A child, without question, would view what happens at Auschwitz as wrong. While adults may place rationalization upon justification to it, a child’s viewpoint is direct and simple about it. When Pavel gets beaten (and possibly dies) for spilling a drink on Lieutenant Kotler, Bruno questions why no one stood up for him and stopped it. To an adult, they would make up some explanation as to why he was beaten which would be, because Pavel was a servant (possibly a Jew) and he got done to him what he ‘deserved’.
But to a child, to be beaten for such a simple thing was wrong. If Bruno had done the same thing, the most he could have gotten was a slap on the wrist. But in reality, it was much worse. Bruno’s curiosity is what led him to enter an “Out-of-Bounds and No Exceptions” territory, the fence. This led to Shmuel and their friendship. Because of their friendship, the author can also describe the horrors inside the camp not just as it is living outside.
For example, when Shmuel is ordered to polish the glasses, he was caught ‘stealing’ food and when Shmuel and Bruno met once again, there was evidence that he was beaten as a punishment. If Bruno was never friends with Shmuel, he would never have been able to guess what would be happening in the camp, and the readers could only leave everything up to their imagination. Though Bruno kept his innocence throughout the whole book, even as they were being gassed, he was still holding Shmuel’s hand as they were together, holding their friendship.
While reading Jack Kerouac’s novel On the Road I have noticed that the author Ernest Hemingway is mentioned quite often in the book. This has raised my interest to focus my research on the following. For the purpose of this paper I would like to take a closer look at Jack Kerouac’s novel On the Road, in context of the Beat Generation, in comparison to Ernest Hemingway, the leader of the Lost ...
Bruno’s innocence and his friendship with Shmuel shows how friendship can flourish even if they were just two nine year olds trying to make sense of their surroundings. They neither had the education nor the instinct to determine the situation that was surrounding them, which was the holocaust. But in the end, they were just among the millions of innocent people caught up in it. Bruno and Shmuel helped the author to portray the holocaust in an positive view by taking two people, from different backgrounds and placed hem in the same place separated by a fence and made them the most best friends. To summarise, Bruno’s innocence and his friendship with Bruno help the author write about the holocaust because his innocence is unprejudiced and naive, he sees what he sees. His friendship with Shmuel would also help a lot because not only does it display both sides, how the holocaust affects the Germans as well as the Nazi’s, it also helps the author to add a little positive influence which is to even in hard times, good things can happen.