Twigs of Hair

I thought that Death's analogies to Max's hair was extremely powerful. Death's relation of Max's hair to feathers invokes a feeling of sparseness and even delicateless. It can also relate to a bird that has been locked in a cage for much too long and has lost almost all of its feathers.

The other object that Max's hairs are compared to are twigs. What makes this metaphor more moving is the fact that Death uses twigs instead of branches or roots. Also, twigs were once branches until they died and fell off the tree, similarly to Max's formerly full head of hair that Liesel had cut so many months ago. Liesel also enjoyed cutting Max's hair because they could talk while she did so, while when the Nazi's shaved Max's head, he would have been filled with sorrow, shame and even fear.

When Death explains Max's eyes as swampy, I saw them as sunken and worn. Worn because of the horrors that he had seen and partially from malnourishment. His eyes would be worn because of the things he had seen such as the death and torture occurring around him and even to him.

Death and all his friends

Death is a topic of religion. Death himself seems almost skeptical of the whole religion thing: “God never says anything. You think you’re the only one he never answers?” (350). How fitting. Faith usually makes death a lyrical thing- heaven etc. Death calls it a conveyor belt. Mechanical. And yet he feels so terrible when people die too young. Go figure. But all this talk about death, and god, has got me thinking. How much does religion influence The Book Thief? Looking at the subject matter, there could be a lot. After all, the main thing going on in Germany during the book (besides WWII) is the extermination of Jews: a religious group. Yet, we don’t see a lot of that. Perhaps it is because there are so few Jews about, or because Hitler’s issues with and propaganda about Jews isn’t based on their religion, but on their supposed character. Converting to Christianity didn’t save you- if you had Jewish grandparents the sickness was supposedly flowing through your veins. The only time Max mentions religion (as far as I can tell) is when he says “Goddamn it”. Not very helpful. And he’s being persecuted because of his religion. But a bizarre German form of religion seems to be hanging around; the constant “blasphemy” and using the Lord’s (and others’) names in vain: “Joseph, Mary...” There are mentions of religion though: the “grim reaper nun” at school (75), and Liesel being Lutheran while the state-run school has a Catholic influence (39).

Maybe the constant lack of real religion fits the circumstances: nothing shakes human belief in the divine more than war, or the holocaust.

But how about death? What could he tell us about, well, death, if he wanted to?

An aside: what we know about death (according to death- he could be lying to us, but... well...)

your body becomes an empty shell (original)

death hears your last thoughts

he picks you up

and carries you

it pains him to do this- so he tries to look away

the colors don’t completely distract him from you, or the ones that you leave behind

every time someone dies, there is an eclipse

I wonder about him, still. If death knew that there was a god, and a future after death, than wouldn’t it make his job a lot less hard on him. If death was only a transition, and if people go on after. One could argue that this is what death knows; he does say that one young girl has her entire death in front of her. Also, death mentions how much the survivors sadden him, the experts at getting left behind.

On the other hand, he tells us that god never answers him either. He never tells us what is lurking on the other side of him (and a good thing too- I doubt that even Zusak could answer that satisfactorily in less that a whole book, but if you wonder if anyone could, read elsewhere). Maybe death is just a void. Or maybe death doesn’t know what happens after him- he is the middleman.

After all, death wants to die. Why?

You could use the answer he seems to hand us: he is tired, he needs a vacation. But what if he was curious too. About what comes after death. About if there is a god?

Maybe Zusak is just trying to point out the same thing: death is just human.

There is one more question we have to ask, before we go to sleep. What is Zusak's opinion on death, on god. Does god answer him? Is he religious? Because the answer to that question could be all we need.

~Jaion

Liesel's Maturity

As the novel progresses, Liesel Meminger grows from an innocent child to a experienced young lady. One of the areas that Markus Zusak is trying to emphasize through the novel "The Book Theif" is the experiences and knowledge of the children during World War II. As we watch Liesel, we discover that many of the children during World War II grew from having no thoughts towards the conflicts to having more experience than any adult.
On page 440, Liesel and Rudy travel from the titles "fruit stealer to bread giver." They, as the war comes to a climax, discover that even though they may need help, other people are in worst conditions. The Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and more are placed in concentration camps and treated like animals. They barely receive food, if any, the food they receive is stale bread. Liesel comes to find that there are more desperate people suffering from this devastation.
On page 443, Rosa presents the "Word Shaker" collection to Liesel. Rosa and Max "think [Liesel has] always been ready." Rosa examines her foster child grow up, just like Death, just like us. Ever since Liesel arrived at Rosa's door, she has been ready to face the challenge soon to come. She may not have understood the war, but as time grows older, Liesel becomes more involved with the ideas and thoughts transferring toward the second World War. In a sense, Liesel, as well as many other children, has a right to know the tragedy going on around her. She shouldn't just be standing there dumbfounded by the scenery, as dramatic as it may be. The children will lead the world one day, and they have a right to experience and brainstorm ideas, problems, and solutions to help the future flourish.

Why? Why go back?

The scene where Liesel finds Max in the crowd is just so heart touching for me. When Liesel pushes through the crowd and sneaks into the "parade" to talk to Max, it really for me just emphasized the true strength of Liesel and Max's relationship. But the part that touched me the most was when Liesel went back into the crowd after the first beating and started reciting sentences from the Word Shaker. That was just such a powerful moment for me. It is hard for me to explain what I was feeling at that particular moment, but it was like I could feel Max's and Liesel's relationship become even more strong and more special. Something I don't understand though is why would Liesel want to go back into the march for the third time even after the brutal beating she received from one of the soliders. Half of my brain understands why Liesel would do such a thing, but the other half of my brain is using common sense and is asking the question why would you put yourself in such danger. The half of my brain that understands knows that for Liesel going back for the third time is her last chance to ever see Max. As Liesel yells, "Please, Max!" she is expressing her want for him to come back, which is something that I can understand. But the other half of my brain is focusing on the fact that going back like that for the third time is very risky. I am not sure that if I was put in that position I would go run after him like that. I'm not sure. I would probably just count my blessings that I was even alive and left the situation at that. But for Liesel there was something actively compelling her to run after him, an emotion that took over, an emotion that the reader might not feel or understand. That exact emotion is the missing piece of the puzzle, but as long as that piece remains missing my brain will continue to fight over the possibilites of why Liesel would go back. For all we know, Zusak might have written this scene so that the reader has to fill in the blank, a blank that has infinite possibilities.

Heart: Straight or Round?

The way death explains circular hearts vs. straight hearts just makes so much sense to me. I immediately made a mental connection when I read the last paragraph on page 491, because I understood exactly what death meant.

The reason that a human heart is straight is because there is only one reality for each human, There is no diverting off of your own path, there is no stopping, no turning around, no skipping ahead. You are only able to ride the line that is your heart. The heart represents your life, therefore the human life is a line. Some of our lines are longer than others, some are smooth; those lines are easy to ride. Some lines are rough or just have rough patches; these are the lines that the rider must endure, or simply survive. These lines of our lives start at our birth and we ride on them powered only by the force of time until we reach the end of our line, which is undeniably our own death.

Unlike us humans, death's heart is circular. His life is a never ending path with a repeating cycle through various realities, picking up our souls along the way. For him there is no beginning or end. He was never born, and ironically, death will never die. He has no conclusion, no grand finale, no goal, no final destination, he is basically on repeat. Because he has no guidelines or timeline of any sort, it is possible for him to merge realities; he can taste emotions, he can hear colors, he can feel aromas. There is no concept of time for him, which is why he is able to collect all of the world's souls and still have time to notice. As death mentioned himself, who could replace him if he ever left?

Most of us are afraid of death; we are worried about what we happen when we finally do have our encounter with him. On the other hand would you rather exist forever? Death said himself that he envies our ability to die.

So there is the question,

Straight or Round?

The Word Shaker

I've decided to blog about "The Word Shaker" because of two reasons: 1) the entire story is written in metaphors and it could use some translating and 2) I'm not sure that what I think some of the metaphors mean is correct so please leave a comment telling me I'm wrong...

First item of business: the "strange, small man" who decided he would "part his hair the opposite side to everyone else, make himself a small, strange mustache [and] would one day rule the world"(pg 445). this man is obviously the leader of Nazi Germany: Adolf Hitler the Führer. Now that that's been cleared up, lets move on to where the book says: " 'Words!' He grinned. 'What?' But there was no reply. He was already gone. Yes, the Führer decided that he would rule the world with words. 'I will never fire a gun,' he devised. 'I will not have to.' "(pg 445). Well, we know that Hitler wasn't planning on having words marching down the streets "heiling Hitler" everywhere they went, he (or someone at least) was going to have to use a gun at some point, but Hitler planned on using his words to persuade people to use guns for him. I liked how "The Word Shaker" said that Hitler planted the words, cultivated them and watched them grow because in a sense, that's exactly what he did: he planted and cultivated his words and ideas through his famous speeches and watched them grow through the presses and through radio. He was dumping his "finest, ugliest words" (445) straight into the public's heads as the book explained. Of course people's heads weren't literally cut open and they weren't placed on a conveyor belt and they weren't just handed swastikas but essentially, Hitler was brainwashing them and convincing them to take a swastika and join him.

The book later says: "as the forests [of Hitler's words] grew, many people were needed to maintain them. Some were employed to climb the trees and throw the words down to those below. They were fed directly into the remainder of the Führer's people, not to mention those who came back for more."(446) I kept trying to tie this back into reality but I couldn't find a role these "word shakers" would've played in real life. The conclusion I came to was that the only reason Zusak (or Max, whoever you'd like) brought the word shakers into the picture was to say that the "skinny little girl" (Liesel) was the best word shaker in her region because she "understood the true power of words. They were the ones [she was the one] who could climb the highest…she knew how powerless a person could be WITHOUT words. That's why she could climb higher than anyone else. she had desire. she was hungry for them"(446).


"One day, however, she met a man who was despised by her homeland, even though he was born in it… The tear was made of friendship-a single word-and it dried and became a seed, and when next the girl was in the forest, she planted that seed among the other trees. she watered it every day."(446) the girl: still Liesel, the man: Max. at first when I read this, I accidentally read: "she met a man who despised his homeland, even though he was born in it" and I thought of Hans and how his son criticized him for not loving his country. It took me a while before I realized that the man was Max. Perhaps the watering doesn't symbolize anything but to me, it meant that Liesel was caring for and protecting their seed of friendship and that when it sprouted, as long as she remained in that friendship or that tree, "A hundred and ninety-six soldiers could not make any impact on the word shaker's tree" (447). when Max climbed up the tree to Liesel, she told him "It wouldn't stop growing"(450). She was referring to Hitler's forest of words. Max then responds: " 'But niether would this.' The young man looked At the branch that held his hand"(450). The moral of the story, in my view at least, is that a friendship can outgrow anyone's forest of negative words and ideas,even if the friendship is one between a German and a Jew

Choices

This blog post isn't so much about the choices made by characters as the drastic choices that Markus Zusak made. Love or hate his writing style, you have to admit that Zusak is a talented author. But he not only masterfully uses language and word choice to his advantage, but also sets up the plot and twists the story line in order to benefit how he wants the story to be told.

The reading from last night (p. 478-515) had many, many things going on. Liesel & Rosa learned that Hans was coming home, Rudy, upset about his father's departure, attempts serious stealing but doesn't follow through, Frau Holtzapfel (almost) refuses to go into the bomb shelter during a raid, a plane crashes, (and we finally see the second time Death actually comes across Liesel) Hans comes home, Michael Holtzapfel commits suicide, and Liesel finds Max once again, but he is walking to Dachau this time. Also, and this chapter is the one that I think most comes as a shock, we get a sneak peek at exactly how Himmel Street is transformed into "a mountain range of rubble."

In regard to the chapter The End of the World (Part I)... The most distinct question that comes to mind is simply: why? Although we are well aware that Zusak does have the habit of disclosing snippets of what is to come, (e.g. Rudy's death, Hans's avoiding Death during both World Wars, etc.) he has never gone into such detail before. Typically it is just a statement made in bold type before returning to the timeline of the story. This chapter, however, was entirely dedicated to our seeing how "the world ended for Liesel Meminger." (p. 497) So why did Zusak add it on to the story? It could've easily been taken out and the story would have flowed just as well. Death offers an excuse: "I offer you a glimpse at the end. Perhaps it's to soften the blow for later, or to better prepare myself for the telling." (p. 497) If it were just Death telling the story, these reasons would both be plausible.

However, Zusak probably had different motives. It could be, as we have said in class before, that it is to add a variety of suspense to the story. You know what will happen, but you don't know how, and therefore you are intrigued. This trick is similar to our knowing the ending of Romeo and Juliet, or when you're watching a horror movie and you know something the main character doesn't know about how he/she will die.

Another possible theory is that Zusak has given the reader an opportunity to let the ending sink in. As the actual chapter The End of the World (Part II) doesn't take place until near the last few pages of the book, it would be easy for the reader to walk away from the book remembering solely the heaviness of that very final scene. But when the readers are given time to digest what is to come, they will not only be able to see past the violence of the bombing, but will also hang on more closely to the chapters before the bombing, as these pages are the rest of Liesel's story, and are just as important.

Zusak could have styled the other chapters much differently, as well. Did he have to show the deceased pilot who had just bombed Germany? Did Michael have to die through suicide? Did Liesel have to continue to chase after Max after she was whipped? Personally, I believe the way Zusak planned out these pages was done very dramatically, and that he did the right thing by making these plot choices. Yet the story could also have done without them. Not quite as moving a story, perhaps, but still the story of the book thief.