months ago, but have had it sitting on my desk in plain view since then. A few hundred times I have caught my gaze on it, so I figured I might actually do something with the random thoughts in my mind.

The image on the front cover of the book entails a young Jewish boy (Shmuel) and a similarly aged non-Jew boy (Bruno), sitting cross-legged and facing each other, separated by a tall, iron, barbed wire fence. Although the sky is consistent over the whole image, there is a clear difference in the landscapes. Shmuel is sitting on what appears to be very dry, red dirt, with gray buildings in the background. Bruno is sitting on short, luscious looking grass.

The sub-title, or statement at the bottom of the cover, says "A story of innocence in a world of ignorance". The non-Jewish boy befriends the Jew because he knows nothing of the Jews' supposed unnaturalness, or the fact that they are meant to be enemies. All he sees is a young boy he can talk to and have fun with.

What grabs my attention with this statement is the similarity but vast difference between the meanings. Both reflect a lack of knowledge held by the people. "Innocence" acknowledges that people can't help what they haven't yet learned. In this book, and in general, the innocence that children possess is a really beautiful thing. They haven't yet learned the workings and injustices of the world. "Ignorance", on the other hand, could almost be frowned upon. People have the ability, if not always the opportunity, to attempt to obtain information. If this occurred, it would be much more difficult to conceal happenings anywhere, and (I'd hope it would be safe to assume) perpetrators of such wrongdoings would be under substantially greater pressure to stop or change.

Another thing which occurred to me (and I've most probably mentioned in an earlier blog, seeing how often I mention it in reality) is the presumed unlikelihood of one person making a difference. From what I gather, it took one man to initiate the events leading to, and continuing throughout, WW2. OK, so it's not the difference anyone (should've) wanted, but his actions did make a very big difference. I wonder how different things would've been, and would be today, if he hadn't been told he would never make a good artist. This is a very good example of why people should be encouraged in their talents or interests.

I really enjoyed the film interpretation of this novel. There was something I found quite symbolic: Bruno pretended to fly a plane, running through a luscious green forest area. He had an innocent interest in a machine he played with for fun. Any plane flying overhead would immediately place fear in all people below. Fear of attack. It's a sad comparison, but pretty meaningful (at least, to me).

I highly recommend this book and the film to anyone.