Talk:The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chase Jablon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 11 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Farcu1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

?

I made a little change on this article because this is not the first Holocaust novel written for children. Not sure what the first was, but I know Carol Matas has written a few, including Turned Away.Bjones 13:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the Post link, "It is Boyne’s first children’s book, and the first novel written specifically for children about the Holocaust" so I'm not sure either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would guess at a research slip in writing the Post article. It is rare, but not a first as far as I can tell.Bjones 00:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous; here's a bibliography that lists 23 children's fiction books on this topic! --Orange Mike 14:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

There's a big hint that you're about to read the plot, as it's headed "Plot" - best not read by those who don't want to find out what the plot is. Ty 02:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

i cannot wait 2 read it! I would say it is probably for childen 10 AND UP! yay!yay!yay!

thats not a spoiler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.125.68 (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Genre: Tragicomedy?

How is that an appropriate genre tag? There's no comedy in the book whatsoever. 86.16.139.140 (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC) There is comedy in the book but is is crude and centered around bad puns and cruel jokes to bruno -It's more Tragifarce than comedy. The reason I say this, is right up until the very end, Bruno has absolutely no clue what he's gotten himself into. Moreover, by the time even the reader finds out, the deed is long ago done. 71.233.230.223 (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really that good?

I'd like to make the suggestion that a 'Criticism' section is added to this article, exploring the voices raised against it for its falsifying of tragic events and glaring inaccuracies.

Completely agree on this. The commander of the camp was Rudolf Hoess who had 4 children and 0 died in the gas. It is very sad that this book is mixing facts with fiction and there is no warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.88.168 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

While Rudolf Hoess was in charge of Auschwitz, this story doesn't specify any particular camp name. Also, a work of fiction within a factual historic background is not a new idea, nor does it undermine accuracy. Many of the crtiscisms (such as assuming alll children under 10 were immediately gasssed or that it was impoossible for a part of the fence to be unmoitored) are based on comparrison of the book with the general norm. Real life tels us that exceptiuons frequently occur. Dainamo (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Auschwitz (Out-With) is the camp name and IS mentioned in the book.GrahamHardy (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ok bro listen up its just a story chillax Kaybhgoh (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Error (sadly i can't edit)

At the moment we are studiying it in school and Bruno is 8, not 9 years old... Just thought i should point that out... Qwertytrains (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC) is i

In the book he is 8. Is it the film you have been watching? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I just saw the film (english) and it said he was 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdf1234querybooks (talk • contribs) 12:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC) In the book it says Bruno is 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.181.41.194 (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

He is 8 in the beggining, but turns 9 at a later point.66.170.194.171 (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Errors, or have I missed something?

1. When does it say that Bruno and Shmuel play checkers?

2. Isn't it Gretel that refers to the non-Jews as the Opposites?

KillerKat (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.158.239.162 (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 

Several contributors may be confusing the book and the movie. I'm not even sure it's wise to have separate articles for them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Another good point of error is not really an error but rather a point to make in the article. Point to make in the movie (as I have not actually read the book) it states that both youths were 8. I assume in the book perhaps that it states both boys were nine. Either way when mentioning the movie the article should point out that the movie labels both boys to be 8 years of age. -Tabooooooooooo

I have just finished reading this book & there seem to be a number of errors in this wiki page. For example, we never find out the names of Bruno's parents or even the family's surname. I presume the character names listed on this wiki page have been taken from the movie. The plot section on this page also mentions that Lt Kotler drags Pavel from the room & kills him. This was never mentioned in the book nor did Bruno's father tell him the people on the other side of the fence are Jews. Bruno first hears the word Jew when talking with his sister, Gretel. The contributor above is correct, the book starts with Bruno at age nine & Schmuel is also 9 when they eventually meet halfway through the book. I will wait a week and if there are no objections, I will correct the errors. Hagi2000 (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Spoiler again

Do we want to reveal the death of the boy without a spoiler warning? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I could use a citation on the criticism that no children were held at the camp for any length of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.59.192 (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Do we want to reveal the death of the boy without a spoiler warning?" Spoiler warning? This is not IMDB! There are no such things as "spoiler warnings" in Wikipedia! (75.69.241.91 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

Not for children, way too tragic

This book is probably good for people who are in high school studying about World War II. Way too depressive. The onl part that was made for children was the censoring of curse words used. (Next sentence might be a spoiler) It is sad how the boy dies at the end and what happens to the family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuraiClaw (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you also class "Diary of Anne Frank" in the same way? Kids today see loads of news reports about murders and massacres in their own countries and abroad. Agreed, it is a sad book and the subject matter is very hard, but how much do you think children should be sheltered from such realities? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

this may be too tragic for children and ironically part of the movie structure is, that children do not understand what very well can effect them. I applaud the author and I find it to be a great adult informative as I think the authors intention was to show in some light what children see and we think they are clueless about everyday in any situation. It is very important to the article to emphasize on that issue specifically as that is what the book/movie seems to express.

-Tabooooooooooo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.0.16 (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah seriously this is a great book and i cried. i know that all the information is very unlikely, and i am sure that the author actually did research, but he wanted to make it more touching. we all need to realize that it isn't all going to be 100% true because its not supposed to be.

Fable?

Why is it referred to as a fable in the genre section? I'd change it but it's semi-protected. JackWilfred (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Removed it. JackWilfred (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Because that's what the author himself calls it. "A fable by John Boyne" is the book's subtitle on the first page (https://archive.org/details/boyinstripedpyja0000boyn_t3x1/page/n3/mode/2up). It's very fictional, like Schindler's list. 2A01:E0A:DC:3360:79E8:6BB8:751F:BEAF (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have recently read The Boy In The Striped Pajamas and I have found an error. It is not true that Gretel tells Bruno that the people on the other side of the fence are Jews and they are opposite us. It was actually Shmuel who tells him which people live on the other side of the fence and how he and the others lived, endured and came into Aushwitz. Can someone please edit it because I just signed up 5 minutes ago and I don't know how to edit yet. Thank you. --Errormarker (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"No children at Auschwitz" claim

The Rabbi Benjamin Blech's claim that "there were no 9-year-old Jewish boys in Auschwitz – the Nazis immediately gassed those not old enough to work." is absolute nonsense. I would recommend our dear Rabbi to go pay the Auschwitz museum a visit, so that he may see with his own eyes the section dedicated to the children that were interned in the camp complex throughout its years of operation, which includes photos and clothes of said children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:500:D200:21A6:2125:CEB7:A0E (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's dangerous to allow Blech's claim to stand on the page here without being refuted. I tried to add a sentence after Blech's claim, saying it is not backed up by historical evidence, and providing links to the official Auschwitz museum website and also an official Czech Holocaust history website, disproving Blech's claims. However they were removed by --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) as original synthesis. I don't feel that's the case, because I wasn't combining information from outside sources to draw a conclusion not present in them, I was demonstrating the factual untruth of Blech's statement. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) asked me to find a reliable source online that specifically refutes Blech by name, but that's not possible because his contention doesn't seem to have been noticed by anyone until it was published here at Wikipedia. Blech's statement is completely unsupported by historical evidence, so it should either be removed completely, or there should be a proper rebuttal to it. Holocaust deniers latch onto any inconsistencies in the history, we shouldn't give them ammunition. Jamesluckard (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition, right now the page says that "some critics" have questioned the basic premise of the book, but I don't see anyone but Blech making this claim. Kathryn Hughes certainly doesn't say there were no children at Auschwitz in her Guardian review. I revised the paragraph about her to more accurately reflect her statements about the book. Jamesluckard (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I've explained to Jamesluckard why what he has added is original synthesis. Namely

• Source A has Blech's claim saying there were no children at Auschwitz, disputing the premise of the book.
• Source B has details regarding children at Auschwitz, but has no mention of this book or Blech.
• Therefore, C, it is suggested that Blech is wrong about children at Auschwitz, and the book.

This is an example of original synthesis because it is combining the content of sources to suggest a conclusion that is not in either source. To quote; "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

The reason for not allowing original synthesis is simply to prevent Wikipedia editors making mistakes. Perhaps A and B are actually talking about different things, and do not contradict each other. Or perhaps in this case Jamesluckard's judgement is entirely correct, source B does disprove source A. But who is to say? Not Wikipedia, it only says what the sources do.

I think there are two ways forward here;

1/ Find a reliable source that has already published this argument, and cite it.

2/ Argue that Blech's opinion is not notable, irrelevant or WP:FRINGE and should be removed.

It would seem to me that if his opinion is notable, and controversial, then it should be possible to find a good source directly disputing it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I found a source that rebuts Blech directly, a book called "Hollywood and the Holocaust", by Henry Gonashk. He writes of Blech: "The rabbi found implausible Shmuel's very existence in the camp... On this last point, Blech is factually incorrect. In fact, there were male(though apparently not female) children at Auschwitz. In 1944, for example, according to the Nazis' meticulous records, there were 619 male children at the camp, ranging in age from one month to fourteen years old. Some of the boys sere employed by the Nazis as camp messengers, while others were simply kept around as mascots and curiosities. Probably some of these children were sexually abused by the guards. Of course, thousands of other children at Auschwitz (including all the girls who arrived at the camp) were gassed." Hopefully we both agree that this published source directly contradicts Blech's contention. Jamesluckard (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Please add as a counterpoint. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, glad we could agree on this. I looked around and found some more reviews from major media outlets, both positive and negative, from when the book was published in 2006, to fill out the section.Jamesluckard (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I just asked the Auschwitz Memorial twitter account about the claim that there were no girls at Auschwitz. They said, this was false: https://twitter.com/AuschwitzMuseum/status/1490311669670629378 Mrmryrwrk' (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC).

yes regarding Gonchaks statement, it is false. Female children were among those who were subjected to the twin experiments, Eva Moses Kor and sister Miriam as one example - ISBN 1-933718-28-5 2600:1014:B041:C5FE:BCD8:CCC5:D2ED:E83B (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Overview of major additions

Hi fellow wikipedians, I will be making several major changes to the wikipedia page in the coming weeks. I will be changing the lead section to remove some background information as well as remove the inaccuracy about the book being a best seller in 2007 and 2008 in Spain. I will be adding a background section about Boyne's making of the book. Additionally I will include a genre and style section to discuss holocaust children's literature. I will be including an analysis that focuses on the impact of Boyne's portrayal of the novel as a fable and the ramifications on education. Lastly I will include an "In other media" section where I will link to the movie and discuss the ballet, and provide reviews. I hope to edit the critic's section by removing block quotations and will streamline the citation formatting.

Look forward to seeing what you have. Please be sure you cite your sources. Unfortunately I think that a section on "holocaust children's literature" is not in the scope of this article, which is purely about one book. Similarly, content about the ballet would be better in its own article. Why don't you start one? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I have pretty much finished up, I hope it is to your liking, I did a great deal of research for this and tried to incorporate the holocaust literature section as relatable to the book as I could. It cannot be a stand-alone article and I feel like it provides the necessary information for the reader as to why Boyne chose a fable format and the ramifications he has faced for that based on the larger world's views. Chase Jablon ^(Talk) 1:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Did Karen Hughes not notice the title page mentions "a fable by [author]"?

I find it curious that no one has added another footnote next to Reception reference citing the Karen Hughes review to point out the title page actually refers to it as "a fable by [...]. ... or at least it initially did.

See:

[1]https://books.google.com/books?id=yK7jrmsqJ20C&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false FallenM (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)