The Commendable Coterie discussion
Thread 1 - Contrast
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
shaney
(new)
Nov 09, 2016 05:18PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
The first contrast I noticed within the book was the contrast with Liesel and the rest of her peers on page 39. She was treated as a outcast in the beginning of her school experience because she couldn't read or write, as well as the school having a "heavy catholic influence" and Liesel was Lutheran.
Another contrast I found was between soft-spoken Hans Hubbermann and his outspoken son Hans Junior. Hans Senior was not apart of the Nazi party and was known as a Jewish sympathizer, receiving the name "Jew Painter" for re-painting Jewish houses after Nazis wrote religious slurs across them. However his son, Hans Junior was a proud Nazi solider and lived his life attempting to make the "Führer" proud. Hans Junior was even against his own father shown with the statement, "You're either for the Führer or against him- and I can see that you're against him... It's pathetic how a man can stand by and do nothing as a whole marion cleans out the garbage and makes itself great." These character foils develop the theme of the different reactions to Nazi Party, whether it is support or opposition (pages 104-05).
When Mr. Steiner talked politics to his son (pg 59) I found contrast among his beliefs. He was apart of the Nazi Party, but he did not hate the Jews. He didn't know if they should be driven out completely, but he was relieved when they were put out of business. These contrasts I think foreshadow the view of most men at this time and their belief that what they were apart of helped society, even if they didn't fully think it was morally right. Mr. Steiner was only of the 90% majority who was in favor for Hilter and the Nazi party, and this draws a contrast from his neighbor, Mr. Hubermann belonged to the 10% who didn't. These contrasts have major impacts on future themes and reasons why things occur in the novel.
A major contrast is seen in Leisel's relationships with her foster Mama and Papa. Mrs. Hubermann is the sarcastic, foul-mouthed, disciplinarian of the household; Leisel respects, obeys, and loves her, but a strong emotional bond doesn't really exist. However, Leisel adores her Papa, who is her tender hearted, supportive caretaker. While Mrs. Hubermann lectures Leisel on responsibilities, Mr. Hubermann consoles her night terrors and teaches her to read despite his lack of education. Early on, Leisel sees this difference between her foster parents- when asked to call them Mama and Papa, she points out how she called her birth mother Mama, but expressed that she "would have no trouble calling him [Hans] Papa" (35). These different parental relationships, along with the fact that Leisel already has a "Mama" that she left behind, greatly influences Leisel's growth as a character throughout the book.
Contrast is evident in how different Leisel's new family is from her old one. Previously, her real mother was loving and wanted the best for Leisel and her brother. After she was brought into a foster home, however, Leisel's new "mama" is nearly the opposite. She makes derogatory comments about the girl, like "'You dirty pig! Why won't you get undressed?'" (32) and seems to have a "face decorated with constant fury" (33). Additionally, Leisel's biological and communist father had little connection to her, whereas she formed a tight bond quickly with her foster father who cares and pays attention to her.
I have also noticed contrast within Liesel herself. She is one to abide by the rules, with her family and at school. Always answering correctly, such as "Yes Mama" and "Yes Papa" with no complaining. However, such a well disciplined young girl is a thief. She steals books which is against all the rules of society, putting herself and her family at danger. The way the author describes the act, makes the reader believe the crime is much greater than it is. This use of diction is important in the novel. "They began to leave the scene of the crime, and the book was well and truly burning her now" (page 122). After this Liesel was paranoid about who saw her commit such a thing, and this could foreshadow an event to occur later in the book.
Throughout the book i have noticed various forms of contrast such as Liesel's biological parents and her foster parents, Liesel and her peers, and even Liesel verses herself. Ultimately the contrasts between her old life and new life shape the book in a way in which keeps the reader interested and ponder their own thoughts. I often think of how Liesel's life would be different if characters such as her classmates and Rosa were more understanding towards her. Maybe more sympathy would have fueled her to not become the book thief she is due to lack of passion to read. I also wonder how the book would be different from other point of views. However, i do enjoy how the book is told from the point of view of death because it keeps it interesting and different than most books. Syntax in just the very beginning of the book made me love his writing style, always leaving me wanting more. For example death says, "I could introduce myself properly, but it's not really necessary. You will know me well enough and soon enough..." (pg. 4). Not only does death connect to you personally, but they do not also directly state who they are, causing you to dig a little deeper.
^^ i apologize for my long comment i just had a lot to say :)
Somewhere i noticed contrast that wasn't mentioned specifically was between Liesel and Max. Both characters have been through the trauma of losing their families and frequently have nightmares in which they bond over. Although these two share many similarities they are two very different people. Max must stay hidden and he has always been stood over by others. After Max gives Liesel "The Standover Man" she discovers from the first page that Max fears the people who have always stood over him and told him what to do. On the other hand , although she has experienced loss and hardship "You could argue that Liesel Meminger had it easy" (161), for obvious reasons such as she could go out in public whenever unlike Max.
Let's try to dig deeper than just foils (Hans & Rosa seem the most obvious example of that) and look at the writing style. Look at the writing style when Death is narrating his own actions/plot vs. Liesel's . What do we see? Look at the diction, look at the syntax (sentence structure), look at the color imagery. Now take what you notice and try to connect it thematically to the book's theme. By the way, what is the book's theme?
Also, in order to earn higher than an 85, all members must be active throughout. If we do not post until the last day then this is not a true discussion - is it? At this point (our 3rd goodreads discussion) we should know better than this. If this group does not work out, I will be splitting the group up.
Color imagery seems to me like the perfect analogy between Death and reality. For example, on page 14, Death uses colors red, white, and black to represent the Nazi symbol found on the recollected body. Pages 14 and 15, though, seem to me to be the perfect segue to the story, while creating an ominous thought as to who the narrator is. As it is not clearly stated, we can draw a possible conclusion that it is an overbearing presence, and we see its humanlike qualities deplete as the story goes on and the theme develops, which is the true contrast between death and reality
I see an overall theme of survivors' guilt in this book- guilt exudes from Liesel, Max, and Death. When Liesel steals his first book from the Furher's bonfire, she can feel the guilt as heat from the book. Whether this heat was real or conceptual, Death notes that as she walks away from the scene of the crime so to speak, "beneath her shirt, a book was eating her up", an example of her guilt in addition to her nightmare-inducing guilt over her brothers' death. Max lives with the guilt of leaving his family behind when escaping the Nazis- beginning when he first walked out- "It tortured him. If only he'd turned around for one last look...perhaps then the guilt would not have been so heavy" (p 193). As for Death, he has a guilty existence. In the beginning of the book, he notes that he "will often catch an eclipse when a human dies...I've seen more eclipses than I care to remember". Why do you think Death chose to refer to the passing of a human as an eclipse? Death uses a lot of symbolic language to get speak meaningfully but quick- can you find any other examples???
I think death refers to passing humans as an eclipse because he is witnessing the light of the human soul being blocked much like when the moon blocks the sun in a solar eclipse. An example of contrast is when death is talking about the fights max used to be in max said "when death captures me he will feel my fist on his face" death says in response to this "such a stupid gallantry"(189) gallantry meaning courage, but death constrasts this by calling him stupid this is also symbolic in how death Sees that humans stupidly think of themselves as immortal But in reality they are very much the opposite.
In response to Mrs. Cruickshank's question about deaths writing style narrating his story verses Liesel's, i've noticed death narrates himself as more of the villain even though his true action reveal that's he's not in fact evil. he speaks down on himself and makes Liesel out to be the hero because she see the beauty in life. death is extremely focused on the idea that human kind is unnecessarily evil and he deals with the guilt of the death of humans caused by human actions with sorrow. when he takes a victim he often uses extremely vivid language and almost a cynical tone. but what narrating Liesels story he speaks about her the way one would about a soldier with honor. when death was talking about retrieving Liesel's brother he says, "when i picked him up originally, the boys spirit was soft and cold, like ice cream. he started melting in my arms... healing." (p21) to demonstrate how death thinks of Liesel as a hero of human kind he says that after she stole the burning book from the Fuhrer bomb fire and she froze in fear of being caught he says "it's very rare, don't you think, for a statue to appear before to subject has become famous." (p121)
Patrick, that's a really good example of contrast!! i find it almost funny that death is able to make fun of human ignorance while being so afraid of it at the same time.
Julianna C wrote: "I see an overall theme of survivors' guilt in this book- guilt exudes from Liesel, Max, and Death. When Liesel steals his first book from the Furher's bonfire, she can feel the guilt as heat from t..."First off, Liesel is a girl, so 'her' ** would be the appropriate pronoun, but your well versed post makes up for it :). For my actual point, I feel that personification is not as prevalent to the reader, but is a very important aspect to the book. As you cite from the first bonfire, Liesel felt guilt in a physical essence, emitted as heat from the actual book. As I also touched upon this in thread 3, Death's use of personification is just one of many literary elements used throughout the novel. Now, to reply to that question, of why we think Death chooses to use the death of a human as an eclipse... In a literal sense - and this may be going off on a ridiculous tangent - the definition of eclipse is a "reduction or loss of splendor, status, reputation" and death is perceived as the loss of life, or status in society. But to answer the question, in our everyday life, whether lunar or solar eclipse, it almost seems as if everything comes to a stop, and that is all that's left (ooh I feel like I'm writing a novel). In that same respect, Death is describing the alarming halt as a beautiful act of nature, one which is unique in its own sense. I probably didn't answer your question at all, but that is the deeper meaning to the eclipse that I see.
Yay! We are all on the 1st thread. Let's list possible themes. No explanation needed. This will help in other discussions.
I think an important theme in the novel is how powerful words can be. Max's book "The Word Shaker" explains this perfectly when it states that Hitler would someday have the power to rule the world, not because of his ability to fire a gun but because of his words. "His first plan of attack was to plant the words in as many areas of his homeland as possible" (446). The words were filled with hatred yet the people "were hypnotized" and soon the Führer had influenced and controlled the majority of his homeland just because of how he spoke and words he used to rally the people behind him. The book also implies how ignorant people can be.
Crime could be a theme for the book. After all, the title is "The Book Thief". Liesel is partaking in theft when she steals books, and the era in general was full of inhumane crime (Nazi Germany towards the Jewish).
