The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas Literary Analysis

When authors create texts they are constructed with an intention in mind, the way in which a reader interprets a text can support or resist the way in which the author wanted. John Boyne's, "The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas", is an example of a text in which numerous interpretations from both Boyne's intention and the readers personal context can be gathered. "The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas" is a story set in World War II from the perspective of an nine year old boy named Bruno, who happens to be the son of Auschwitz's commandant. He strikes an unlikely and forbidden relationship with a young Jewish boy named Shmuel who is imprisoned on the other side of the fence, leading to foreshadowed and unsettling events. John Boyne seeks to present a
very clear message on the German people, one that highlights the conflicting opinions of the Nazi party's influence in Germany. A resistant reading could suggest that Bruno is naive, so overly so, that any symbolic meaning that could be found within his character is unrealistic and ridiculous.

A reader could interpret a supportive reading which reflects the authors aim in delivering a particular comment.
This is known as a dominant reading. One of John Boyne's key intentions is to highlight the fact that even though the Nazi party was in power there were people who disapproved of and resisted their regime and did not bow to the power of Adolf Hitler. An example of this is seen in the quote, ""Ashamed!" She called out before she left. "That a son of mine should be - ". "A patriot." Cried Father, who perhaps had never learned the rule about not interrupting your mother"". This shows that Bruno's grandmother feels a strong sense of embarrassment for the fact that her own son is a commandant in the Nazi ranks, the same organisation that she is against and disapproves of. Juxtaposition is used in the phrase between the words 'ashamed' and 'patriot' to show the contrast between the two opposing views of Bruno's father and grandmother. The grandmother who feels guilty about even being associated with the Nazi's indirectly and the father who feels proud to support his country by being a member of the Nazi party. Bruno can be seen as a symbol for the German people, torn between two very opposing views, not knowing whom to trust or whether to question the authority of their own leader. This example from the text aids readers in interpreting a very dominant reading that supports the ideology that there were Germans who opposed the views of the Nazi's, which was John Boyne's
main intention.

A resistant reading that may be interpreted from the text conflicts with Boyne's main intention. This interpretation includes the naivety of Bruno, that he lacked so many basic skills that a nine year old should possess that he seemed highly unrealistic as a character. This could cause readers to feel critical of Bruno rather than sympathetic. An example of this is shown in the phrase, 'All he could say was that his father was a man to watch and that the Fury had big things in mind for him. Oh, and that he had a fantastic uniform'. It is through the use of repeated phrases such as 'fantastic uniforms' and 'Fury had big things in mind for him' that Bruno's over innocence is seen. This shows Bruno's lack of understanding of what his father does. He does not understand the war that is taking place and he does not understand the opposing sides of the war, especially the fact that his father is on the side deemed as wrong from an outside perspective. Bruno was intended to represent the innocence of the German people, but through analysing Bruno's character with assistance from repetition readers find it very hard to make the connection seem realistic. A nine year old would have heard about the war, either through school or outside forces like the radio and newspaper. It seems a ridiculous notion to think that any member of society in Germany, no matter how young, wouldn't know that a war was being fought, never mind what side they were on. The over simplification and innocence of Bruno has encouraged readers to think of Bruno not as a symbol but simply a very obtuse and imperceptive little boy. This textual example helps readers interpret a resistant reading opposed to that of which the author intended, which focuses on the naivety of Bruno.

My personal response to this text is almost entirely shaped by my application of personal context to the characterisation of Bruno.
I know a number of young children between the ages of six and ten that have enough cognitive ability to basic problem solve and form opinions and conclusions of their own. They are not oblivious to the world around them as Bruno so obviously is. A key quote from the the text states, ""Presented on the occasion of the opening of...Out-With Camp," he continued, stumbling over the name as usual". Bruno is completely disconnected with the situation that he is in, this is gathered by the use of third person and shows his lack of thoughtfulness and reflection. He is unable to draw a conclusion about the true terrible nature of the camp even after he is progressively presented with clues that should be obvious. The wire fence with the barbed wire on top that separates his home and the camp, the different uniforms for those on different sides of the fence, the fact that Shmuel appears unclean and poorly fed, these are all things which would allow any typical child to begin to realise that whatever is happening on the other side of the fence is bad. Bruno may have been intended to be a symbol of the German population's innocence, but when applying my contextual knowledge of children and the way in which they act, all I am able to see of Bruno is an underdeveloped and immature child rather than a strong symbolic figure. The fact that Bruno is meant to
represent the German people is offensive in itself, that the intelligence and innocence of the people has to be represented in that of a child. If we were to apply what we know of Bruno to what he's meant to symbolically represent, we would assume the Germans are naive, unintelligent and immature. All of these factors have aided me in having a resistant reading that defies John Boyne's intention for the text.