La Petite Américaine's Reviews > The Book Thief
The Book Thief
by
by

La Petite Américaine's review
bookshelves: worst-garbage-i-ve-ever-read, sucked, i-want-my-money-back, rants
Jul 24, 2008
bookshelves: worst-garbage-i-ve-ever-read, sucked, i-want-my-money-back, rants
** spoiler alert **
UPDATE: AUG 26, 2016: This review has been here 8 years, has 18 pages of 854 comments and 764 likes. There's no outrage for you to add in the comments section that hasn't already been addressed.
If you want to talk about the book, or why you liked it, or anything else, feel free.
UPDATE: FEB 17, 2014: I wrote this review 4 years ago on a foreign keyboad, so I'm well aware that I spelled Chekhov's name wrong. I'm not going to fix it, so please don't drive my review further up in the rankings by commenting on the misspelling. You're very dear, but I know his name is Anton and not Antonin. On that same note, you don't need to add comments telling me that I didn't like the book because I "don't know how to read" and "don't understand metaphors." I actually have an M.A. in in English Lit, so I do know how to read -- much better than you do, in fact. Now quit bothering me before I go get my PhD and then really turn into a credential-touting ass.
UPDATE: JULY 10, 2013: To all jr. high students who find themselves grossly offended by my review: please remember that every time you leave a comment here, you push my review up even higher in the rankings. Please save us both time and energy by not commenting. Thnx.
This was the biggest piece of garbage I've ever read after The Kite Runner. Just as with The Kite Runner, I'm (somewhat) shocked that this book is a bestseller and has been given awards, chewed up and swallowed by the literary masses and regarded as greatness. Riiiight.
The whole thing can be summed up as the story of a girl who sometimes steals books coming of age during the Holocaust. Throw in the snarky narration by Death (nifty trick except that it doesn't work), a few half-assed drawings of birdies and swastikas, senseless and often laughable prose that sounds like it was pulled from the "poetry" journal of a self-important 15 year-old, and a cast of characters that throughout are like watching cardboard cutouts walking around VERY SLOWLY, and that's the novel.
Here are some humble observations.
First, chances are that you, Mr. Zusak, are not Antonin Chekhov. You are, therefore, incapable of properly describing the weather for use as a literary device, and you end up sounding like an asshole. Don't believe me?
"I like a chocolate-colored sky. Dark, dark chocolate." Really? Do you, now?
"The sky was dripping. Like a tap that a child has tried it’s hardest to turn off but hasn’t quite managed.” Really?? Wow. Next you'll tell me that the rain was like a shower. I'm moved.
"Oh, how the clouds stumbled in and assembled stupidly in the sky. Great obese clouds." Yes. Stupid, obese clouds! They need an education and a healthy diet!
Next, chances are that you, Mr. Zusak, are not William Styron or any one of the other small handful of authors that can get away with Holocaust fiction. They've done their research, had some inkling of writing ability, and were able to tell fascinating stories. You invented a fake town in Germany (probably so you didn't have to do any research) and told a long-winded and poorly-written story, and in 500+ pages you couldn't even make it to 1945, so you sloppily dropped off and wrapped it up in 1943. What's the point of writing historical fiction if you can't even stay within the basic confines of that hisotrical event? For me, this does nothing more than trivialize the mass murder of over 6 million people. Maybe that's why a 30 year-old Australian shouldn't write about the Holocaust. But that's just me. Moving on.
But what really makes this book expensive toilet paper is the bad writing which is to be found not just in bizarre descriptions of the weather, but really on every page. Some personal favorites?
"The breakfast colored sun."
"Somewhere inside her were the souls of words."
"The oldened young man." WTF?!!?
"He crawled to a disfigured figure."
"Her words were motionless."
"It smelled like friendship." (Remind me to sniff my friends next time I see them.)
"A multitude of words and sentences were at her fingertips." (HUH?)
"Pinecones littered the ground like cookies."
Sigh.
All of this is quite funny coming from a book where the main character supposedly learns the importance of words. Further, I love that the protagonist comes to the conclusion that Hitler "would be nothing without words." Really? REALLY? Would Hitler be nothing without WORDS? What about self-loathing, misplaced blame and hatred, an ideology, xenophobia, charisma, an army, and a pride-injured nation willing to listen? Don't those count for something??
The shit-storm comes to an end when a bomb lands on our fictional town, wiping out everyone save for the sometimes book-thief main character. Of course. Because weak writers who don't know how to end their story just kill everyone off for a clean break and some nice emotional manipulation. Written for maximum tear-jerking effect, our main character spews out some great lines when she sees the death and destruction around her:
To her dead mother, "God damn it, you were so beautiful."
To her dead best friend as she shakes him, "Wake up! I love you! Wake up!" (Didn't I see the same thing in that movie My Girl?)
Then she profoundly notes that her dead father "...was a man with silver eyes, not dead ones."
And this kind of angsty adolescent prose just never ended! It went on and on to form the one long-ass, senseless, disjointed story.
But that's ok. Take it all the junk, give it a quirky narrator, an obscure and mysterious title, throw in a Jew on the run from Nazis who likes to draw silly pictures of birds and swastikas, and market it all as Holocaust lit. Ahh, the packaging of bullshit makes for such a sweet best seller.
Swallow it down, America. Put it on the shelf next to The Kite Runner. You love this. You live for this.
SUCKED.
If you want to talk about the book, or why you liked it, or anything else, feel free.
UPDATE: FEB 17, 2014: I wrote this review 4 years ago on a foreign keyboad, so I'm well aware that I spelled Chekhov's name wrong. I'm not going to fix it, so please don't drive my review further up in the rankings by commenting on the misspelling. You're very dear, but I know his name is Anton and not Antonin. On that same note, you don't need to add comments telling me that I didn't like the book because I "don't know how to read" and "don't understand metaphors." I actually have an M.A. in in English Lit, so I do know how to read -- much better than you do, in fact. Now quit bothering me before I go get my PhD and then really turn into a credential-touting ass.
UPDATE: JULY 10, 2013: To all jr. high students who find themselves grossly offended by my review: please remember that every time you leave a comment here, you push my review up even higher in the rankings. Please save us both time and energy by not commenting. Thnx.
This was the biggest piece of garbage I've ever read after The Kite Runner. Just as with The Kite Runner, I'm (somewhat) shocked that this book is a bestseller and has been given awards, chewed up and swallowed by the literary masses and regarded as greatness. Riiiight.
The whole thing can be summed up as the story of a girl who sometimes steals books coming of age during the Holocaust. Throw in the snarky narration by Death (nifty trick except that it doesn't work), a few half-assed drawings of birdies and swastikas, senseless and often laughable prose that sounds like it was pulled from the "poetry" journal of a self-important 15 year-old, and a cast of characters that throughout are like watching cardboard cutouts walking around VERY SLOWLY, and that's the novel.
Here are some humble observations.
First, chances are that you, Mr. Zusak, are not Antonin Chekhov. You are, therefore, incapable of properly describing the weather for use as a literary device, and you end up sounding like an asshole. Don't believe me?
"I like a chocolate-colored sky. Dark, dark chocolate." Really? Do you, now?
"The sky was dripping. Like a tap that a child has tried it’s hardest to turn off but hasn’t quite managed.” Really?? Wow. Next you'll tell me that the rain was like a shower. I'm moved.
"Oh, how the clouds stumbled in and assembled stupidly in the sky. Great obese clouds." Yes. Stupid, obese clouds! They need an education and a healthy diet!
Next, chances are that you, Mr. Zusak, are not William Styron or any one of the other small handful of authors that can get away with Holocaust fiction. They've done their research, had some inkling of writing ability, and were able to tell fascinating stories. You invented a fake town in Germany (probably so you didn't have to do any research) and told a long-winded and poorly-written story, and in 500+ pages you couldn't even make it to 1945, so you sloppily dropped off and wrapped it up in 1943. What's the point of writing historical fiction if you can't even stay within the basic confines of that hisotrical event? For me, this does nothing more than trivialize the mass murder of over 6 million people. Maybe that's why a 30 year-old Australian shouldn't write about the Holocaust. But that's just me. Moving on.
But what really makes this book expensive toilet paper is the bad writing which is to be found not just in bizarre descriptions of the weather, but really on every page. Some personal favorites?
"The breakfast colored sun."
"Somewhere inside her were the souls of words."
"The oldened young man." WTF?!!?
"He crawled to a disfigured figure."
"Her words were motionless."
"It smelled like friendship." (Remind me to sniff my friends next time I see them.)
"A multitude of words and sentences were at her fingertips." (HUH?)
"Pinecones littered the ground like cookies."
Sigh.
All of this is quite funny coming from a book where the main character supposedly learns the importance of words. Further, I love that the protagonist comes to the conclusion that Hitler "would be nothing without words." Really? REALLY? Would Hitler be nothing without WORDS? What about self-loathing, misplaced blame and hatred, an ideology, xenophobia, charisma, an army, and a pride-injured nation willing to listen? Don't those count for something??
The shit-storm comes to an end when a bomb lands on our fictional town, wiping out everyone save for the sometimes book-thief main character. Of course. Because weak writers who don't know how to end their story just kill everyone off for a clean break and some nice emotional manipulation. Written for maximum tear-jerking effect, our main character spews out some great lines when she sees the death and destruction around her:
To her dead mother, "God damn it, you were so beautiful."
To her dead best friend as she shakes him, "Wake up! I love you! Wake up!" (Didn't I see the same thing in that movie My Girl?)
Then she profoundly notes that her dead father "...was a man with silver eyes, not dead ones."
And this kind of angsty adolescent prose just never ended! It went on and on to form the one long-ass, senseless, disjointed story.
But that's ok. Take it all the junk, give it a quirky narrator, an obscure and mysterious title, throw in a Jew on the run from Nazis who likes to draw silly pictures of birds and swastikas, and market it all as Holocaust lit. Ahh, the packaging of bullshit makes for such a sweet best seller.
Swallow it down, America. Put it on the shelf next to The Kite Runner. You love this. You live for this.
SUCKED.
1711 likes · Like
∙
flag
Sign into 카지노싸이트 to see if any of your friends have read
The Book Thief.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
July 24, 2008
– Shelved
May 11, 2010
–
Started Reading
May 12, 2010
– Shelved as:
worst-garbage-i-ve-ever-read
May 12, 2010
– Shelved as:
sucked
May 12, 2010
– Shelved as:
i-want-my-money-back
May 12, 2010
–
Finished Reading
March 21, 2012
– Shelved as:
rants
Comments Showing 401-450 of 1,263 (1263 new)


6 million plus people died, and Nazis lost in 1945.
Yah. I totally spoiled it. :)

Yes. If you can find me online (and I've worked hard to make sure I have zero online presence), you can read my writing.
Becky wrote: "I disagree with you but found your review entertaining. I picked up on some of the things you said but I do feel like the part where Hitler would be nothing without words was incredibly true. As yo..."
I disagree. Citing one thing as the reason for hitler's rise to power is a gross oversimplification of events.

Becky,
If you read a history book you will find that Hitler didn't gained power just because of his charismatic traits.
Hitler was elected chancellor in Germany due to his charisma, of course, and because he offered the German people a way out of the terrible financial crisis after WWI and the crash of the US stock market in 1929, but the Nazi party was a minority.
The Nazis wanted to approve a law to let them make other laws without any approval and in order to get that, they replaced almost all the police force with Nazi militants and intimidated, bullied and incarcerated their opponents from other political parties.
Afraid of this, the Catholics made an alliance with the Nazis (as they did in Italy with Mussolini and in Spain with Franco's rebels) in order to be left alone and in exchange vote for them and give them those unlimited powers that they were seeking.
Combining the votes from the Catholic party and those unable to vote against them because they were intimidated, incarcerated and even murdered, Hitler got the ability to approve laws without any opposition or veto, later declaring illegal all the other political parties.
As a matter of fact, the first country that the Nazis took by force was indeed Germany.
Basically, an instrumental factor for the raise of Fascism in Europe was the catholic church, and was also the catholic church who helped many Nazis to evade justice, helping them escape from Germany after the war was lost.
So, saying that Hitler gained power just because he was charismatic is not just an oversimplification, it is a lie.

Thank you for that.

Don't even mention it Petite, I think it was just too much.
(sorry for my delay answering you, but I was away)


If the way Zusak writes is art, language is doomed to failure.


Not having read the book, it might be strange to say I'm more toward not agreeing with this review. Considering some things you pointed out here.. Just curious, are you a literal person? I know I am, I personally just try not to show it out on reviews. Not that it'd be a bad thing..
Your reasons sound a bit trivial to me, but I'll give you a thumbs up anyway! A very helpful review since there are many people who also hate this kind of stuff. I don't think I'd exactly love it either, but I'm too deep a thinker to easily hate something I guess :)


Or maybe you have to be very shallow to understand such a bad book...

It seems like the translator really tried to make the sentences intelligible. :)))))
It's unbearable in Romanian but in English it sounds horror.

It seems like the translator really tried to make the sentences intelligible. :)))))
It's unbearable in Ro..."
I can't read Romanian, but be sure that in English is absolute horror.

As i was saying i find this a bit racist and would appreciate if the part about how it shouldn't be written by a 30-year-old Australia was taken down.

WOW! WTF is with your attitude? We are talking about books and not politics! What is wrong with you? I am from Romania I am very fucking and I am sure that even my country, who where under Soviets and Nazis, can't understand and explain how a German would feel in Nazi Germany, though you came from thousands of miles and talk about Australian participation in WW2 though you hadn't nothing to do directly with Hitler's regime!!?!?!?!? If you like the author of that piece of garbage, hit the LIKE button on his Facebook page and don't get carried away and throw words with no sense in a fair review. Jesus.... the people in 21 st century are so easy to get offended... get a grip! Fucking political correctness

I think Elyse makes a point worth responding to.
I was not commenting on Australia's activities in World War II. My comment was to imply that a 30 year-old Australian -- who is not Jewish, did not experience the Holocaust, doesn't speak German and did no research on this time period -- is not the best source of fiction on the subject.
It would be like me, a 30-something American writing a novel about growing up under the last emperor of China based solely upon my ideas of what it must have been like. I could come up with a novel, sure, but much like the Book Thief, my novel would be historically inaccurate, sentimental fiction.

Your novel may be like the Book Thief, historically inaccurate, sentimental fiction, but probably better written than that piece of garbage...

I have't seen the movie, but I like what the Guardian had to say about it:
"This lite-historical tosh has absolutely nothing in common with the power of Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List. It's a worryingly lenient and obtuse approach to history and historical evil, which are smothered in feelgood tragi-sentimental slush."
That's exactly how I feel about the book, too.



You know I love you, 6138, but I think Emily has written one of the most rational defense of the novel in this thread -- apart from Bellomy up there who practically wrote a dissertation in defense of The Book Thief. :)
I enjoy people who disagree with me in a rational way. Keep reading, Emily. It gives me faith in humanity to hear that young people still read and that a select few manage to think critically about what they've read.
6138 wrote: "Writing "cause", instead of because, I am not surprised that you loved the metaphors and writing style of the Book Thief."
You realise, don't you, that this is an Internet forum and not an academic dissertation? Nitpicking writing that is, in fact, perfectly comprehensible is rather silly. My grammar, for what it's worth, is excellent, and I loved TBT.
You realise, don't you, that this is an Internet forum and not an academic dissertation? Nitpicking writing that is, in fact, perfectly comprehensible is rather silly. My grammar, for what it's worth, is excellent, and I loved TBT.

You realise, don't you, that this is an Internet forum and n..."
Disagree. Use of grammar on an Internet forum dedicated to books often signals to readers how seriously they'll consider a poster's comments and ideas.

I'm not sure what the word for things like 'cause' is - I was under the impression that syntax referred to the arrangement of words. Not being a grammarian, though, that's only what I got from a quick Google search. In any case, I think that's rather an odd argument. Emily used full, coherent sentences and explained her reasoning well. Picking at one thing and saying, "I'm not surprised you liked this! Your grammar sucks!" is more ad hominem than anything.
I do understand where you're coming from and I do agree to some extent, but 6138 isn't talking about taking other people's posts/comments/opinions seriously, they're talking about criticising someone's tastes based on *one* mistake. Yes, diehard Twilight fans who read nothing but paranormal YA are more likely to be ungrammatical than someone who reads Nabokov. Still and all, it's silly to say, "No wonder X crap thing appealed to you!! Look at your grammar!" Someone genuinely liking something such as TBT doesn't mean they're an idiot who can't write. It may reflect on their lack of critical thinking or whatever else, but their stylistic choices? On an *Internet forum*?
I suggest you watch in which Stephen Fry explains why it's silly to nitpick someone's grammar in an informal environment. His argument's worth looking at, and it's really what I'm trying to get at here.
I do understand where you're coming from and I do agree to some extent, but 6138 isn't talking about taking other people's posts/comments/opinions seriously, they're talking about criticising someone's tastes based on *one* mistake. Yes, diehard Twilight fans who read nothing but paranormal YA are more likely to be ungrammatical than someone who reads Nabokov. Still and all, it's silly to say, "No wonder X crap thing appealed to you!! Look at your grammar!" Someone genuinely liking something such as TBT doesn't mean they're an idiot who can't write. It may reflect on their lack of critical thinking or whatever else, but their stylistic choices? On an *Internet forum*?
I suggest you watch in which Stephen Fry explains why it's silly to nitpick someone's grammar in an informal environment. His argument's worth looking at, and it's really what I'm trying to get at here.
La Petite Américaine wrote: "And he wasn't criticisig her gammar, he was using her syntax to draw the conclusion that she liked the novel"
"The conclusion that she liked the novel?" Certainly not. She said she liked the book in her first comment. He only extrapolated on that by way of her stylistic choices.
"The conclusion that she liked the novel?" Certainly not. She said she liked the book in her first comment. He only extrapolated on that by way of her stylistic choices.

On a site dedicated to reading and on a thread dedicated to the ins and outs of language that appear in a very crappy novel (that claims that words lead to holocuasts), of course people are going to cling to grammar.
Haven't you noticed how many idiots in the thread have insulted me for spelling Chekhov's first name wrong in the post? They don't care about why, they ignore my explanations in the post and in the comments, they simply use one typo made 5 years ago on a foreign keyboard to insult my opinion. On a book review site, I'm not too surprised. It barely causes me to blink. I doubt Emily is shedding tears over 6138's comment.
La Petite Américaine wrote: "What can I say? I abhor bad grammar and will readily use it to insult someone and draw conclusions about their character. I can't fault 6138 for it, even if I really did enjoy Emily's comment.
On ..."
Fair enough. I personally don't like using grammar (esp.
on the internet) to insult people, but different strokes.
On ..."
Fair enough. I personally don't like using grammar (esp.
on the internet) to insult people, but different strokes.

And I love you too ;P
Tavi,
Sometimes we like things that are poor quality, but we like them anyway, the thing is that A LOT of people think that they liking makes them to be good and is not the case. It's OK to like something with poor quality, but it's quality continues being low, like in this case The Book Thief...
My problem is not with people saying "I like it", my problem is with people saying "Because I like it, this is the greatest book ever and the author is a genius".
And my biggest problem is with a book like this presenting a highly distorted and inaccurate version of an important chapter of history to young readers.
I don't see the insult to Emily. I just said for me is clear how somebody using "cause" instead of the full word likes the metaphors of TBT. Is that an insult? I don't think so.
Let's see... why using "cause" instead of the full word? laziness about including two more letters?, trying to look cool doing it? I don't know, but that is not a grammar mistake, does not seem to be a typo, it looks intentional... And to me that intentionality and the possible reasons for it are in agreement with someone liking TBT, especially the metaphors.
May I be wrong? by all means. But is my opinion and again, I fail to see an insult in it.
By the way, my grammar is far from perfect, I am not a native English speaker.
And to me that intentionality and the possible reasons for it are in agreement with someone liking TBT.
I just find that a strange rationale, that's all.
Sometimes people write (esp. in informal environments) the way they speak. In text messaging or youtube, Facebook or some blogs it'd be fine to write cos or cause. So I don't see why people cast aspersions on it on GR's comment section, which is a public forum (it's not like there are moderators to ban you if you use text-speak). It may have been intentional, but it *is* more casual and more informal than 'because'.
As I said above, I find it weird that people feel the need to comment on other people's grammar in a place where casual speaking is the norm. It's not as if this is an academic forum. I'm not just talking about you personally, I mean anyone. I don't understand why it's even relevant. It's like criticising someone (to borrow Stephen Fry's comparison) for going to the supermarket wearing a onesie and thongs (what Americans call flip-flops). It doesn't serve a purpose beyond making you feel superior, and it doesn't promote critical discussion about the books.
Why bother, 6138? I'm genuinely curious.
I just find that a strange rationale, that's all.
Sometimes people write (esp. in informal environments) the way they speak. In text messaging or youtube, Facebook or some blogs it'd be fine to write cos or cause. So I don't see why people cast aspersions on it on GR's comment section, which is a public forum (it's not like there are moderators to ban you if you use text-speak). It may have been intentional, but it *is* more casual and more informal than 'because'.
As I said above, I find it weird that people feel the need to comment on other people's grammar in a place where casual speaking is the norm. It's not as if this is an academic forum. I'm not just talking about you personally, I mean anyone. I don't understand why it's even relevant. It's like criticising someone (to borrow Stephen Fry's comparison) for going to the supermarket wearing a onesie and thongs (what Americans call flip-flops). It doesn't serve a purpose beyond making you feel superior, and it doesn't promote critical discussion about the books.
Why bother, 6138? I'm genuinely curious.

The only reason this book is taken seriously at all is because the author chose the right "venue," if you will: World War II and Nazi Germany provide a lovely backdrop.
This is exactly why almost all Holocaust fiction is so worthless; it serves as little more than an intense and emotional setting, relieving authors of having to do any real work by building those sentiments from scratch--doing so organically would require talent, and too many authors lack it.
I'd not thought of that, but I agree. It still won't stop me being sucked in and/or enjoying the book, but I'll bear that in mind.
This is exactly why almost all Holocaust fiction is so worthless; it serves as little more than an intense and emotional setting, relieving authors of having to do any real work by building those sentiments from scratch--doing so organically would require talent, and too many authors lack it.
I'd not thought of that, but I agree. It still won't stop me being sucked in and/or enjoying the book, but I'll bear that in mind.

And on another note, while The Book Thief should be spat upon for the horrible writing, 6138 gives the most important reason right here as to why this godawful book is so goddamn terrible: "A book like this presenting a highly distorted and inaccurate version of an important chapter of history to young readers."
Absolutely.
You know, I would be interested to see what he would've done, if he'd "written it from scratch". Another reviewer pointed out that Z could've written a story about stealing books without necessarily bringing the Holocaust or WWII into it. It's one thing to write people fleeing from a war, it's another to write a book which is nearly unrelated to war and might've been done much more organically. I think the trouble with this book is that, although it tugged at my heartstrings, it bases its whole premise on the power of words to destroy/influence. And that simply didn't work as a strong moral in this setting. Oh, it worked for me wrt characterisation, but not necessarily because it pointed out any strong home truths or anything.
Incidentally, have you read Embassytown by China Mieville? It does the 'language as destroyer of society' far more effectively than Zusak. I wasn't keen on parts of it, but plenty of GR users were.
Incidentally, have you read Embassytown by China Mieville? It does the 'language as destroyer of society' far more effectively than Zusak. I wasn't keen on parts of it, but plenty of GR users were.

I haven't read Embassytown, but it sounds interesting. It just proves again that Zusak's ideas of language are nothing new (Orwell, anyone?) so he doesn't even have that going for him.
Two thumbs down...wish I could live long enough to see the day when this trite crap novel is finally out of print.
See, I love Zusak's writing, so if he had written this sans war I'd have had no complaints on that score. His Underdog trilogy, written prior to this, is basically about a kid living in Glebe and how he interacts with his family. There's boxing and soccer, but no mostly gimmicky stuff like Holocaust settings.
Oh, good Lord, but 1984 bores me to tears. :P I've tried to read it three times and it gets worse each time. I loved TBT because of the friendship between Liesel and Rudy, and because of the writing. If the book bores me I can't get into it, no matter how profound the message.
In Zusak's defence, no idea is entirely original, anyway. But I agree that his message didn't exactly come across strongly.
Oh, good Lord, but 1984 bores me to tears. :P I've tried to read it three times and it gets worse each time. I loved TBT because of the friendship between Liesel and Rudy, and because of the writing. If the book bores me I can't get into it, no matter how profound the message.
In Zusak's defence, no idea is entirely original, anyway. But I agree that his message didn't exactly come across strongly.

Were you thinking of my comment (repasted below)? Or did some other brilliant reviewer on goodreads say it? In which case I need to friend him/her.
" The poorly contrived plot and blatant sentimentality are the foundations of what makes this such a horrid book. Really, it's no different than something you'd find on the Lifetime network: heavy-handed sentimentality, illogical and improbable plot twists, poor dialogue, and metaphors worthy of a greeting card. The only reason this book is taken seriously at all is because the author chose the right "venue," if you will: World War II and Nazi Germany provide a lovely backdrop.
This is exactly why almost all Holocaust fiction is so worthless; it serves as little more than an intense and emotional setting, relieving authors of having to do any real work by building those sentiments from scratch--doing so organically would require talent, and too many authors lack it. The only fictional Holocaust book that gets away with it is Sophie's Choice, and that's because not only is Styron a masterful writer, but also because the novel uses the Holocaust to pose much greater philosophical questions --unfortunately for Book Thief fans, good Holocaust fiction goes well beyond the the tears and tragedy they so adore.
Even though I count Sophie's Choice as one of my top 5 favorite books, people are always better off learning about human history from the truth: museums, documentaries, historical texts, etc. Visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC; better yet, visit Auschwitz if you can stomach it; talk to the few remaining WWII Jews who survived; read memoirs (Diary of Anne Frank, anyone?); study the historical texts.
But wait...all of that requires so much more time and effort than simply crying over the Book Thief and declaring "words" as the source of Hitler's power."

I don't know how anyone could be bored by 1984, especially given that the work is commentary on the system of government that controlled half of the planet for 45 years.
But that's just me.
I'm glad that you liked TBT for reasons other than what most people on here say, which is that it made them cry so it was good.
Nah, it was Sophia's review I'm thinking of. Also, this person made much the same point as you: /book/show/1...
I also liked it for the friendship between Max and Liesel, and yes, it made me a little teary, but that's not necessarily the main reason I enjoyed it, if that makes sense.
Ah, you see, if the characters bore me, the book will. I found nothing to like or relate to (or, frankly, to care about) in Julia or Winston. And it's arguable that that was the point, but with zero emotional engagement or investment in the characters, I simply couldn't bring myself to give a damn.
Also, I can guess your feelings on Holocaust fiction and Holocaust YA, so I'm not sure if you've read or would like Tamar by Mal Peet. The present-day bits are very YA-ish and rather weak, but most of the WWII stuff I found sublime. It's about two guys working for the SOE in the Netherlands. It's very matter-of-fact about the particular duties and necessities of war: not blase, but without sensationalism. The writing is spare, much more so than that of TBT. I'll stop reccing books now, I swear. ;)
I also liked it for the friendship between Max and Liesel, and yes, it made me a little teary, but that's not necessarily the main reason I enjoyed it, if that makes sense.
Ah, you see, if the characters bore me, the book will. I found nothing to like or relate to (or, frankly, to care about) in Julia or Winston. And it's arguable that that was the point, but with zero emotional engagement or investment in the characters, I simply couldn't bring myself to give a damn.
Also, I can guess your feelings on Holocaust fiction and Holocaust YA, so I'm not sure if you've read or would like Tamar by Mal Peet. The present-day bits are very YA-ish and rather weak, but most of the WWII stuff I found sublime. It's about two guys working for the SOE in the Netherlands. It's very matter-of-fact about the particular duties and necessities of war: not blase, but without sensationalism. The writing is spare, much more so than that of TBT. I'll stop reccing books now, I swear. ;)


I'm fairly confident Tamar (at least, the historical section of it) doesn't "butcher the English language". As for historical accuracy, I know little about the SOE, so I'll have to reserve judgement.
I tend to like books by authors with a talent for writing.