All the Broken Places, John Boyne, author; Kristin Atherton, Helen Lloyd, narrators
In this final novel, that began with “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas”, we are forced to contemplate the source of true guilt and the rationale behind it. Gretel Fernsby, now in the tenth decade of her life, was the daughter of a Nazi sympathizer who was in the upper ranks of Hitler’s organization. Born in Berlin Germany, she was the eldest child of the Commandant of a Concentration Camp in Poland that engineered the deaths of so many innocent people. Was she guilty of the same heinous behavior by virtue of her environment she lived in and bloodline she came from? Just a child when she and her brother moved with the family to Poland, to the place where her father oversaw sadistic behavior, torture and murder, should she have been forced to endure guilt and shame, as a result of his actions, for her entire life? Both her parents were devotees of Adolph Hitler, and her early philosophy of life was naturally shaped by them. Is she, therefore, guilty for having loved them, in spite of their flaws, in spite of their crimes?
Are the sins of the father really meant to visit the children for their entire lives, so that they are held responsible for their crimes, too, though they were neither old enough nor powerful enough to have had any influence on the situation or on the adult parent’s behavior and choices? Are the children truly guilty also because of their bloodline, alone?
What is the responsibility of a child who has no power over the parent, or in the parent’s criminal behavior, regardless of how heinous it is, to try and influence it? Was Gretel really guilty of any crime, except for that of being birthed and raised by cruel and sadistic parents? Since a child is generally powerless in the face of the authority of her parents, was the guilt she carried for their behavior warranted, or was her guilt really a manifestation of the shame for the cruel words spoken to her brother Bruno, which had calamitous consequences? Was Gretel really responsible for what happened to Bruno, or would he have eventually been caught up in the Holocaust anyway, because of his own nature and his friendship with Shmuel, a boy of his own age imprisoned in the camp who was slowly being starved and tortured?
Was it fair or realistic for others to blame Gretel for the atrocities committed by her father and the behavior of her mother? Should she have been held responsible for any of the crimes that took place on “the farm”, which was what she and her brother believed the camp actually was? Gretel certainly came to think that she was responsible, and she carried her shame and guilt as a secret, for the next 8 decades, into all parts of her life, even as she hid from it. However, in the real world, what could Gretel have done to alter the outcome of the Holocaust?
Gretel was a precocious young girl, with an awakening body, when she lived in Poland, but she remained ignorant of the horrors taking place around her, so was she truly responsible for not stepping forward to denounce her father and those she had known? How could a 12-year-old defy her mother, put her mother’s life in danger? She already believed she was responsible for the death of her brother Bruno; three years her junior. She remained physically and mentally scarred from her experiences, resulting from the war years, for her entire life.
Was her lover David’s response to her confession about her background a rational one? Why could his friend Edgar deal with her vile revelations so much better when they had so unhinged David? Was it a matter of direct vs indirect involvement? Why did Gretel feel so much concern for Henry’s welfare? She didn’t even care that much for children. Was Gretel’s “final solution” appropriate? Would it be appropriate in any situation? Could she not have assuaged her own guilt by going public with her past, and dealing with it, so that Mr. Darcy-Witt would have no power over her? Since she was afraid that her past history would bring down shame upon her son, would not her final act against Mr. Alex Darcy-Witt be as heinous and shameful for him to deal with, or are some crimes more forgivable than others?
Was Gretel ever truly aware of the real danger in that place she and her brother called a “farm”? Her dilemma, throughout her life, reminded me of the Trolley Dilemma. Whom could she save? Regardless of the choice she made, nothing she could have done would have altered the horror taking place in the “camp” her Commandant father ran. In her final act, as she hoped for redemption, did she succeed?
There are parts of the novel that stretch credulity. Gretel’s relationship to Heidi, for example. The inclusion of same sex relationships, is another that seemed unnecessary. The punishment meted out to Gretel and her mother by the “survivors” seemed very cruel and on a par with the behavior of those they judged. The placing of guilt on the shoulders of a child who had no part in carrying out the Holocaust seemed a bridge too far. The kidnapping of Hugo also seemed to require the suspension of disbelief. Are we all capable of depravity?
Although it does not examine the depths of the barbarism of the Holocaust, the novel examines different types of cruelty, the depth of shame and guilt that people carry without end, the insight into the emotions and pain of survivors that seems to continue without abating, generation after generation, and it seemed like a very authentic presentation. I still wondered, at the end, however, what really was Gretel’s crime, and therefore, what was her guilt really about? Would the saving of Henry’s life truly give her peace in her final days though it required the commission of another heinous act? The book does make one think about justice and redemption, and if that was its purpose, it succeeded.