preview

Comparing The Book Thief 'And Hiroshima'

Decent Essays

War Stories. Fiction and non-nonfiction. What sets them apart? What do they have in common? Does one type of story do a better job of relating the experience of war? In this essay I will attempt to answers some of these questions, by compare a work of wartime fiction, Markus Zusak’s The Book Thief and John Hersey’s Hiroshima.
These two books present very different ways of telling stories that many similarities. They both are about how innocent suffer and make sacrifices during war. But what kind of story more effectively communicates these points? Hiroshima presents a cold and clear picture of the events and lives of those affected by the terrible disaster that ravaged the city. Although the facts and statistics present an accurate portrait, it leads to somewhat detached narration. And the constant switch between characters deprives the reader from getting too attached to the lives of any of the six protagonists. Sharply contrasting with The Book Thief, were the focus is on a single character, with a cast of supporting ones, leads the reader to become more invested in the …show more content…

I think a works of fiction are taken less seriously then relating to massive disasters because they can be dismissed as “not actually true”. I feel Hiroshima makes a better case for peace because of the horrors expressed in the pages of the book. The Book Thief also makes a case for peace, although it is not as strong. Although you can feel the terror of the German civilians during the Allied bombing raids you have a better sense of what the Americans are fighting against, because in the book you witness book burning and the persecution of Jews. While the in Hiroshima in barley mentions the atrocities committed by the Japanese in Asia. Because in the book you only get a small picture of Japan it is easier to make the case for

Get Access