The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas | a Review
originally published on 24/05/2025;
Hello everyone, I am the understander, G.E.M.Simov, a being aware of the horrors (the mask of humanity wielded by capitalism - removed!), here to tell you about John Boyne’s “The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas”.
Simple review details - I rank books on an out of 10 basis, granting up to 3 points in 3 categories, as well as a last, single point from my own self, depending on my experience with it.
Content
Surprisingly, this is a children's book. Or, at the very least, it is written as a children's book, while also featuring a child protagonist and a number of descriptive elements that would make sense in children's books exclusively, rather than book for adults or teenagers.
I say that, because I have, as the reader might know, seen the film of the same name (and same story + message). Judging by it, I was completely convinced that this was no children's story, and was, instead, something intended for adults, so that they may look and see what their heinous actions and beliefs can do to their children, even if they believe that said deeds are for the betterment of their progeny's future.
However, reading through this book, I was left with the resounding impression that this was not the case. This was, indeed, a story, and a book, that could be read by adults and considered as such, but it was, actually, meant to be something different, or so it appeared to me.
“The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas” is a book about how stupid and utterly inexplicable the events that transpired during and shortly prior World War II were. It is a book about how unfathomably stupid and ludicrous racism and any other form of bigotry is.
The fact that it is delivered in a very easy to read, accessible form, that can be read by kids, or, better get, read to kids, is simply indicative of the fact that even a kid can understand how stupid these things are. In fact, it goes to show that it is natural for humans to not have strong feelings about others, regardless of how ‘different’ those others are.
This book tells the reader that these ideas of superiority and inferiority are borne out of damaged, miserable minds. This book expressed the simplicity of the fact that these are artificial creations that desperately seek legitimacy, and so they assault youngsters as best they can, not because younglings are just naturally inclined to hate, but because they are easier to convince, and it is a lot harder to dissuade an entrenched, zealous fanatic than it is to dissuade someone who is only dipping their toes in a new field after years of existing outside of it.
That's one of the big topics - racism and bigotry are external to the human being, and they are stupid and inexplicable. When held up to even a small amount of scrutiny, they fall apart and are incapable of mounting any defense. That much is seen not just in the book, but also in contemporary times - naturally, it still finds ways of approaching and existing, because it is simply so much easier, and far more profitable, to have people and non-people.
Either way, aside from that, the book also delves into other things, not explicitly related to the regime in Germany during those years. One of those things is the effect that a child's surroundings have on their upbringing, and how parents in pursuit of business successes, or career growth, wind up putting their children on the back burner.
I'm fact, the book talks about a lot of things regarding children and how parents affect them. It does not explicitly talk about them, but it shows them - how father and mother act in the presence of their child, how they speak and what they do, how they approach situations… Everything about these interactions is filled with nuance and depth.
There are few scenes that are just scenes. Each is burdened with great weight - father and mother both seek to shelter their child from the world, to hide terrible things from it, but the child is inquisitive and curious, and so it will find them regardless. Even so, every single conversation is related to the child's upbringing, to setting an example, to molding it into a person that will work in the system splendidly well.
That much was very entertaining to observe and read. These more minute details were not so pronounced in the film adaptation, as a result of which they stand out. The reach of ideology, the way it affects not just those who are under its sway, but all those who are adjacent to them, and, in particular, to their children.
Every single action simply shows it off - the father's demeanor, the word she uses, the things he says, the things he does. It seems very particular that the literal Nazis get a home tutor who teaches their children the exact things that a Nazi would want to have their children learn.
The overwhelming amount of control that Nazis, that these fouler ideologies exert is impressively well shown off in this book. The Main Character is constantly restricted, he lives with stifling rules and overbearing binds, and yet all he wants is to break free of them.
Alas, this is a simple book. It is a book about the Holocaust and its horrors. It is a book that shares a large number of things with its reader, but its approach is so referential that, at first, one might find themselves troubled with figuring out what, exactly, is being said. Ultimately, this overreliance on context makes the book a bit… Problematic for kids. They would not know what exactly happened, unless this is being read to them.
As a result of that, I feel as though there is a problem with this book. It requires context, otherwise it fails. And as a children's book, or as a book that appears to be a children's book, it struggles with that - because, unless a parent reads it to their child, said child will be unable to pick up. That's bothersome.
However, even though that is present as an issue, I'm compelled to say that this was a very good read, and very rich in content for how short it was. Thus? 3/3
Richness of Expression
It's a children's book, or, as stated, so it seems. As a result of that, it could be that the book was deliberately written to be consumables by children, yet at the same time containing material that is purposefully geared towards adults. Regardless, if it was intentional, it was very well done, and if it was not? Well, it has come out quite nicely.
There are no great feats of wordplay here, nor is the lexicon in use exceedingly verbose or varied. However, that makes it very appropriate for children. In fact, the book's simplicity of expression only drives the point(s) being made home with extra intensity.
It is one thing to explain something with a thousand words, and another to explain it with five. The directness of that, which is being said, is very weighty, especially when one considers the fact that the book is not simply about children characters, but is through the eyes of a child. The point of view being such helps and conveys certain things. I touched upon that in the Content section, and I ought to leave it there, but…
Well, the means through which the author emulated a child’s thought process, or how a kid thinks about stuff, how a kid sees things and remembers them - it's very particular and leaves an impression.
There is repetition of certain things, there is an attempt to underline things by repeating them, and doing so in a very deliberate manner that really stands out as being for kids. I quite like that… Or it stuck with me so much that I have developed feelings for it. Whether genuine or owed up to Stockholm syndrome, I'm going to say that I liked it.
The book was an exquisite read. It was very light and engaging, very exciting and drew me, as a reader, in. 3/3
Story
The meat and potatoes of this book is in its story, as with every book. However, this one did its best to not tell the reader what it was about before being earnestly started. That might be because it relies on the revelations that occur - oh, that word is not that, it is actually THAT, and it is referring to a very particular thing.
While this could be left to the Richness of Expression part, I think it is important for the story itself. As the reader reads and becomes more familiar with the story, the more obvious things become. Sure, the cover spoils most, if not all of the story, but then there are a few other snippets that manage to change the way things are perceived.
Naturally, it is a story about the Holocaust, about its victims, but it is also very unexpectedly about the perpetrators, or, rather, those around them. This book makes a valiant effort to portray, and to be about, those on the sidelines.
It is only valiant, because the book does not actually go as far as it needs to. It does not go as far as it can. There is one character, and his name is Bruno, and there is another character, but he is less of a character - Shmuel.
Aside from Bruno, and maybe Shmuel, everyone else is… Well, they are not really people. They are characters, yes, but not fleshed out, human characters that can be properly understood.
Though they can also somewhat be understood. There are Mother and Father, and Gretel, and there are also Grandmother and Grandfather, as well as a number of other characters, but they are not really people… Or, rather, it is difficult to understand them through the lens of a person.
Most of them, actually. Grandmother is understandable - because she is the only one who is anti-Hitler. Grandfather is difficult to understand, because how can he be married to a woman who is so aware, so “woke”, yet still be so solidly rooted in these hyper-nationalist, Nazi memes? It makes little sense, even if one turns to the rigidity of gender roles of those years, and the accepted rampancy of sexism at the time - women can be whatever, but they are not really important, they do not really matter…
I am trying to rationalize how Grandmother and Grandfather could have ended up together, considering how vastly different their views appear to be. Regardless, they got together, and they had a child, and he is the biggest problem.
But first, Mother - Mother is a problem, because it winds up difficult for the reader (me) to figure out where, exactly, her sympathies lie. She is not hard-line, not at all, but she also is not sympathetic. She might be closest to the idea of this rugged individualist who only cares about what immediately affects him.
She is upset about the Jews, but not because they are being treated so horribly, rather, because the result of that treatment is tangible and unpleasant - namely the smell, and the restrictions on their lifestyles. It affects her, directly, in some manner, and so she is not happy, but the way to appease her is not to save the Jewish people, it is to let her move away.
However, at the same time, she is in this mixed position of being incredibly supportive of her husband’s bid to rise through the ranks, to have a successful career… It is, again, undoubtedly related to the idea that one has to succeed, no matter the cost, so that their family may be well off, whereas everyone else can suck it. She definitely thinks it is not nice that her husband is doing those things, she probably things it is not nice that the big man of Germany is doing what he is doing, and her husband is supporting him and glued to his ass, but it is, in her eyes, better to be on the Führer’s good side.
Now that I have written this out, it becomes clear to me that I just needed to think a bit more about it. Mother is just complacent, largely selfish and quite egotistical. She is the type of person to sit on the fence, to try to both-sides the issue because it probably suits her just fine for things to not change, or to have them change, but only barely. After all, she doesn't care, it does not affect her directly - not as directly as literally getting showered in Zilkon-B.
With all that said, following some ruminating in my head, I am simply expressing my confusion at the state of this book. As a (children's) book, it fails at explaining the world. It simply states: “There are people who make no sense and are good but also unbelievably cruel, and that's just how it is!”
That left a sour taste in my mouth, and since the entirety of the book hinges on how some people can be like that, it is an important point of contention that is left unaddressed and unresolved. Ultimately, there is something somewhere that condemns the acts of the party and the individuals within it, but it is also insufficient in some regard.
Either way, the book has a somewhat satisfying ending that makes sense. It makes sense that things would go that way - after all, they have been getting set up to go in that direction from the very start. At the same time, the Characters are not satisfying, because they are not really Characters. It can be said that some of them, roughly, go through spurts of growth and development, but it is all very distant, very disconnected from the acts of Bruno himself.
Thus, I'm compelled to not give the story as high a score as possible. I've got problems with it, and I hope I've outlined them well enough. Still, it is decent, at least. 2/3
Legendary Point
Does this book get the Legendary point, so craved and wanted by all and none at the same time?
Even though it is quite proficient at dispelling the myths surrounding racism, against the Jewish people at least, and even if it tries to convey the ridiculousness of perpetuating these stupid beliefs, the book fails to address that, which I believe needs to be addressed. In fact, as it is, I find it more troubling than not - because it indicates, or at least leaves that impression over for the younger reader - or for yours truly, as it paints the world as a place that features such and such people, that some people are just bad, or that some people are so inexplicably crooked inside that it’s impossible to understand them, that they contradict themselves in some regard.
The crux here is that the book is neat, but not neat enough. It does not unveil things to the reader; it might be provocative in some regard, but the provocation is slight and gentle, almost frightful and timid. Nothing comes of it, it's just sad. So NO, this book does not get the Legendary Point. 0/1
Conclusion
8/10. “The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas” is a very good book that could have been even better. I would argue that everyone should give it a read, unless they have oversaturated themselves on the topic and are certain in their belief that fascism and its predispositors are not only wrong but bad.
It is definitely something that a parent should consider reading to their child. As such, I highly recommend it.
Another shining achievement I can put on my belt. Sure, it has some flaws, but perfection is not mandatory for goodness!