I finished reading TBT during the night Friday night. Actually I was almost finished and I must have started dreaming about the ending because it woke me up around 4:00 a.m. and I finished the last 20 pp.
A number of things are clear(er) to me now.
Someone mentioned not knowing what to say about TBT. I didn't really understand that then. I took it on faith (not having started the book at that point). Unlike Little, Big where we could read 50 pp and have a lot to say, with TBT that didn't happen. Ironically, no one liked Little, Big and everyone (who commented) liked TBT.
I absolutely agree with what you've said about the book's sensitivity, etc. What surprised me is that I didn't think I would read another book about Germans during the war that would make me feel sympathetic to their plight.
When I say "another book" I'm referring to Stones from the River by Ursula Heigi http://www.amazon.com/Stones-River-Ursula-Hegi/dp/068484477X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214151953&sr=1-1
What's interesting about the two novels -- which I hadn't thought about until now -- is that they both deal with books in the everyday lives of Germans around WWII.
What perplexes me is that I never thought I'd be able to be able to relate to/feel sorry for/sympathize with Germans of "that" generation. Yet in both cases I was able to put aside my natural predisposition to hate them and read the books. More than that, I enjoyed the books.
I can't say there was no pain involved in reading TBT. There was. Part of the pain was what Zusak writes about. Part of the pain is what he doesn't really write about. In case it isn't obvious multiply Max's story by 6 million and you'll understand what bothers me.
Having said that, what spurred me to keep reading TBT? First, the concept of having the Angel of Death as the narrator was amazing. Second, I wanted to know what would happen to Max. I got the clue early on that Leisel would make it. Putting the two of them together was perhaps obvious. But nothing wrong with a happy ending.
There are other things that I could perhaps revisit: his use of colors, for instance. The anti-Hitler comments he has people say.
I just looked for his description of why Germans like fire so much but I couldn't find it. That was incredible.
Of course, Max's fight with Hitler is probably the highlight of the book.
There are some other points that are still unclear or perhaps purposely ambiguous. What really happened to Leisel's parents? Were they Communists and as such, sent to a camp? And if that's the case, how did they make the connection with the Hubermans? Is Zusak suggesting that there was a sort of underground railroad in Germany to help "certain" people in need?
At Yad Vashem, the Israel monument to the Shoah, there is a special section about Righteous Gentiles. That is, those who risked their lives to save Jews. But here we have people who risked their lives to save Germans. Interesting juxtaposition.
I feel like I have more to say but it isn't coming at the moment. I'll try to revisit my thoughts later.
AND NOW A TECHNICAL COMMENT. When we first discussed TBT we agreed to start reading it on June 15. I knew I would be busy until about then. The fact that I couldn't comment was because I hadn't started the book. I didn't want to rain on anyone's parade so I maintained my silence which is totally out of character for me. The effect of this is that it's old news for you while I've just finished reading the book. Don't get me wrong, I'm not annoyed or anything negative. It's just kind of frustrating that we weren't on the same page so to speak.
So my suggestion is that before we choose another book we have to agree to the ground rules.
As a possibility, Hagit and I have tkts to come see my mother Sept 9-22. Perhaps we should have our next discussion in person. Maybe that will get us on track for having discussions in blog format.
Comments?
Ed
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
Nonplussed
This isn't exactly off-topic, because I'm responding to Paula's post about the power of words, and even if it is, so what? Paula writes "I am often nonplussed when someone flings words as weapons; the very knowledge of their purpose seems to render me invulnerable to the attack." I was analyzing that sentence --- trying to decide if (a) I understood it and (b) I felt the same way --- when I decided to look up the word "nonplussed." I was reasonably sure I knew the meaning. Well, no, I didn't know the meaning. I thought it meant "unaffected" or "indifferent" or "not surprised." Instead, it means "bewildered" or "perplexed," almost the opposite of what I thought. I'm happy to report that I'm not alone in my misunderstanding of the word. I learned that both Doug and Marv also thought it meant "indifferent"---maybe we've had a bad influence on each other over the past 30+ years. And it's a big enough problem that the most recent edition of the New York Times Style Manual includes an entry on the growing misunderstanding of the word.
Here's one discussion, from a Google search, that neatly sums up the problem:
Question: What is going on with the word nonplussed? In the last year I've seen it used everywhere from The New York Times to the ESPN web site to mean 'unimpressed' or 'indifferent', when, as far as I can tell, the only correct definition is 'confused' or 'perplexed'. Example 1: New York Times caption, late January: "Despite aggressive television reporting, patrons at the bar at the Delano Drive restaurant in the Waterside Plaza apartments in Manhattan said they were nonplussed by President Clinton's State of the Union message." Example 2: ESPN web headline: "Brewer's Pitchers Nonplussed at Joining History." Has the usage of this word changed to mean 'unimpressed' instead of 'confused'? Frankly, I'm nonplussed.
Answer:The correct meaning of nonplussed is ‘utterly perplexed; completely puzzled’. It’s derived from the Latin phrase non plus ‘not more, no further’—referring to a state in which nothing more can be done. To be nonplussed is to be at a total loss as to what to say or do. hIt’s puzzling as to how nonplussed has come to mean ‘undisturbed, unimpressed, indifferent’. The prefix non- means ‘not, no’, but the word plussed has no meaning in English. It’s likely that the negative prefix makes one think the meaning must be ‘not something’ rather than ‘utterly or completely something.’ Or there may be an analogy with unfazed, a word with a similar meaning.
The correct meaning of nonplussed does prevail, although there are quite a few instances of the new meaning to which you refer. A few examples: “Gates seemed nonplussed by the Net until late 1995. By 1996 he became a fanatic.” (ZDNet, 1999) “Both authors are nonplussed by the notion of dog fashion shows. ‘If you don’t compromise the dog, what the hell?’ Ms. Knapp said.” (TheNew York Times, 1999)
I must say I was utterly perplexed by the entry in the recently published The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: “Nonplused does not mean fazed or unfazed. It means bewildered to the point of speechlessness.” To me, it does (more or less) mean ‘fazed’ but does not mean ‘unfazed’. Despite this confusion, perhaps The New York Times copyeditors should pay more attention to the basically sound advice in their usage book. The fact that this book takes on the topic shows that the meaning of nonplussed has indeed become an issue; the previous edition did not have an entry for this word.
From http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19991221
Back to Pam speaking: I'll never read or hear that word again without wondering if the writer / speaker is using it to say "bewildered" or "indifferent."
Now, on to the second half of Paula's compound sentence:
"...the very knowledge of their purpose seems to render me invulnerable to the attack."
I really wish I could summon up a feeling of invulnerability in the face of harsh words. But one of my greatest weaknesses is carrying grudges. An unkind word, especially if it's used intentionally but even if it's not, can bring about obsessional thinking. Not constructive thinking, just a looping tape in my head that says "I'm hurt. I'm hurt. I'm hurt."
The lesson I'm going to take from this is first, to watch my own words more carefully so I'm less guilty of causing harm, intentionally or accidentally, and second, to remember Paula's observations about her cloak of invulnerability.
Back to the book....
My thoughts about the book are so shallow that I should be embarrassed, but frankly I'm not. Life is getting way too short for such trivia as embarrassment. I hope that in the fantasy world that exists around this book, it was Max who Liesel married and had those kids with in Australia. (And if I read too fast or carelessly and missed that detail would someone inform me please?) I thought the book was beautifully written, cleverly presented, and emotionally honest. And it's an example of how great writing can be as informative as non-fiction. Fiction has a way of communicating the feel and tone of a time in history that nonfiction often misses. The descriptions of everyday events and scenes, what food was eaten, how the houses looked, how people got their news, all help paint a picture of a time past.
So I'm ready to move on to Book 3. Anyone else? I'll nominate a couple more books, wait a week or so to see if we are now reduced to just the Pam and Paula book club, and then maybe we can pick No. 3.
Pam
Here's one discussion, from a Google search, that neatly sums up the problem:
Question: What is going on with the word nonplussed? In the last year I've seen it used everywhere from The New York Times to the ESPN web site to mean 'unimpressed' or 'indifferent', when, as far as I can tell, the only correct definition is 'confused' or 'perplexed'. Example 1: New York Times caption, late January: "Despite aggressive television reporting, patrons at the bar at the Delano Drive restaurant in the Waterside Plaza apartments in Manhattan said they were nonplussed by President Clinton's State of the Union message." Example 2: ESPN web headline: "Brewer's Pitchers Nonplussed at Joining History." Has the usage of this word changed to mean 'unimpressed' instead of 'confused'? Frankly, I'm nonplussed.
Answer:The correct meaning of nonplussed is ‘utterly perplexed; completely puzzled’. It’s derived from the Latin phrase non plus ‘not more, no further’—referring to a state in which nothing more can be done. To be nonplussed is to be at a total loss as to what to say or do. hIt’s puzzling as to how nonplussed has come to mean ‘undisturbed, unimpressed, indifferent’. The prefix non- means ‘not, no’, but the word plussed has no meaning in English. It’s likely that the negative prefix makes one think the meaning must be ‘not something’ rather than ‘utterly or completely something.’ Or there may be an analogy with unfazed, a word with a similar meaning.
The correct meaning of nonplussed does prevail, although there are quite a few instances of the new meaning to which you refer. A few examples: “Gates seemed nonplussed by the Net until late 1995. By 1996 he became a fanatic.” (ZDNet, 1999) “Both authors are nonplussed by the notion of dog fashion shows. ‘If you don’t compromise the dog, what the hell?’ Ms. Knapp said.” (TheNew York Times, 1999)
I must say I was utterly perplexed by the entry in the recently published The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: “Nonplused does not mean fazed or unfazed. It means bewildered to the point of speechlessness.” To me, it does (more or less) mean ‘fazed’ but does not mean ‘unfazed’. Despite this confusion, perhaps The New York Times copyeditors should pay more attention to the basically sound advice in their usage book. The fact that this book takes on the topic shows that the meaning of nonplussed has indeed become an issue; the previous edition did not have an entry for this word.
From http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19991221
Back to Pam speaking: I'll never read or hear that word again without wondering if the writer / speaker is using it to say "bewildered" or "indifferent."
Now, on to the second half of Paula's compound sentence:
"...the very knowledge of their purpose seems to render me invulnerable to the attack."
I really wish I could summon up a feeling of invulnerability in the face of harsh words. But one of my greatest weaknesses is carrying grudges. An unkind word, especially if it's used intentionally but even if it's not, can bring about obsessional thinking. Not constructive thinking, just a looping tape in my head that says "I'm hurt. I'm hurt. I'm hurt."
The lesson I'm going to take from this is first, to watch my own words more carefully so I'm less guilty of causing harm, intentionally or accidentally, and second, to remember Paula's observations about her cloak of invulnerability.
Back to the book....
My thoughts about the book are so shallow that I should be embarrassed, but frankly I'm not. Life is getting way too short for such trivia as embarrassment. I hope that in the fantasy world that exists around this book, it was Max who Liesel married and had those kids with in Australia. (And if I read too fast or carelessly and missed that detail would someone inform me please?) I thought the book was beautifully written, cleverly presented, and emotionally honest. And it's an example of how great writing can be as informative as non-fiction. Fiction has a way of communicating the feel and tone of a time in history that nonfiction often misses. The descriptions of everyday events and scenes, what food was eaten, how the houses looked, how people got their news, all help paint a picture of a time past.
So I'm ready to move on to Book 3. Anyone else? I'll nominate a couple more books, wait a week or so to see if we are now reduced to just the Pam and Paula book club, and then maybe we can pick No. 3.
Pam
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
I finished it...
A powerful, poetic, thought-provoking, emotion-charged story which both lauds and fears the power of words. Because I am so aware of the power of words and their immortality, I want to address that briefly; I realize that everyone else's discussions will go in different directions (which I am also eager to explore). I am always,even in the heat of anger or pain, careful not to say something that does not need to be said and to use words constructively rather than destructively. I counsel others to do the same and have never understood why so many people don't appreciate the great power they have to hurt or heal with just a word. I am often nonplussed when someone flings words as weapons; the very knowledge of their purpose seems to render me invulnerable to the attack. On the other hand, a consoling word wraps around me and is remembered forever. I don't mean to belabor the point, I know you all get it; but I really do live my life hyper-aware of language usage. I did love reading the book and am looking forward to your reactions as well.
Paula
Paula
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
