MASARYK UNIVERSITY - Death as the Narrator of The Book Thief by Markus Zusak - FACULTY OF EDUCATION
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MASARYK UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Department of English Language and Literature
Death as the Narrator of The Book Thief by
Markus Zusak
Bachelor thesis
Brno 2018
Supervisor: Mgr. Zuzana Kršková, Ph.D. Author: Radka NedelčevováAbstract Aim of this thesis is to analyse the narrative structure of The Book Thief, with special attention paid to Death as the narrator and to his complicated relationship towards humanity. The thesis is divided into two main parts, a theoretical and a practical one. Firstly, the theoretical part introduces types of narrators in general and then examines Death as the narrator as well as the other minor narrators in The Book Thief and discuss their function in the book. Secondly, it deals with a literary technique called a prolepsis which both forms the backbone of the story and allows for a closer examination of Death as the narrator. The second chapter is dedicated to the analysation of Death’s relationships to other characters as well as to the reader, war and colours, as I find them crucial for understanding Death’s relationship towards humanity in general. Anotace Cílem této bakalářské práce je analyzovat narativní výstavbu Zlodějky knih se zaměřením na Smrt jako na vypravěče a na jeho komplikovaný vztah k lidstvu. Tato práce je rozdělena na dvě hlavní části, na část teoretickou a praktickou. Teoretická část představuje obecné typy vypravěčů, načež rozebírá jak Smrt jako vypravěče, tak i zbylé vedlejší vypravěče ve Zlodějce knih a rozebírá funkci, kterou v knize zastávají. Tato část se dále zaobírá literární technikou zvanou prolepse, která utváří kostru příběhu a zároveň umožňuje lepší pochopení Smrti jako vypravěče. Druhá kapitola je poté věnována analýze vztahů Smrti k ostatním postavám, čtenáři, válce a barvám, jelikož věřím, že právě tyto vztahy jsou klíčovým bodem pro pochopení vztahu Smrti k lidstvu.
Keywords The Book Thief, narrator, narration, narrative structure, Death, humanity, Markus Zusak Klíčová slova Zlodějka knih, vypravěč, vyprávění, narativní výstavba, Smrt, lidskost, Markus Zusak
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Mgr Zuzana Kršková, Ph.D.,
for her patience, guidance and help along the process of writing this thesis. I would also like
to thank my family and friends for their support and encouragement.Declaration
I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this bachelor thesis and that I have used only the
sources listed in the bibliography and identified as references.
Prohlášení
Prohlašuji, že jsem bakalářskou práci vypracovala samostatně, s využitím pouze citovaných
literárních pramenů a zdrojů uvedených v seznamu literatury v souladu s Disciplinárním
řádem pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se zákonem č. 121/2000
Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých
zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů.
In Brno, 30 March 2018 Radka Nedelčevová
________________Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................7 1 Narrative structure ...............................................................................................................9 1.1 Types of narrators in The Book Thief .............................................................................9 1.1.1 Death’s and Liesel’s narration: The Book Thief and Death’s (non-)omniscience ....... 12 1.1.2 Max’s narration: The Standover Man and The Word Shaker ..................................... 16 1.2 Prolepses in Death’s narration ..................................................................................... 21 2 Death and others ................................................................................................................ 25 2.1 Hello, I’m Death ......................................................................................................... 25 2.2 Death and characters, Death and the reader ................................................................. 29 2.2.1 Death and Liesel ....................................................................................................... 29 2.2.2 Death and Hans Hubermann ..................................................................................... 32 2.2.3 Death and other characters........................................................................................ 34 2.2.4 Death and the reader ................................................................................................. 37 2.3 Death and the war, Death and the colours .................................................................... 40 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 42 Sources ................................................................................................................................. 44
Introduction
When the time to write a bachelor thesis came, there were countless topics in my
mind. Yet there was one which protruded amongst the others. I read The Book Thief for the
first time many years ago, but still the words of the unusual narrator remain in my mind,
emerging on many occasions. And the choice of the topic was one of them, I desired to better
understand the narrator, to reveal the hidden aspects of the book.
Once the topic was settled, I began to search for secondary sources on The Book Thief
and quickly found there was quite a limited amount of them to be found, as the book was first
published in 2005. At first, I considered it quite an obstacle, over time, however, I began to
perceive it as a challenge, as I was allowed to do a research on an almost untouched text,
which I found enthralling. As far as the study of the narrative structure itself is concerned, the
number of academic sources is extensive. For that reason, the first – theoretical – part of the
thesis is more supported by secondary sources then the second – analytical – one is.
The most remarkable feature of Markus Zusak’s The Book Thief is the novel’s unique
narrative structure, which combines several types of narrators as well as a large number of
literary techniques such as a prolepsis. The story of Liesel Meminger – who, at the beginning
of the story, is a little illiterate girl growing up in a forster family in Germany during the
Second World War – is from predominant part narrated by Death, who becomes acquainted
with her story by reading a book she wrote and lost as the story was drawing to an end. The
whole story reflects Death’s complicated relationship towards humanity, as he, on his eternal
mission of collecting the souls of dying ones, gets into the position of a witness of both
beautiful and terrifying deeds of mankind.
The aim of this thesis is to analyse the narrative structure of The Book Thief with
special attention paid to Death as both the narrator and character, as those roles partly overlap.
I believe that choosing an inhuman narrator with complicated relationship towards humanity
puts, at first glance paradoxically, a human face on the story. In the thesis I would like to
argue that even such narrator in such times, being a witness to all the brutality of the war, is
still able to have hope in humankind. And what more, that, despite all Death’s efforts to
distant himself from humans, he still wants to have such hope. I would like to discuss that no
matter how many times he tries to state otherwise, throughout his acts and relationships he
proves that he cares for humans and that traces of humanity can be found even in such
inhuman narrator.
7The thesis consists of a theoretical and practical part, both of which are divided into
several subchapters. The theoretical part deals with the narrative structure of The Book Thief.
Firstly, it introduces types of narrators in general and then examines Death as the narrator as
well as the other minor narrators in The Book Thief and discuss their function in the book.
Secondly, it deals with a literary technique called prolepsis, which both forms the backbone of
the story and allows for a closer examination of Death as the narrator. The second chapter is
dedicated to the analysation of Death’s relationships to other characters as well as to the
reader, war and colours. I believe that those relationships are crucial for the understanding of
Death as the narrator, as they often stay in contrast with the narrator’s statements about his
relationship towards humanity.
81 Narrative structure
1.1 Types of narrators in The Book Thief
The unusual composition of The Book thief combines several types of narrators as well
as a large number of literary techniques whose mutual connection forms a coherent text. The
aim of this chapter is to analyse the types of narrators, the narrative structure and literary
techniques used in the book with special attention paid to the character of Death as the
narrator and argue their meaning in The Book Thief. At the beginning of this chapter I would
like to provide some theoretical background for later use in the analysis of the work.
As Death throughout the book functions not only as a narrator but also as a character I
feel the need to define both terms, highlighting the differences. In Chris Baldick’s The
Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Devices, the term ‘narrator’ is defined as the “one who
tells, or is assumed to be telling, the story … in modern analysis of fictional narratives, the
narrator is the imaged ‘voice’ transmiting the story.” (166), whether ‘character’ is in the same
source defined by one simple word “personage” with an addendum “in a narrative or dramatic
work” (37). Such definitions suggest that a narrator can be both an unmaterialized voice
outside the story, simply describing the plot, or also a character himself/herself describing the
plot, extending into it, influencing it.
In case of the narrator being the unmaterialized voice, Bal in his Narratology:
Introduction To the Theory of Narrative argues another important difference to realize. He
marks the narrator as “the linguistic subject” (16), pointing out the difference between the
narrator and the biographical author of the narrative. He demonstrates the difference on the
book Emma by Jane Austen, he does not deny the importance of Jane Austen’s personality,
yet he highlights that she as the author and the narrator, altough an unmaterialzed voice, are
not the same. As Death, together with the rest of narrators in The Book Thief, falls into the
second category, where the narrator functions also as a character, I will discuss the category in
more detail.
Traditionally, narratives are divided into categories according to the person speaking.
There are three major categories: a first-person, second-person and third-person narrative. I
would exclude the second-person narrative from the ones further explored for two reasons.
First, it is the only type of narration not appearing in The Book Thief and secondly, according
to Bal the second-person narrative is an exceptional phenomenon, rarely appearing in
9literature1 (21). The first-person narrator approaches to the story from the “I” or occasionally
also “we” point of view and speaks from his/her/their subject position (Leveen). Naturally the
usage of such narrator brings a subjective view of the plot and limits the information given to
those to which the narrator has access and to which he, she or they believe. It is the first-
person narrator who usually represents both a narrator and character. The third person
narrator, on the other hand, is usually not a figure in the story, he is marked as an “observer”
(Leveen), describing the action he sees from the position of a witness, without interfering in
the story. There is also an omniscient type of a narrator who can be, accroding to The Concise
Oxford Dictionary of Literary Devices, very commonly found in cases of the third-person
narratives. An omniscient narrator stands outside the described events but has special
privileges such as an access to the unspoken thoughts of characters and the knowledge of
events happening simultaneously in different places (Baldick 178). Many authors, such as
Kissova or White, give an example of Death as a typical example of an omniscient narrator
and in the next subchapter I would like to confront such denomination.
As I have already mentioned, Zusak’s unique narrative form combines several types of
narrators. Even though such narrative form is for its disrupting of previous routines in
narratology most developed in postmodernism, according to Brian Richardson such
combining “is not exclusively modern phenomenon” (62), which he supports by tracing such
phenomenon even in Dicken’s Bleak house, first published in 1853, where an omniscient
narration mingles with the first-person narration of one of the book’s characters.
Although the prologue, where Death introduces himself, undoubtedly represents first-
person narration, the bulk of the book is written in third-person narrative. The prologue,
together with some selected chapters (such as “Death’s diary: 1942” in “Part six”, or “Death’s
diary: Cologne” in the same part) and epilogue are clearly narrated by Death, who, in the
possition of the first-person narrator, speaks in “I” point of view and by reflecting his views
and thoughts into the narration represents the subjective narration. The change of the narrative
voice itself is not artificial as the smooth transition between the narrative perspectives is
indicated by the last sentences of the prologue: “Here it is. One of a handful. The Book Thief.
If you feel like it, come with me. I will tell you a story. I’ll show you something.” (Zusak 24).
By such request the narrator both engages the reader by directly adressing him/her and
prepares him/her for possible change in the type of narrative – as he mentiones that he is
1
As an example of such narrative type, Bal lists Michael Butor’s La modification, calling it „an exceptional
‚second-person‘ experiment“ (21).
10about to present Liesel’s book, where Death obviously will not stand as a narrator – signifying
his interest in the reader. Such interest shown indicates that Death, contrary to his statement of
being distant, cares about the reader, the human, regardless the fact that he has no idea who
exactly the reader would be, showing his affection to humans in general.
Contrary to the prologue with Death as the undisputable first-person narrator, in the
following story it remains unclear whether Death retells or even just reads Liesel’s book –
which he confessed to take from a garbage truck, where Liesel had lost it – or whether he
himself tells the story he already knows by heart, after reading Liesel’s book several times.
Would it be the case that Death only reads Liesel’s book, with his occasional commentary of
individual passages, a theory about dual narrative 2 should be discussed. Yet in the end of the
book we witness the only parts where Liesel actually stands directly and demonstrably as the
narrator and that is represented only by four short paragraphs. Through the first of the four
paragraphs I would like to demonstrate their nature:
PAGE 1
I try to ignore it, but I know this all
started with the train and the snow and my
coughing brother. I stole my first book that
day. It was a manual for digging graves and
I stole it on my way to Himmel Street.3 (Zusak 530).
The passages from her book are written in the first-person narrative and although they tell the
same story as Death presents us – as he knows most of the story only through the book – the
passages differ a lot from the actual The Book Thief. Liesel’s narrative form is more brief,
does not contain as much figurative language as Death’s narrative form, but mainly her first-
person narrative never directly adresses the reader. The deep interest in the reader, asking
him/her questions, confessing, asking him to trust the narrator is what makes Death’s
narrative form special, highlighted by the different form of Liesel’s narration. Liesel as the
narrator wrote the story for herself, while Death as the narrator wrote the story with special
regard to the reader, providing his interest in him/her.
2
A form of narrative with two different perspectives, usually represented by two different narrators.
3
All emphasized (bolding, italics, centered), visually separated from the rest of the text.
11This insight into the Liesel’s The Book Thief denotes that Death is in the position of
the narrator even in the parts where he does not speak in the first-person narrative, with an
exception of the four paragraphs. Yet these four paragraphs aren’t the only parts of the book
where he loses the position. Another narrator is included in two separated books inserted in
the storyline. The interconnection of Liesel’s and Death’s narration and the nature and
importance of Max’s narration be discussed in detail in chapters 1.1.1 and 1.1.2.
1.1.1 Death’s and Liesel’s narration: The Book Thief and Death’s (non-
)omniscience
Now when we established Death as the narrator of not only the direct parts with his
first-person narration, but also of the parts describing the book thief’s story, there remains a
question of Death’s narrator type in those sections, as it clearly differs from the first-person
narrative ones. For those purposes I decided to put Death’s and Liesel’s narration into one
subchapter, as I believe that their narrative voices cannot be truly separated, as Death’s
narrative voice is linked to Liesel’s one so tight that their voices in many parts overlap.
According to the range of information provided by the narrator, which includes not only
Liesel’s thoughts but also a large amount of information from the same time period, yet from
geographically very distant places, and also a large number of prolepses, the omniscient
narrator could be easily estimated, as it corresponds to the previously mentioned three main
points describing an omniscient narrator in The concise Oxford dictionary of literary devices4.
Yet I believe that Zusak’s Death is not the case, which I would like to argue by refuting these
three points.
The first sign of Death’s possible omniscience are his testimonies from geographically
very distant places yet happening almost in the same time. In the book it is represented for
example by Death witnessing Liesel and Rudy’s discovery of the dropped plane, as he comes
there to carry the pilot’s soul away from the place of the fall, from Molching, Germany. Just
before that Death carries away another soul, Reinhold Zucker’s one, from Essen, where
Zucker served in army together with Hans, almost seven hundred kilometers away from
Molching, not to mention Death’s previous description of the situation in distant Stalingrad,
Russia. However, all the testimonies have one common denominator which is at least one
dying person. Death never describes himself as present in a scene where there is no soul to be
carried away. Together with Death’s statement “I’m in most places at least once, and in 1943
4
Full knowledge of the story’s events and of the motives and unspoken thoughts of the various characters […]
capable of describing events happening simultaneously in different places (178).
12I was just everywhere.” (Zusak 543) Death appears rather omnipresent during the war, when
so many peoples die, than omniscient.
Also, in all the scenes described he never seems to have any knowledge in addition to
the one he gains by being a witness of the events while waiting for a soul or by reading
Liesel’s book. In the sceen where Liesel’s brother dies and Death meets her for the first time,
Death describes the scene by words:
The guards were tall and short. The tall one always spoke first, though he was not in
charge. He looked at the smaller, rounder one. The one with juicy red face.
‘Well’, was his response, ‘we can’t just leave them like this, can we?’
The tall one was losing patience. ‘Why not?‘
And the smaller one damn near exploded. (Zusak 17).
Death doesn’t assign names to those who were nameless for both Liesel and him in the
position of a witness, referring to them only by using descriptive adjectives. On the other
hand, during the story we are given names of even such characters as Pfiffikus, who never
actually intervenes in a story. Liesel meets him in the street where Rudy tells her Pfiffikus’
name as he mocks his walking style and whistling, which signifies that Death as the narrator
doesn’t omit any information he knows. Still, as Jonathan Cullers discusses in his work
Omniscience, every narrator can be possibly omniscient, only refusing to share every
information he has with the reader (25). Yet I believe that such refusal would be flowing,
permeating the entire book or would include only essential information which the narrator
would omit for personal reasons. Concealing the names of the guards and telling the names of
other marginal characters would be counterproductive, as both names are of equal little
importance, without any interference in the story. Mentioning Pfiffikus’s name and omitting
the names of the guards signifies that Death as the narrator simply does not know them.
The second sign of Death’s possible omniscience would be his ability to record
thoughts of a character, which he undoubtedly can as in “No, thought Liesel as she walked.
It’s my heart that is tired. A thirteen-year-old heart shouldn’t feel like this.” (Zusak 433). As
Meir Steinberg’s study of omniscience suggests: “omniscience, being a superhuman privilege,
is logically not a quantitative but a qualitative and indivisible attribute; if a narrator
authoritatively shows himself to be able to penetrate the mind of one of his characters and
report all his secret activities - something none of us can do in daily life - then he has thus
13decisively established his ability to do so as regards the others as well.” (282). However,
throughout the entire book, the only thoughts the reader can read directly belong either to
Death himself or to Liesel which signifies that Death is not able to look into the human mind
in general, he plainly knows Liesel’s thoughts through her book, as the four paragraphs of the
original Liesel’s The Book Thief included in Death’s narration indicates that Liesel dealt with
the description of her thoughts in the book in great detail:
PAGE 42
Papa sat with me tonight. He brought the
accordion down and sat close to where Max
used to sit. I often look at his fingers and
face when he plays. The accordion breathes.
There are lines on his cheeks. They look drawn
on, and for some reason, when I see them,
I want to cry. It is not for any sadness or
pride. I just like the way they move and
change. Sometimes I think my papa is an
accordion. When he looks at me and smiles
and breathes, I hear the notes. (Zusak 531).5
Although, with respect to the nature of the paragraph quoted, Liesel’s feelings and
thoughts are well described in the original book narrated by Liesel in the first-person
narration, there are still passages in the actual The Book Thief where Death as the narrator
inclines to specualate about Liesel’s state of mind as in: “He never did explain it to Liesel, but
I think she knew very well that the reasons were twofold.” (Zusak 313). The usage of word
‘think’ in this case indicates that Death should not be classified as an omniscient narrator, as
he is not able to follow thoughts of the characters unless they are spoken or - in Liesel’s case -
unless they are included in her book.
5
All emphasized (bolding, italics, centered), visually separated from the rest of the text.
14Contrary to that lack of knowledge, Death as the narrator offers the reader stories from
Max’s youth, he mentions experiences Hans gained during the World War I, long time before
Liesel’s coming to Himmel street. Such extensive knowledge would fit the description of an
omniscient narrator, yet even in this case an explanation can be found in the book. It takes
place in the part of the story when Max comes to the Hubermanns, seeking a shelter. Rosa and
Hans realize how important it is for Liesel to understand, to be able to keep the secret, so they
“explained the First World War and Erik Vandenburg, and then the visit to the fallen soldier’s
wife … The book thief sat and listened to Hans Hubermann’s story. It lasted a good hour.”
(Zusak 210). It could be assumed that writing the story of her life Liesel would not omit the
beginning of it, which brought this knowledge to Death. Such assumption suggests that
although Death appears to be omniscient, all the knowledge he gains – except for the events
he witnessed himself – is indirect and learned through Liesel’s experiences which she
recorded in her book.
The humanlike limitations of Death’s knowledge can be most markedly seen in his
description of the story from Max’s young years. In a chapter called “A Short History of the
Jewish Fist-fighter”, the narrator offers us a lifestory of Max Vandenburg, beginning with his
birth in 1916. The story of Max growing up is described in the third-person narrative, in a
descriptive and non-emotional way. Yet in one paragraph the narrative style changes. It is
when Max’s uncle’s death is described: “The light in the window was grey and orange, the
colour of summer’s skin, and his uncle appeared relieved when his breathing disappeared
completely. ‚When death captures me, the boy vowed, ‘he will feel my fist on his face’.
Personally, I quite like that. Such stupid gallantry. Yes. I like that a lot.” (Zusak 197). This
paragraph is the only part of the whole chapter where the narrator speaks in the first-person
narrative and also the only part where direct speech appears. I believe that those two points
present that Death is not an omniscient narrator, as he is able to record the exact words spoken
only in the scene where he was actually present, hearing the words himself, as he was there to
carry Max’s uncle’s soul away. The descriptive third-person narration stands for the
information he knows from Liesel’s book. Although the direct speech is common also in other
parts of the book, where Liesel appears as a protagonist, I believe that Liesel could easily
include the exact words in her book, or they could be estimated on the basis of her detailed
description of the events she lived. The absence of direct speech in the part of the story which
Liesel knows only from Max’s retelling is yet another indication that Death knows the
information which he didn’t witness directly only through Liesel’s book.
15The third sign of Death as an omniscient narrator would be the number of prolepsis 6
included in his narration. The narrator’s ability to know things from the future would be a
proof of his omniscience, yet the fact that he retells an already closed story, commenced with
a sentence “I will tell you a story” (Zusak 24) and closed with a sentence in the “Prologue”: “I
should tell you that the book thief died only yesterday. Liesel Meminger lived to a very old
age, far away from Molching and the demise of Himmel Street.” (Zusak 547), removes the
omniscience of the flash-forwards, yet keeping the function of such literary function, which I
would like to discuss in the subchapter 1.2.
Death then represents both the first-person and a limited third-person narrator,
changing and intermingling during the story. Erin M. Gipson in her thesis for the Degree of
Master of Arts at The University of Southern Mississippi called A Close Encounter with
Death: Narration in Markus Zusak's The Book Thief offers a new term “performative
omniscience” for Death as for a nonhuman character who pretends to be omniscient as to
mask his humanlike narrative limitations (29). Although I agree with Gipson’s conclusion of
Death acting like an omniscient narrator, yet without an intention to trick the reader, as Death
does not try to hide the explanation of his knowledge by natural events or causes 7 (29), I do
not agree with her calling Death’s narrative knowledge as humanlike. Death narrative
knowledge is, similar to human narrative knowledge, limited to what he actually witnesses
himself or what he learns from different sources. But still I believe that it should not be
marked as humanlike as Death, especially during war years, appears “in most places at least
once” (Zusak 543). Such partial omnipresence, presence in every place where a person dies, is
not humanlike.
1.1.2 Max’s narration: The Standover Man and The Word Shaker
Apart from Death’s and Liesel’s narration, The Book Thief offers one more narrator,
whose point of view Death as the narrator decided to incorporate into his narration. Whereas
Liesel’s narration permeates Death’s whole narration – although in its original form it appears
only four times at the end of the book in form of already mentioned four paragraphs – Max8’s
narration is presented by two books contained in The Book Thief in their original forms, as
Max wrote them. The first one is a story of Max’s life, an autobiography, in the first-person
6
A narrative device, “a ‘flashforward’ by which a future event is related as an interruption to the ‘present’ time
of the narration” (Baldick 205), discussed in detail in chapter 1.2.
7
By reading Liesel’s book.
8
Max is a Jewish boy, who one day appears on the doorstep of Liesel’s forster family – the Hubbermanns’ –
house, seeking a shelter.
16narrative, second is a fairytale about the power of words and Max and Liesel’s friendship,
written in the third-person narrative.
The whole two books, both representing a different genre – an autobiography and a
fairytale – included in The Book Thief in their original form, could be referred to as a pastiche.
Term ‘pastiche’ was, according to Ingeborg Hoesterey’s study Postmodern Pastiche: A
Critical Aesthetic, derrived from Italian “pasticcio”, which was a designation for a paté of
various ingrediences (493). The term then, mainly in postmodernism, referred to the
occurrence of multiple genres in one piece of art not only in literature, but also in several
kinds of art including painting and architecture. In The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary
Devices the term is described as “a literary work composed from elements borrowed either
from various other writers or from a particular earlier author.” (Baldick 185). Death’s story
stands as a demonstration case of pastiche as defined in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of
Literary Devices, as his narrative form is created by elements of his own, Liesel’s and Max’s
works.
Chris Baldic in his The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Devices also claims that
pastiche, unlike parody, presents the works of other authors as a “form of flattery rather than
mockery” (186). Based on this definition I would like to argue the meaning of Max’s two
books in The Book Thief, the narrator’s possible motives to include such books in their
unchanged form in his own narration. To do so I believe a brief introduction of the two books
should be presented.
The first one, The Standover Man, is a “thirteen-page booklet” (Zusak 232), a story for
which Max had painted over the pages of Mein Kampf in white paint and then wrote his own
life story, a story of his own fight, over them. The book, after it has been completed, serves as
a late birthday gift for Liesel. The title The Standover Man is explained in the very first page:
179
Max then describes how he liked to fight as a child, but whenever he lost a fight, there was
another man standing over him. A few years later, while on the run, he describes how he was
afraid of falling asleep, as he didn’t know who would stand over him when he wakes up.
When he finally reached the final destination, the Hubermann’s house, there was a girl, not a
man, standing over him when he woke up, giving hope that not every “standover man” we
fear is to be feared. Max then describes how their friendship began from his point of view:
10
9
Page 1: All my life, I’ve been scared of men standing over me, Page 2: I suppose my first standover man was
my father, but he vanished before I could remember him.
10
Page 7: I slept there for a long time. Three days, they told me… and what did I find when I woke up? Not a
man, but someone else, standing over me., Page 8: As time passed by, the girl and I realised we had things in
common.
18One day, when Max had nightmares, Liesel asked him what he dreamed of, so he explained
that it is his family he left behind what hunts him in sleep. Liesel then told him, that it is her
brother, who died on their way to Himmel street, who hunts her in her sleep. And that was the
moment when Max believes the friendship started:
11
In The Standover Man, Max pictured himself not as a human, but as a bird, explained
in his book on page 9 by words “But there is one strange thing. The girl says I look like
something else.” (Zusak 241), accompanied by an illustration of humanlike Max looking into
a mirror, seeing a reflection of a bird instead. When Death as a narrator describes Max writing
the book with words: „As he worked, he heard the whispered words of a girl. ‘His hair’ she
told him repeatedly, ‘is like feathers’.“ (Zusak 232). Yet I believe that Max’s portrayal as a
bird carries also a different metaphorical meaning, as Max’s forced to hide in the cellar could
evoke an association with a caged bird, physically imprisoned, yet psychologically not
controlled, as he painted the pages of Main Kampf by white paint and wrote his own story
over them.
The act of his personal rebellion by painting over the pages is highlighted by the
original form of his book being kept, as the words of Main Kampf are slightly translucent to
The Standover Man. Such act, Max’s personal victory over Fuhrer, together with the way
Liesel changed Max’s angle of view looking at “standover men” proves hope, that even in the
worst time, when a human being is forced to hide in a cellar, humanity is not lost and a
11
Page 11: In return, she explained what her own dreams are made of, Page 12: Now I think we are friends, this
girl and me. On her birthday, it was she who gave the gift – to me. It makes me understand that the best
standover man I’ve even known is not a man at all…
19friendship can be stronger than fear. I believe that the fact that Death as the narrator decided
not only to incorporate this story into his narration, but also to incorporate the story in his
original, unchanged form, shows his own belief in humanity and points to his desire to spread
this hope.
The second book called The Word Shaker is Max Vandenburg’s sketch book,
including countless sketches and stories. Yet for the purposes of my thesis by “The Word
Shaker” I would like to refer not to the whole sketch book mentioned in The Book Thief, but
only to the story called “The Word Shaker”, the only part of the original sketch book
incorporated to Death’s narration. It comes on page 116 of the original sketch book with
Max’s short introduction:
Liesel – I almost scribbled this story out. I thought you might be too old for such a
tale, but maybe no-one is. I thought of you and your books and words, and this strange
story came into my head. I hope you can find some good in it. (Zusak 450).
The fact that Death as the narrator decided to incorporate the annotation indicates that he
agrees that maybe no-one is too old for such tale and can find some good in it.
In “The Word Shaker” Max, as a third-person narrator, tells a story of the power of
words and friendship. In the story a young man, described in three points: “1) He would part
his hair from the opposite side to everyone else, 2) He would find himself a small strange
moustache, 3) He would one day rule the world” (Zusak 451), observes a women and her
child, realizes the power of words and decides to conquer the world with their help. He plants
a forest of propaganda, but soon people starve for his words so much that there is a need for
people to climb the trees and throw the words down to others. Such people were called word
shakers. One word shaker, a little girl, also understands the power of words. “One day,
however, she met a man who was despised by her homeland, even though he was born in it.”
(Zusak 452). She cries for him and one tear, made of friendship, becomes a seed, from which
a tree, higher then any other, grows. All the people fed with words of hate and fear of the
propaganda tries to cut the high tree down, yet it is not possible. One day a boy whom nobody
seems to know comes, climbs the tree and finds the word shaker hidden high in the tree
crown. It is her friend for whom she cried. They climb down together and the tree finally falls,
destroying a part of Fuhrer’s forest. And following the path created by the tree trunk, they
leave the forest.
20“The Word Shaker” describes the power of words, their ability to serve both good and
evil. It points out the power of friendship and provides hope that even when a single tree –
which seems to be the only good thing in all the forest – falls and does not destroy the forest,
it still creates a new path through it, enables the word shaker and her friend to leave, to be
free.
This story, as well as The Standover Man, contains Max’s hope in humanity and belief
in the power of friendship. I believe that Death’s decision to incorporate such stories in their
unchanged form reveals his own hope in humanity and his desire to share it.
1.2 Prolepses in Death’s narration
In addition to those two books embedded into Death’s narration and occasional
insertions in form of Death’s comments and passages from other books12, there is another
phenomenon disturbing the chronological order of events. In the prologue, before the actual
story based on Liesel’s book begins, Death tells the reader about how he met Liesel three
times, revealing the key moments of his impending narrative in advance, including its ending.
Such literary device of shifting in time to the future is called a prolepsis or also a
flash-forward. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Devices describes the term
prolepsis as a Greek word for ‘anticipation’, having three diferent meanings. For the purpose
of this thesis I consider only the third one, describing prolepsis as a narrative device, “a
‘flashforward’ by which a future event is related as an interruption to the ‘present’ time of the
narration” (Baldick 205). In the following paragraphs I would like to argue the amount and
function of prolepses Death as the narrator incorporated into his narrative.
12
Such are the paragraphs from Liesel’s book or quotes from the Duden Dictionary.
21As a part of the prologue, after introducing himself, Death decribes the three times he
saw the book thief, mentioning three important points of her life, all linked to someone’s
death. He does so through the colours of the sky, which he confessed to love and seek
distraction in when he is not able to stand to look at the wretched human destinies. The first
colour is white, just as the snow covering the railway line, where Liesel’s brother died. I see
also a possible symbolic meaning in the white colour, as Liesel’s little brother died young,
with pure soul. The second colour is black, as the smoke was still floating from the fallen
plane with a dying pilot inside. The black colour could also symbolise the dark times of 1943,
when the incident took place, as Death himself marked this year with words “in 1943 I was
just about everywhere.” (Zusak 543). The last colour is red, the narrator describes the sky as
boiling and stirring soup, still coloured by the horrors it has witnessed. The red-colored
prolepsis stands for the end of Liesel’s story, as it represents the day when bombs fall on
Himmel street, killing everyone except Liesel, who wrote her book in a cellar. She lost the
book that day and Death found a story he offers to retell by words: “If you feel like it come
with me. I will tell you a story. I’ll show you something.” (Zusak 24).
I believe that those prolepses, highlighting the saddest parts of Liesel’s story - the
parts where Death comes to carry away a dying soul - do not only form the backbone of the
story, but also reveal a lot about the narrator himself. Despite his statement that he keeps
himself distant, usually without any feelings for the living ones, stating those three key
moments (including the distressing end) in advance, Death reveals that he actually cares even
for the unknown reader, trying to prepare him for such ending. This theory is also supported
by Death’s way of narration, which is in some points similar to a dialogue with a reader,
discussed in detail in the chapter 2.2.4 Death and the reader.
Also, Death’s interest in the reader, humans in general, is reflected by his choice to
incorporate the prologue to his narration. In The Book Thief, Death as the narrator retells
Liesel’s story based on her book which he found. The actual story ends with bombs falling on
Himmel Street, yet the narrator assumes reader’s desire for absolution. In the prologue Death
states that the book thief died only yesterday, “Liesel Meminger lived to a very old age”
(Zusak 547). Such note would be a natural end of the story from such narrator’s point of view,
yet the prologue contains also chapters about Max and Rudy’s father, both important
characters in the story, who weren’t on Himmel Street during the bombing. The chapters
follow their reunion with Liesel, providing hope even in the darkest time, soothing the reader.
22The whole narrative structure of The Book Thief is based on prolepses. Not only the
three prolepses in the prologue form the backbone of the story, but prolepses can be found as
the articles of narrative construction also at the beggining of every one of the twelve parts of
the book13, as the first page of every such part contains not only its title, but also a list of
names of every chapter included in the part. The names are highly descriptive, representing
short prolepses themselves as in:
PART NINE
THE LAST HUMAN STRANGER
featuring:
the next temptation – a card player –
the snows of stalingrad – an ageless
brother – an accident – the bitter taste
of questions – a toolkit, a bleeder, a
bear – a broken plane – and a homecoming (Zusak 463).
The titles of individual chapters themselves does not bear much information value,
however, in the context with which the reader is after reading previous chapters familiar, they
provide a clear idea of what events the reader can expect. The next temptation clearly refers to
Liesel’s another book thievery, as Liesel has been previously described in temptation of
visiting the mayor’s house again, to steal another book there. A card player creates an
expectation of hearing about Hans, as he was many time described as a card player, during his
visits to the pub. The titles A toolkit, a beede, a bear and a broken plane then does not only
create an expectation, but directly refer to the chapter already stated in the prologue, where a
plane fall and Rudy and Liesel appeared with a toolkit, from which Rudy gave a dying pilot
the teddy bear.
Those short prolepses differ from the previously mentioned ones, represented by
whole chapters. They also frame the story, creating a logical patter for narration. Yet this time
their meaning seems more to hold reader’s attention, to make him think about the story - what
is there to come and how could it happen - then to protect the reader from emotional harm.
13
The prologue and epilogue included.
23Still I believe that even such prolepses reflect Death’s relationship to humanity as the narrator
admits that he is aware of what he is doing by a short utterance:
Of course, I’m being rude. I’m spoiling the ending, not only of the entire book, but of
this particular piece of it. I have given you two events in advance, because I don’t have
much interest in building mystery. Mystery bores me. It chores me. I know what
happens and so do you. It’s the machinations that wheel us there aggravate, perplex,
interest and astound me. There are many things to think of. There is much story.
(Zusak 253).
In the passage the narrator once again offers the reader the chance to identify with him, by
those words he claims that he does not lie, as he has no interest in building mystery. He then
even compares his knowledge – even though being a partly omnipresent being – to the
reader’s one, which evokes the feeling that he does not percieve himself as someone superior
to humankind. Death’s relationship towards humanity most permeates his relationships with
other characters and reader himself/herself. I would like to devote the second chapter to the
analysis of such relationships.
242 Death and others
2.1 Hello, I’m Death
I would like to devote this chapter to the introduction of the narrator, Death, himself.
Through the story we are given information about who he is and who he would like to be by
two basic means, by direct and indirect characterization. While the direct one appears mainly
in the prologue, where the narrator introduces himself, the indirect one permeates the whole
book, demonstrated by Death’s actions, thoughts and also by his relationships to other,
human, characters.
Reading the very first lines:
First the colours.
Then the humans.
That’s usually how I see things.
Or at least, how I try.
HERE IS A SMALL FACT
You are going to die (Zusak 13)14
one would gain an impression that the character is very distant from any relationship to
people. It may seem insensitive, bold or even a bit cynical to put such statement at the very
beggining of a speech. Nevertheless, right after such introduction Death begs us, the readers,
the people to trust him, that he can be cheerful. He apparently cares about the readers’
opinion, even tries to soothe them by saying “I urge you – don’t be afraid. I’m nothing if not
fair.” (Zusak 13). That first page of the book perfectly reflects Death’s manners in general, as
the light feeling of inpudence, insensitivity and cynicism does never leave a significant part of
Death’s utterances. Yet none of the statements with such tinge ever remains unexplained,
misunderstood or without a justification. These parts of texts are always followed by sincere,
open speeches, where we are, in a long and descriptive way, invited to our narrator’s world,
introduced to his neverending employment, to his life.
14
All citations of Zusak marked only by a page number refer to: Zusak, Markus. The Book Thief. London: Black
Swan, 2013. Print.
25After the short introduction, we are given the same information of our own mortality
once again, yet this time in more poetic and descriptive manner. “You will know me well
enough and soon enough, […] your soul will be in my arms. A colour will be perched on my
shoulder. I will carry you gently away.” (Zusak 14) Even though the narrator reminds the
readers of their mortality once again, there can be found nothing bold or cynical this time. As
he uses the phrases “carry you gently away” and “be in my arms”, just as a parent carries a
baby in his/her arms, which both sounds carefully, lovingly chosen, evoking a feeling of
solidarity and compassion with humankind, showing his interest in people. Nor does the “well
enough and soon enough” sounds menacingly as the ancient Death describes the eternity he
has spent on Earth “I’ve seen milions of them. I’ve seen more elipses than I care to
remember.” (Zusak 21).
The merging of the seemingly insensitive statements with the considerate ones could
be a result of Death’s originally intended shape. As Zusak stated in an interview which is a
part of later editions of his book (as for example The Enhanced Movie Tie edition by Knopf
Books for young readers, 2013), the character of Death was substantially different from the
final state. In Zusak’s words: “At first, though, Death was too mean. He was supercilious, and
enjoying his work too much. He'd say extremely creepy things and delight in all the souls he
was picking up . . . and the book wasn't working.”15 Zusak then rejected such character and
created a completly new one, yet I believe that the merging is a proof that faint echoes of the
former Death can still be found in the new one.
We are never given any information about Death’s actual age or origin, but little hints
pervading the whole book outline the image of an immortal being, whose life goes beyond the
origin of mankind. In the obvious loneliness of eternity, our narrator tries to distract himself
not only by colours but also, as introduced in Part six, by writing a diary. In a chapter called
Death’s diary: 1942 the narrator once again reminds us of the eternity of his life by
comparing specific years in human history to 1942 by: “It was a year for the ages, like 79, like
1346, to name just a few. Forget the scythe, God damn it, I needed a broom or a mop. And I
needed a holiday.” (Zusak 317). On August 24, 79 AD, Mount Vesuvius erupted and
devastated the Roman city of Pompeii. Yet the number of victims remains unknown,
professor Andrew Wallace-Hadrill’s study published by the BBC claims that “Romans were
accustomed to losses mounting to tens of thousands in battle, and even they regarded this
15
Zusak Markus. The Book Thief. The Book Thief: Enhanced Movie Tie. Knopf Books for Young Readers, 2013. E-
book.
26catastrophe as exceptional”, which indicates that the number of victims was in order of tens of
thousands. The year of 1346 refers to even more extensive disaster, the outbreak of black
death. By mentioning the years 79 and 1346 Death does not only point to his own
immortality, but comparing such two years to the World War II’s year 1942 also emphasizes
the horrors which he sees in those war times. The cynical tone of his speech, his calling for “a
broom or a mop”, for holiday, revealing how tired and occupied he is during the war years,
reflects the range of the war, indicating the sheer plethora of lives lost.
The word ‘holiday’ is mentioned several times in the book. Death himself repeatedly
speaks of the desire to escape, just for a moment, from all the suffering he has to witness and
from the endless work he has to do. As mentioned above, he considers himself affable, gently
carrying the human soul, these are not the dead ones, who hurt him. He states the true cause in
the end of prologue: “It’s the leftover humans.
The survivors.
They’re the ones I can’t stand to look at, although on many occasions I still
fail.” (Zusak 15). This passage indicates that despite his attempts not to look at them, he is
still not able to overlook them completely. The fact that ‘the leftover humans’ are able to
actually hurt him suggests that his relationship to people is not just a superficial interest, but
such emotion signifies a deeper affection.
The desire to escape, to rest from his endless work and the suffering he witnesses,
brings Death to a question “Who could ever replace me? Who could step in while I take a
break in your stock-standard resort-style holiday destination, whether it be tropical or of the
ski-trip variety?” (Zusak 15). The obvious answer is that nobody could, so Death holidays in
colours16, he’s watching the colour of the sky everytime when he picks a soul, trying to
distract himself from misery, from the ‘leftoever humans’. This simple call for a vacation
does not only show Death’s exhaustion, but the question “Who would ever replace me?” is
yet another hidden sign of Death being interested in people. He cares for the souls of fallen
ones he carries, pointing out he wouldn’t go with no replacement, leaving the souls alone in
this world.
16
I consider the colours to be one of the most important elements of the book, as they both reflect the
personality of Death and play an important role in the narrative structure. They are discussed in more detail in
the subchapters 1.2 and 2.3.
27In The Book Thief, Death has no power over the destiny, no possibility to choose who
is going to die and who live. As he says himself that he is not a cause, he is a result: “I am not
violent. I am not malicious. I am a result.” (Zusak 16). His utterances about wars he witnessed
are marked with feeling of sadness. In contradiction with his frequent statements about his
lack of interest in people, he tells us one of a million similar stories from his war testimony,
interwoven with a deep compassion for innocent victims. “Please believe me when I tell you
that I picked up each soul that day17 as if it were newly born. I even kissed a few weary,
poisoned cheeks. I listened to their last, gasping cries … I watched their love-visions and
freed them from their fear.” (Zusak 358). This extract is a demonstration of Death’s approach
to his mission. Despite an old adage that death and war are best friends, Death is different,
here he shows compassion to those who lose their lifes for nothing. He describes how
lovingly, even with a kiss, he freed them from their suffering. This time Death didn’t mention
the colours of the sky, he watched the love-visions of dying instead. As he confided before, he
tries to distract himself from the misery, yet he cares for the dying people so much to allow
himself to turn his eyes away from the colours of the sky, from his eternal distraction, to
witness the last memories of thoso people, whose souls he is about to carry away. The
ommision of his distraction indicates strong affection to humans.
Despite his affection to humans, not seldom it is humanity and humanity alone who he
blames for a remarkable part of the suffering he beholds. Often he points to the contrasts in
human’s nature: “[...] proof again of the contradictory human being. So much good, so much
evil.” (Zusak 171) despite that he still dares to believe in humans, after all the terrifying things
he witnessed. And this determination not to lose faith nor hope is the reason why he even has
the book thief’s book. This is the reason, why he has read Liesel’s book several times and
why he, as the narrator, wants to share this book with people: “To prove me that you, and
your human existence, are worth it.” (Zusak 24), to share his own hope. I would like to argue
the existence of this complicated relationship and affection towards humanity and the hope it
evokes in the next subchapters.
17
A reference to June 23, 1942
282.2 Death and characters, Death and the reader
The relationships between Death and other characters, although usually very
unidirectional ones, are one of the key elements of analyzing Death as a narrator, character
and his relationship to humanity in general. They represent the indirect characterization of
Death as his compassion, a sense of sadness from the fate of people during the war and desire
to help them contrast with his statements of being distant. Apart from those relationships,
firmly inscribed in the book, the unique form of narration also creates an environment for the
development of a relationship outside the book, between the narrator and reader. The narrator
often adresses the reader himself, speaking directly to him, asking him questions. He cares
about his opinions, he apologizes, confesses, explains, shows that he somehow needs the
reader to understand his motives. Death’s relationship to every individual character as well as
to the reader is unique, a bit different from the others and in every one of them I see a
different reflection of Death’s relationship to humanity in general. The next four subchapters
will be dedicated to more detailed analysis of those relationships.
2.2.1 Death and Liesel
At the beginning of the book Zusak’s Death is portrayed as an eternal being,
witnessing all the human cruelty, all wars the mankind has ever held, with no possibility to
have any influence over them. Being only a witness with no chance to intervene forces him to
seek distraction from all the misery, to avoid looking at the sadness of the “leftovers
human”18. Yet these are just these people who, from time to time, break through his barrier, as
his claim suggests: “It’s the leftover humans.
The survivors.
They’re the ones I can’t stand to look at, although on many occasions, I
still fail.” (Zusak 15).
A part of Death’s most extensive monologue at the beggining of the book is dedicated
to those of his ‘failures’, who affected him the most, naming Liesel as one of them: “and in
one of my vast array of pockets, I have kept her 19 story to retell. It is one of the small legion I
carry, each one extraordinary in its own right. Each one an attempt - an immense leap of an
attempt - to prove to me that you, and your human existence, are worth it.” (Zusak 24).
18
Described in the chapter Hello, I’m Death
19
Liesel’s
29You can also read
