The boy in the striped pyjamas

[comfytoast]

Is it any good? I have just been given a copy

[roisin]

no

[malovitt]

It is a children's book, isn't it?
My 10 year old loved it.

[FlameNFurter]

Lol - short n sweet roisin - why?

[ProfessorGrammaticus]

No - it is over simplified, historically inaccurate and works neither as a children's book nor as an adults'

[roisin]

It's very unpopular with the jewish society, holocaust memorial organisations and so on, and has attracted quite a lot of controversy.

for the reasons ProfessorGrammaticus explains.

It could not have happened - the child in that position could not have known so little/been so naive.

Much historical fiction is eminently well-researched, and is educational as well as plausible.

This is not.

[McDreamy]

I really enjoyed it. Is was an simple read (think it is classed as a children's book). It's a story, entirely fictional, so it couldn't have happened........I'm obviously easily pleased!!!!

[cornsilk]

I bought it without knowimg what it was about as it was in the children's section at Waterstones, but wasn't massively impressed.

[MoreSpamThanGlam]

Started reading last night (bought for ds's birthday but couldnt wait). Am loving it.

Its not a reference book, nor does it claim to be historically accurate. In real life the children would not have been so naive. But its a work of fiction.

Having said that i have not finished it, but so far so good.

[comfytoast]

I read it today in one sitting ,I enjoyed it.

[SlartyBartFast]

ds is reading it,at school is not understanding it currently, i said let's google, but he would rather be mistified apaprently. well find out in the end

[fishpie]

DD who is 13 has read it recently and said it was ok! Personally I have not read it.

(make noises that I should take more interest in what my DDs are reading!

[thorn]

I really enjoyed it. My mum is an english teacher who read this book with one of her classes. She said the whole class were in total silence absolutely engrossed in the book!

[Moomin]

I heard from colleagues at another school that had been reading this that the pupils raved about it (secondary age)

[tyaca]

liked a lot - not sure degrees of realism are what we should necc be the only benchmark of how we judge a book on the holocaust.

[tyaca]

hmmm.... and please dont judge me on degrees or literacy there

[FlossieTCake]

Interested in the idea that the children couldn't have been this naive. I thought the whole point about the concentration camps was that the general German public were not really aware what was going on there - the Nazi propaganda machine acting to reassure all that the people they were categorising as "undesirable" were being e.g. segregated in ghettoes, but that the real facts of slaughter in concentration camps were heavily suppressed. (Although my A-level history was really a very long time ago now so I may well have got this wrong...).

I did feel the narrator's lack of curiosity about what he saw with his own eyes strained credibility given his age though. Maybe if he'd been six - but nine? No way my nine-year-old would have been that disinterested in such obvious weirdness.

[PutThatInYourPipeandSmokeIt]

I thought that the best bit was to read a book 'blind' not knowing what it was about and to see the world (fictional or otherwise) as a child sees it. Refreshing.

I had a uni teacher once, who asked us to write an essay. We had to describe the body language and what was happening bewteen two people who were talking to each other when we weren't close enough to hear what was being said. It has stuck with me always.

[titchy]

I've read it - and enjoyed it, actually found it very moving. However I have a concern that Waterstone's put it in the 8 - 12 year old book section. I'd have thought it should be in the teenagers section at least, or have a warning that the younger end of that range probably shouldn't read it yet. I have a 9 year old dd and although I would never veto any books she reads (and she reads well, curretnly on last of the Northern Lights trilogy) I'm not sure she would be up to reading this on an emotional level.

anyone agree/disagree?

[cornsilk]

Titchy I agree-there should be a warning on it - Waterstone put it in with the junior fiction which suggests it is suitable for primary children to read unsupervised. I bought it for ds1 who struggles to read and I began to read it to him before realising what it was about and putting it away. However if he had have been able to read it himself, he would have been very upset and confused by it.

[Flamesparrow]

Just finished. Sobbed.

I would have been that naive at 9. I would have questioned the weirdness - yes, but the whole goings on of the time, no, I probably wouldn't have taken it in.

I was 9 for the first Gulf War. I know it wasn't in my country, but I knew nothing - all I knew was the word "war" and being scared I would be taken away from my parents (war = evacuation). I would have been just as innocent as to things happening within my country - like IRA tbh, there were bombs, but I had no idea why, what - they were just something that happened and a man with a funny name (Gerry Adams - I found Gerry funny...) talked about it a lot.

No way would I want my (fictional) 8-12 yr old reading it though. It would lead to too many horrific conversations that I don't think a 8-12 yr old should have details of. (the 12 yr old maybe). Yes, they need to learn, we must all learn and never forget, but there is a TIME for it.

[Flamesparrow]

Just realised this thread is 12 months old

[cheapskatemum]

Maybe it's been resurrected because of the film? I am a teacher and my department teach this text in PSHE to 12-13 year olds. They love it and are enjoying the film.

Some 9 year olds are naive, like Bruno. Others are not. I believe the author says that it is not a book for 9 year olds, even though Bruno is 9.

[Tinker]

Not read teh book but have seen the film. Am also a little surprised at teh comment: "It could not have happened - the child in that position could not have known so little/been so naive". Am a bit speechless that someone could be so definite about that.