The Book Thief and Literature Circles

            Wow, let me begin by saying The Book Thief was truly a gem.  I’ll rank it among one of the best books I’ve ever read – 550 pages flew by without evening feeling like it.  Anyhow,  I thought one of the themes that dealt with the power of words was most appropriate for a time period such as World War II.  To illustrate this point, lets look at one of Max’s lines from the book he created for Liesel, and the part regarding Hitler: “Yes, the Führer decided that he would rule the world with words. ‘I will never fire a gun,’ he devised, ‘I will not have to’” (445).  When I read this I couldn’t help but think of Louise Althusser who spoke so much about the rule ideology has over someone, and I also remember thinking of a linguist who once said “Language speaks us” – and when I searched the person that coined that phrase, ironically it was Martin Heidegger who had associations with the Nazi regime. 

Max spoke of two primary word shakers, both of whom had the ability to influence a lot of people within the book, each shaping the frame of mind people forever – one who promoted love for all mankind, and the other who wished only for a blue-eyed and blonde-haired race of mankind.  Another important detail about the novel, I thought, was how we see the perspective of people from a different angle.  Normally many people make connotations with people based on the country they’re from, just like many would assume all the German people loved Hitler and his agenda.  Not true.  Propaganda and other tactics employed created that image to the rest of the world.  And we normally would think every Nazi was inherently evil, when in reality, they were interpellated as one, with no choice than to suffer consequences if they chose not to.  And how was this all set in motion, again?  Because of that one man’s use of words, the one that knew he would never have to fire a gun or use physical violence to exert his control.

            Now to shift gears to Literature Circles, I think they’re a great idea if used correctly.  I observed several classrooms where the formation of the classroom was in a circle, but the teacher still acted as an instructor for the most part and the children had no control over the material they would read.  But still, it seemed more effective than anything I had to partake in in High School.  I also liked how the author was more in favor of group discussions to promote learning rather than objective tests.  Because like the author mentioned, literature shouldn’t be just black or white, and instead, it should be open-ended with multiple interpretations to allow for the growth of the student.  I also think he devised a way to create an almost bullet-proof approach to teach literature, where striking a right balance is fundamental.  He also emphasizes the importance of the teacher be a facilitator rather than the instructor.  Similar to why the Socratic Method is so popular, the student formulates his own meaning while being guided along.  I also thought the teacher observation and student evaluations were the best way to assess a student’s learning, because with literature you’ll know if someone actually read the material or not – no need for objective testing here.  And from my personal experience, in college I benefitted the most in classes where we would be in a literature circle fashion discussing the texts and hearing other people’s voices that can help develop our own understand.