The Book Thief by Markus Zusak

4
This story recounts a small section in the life of one Liesel Meminger, a nine-year-old foster child, as she lives in Munich during World War II and the people she comes into contact with during this small period. And the narrator of this story? Death himself.

Reading that little summary, I myself would have doubted how good this book could be and would have thought it liable to be extremelye preachy and generally dislikable. This was not the case, and even early on in the book, I feel this is made clear. Death, the character, isn't some figure of malevolence; he is funny, insightful and (despite the irony) remarkably human. It is only towards the end that it made clear that he is not human- he is something more. But the book does not dwell on such things. This is the story of Liesel, not death's job during World War II. Personally, I felt in some ways death was used as the narrator because in our minds he is as unsympathetic and as cruel a thing we can think of, especially in a War environment. Many would see him as snatching away their children- why not let them survive? But he makes it clear that it is his job to collect the souls and allow them to move on. He takes no life prematurely- he has no choice in the matter of taking them.

The story is ultimately about the power of words. It begins as reading and how that helps Liesel escape and then it begins to transform. Seeds of ideas are planted in her, and they grow and take on new life to her. She begins illiterate and yet she becomes a force to be reckoned with- this small German girl. There is the wonderful passage when she is angry and it says how the words which until then had merely moved beneath the surface suddenly break through. Then she knows what to say, how to say and, most importantly, why it needs to be said.

The setting of World War II is fantastic for showing this because Hitler himself is well-known as being a great orator. He managed- with words and manipulation- to unite a struggling country and keep them united despite almost all hardship. I do not deny ths importance of Nazi military might or any of the more heinous things he did, but he began as man who spoke with zeal and could inspire those around him. (Maybe I'm baffling a bit; half of my A-Level- a pre-University qualification- is based on Germany in the 1900s.)

When it comes to characters, I thought they were all brilliant. I loved Rudy, Hans, Rosa and Max because Zusak wrote such believable and wonderful characters. They didn't fall easily into the stereotypes we have of people living in that era (within reason). Part of the way he did that was by not letting the era define them. War doesn't touch Munich very much until well into the book and even then it is mostly sporadic. This distance from War both allows for comparison and stops this book becoming preachy.

But my favourite character was Death himself. Liesel was smart, hopeful and reaslistic girl but at the same time she was the hero and, frankly, I find her less interesting in comparison to Death. Part of the reason she is important and notable is because Death sees her as such. But Death has a personality and a colourful (no pun intended) one at that. Though it isn't expressly said, I feel as though he dislikes death. He talks about the colours of the sky when he collects a soul, since he doesn't want to look into another dead face, another pair of empty eyes. His eternal existence has also left him cynical and often poetic. Perhaps it is ironic that Death enjoys quite simple pleasures as an interesting phrase (but then, that is what I saw the theme as).

I think that this is too long a book to sum up, and the ideas it explores render near impossible to sit down and narrow my thoughts of this book down concisely and precisely. The only other thing I much mention (without giving away anything) is the end. Simply put, it was the kind of ending you accept as inevitable but dislike all the same.

Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen

5
Austen's first written (but last published) novel follows Catherine, a young, inexperienced woman who makes sense of the world around her through the fantastical, Good Vs Evil romantic view of the world. Despite what one might call nuances, it extremely easy to read.

I'm so glad to have read Austen again. I think she's my favourite classical author because I understand her wit, her imagery and find myself captivated by stories that I never thought I would like or read. This isn't my favourite, but it really is a great book. Its greatest strength is how easy to read it is. Classics are infamous for being difficult to read and they say you need a great vocabulary and all that. It helps, don't mistake what I'm saying, but that's nonsense. Anyone can read, understand and enjoy a classic if the story is to their liking. With this book it's particularly prominent since had I not known it to be Austen, I could have mistaken it for contemporary writing. It really is that understandable.

The book itself is weird. As I said, I read it as coming-of-age as our protagonist sets out into town-life and finds her world upside down and herself mesmerised. She's never encountered this kind of thing before, and it shows in her naivety and simple trusting nature. She gradually begins to question herself and those around her, and eventually starts maturing, but I'm glad that she isn't completely different at the end. Catherine is still Catherine, just with a different view of the world.

Narration was a another oddity in the book. It wasn't bad, but Austen's way of writing was in a way that she'd occasionally move from the third person view of just Catherine's story to making a social commentary or witty remark. Once, she even went from Catherine's train of thought to her own ideas. It was nice, as someone who likes Austen, to get such a straight forward look into her head. I think if I'd read this first though, it might have been bothersome since here before me was a writer I had never read getting slightly off topic. I'd defend her saying this is merely her first book, but the point stands.

As a coming-of-age novel (at least in my mind), it's expected that the side characters would be strong and diverse. There was perhaps a sense that one family was bad and another was good, but I think it wasn't unfounded and, at least at the time, it wasn't bad so much as 'not-good'. I'm being a little vague in case you read it. The characters themselves were amazing though: I could picture Isabella, hear Henry Tilney's voice and see his smile as he teased Catherine or his sister and picture the kind of gentleman the General was. And as I say, they were diverse. Catherine, in order to develop, has to encounter people that would challenge her innocence and force experience upon her. So we face the deceptive or the secretive and she originally ignores it, but comes to recognise it and then act upon it. For me, I liked the General because (grumpy and prejudiced as he is) he was interesting and hard-to-read.

Since Austen is known for it, I'll talk about the romance in the book. There are two love interests in this book, and indeed romance and love forms parts of a side-story/sub-plot, but it isn't as prominent as in other books. Rather than perpetually husband-hunting or at least very romantically aware (like Elizabeth or Emma from her other books) the romance is always peripheral in Catherine's view of the world. She considers her own fancy important, but it doesn't overshadow the idea that this book is more about Catherine's perception of the world. I think I'll make a comment her as well that I always prefer classical romance. It more about falling in love than the aftermath, which interests me more.

One final comment is that I loved how Catherine seemed to contrast Emma in her later book. One is self-assured, a matchmaker and sometimes annoying, the other is innocent, impressionable and loveable. I really feel like the pair are practically two sides of the same coin, though not quite. By the end of the book, Catherine has learnt enough to be considered not as polar-opposite to Emma as originally. Anyway, just a thought that I'd like opinions on if opinions are to be had.

So I adored this book and if you're struggling this late on for a Christmas present, perhaps this would not be a bad idea? It's not a romance, and the humour and tale of story based almost entirely on perception (making it in many ways unreliable) is interesting. Austen's way of referring to her as the Heroine grounds us in it's ironic reminder to take what is said with a pinch of salt. An excellent book.

Marked Quotes:

"The person, be it gentlemen or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid."


"I cannot speak well enough to be unintelligible."