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
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Boxing match
This won't mean much to those of you who haven't read as far as I have (just over half of the book) but Max's imagined boxing match is one of the most powerful things I've read in a long time. You'll see.
I'm going to re-start the nominations for Book 3, starting with Atlas Shrugged and People of the Book.
Pam
I'm going to re-start the nominations for Book 3, starting with Atlas Shrugged and People of the Book.
Pam
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Something small to say. Sort of.
Hello all,
I'm progressing slowly, way too slowly, through this excellent book. It's always interesting to read a book written by a man (or woman) in which the main character is a woman (or man). I've come to identify strongly with Liesel. Her tentative nature, her passion for books, and her fears about the larger world around her seem just about right as I recall being 11 and 12. While reading TBT, I'm also reading "O Jerusalem" and flipping through Jimmy Carter's book on Palestine. I have the latter book because Marv, who you all know (except maybe Shula...not sure you've met him), forced the book on me a year or so ago and demanded that I read it. So you can see that I've got a lot of overlap in my reading.
Back to TBT:
The hand-made book that Max gave Liesel for her birthday was a wonderful addition to the story, and also to the physical book itself. I'll probably remember that long after I've forgotten details of the story.
Every few pages or so my mind flips back to 6th grade at McCormick Elementary. I remember sneaking into the girls' room with my copy of the Diary of Ann Frank and reading a few pages before I dashed back to the classroom. I also can feel the same inner turmoil about how to accept that friends of mine had relatives who suffered the same fate, and worse, as Ann Frank and Max Vandenburg. So hard to absorb into my mind and heart that such evil exists, such prejudice exists, such cruelty is committed over and over again.
And then there's the issue of Hans and Rosa, Germans who could have been related to me. (I'm half German on my dad's side and half German on my mom's side, which makes me half German and half English. And let's face it about the English. They are not noted for their open-mindedness either.) All of my German ancestors came to America long before the 20th century, but I certainly have distant relatives who were in Germany during the Nazi era. Do I feel some guilt? Yes. Should I? Don't know.
So that's my little report.
Who else is reading? Shula, Paula, and Larry F. Did you start Ed?
Pam
*
I'm progressing slowly, way too slowly, through this excellent book. It's always interesting to read a book written by a man (or woman) in which the main character is a woman (or man). I've come to identify strongly with Liesel. Her tentative nature, her passion for books, and her fears about the larger world around her seem just about right as I recall being 11 and 12. While reading TBT, I'm also reading "O Jerusalem" and flipping through Jimmy Carter's book on Palestine. I have the latter book because Marv, who you all know (except maybe Shula...not sure you've met him), forced the book on me a year or so ago and demanded that I read it. So you can see that I've got a lot of overlap in my reading.
Back to TBT:
The hand-made book that Max gave Liesel for her birthday was a wonderful addition to the story, and also to the physical book itself. I'll probably remember that long after I've forgotten details of the story.
Every few pages or so my mind flips back to 6th grade at McCormick Elementary. I remember sneaking into the girls' room with my copy of the Diary of Ann Frank and reading a few pages before I dashed back to the classroom. I also can feel the same inner turmoil about how to accept that friends of mine had relatives who suffered the same fate, and worse, as Ann Frank and Max Vandenburg. So hard to absorb into my mind and heart that such evil exists, such prejudice exists, such cruelty is committed over and over again.
And then there's the issue of Hans and Rosa, Germans who could have been related to me. (I'm half German on my dad's side and half German on my mom's side, which makes me half German and half English. And let's face it about the English. They are not noted for their open-mindedness either.) All of my German ancestors came to America long before the 20th century, but I certainly have distant relatives who were in Germany during the Nazi era. Do I feel some guilt? Yes. Should I? Don't know.
So that's my little report.
Who else is reading? Shula, Paula, and Larry F. Did you start Ed?
Pam
*
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Wait! I didn't mean to un-nominate those 2 books...
Hey guys. I guess I owe someone an apology. My comment on one of the two books nominated (anonymously) for book 3 wasn't a complaint, although I guess it sounded like that. I was just pointlessly commenting, as is my way, on Atlas Shrugged. Just b/c I don't want to read a particular book doesn't mean the book shouldn't be nominated. Maybe I should treat this blog a bit more seriously in the future instead of posting whatever random thoughts pop into my head. (But I sort of thought that would be part of the fun of the blog...you know...posting random and pointless thoughts among long-time friends. Isn't that the way we've been talking to each other for half a century? Maybe it was just me....that's depressing.)
On another topic: I'm about half-way through TBT, am enjoying it immensely, but frankly can't think of anything to say about it. Maybe I'm not suited to a book discussion group? Should I have more to talk about? My edition has a book discussion guide in the back. I've been avoiding it b/c I didn't want to be influenced by it. But I may resort to checking it out.
I will say this: The device of making Death speak, from time to time, in the first person is an extremely effective way to convey the horror of Germany in 1939. "We'll give him seven months. Then we come for him. And oh, how we come."
Greetings to all, lurkers and others. I promise to be more serious in the future.
Pam
On another topic: I'm about half-way through TBT, am enjoying it immensely, but frankly can't think of anything to say about it. Maybe I'm not suited to a book discussion group? Should I have more to talk about? My edition has a book discussion guide in the back. I've been avoiding it b/c I didn't want to be influenced by it. But I may resort to checking it out.
I will say this: The device of making Death speak, from time to time, in the first person is an extremely effective way to convey the horror of Germany in 1939. "We'll give him seven months. Then we come for him. And oh, how we come."
Greetings to all, lurkers and others. I promise to be more serious in the future.
Pam
Saturday, May 17, 2008
remember to sign your posts & comments please
I'm guessing that Paula wrote the post titled "People of the Book" and that Fox suggested the 2 new books for Book 3. On second thought I decided that it was actually Ed who nominated the 2 new books...
Pam
PS: I won't be voting for, or reading, Atlas Shrugged. There is no power on the face of this earth that could make me read 1,200 pages of Ayn Rand. I read the Fountainhead & that was enough. But I would read something shorter by her---maybe Anthem? I think it's a novella (I like that length), but it's science fiction... Or maybe "We the Living"?
Pam
PS: I won't be voting for, or reading, Atlas Shrugged. There is no power on the face of this earth that could make me read 1,200 pages of Ayn Rand. I read the Fountainhead & that was enough. But I would read something shorter by her---maybe Anthem? I think it's a novella (I like that length), but it's science fiction... Or maybe "We the Living"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
