The Book Thief is a novel by the Australian author Markus Zusak, and is his most popular book. Published in 2005, The Book Thief became an international bestseller and was translated into 63 languages and sold 16 million copies. It was adapted into the 2013 feature film, The Book Thief.
The novel is about the adventures of Liesel Meminger in Germany during a time of war. By personifying "Death" as a tangible thing, the novel narrates a unique perspective into the world of the victims of the war.
It's historical misery porn, your Angela's Ashes or Kite Runner sort of deal. It's a bit smug & condescending which is a lot since it's pretty clear the author had no idea how to end it & panicked. The main character is devoid of personality & the cute trick of the narrator being the grim reaper gets old the second time it appears. I cried at the end but possibly because I was also ready for death to swing past one last time.
Will I ever learn to read a synopsis before starting a book? No. I blame the dice roll that chose this from my burgeoning 'to read' pile. Lousy roll
I wanted to enjoy this. I would say I was moderately invested by the end but I didn’t love it. I felt confused trying to follow the characters and the timeline. I liked the concept of the story being told by death in Nazi Germany during World War II. I would’ve guessed the book was written longer ago than 2005 based on how it was written. I’m glad I read it but I wouldn’t want to read it again.
I have mixed feelings on this book. Understand now that my German isn't as good as I would like it to be, but the biggest issue I had was how absolutely infuriating the writing was because of Zusak's decision to use it.
Translations were really off. Even with correct German, the English was clunky. The example that sticks out the most to me is when he translated as "Alles ist Scheiße" to "all is shit." While not incorrect, it's weird in English because we'd be more inclined to use every- words. "Everything is shit," in this case. This happens more than once. More often than not, it reads like someone who took German in school and is now trying to show off how well they can speak it. (Also, the word choice for happiness? Zufriedenheit? At no point would I have ever heard my German grandparents use this when talking …
I have mixed feelings on this book. Understand now that my German isn't as good as I would like it to be, but the biggest issue I had was how absolutely infuriating the writing was because of Zusak's decision to use it.
Translations were really off. Even with correct German, the English was clunky. The example that sticks out the most to me is when he translated as "Alles ist Scheiße" to "all is shit." While not incorrect, it's weird in English because we'd be more inclined to use every- words. "Everything is shit," in this case. This happens more than once. More often than not, it reads like someone who took German in school and is now trying to show off how well they can speak it. (Also, the word choice for happiness? Zufriedenheit? At no point would I have ever heard my German grandparents use this when talking about happiness. It's just weird.)
Street names. Himmel Street but Grande Strasse. Pick one and stick with it. This doesn't even really work to delineate between classes for English speakers, which I presume was the meaning behind the attempt. We're so ingrained to using French-based words to signify higher class status (beef -- meat eaten as food, boeuf) while using Germanic words to signify lower class (cow -- animal someone takes care of, Kuh) that this came off more as a way of showing that he wasn't consistent than anything else. This is even evident in our forms of swearing (as Germanic language tends to be hit harder in English as being some of our "bad words"). Anyway, he already wrote in signifiers that Grande Strasse was full of rich people and Himmel Street was full of poor people without awkwardly tossing on some weird English-German-smash-up.
Anzac Avenue in Sydney. It's a small nagging detail, but it's poignant for an author who apparently lived in Sydney. As an American who lived there for four years, I can only recall two places that would fit this: a) the suburb of Cammeray (in the North) has a tiny, tiny, tiny street called Anzac Avenue that I once happened upon (and had zero soccer fields, to my recollection), b) a main thoroughfare (which the university that both Zusak and I attended, UNSW, had an entrance located on) that's actually called Anzac Parade and has a lot of sports fields/stadiums and Centennial Park, which was never called Anzac Avenue (but formerly called Randwick Road). This feels like a weird detail for someone from Sydney to miss. [Note: Granted, Molching is a fictional location, but Sydney isn't. And they already have a well-known road with Anzac in it, so it feels like a weird thing to do.]
Why was the blackface of Jesse Owens necessary? I couldn't figure this out at all. Was there a need for Rudy to have a story where he painted himself black in order to be just like his hero? It was ridiculous. Was it an attempt at humour? Haha, look at these silly German children doing racist things because they idolised this person and their abilities? I mean... This entire section could've been redone because there was so much that Zusak did to show Rudy as being compassionate and caring. (And plus, being written in 2005? It doesn't read well at all. Maybe if the book were written in, say, the 1950s? But it wasn't.)
The story would've been much more captivating if he'd created context to 'recognise' the German he wanted to flavour his text with. It's not hard to write a scene with enough context where "richtig" or "verstehst" or anything of that nature can't be figured out. The lazy writing just kept annoying me, when he could've created a much better story without it.
Edit: Some of the other things that get me are the lack of accuracy? Some of the history feels off; events don't feel as dangerous as we know they would've been. There are just things that scream "research me." (Along with the insinuation that every person was a Nazi, which we know isn't true.)
