THE MORAL VALUES REVEALED
THROUGH THE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN BRUNO AND
SHMUEL IN BOYNE’S
THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By:
STEPHANIE HELGA J. ANINDYA
Student Number : 084214072
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
i
THE MORAL VALUES REVEALED
THROUGH THE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN BRUNO AND SHMUEL IN
BOYNE’S THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By:
STEPHANIE HELGA J. ANINDYA
Student Number : 084214072
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
v
“Life is what happens to you
while you're busy making other
plans.”
vi
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Completing this thesis, I want to express my gratitude to Jesus Christ, who always guides me in working on this thesis and shows the enlightenments when I was down and desperately lost the ideas. I also present this gratitude to my parents, L. Sukarno Yudo, and F. Yuliana Rianti, who always give me support to keep writing and never give up to go on. I am also very thankful to my beloved brother, Athanasius Chrisma Herlambang, for giving me the encouragement to finish this thesis although he is far away there in North Sumatra.
My next gratitude is for my lecturers who always lead me to the right step, Dewi Widyastuti, S.Pd., M.Hum and Maria Ananta, S.S.,M.Ed. Then, I want to say thank you for my friend, Agathon Hutama, who handily gives me some help whenever I find troubles. I also want to express my big thanks to my friends for the advice, suggestion, and support so I can accomplish this thesis. They are Rintan, Gisa, Rissa, Ari, Cella, Nophek, Denty, and those who I cannot be mentioned here one by one.
Lastly, I would like to thank my friends in Lektor Kotabaru; Bertus, Irene, Lucy, Rini, Diesta, Pijey, for giving me columns to share my yelps and motivation to never give up my plan to finish this thesis this year.
ix
LEMBAR PENGESAHAN PUBLIKASI ILMIAH ... vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... viii
2. The Relation of Literature and Morality ... 14
3. Theory of Friendship ... 15
A. The Description of Main Characters in the Novel ... 25
1. Bruno ... 26
2. Shmuel ... 37
B. The Depiction of Friendship between Bruno and Shmuel ... 43
C. The Moral Values Revealed through the Friendship between Bruno and Shmuel ... 59
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ... 71
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 75
x
ABSTRACT
STEPHANIE HELGA J. ANINDYA. The Moral Values Revealed through the
Friendship between Bruno and Shmuel in Boyne’s The Boy in the Striped
Pajamas. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2012.
Moral values are the values which are regarded as the significant things in the society which aim to control humans’ behaviors in life. The Boy in the Striped Pajamas by John Boyne is one of the books which discusses moral values. From this book, the writer notices that moral values can be revealed using the perspective of friendship that is conducted by the two boys who are racially different living in the two different places during the Nazi regime.
In the first analysis, the writer described the two main characters in the story in which those characters play a role as the friendship creators. In the second analysis, the writer elaborated the friendship quality that they build. In the third analysis, the writer revealed the moral values from that friendship. The answers of the first analysis are used to answer the second analysis which then is elaborated to reveal the answers in the third analysis.
The writer used the library research method to answer the questions stated in problem formulation. The writer collected the data from many references to strengthen the theories in analyzing this novel. Besides, the writer also took some sources from the internet to support this analysis. Moral Philosophical approach is applied to give the further comprehension about moral values.
In the first analysis, the writer only described two characters who have the significant role in the novel in attempt to reveal the moral values; Bruno, a son of a Nazi commandant and Shmuel, a Jewish inmate. Their traits were analyzed to reveal the quality of friendship that is maintained by them. Bruno’s characteristics described in this analysis are adventurous, critical, spontaneous, kind, and naïve. Meanwhile, Shmuel is described as lonely, open, dependent, and naïve. Their characteristics then are analyzed to answer the second problem formulation, which is friendship characteristics.
xi
ABSTRAK
STEPHANIE HELGA J. ANINDYA. The Moral Values Revealed through the
Friendship between Bruno and Shmuel in Boyne’s the Boy in the Striped
Pajamas. Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2012.
Nilai Moral adalah nilai yang dipandang memiliki daya di masyarakat untuk mengendalikan tingkah laku manusia. The Boy in the Striped Pajamas karya John Boyne adalah salah satu buku yang membahas tentang nilai moral. Dari buku ini penulis melihat terdapat suatu nilai moral yang dimunculkan di dalamnya dengan menggunakan sudut pandang pertemanan dua orang anak berbeda ras yang hidup di tempat terpisah di bawah bayang-bayang rezim Nazi.
Di analisis pertama, penulis menggambarkan dua tokoh utama di dalam cerita dimana mereka berperan sebagai tokoh yang membangun persahabatan. Di analisis kedua, penulis menjabarkan tentang sifat pertemanan yang mereka bangun. Di analisis ketiga, penulis memunculkan nilai moral yang dapat dipetik dari sifat pertemanan tersebut. Jawaban analisis pertama digunakan untuk menjawab analisis kedua yang kemudian ditelaah untuk menghasilkan jawaban di analisis tiga.
Metode yang digunakan oleh penulis untuk menjawab rumusan masalah adalah studi pustaka. Penulis mengumpulkan data dari berbagai buku referensi yang mampu untuk menunjang teori yang digunakan untuk menganalisis novel ini. Selain itu, penulis juga menggunakan sumber dari internet untuk mendukung analisis ini. Pendekatan Filsafat Moral diterapkan untuk memberi pengertian yang tepat mengenai nilai moral.
Di analisis pertama, penulis hanya menjabarkan dua tokoh yang memiliki peran penting dalam pemunculan nilai moral dalam cerita; Bruno, seorang anak komandan Nazi dan Shmuel, seorang tahanan Yahudi. Karaktetistik mereka kemudian dianalisis untuk mendapatkan sifat pertemanan yang dibangun. Karakteristik Bruno adalah memiliki jiwa petualang, kritis, spontan, baik, dan naïf. Sedangkan karakter Shmuel adalah kesepian, terbuka, selalu tergantung pada orang lain, dan naif. Karakter kedua anak tersebut kemudian dianalisis untuk mendapatkan jawaban masalah kedua, yaitu sifat pertemanan.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains of background of the study, problem formulation, objectives of the study, and definition of terms. The background of the study explains the reason why the writer chooses John Boyne‘s novel entitled The Boy in the Striped Pajamas as the primary data. The problem formulation is the question which is answered in this study. The objectives of the study deal with the purpose of this study. The definition of terms explains the terms which are used in this study to avoid misunderstandings.
A. Background of the Study
Discussing something happened in the past can give people reflection to relate it with something happened in this present day. History is part of human being. It is the fact so people may take a conclusion and improve an awareness about something that happened many centuries ago. In the book A
Critical Handbook of Children’s Literature, Rebecca J. Lukens stated that
history is the representation of facts. Imagination is needed to turn facts into fiction in a form of work of literature (1995: 15). In other words, a fiction is a product of fact or true experience which is added by imagination.
and when the history is retold in a form of a novel or a book, the flow of the story can be different depend on the author‘s imagination.
The first work of literature which tells about history comes from the book Children of The A-Bomb. In this book, Jean Dan and Ruth Sieben-Morgen reveal the story of bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki through the testimonies of children and some students who were saved in that tragedy and still alive until this present time (1959: i). From those testimonies, people are invited to trace back the actual event that occurred during the late of 1945. Children of The A-Bomb is one example of literary works which discusses about history from one part in Asia.
The second work of literature which also retells the history from Asia is The Collapse of a Colonial Society by L. de Jong. In this book, he retells about the existence of Japan in Indonesia in 1942. Jong reviews the AAA campaign which was formed by Japan during its occupation in Indonesia which finally triggered the resistance of Indonesians and led to war. AAA campaign itself stands for Asia Tjahaja (the Light of Asia), Asia Pelindung (the Protector of Asia), and Asia Pemimpin (the Leader of Asia) (2002: 50). Those two examples are the evidences of war conducted in Asia. Thus, it can be concluded that history existed in Asia in around 1945.
Outside Asia, the conduct of war also occurred in another continent during that period. The next literary work which discusses war is The Struggle for Europe by Chester Wilmot. This book tells about the historical event
as the powerful military conduct of the war. The Führer himself was Adolf Hitler, the one who ran German. ―…none could deny that he was the driving
force behind the German war machine‖ (1952: 160). The history about Führer
was very notorious around the world in spite of the fact that he was the one who conducted the genocide of non-Aryan race during that period.
The story about Führer does not end only by Chester Wilmot‘s
Struggle for Europe, but it is also elaborated by a writer as well as a person who experienced by herself the existence of his power. She is Edith Singer, who then retells her true story through the book March to Freedom. In this book, Singer tells her true experience when she was brought to the concentration camp where Führer ruled and realized his idea to exterminate
the non-Aryan race. Singer who was depicted as a child when she experienced the genocide, luckily could be saved and eventually delivered her own story through a book. As stated previously, fiction is a manifestation of fact. Through March to Freedom, the true history is revealed.
The last example of literary work which tells about the war and elaborates the existence of Führer is The Boy in the Striped Pajamas by John
Boyne. This novel describes the cruelty of Führer and his action to
The existence of Führer and his cruelty is not the only parts which are
discussed in this novel. Further, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas also reveals the moral values as the indirect elements which can be discovered through the friendship of the main characters. As a book which tells about the immoral evidence among the human race, moral values become the next turning point that will be discussed in this study.
As cited previously, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas tells about the complexity of a friendship which is created by Bruno and Shmuel in the two very different places. Bruno‘s innocence and his pleasure of exploring his
surrounding are the two things that most children may experience them as well. As a child, he likes reading books about adventure which then the idea to be an explorer appears in his mind and leads him to do exploring without thinking the danger or chaos that he may cause of doing this activity.
Children, too, seek pleasure from a story, but the sources of their pleasures are more limited. Since their experiences are more limited, children may not understand the same complexity of ideas (Lukens, 1995: 7).
with the Jews, Bruno instead of avoiding the Jews, he makes friend with one of them. ―Each of us exists in relation to others‖ (Wakin, 1980: 52). That quotation means that nobody can prevent other fellows to make a relation with whomever. That is the reason why moral values are required to be discussed in this study as the medium to seek the other side of the Holocaust itself in which a friendship is built in the middle of war and racial struggle. Even until nowadays, morality is still a part of society and still considered as the issue which causes ambiguity on what makes a thing is valued as a virtue or an evil.
This study uses the novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas because of its correlation with the history of Holocaust in which genocide was practiced. People may see the reflection of it by realizing the situation happened in this period where conflicts are still being a part of human. Conflicts which are caused by different races, religions, and ethnics which then trigger people committing the genocide to their opposites. As the novel which tells about the horrible event, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas puts the characters through the point of view of children whose language is palpable. Besides, the novel also elaborates the friendship between the main characters in which the racial prejudice does not exist. Briefly, the Holocaust presented in the novel uncovers the Nazi‘s cruelty which contradicts with the moral values.
B. Problem Formulation
1. How are the characteristics of Bruno and Shmuel described? 2. How is the friendship of Bruno and Shmuel described?
3. What are the moral values revealed through the friendship of Bruno and Shmuel?
C. Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this study is to reveal how the friendship of the main characters in novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas shows the moral values. The objectives of this study aim to answer the questions which are stated in the former part. There are three objectives to be discussed in this study. The first objective aims to find out the characteristics of the main characters, Bruno and Shmuel. The first objective then has an aim to answer the second objective which is to find out how the friendship of Bruno and Shmuel can be described by knowing the characteristics of them. The second objective then aims to answer the third objective. It is to find out what the moral values are revealed through the friendship between Bruno and Shmuel.
D. Definition of Terms
1. Moral Values
Values which determine a person by his/her acts of doing something which is morally good or evil. What makes an act morally good or evil is the value or disvalue of its actual consequences (Wellman, 1975: 135).
According to Wellman, moral values are the values which are taken from the good or evil actions which are conducted by a person. The thing that makes an action good or evil is the actual consequences of the action itself.
2. Friendship
Mutually satisfying psychological relationship involving companionship, sharing, understanding of thoughts and feelings, and caring for and comforting one another in times of need. In addition, a friendship is a relationship that endures over time and transcend occasional conflict. All emphasize that the understanding of friendship evolves from a concrete, behavioral relationship involving sharing material goods and pleasurable activity to a more abstract conception of a relationship of mutual consideration and psychological satisfaction (Berk, 1989: 491).
8
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
This chapter consists of review of related studies, review of related theories, theoretical framework, and a brief explanation about literature and morality. Review of related studies presents the essay from Dr. Sue Page entitled Vaseline on the Lens: Contemporary representations of the Holocaust in Children Literature, an undergraduate thesis entitled Telling Institutional
Cruelty to Children Through Literature: A Study on John Boyne’s The Boy in
the Striped Pajamas which is written by Gideon Widyatmoko, and a discussion guide entitled The Boy in the Striped Pajamas Discussion Guide by Harriet S. Mosatche, Ph. D.
Review of related theories presents theory of character, theory of friendship, and theory of morality. Theoretical framework describes the application of the theories to answer the problem formulation, and the explanation about literature and morality elaborates the idea of the connection between literature and morality.
A. Review of Related Studies
the mid-twentieth century have been softened. The authors mediate the historical fact through their writing, but their language style on depicting the fact is truly softened. Thus, instead of giving the readers reality, it causes the misleading for them in seeing the history (2008: 1).
So, in her hypothesis, Dr. Sue Page states that the way the author depicts the historical events instead of giving the disclosure of the truth towards the readers; it results into the misleading for them. It is because the true idea of historical event has been softened.
Related to The Boy in the Striped Pajamas which also tells about the cruelty which happened in the mid-twentieth century, in which mechanized killing of more than eleven million civilians was committed, Dr. Sue Page also criticizes that The Boy in the Striped Pajamas aims to fulfill the adult‘s wish. Meaning to say that the children can be protected by the way the author depicts the evil historical event softly. Some adults fear that the historical event can traumatize the children, but the adult‘s lack of knowledge toward
such historical event is considered as a protection because they do not need to retell it. In other words, children need protection from the thing that can upset them. Since the Holocaust is the historical event which can upset the adults, then it is considered as the thing that can upset children as well (2008: 4).
of the historical events which is considered as the event which can traumatize not only the children, but also the adults. That is why the protection is needed because of that reason.
In her essay, Dr. Sue Page also tries to criticize the way the authors of the mid-twentieth literary works soften the idea of historical event in purpose to protect the children. One of the authors who practices this idea is John Boyne himself, the author of The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. He depicts Holocaust tragedy through the perspective of children who are illustrated as the innocent creatures. In contrast, an innocent children‘s perspective then is
met by the setting which is far from innocent. Nonetheless, in her essay, Dr. Sue Page also highlights Boyne‘s cover note which said that The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is not a book for a nine-year-old child, but it is a book about a nine-year-old child. Implicitly, it is a book for the adults who want to make a belief that children can maintain their naivety and innocence in any situation. So, the conclusion is that children can be protected from such historical event (2008: 3).
Like the writers who depict history which happened in the mid-twentieth century, John Boyne, the author of The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, also soften the idea of cruelty by depicting the characters in his novel through the perspective of children which are considered as innocent living beings. Although the novel uses the children‘s point of view, actually it is addressed
The second study comes from an undergraduate thesis written by Gideon Widyatmoko. In his thesis, he puts much concern about the theme of the story.
In John Boyne‘s The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas, a novel intended by the author to be a children literature, the writer finds the theme of institutional cruelty committed by Nazi during the Second World War in Germany. The writer considers the theme as inappropriate for children (2011: xi).
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is considered as a children‘s literature due to its theme which tells about the institutional cruelty conducted by Nazi during the Second World War. Because of that reason, Widyatmoko says that the theme is inappropriate for children.
The last study comes from a discussion guide entitled The Boy in the Striped Pajamas Discussion Guide which is developed by Harriet S. Mosatche, Ph. D. In her discussion guide, she states that The Boy in the Striped Pajamas raises friendship as the central theme in the story which explores reasons, depths, and meaning of friendship. She also claims that the novel is crafted as a fable, which means a story with moral that teaches a lesson about humanity (2008: 7-8).
friendship which is told in the novel then can be used to figure out the reasons, depths, and meanings beyond it. The moral values which are depicted in the novel is the element that makes the novel called a fable.
By reviewing the study by Dr. Sue Page, a discussion guide by Harriet S. Mosatche, Ph. D, and an undergraduate thesis by Gideon Widyatmoko, the writer of this study will not continue those reviews deeper. The writer analyzes this study in purpose to reveal the moral values which can be discovered, specifically through the friendship of the main characters.
B. Review of Related Theories
1. Theory of Character
The first theory of character comes from the book A Glossary of Literary Terms by M.H. Abrams. In A Glossary of Literary Terms, he states his theory of character.
Characters are the persons presented in a dramatic or narrative work, who are interpreted by the reader as being endowed with moral, dispositional, and emotional qualities that are expressed in what they say—the dialogue—and by what they do—the action‖ (1985: 23).
That quotation means that the readers of a work of literature can understand the characters by their expressions which can be seen from their speaking, dialogue, and actions. Besides, characters are persons who have the quality of moral, dispositional, and emotional.
In showing (also called ―the dramatic method‖), the author presents the characters talking and acting and leaves the reader to infer what motives and dispositions lie behind what they say and do. In telling, the author intervenes authoritatively in order to describe, and often to evaluate, the motives and dispositional qualities of the characters (1985: 24).
That quotation means that the determination of characters can be done by either showing or telling. If it is done by showing, the disclosure of characters is indicated by the characters‘ speech and actions; meanwhile, if it
is done by telling, the disclosure of characters is indicated by the author‘s description towards those characters.
Rebecca J. Lukens is agree with Abrams‘ theory of character. In the book A Critical Handbook of Children’s Literature, Lukens states that character is generally used to mean mental, emotional and social qualities which can distinguish a person. Character is the living beings in a story, play, or a poem. She also adds that the disclosure of characters can be done by actions, speech, appearance, other‘s comment, and author‘s comments (1995: 41-42).
Similar to Abrams‘ A Glossary of Literary Terms, A Critical
Handbook of Children’s Literature also elaborates the elements which can be
used to reveal the characters. Besides stating that the disclosure of characters can be done by actions, speech, appearance, other‘s comment, and author‘s
2. The Relation of Literature and Morality
In some aspects, literature and morality may have the coherence. The connection between literature and morality is discussed by Robin Dudley through his thesis writing entitled Morality and Literature.
Historically, literature and morality have always enjoyed a close relationship…I think every teacher, like every critic, is going to approach a given work in a highly individual manner, but it‘s good to keep in mind the close historical link between literature and morality. The early twentieth century happens to have produced a lot of work that deals with morality, so it‘s a good period to focus on in this discussion of morality and literature (2009: 38-39). The quotation above means that based on history, there is a close connection between morality and literature. Dudley suggests that this close connection must be practiced in any given works. Meaning to say that morality must be also a part of discussion in literature since there is a fact that many works which have a deal with morality had been produced in the early twentieth century.
Related to the quotation previously, Dudley adds that works of literature are great forum for moral consideration and re-consideration and classrooms are excellent place to test out people‘s opinions. So, it is necessary
to bring morality into classroom discussion in order to teach literature effectively because so much moral questioning and posturing are exist in so much literature (2009: 37).
I believe teaching works of literature that raise difficult and complicated moral questions can help students develop critical thinking and writing skills… It considers that the idea of English teachers can, without moralizing, capitalize on literature‘s moral questions to cultivate compassion, imagination, reason, and independence of thought, and thereby helps students become better readers, clearer thinkers, and more careful writers (2009: v).
By stating the quotation above, Dudley means that engaging works of literature with moral questions can help student to improve their critical thinking and writing skill. Besides, it can help them also to cultivate compassion, imagination, reason, and independence of thought. The other effects of this engaging are the students can become better readers, clearer thinkers, and more careful writer.
3. Theory of Friendship
In the book The Mind and Heart of Love, M. C. D‘Arcy quotes Aristotle‘s statement about three forms of friendship. The first is love which is
based on profit. It dies when the profit is gone (1956: 118). So, friendship in this form simply means that the endurance of the friendship itself depends on the profit only.
The second is friendship that is based on the permanent in us. It is selfish and therefore fickle. That means that the second form of friendship further highlights the permanent of the participants which then may cause the selfishness and fickle attitude.
That quotation means that a true friendship is a friendship which is built by a person who concerns with his best friend‘s sake and wish well for his friends. Besides, what is good is the basis of their love.
D‘Arcy also states four definitions of friends. First, a friend is one who
wishes something good and does what is good as well. That person does that for the sake of his or her friends. Second, a friend is a one who wishes his or her friend to exist and live for his or her sake. Third, a friend is one who lives with. Fifth, a friend is one who grieves and rejoices with his or her friends (1956: 119). The writer does not apply the fourth definition because it does not have any relation with the analysis.
From those four definitions, a brief summary can be drawn that a friend is someone who always does something good for his friend. Whatever he does, it must be for the sake of his friend. A friend is also someone who can accompany his friend both in happiness and sadness.
Looking back to Aristotle‘s forms of friendship, D‘Arcy continues his statement by saying that Aristotle‘s third form of friendship is the explanation of true friendship. Those who are capricious or evil cannot have this third form (1956: 119).
A bad man seems to do everything for his own sake,…while the good man acts for honour‘s sake, and the more so the better he is, and acts for his friend‘s sake, and sacrifices his own interest (1956: 119).
of doing those things can increase his quality as a friend and as a human being.
In a different page, D‘Arcy adds another definition of friendship. ―Friendship cannot exist between a person and a thing; it is a special relation and the love which is given and taken in it is like no other‖ (1956: 122).
That quotation means that a friendship can only be established among humans. A person cannot create a friendship with his or her items or the inanimate objects. It is because a friendship needs a reciprocal love which is given and taken from one to another. And the love itself is irreplaceable.
4. Theory of Morality
In the book The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice, Lawrence Kohlberg delivers the stages of morality. Actually, there are three levels which contains two stages each, but the writer only takes the second stage in the first level, that is the instrumental-relativist orientation, the second stage in the second level, that is the interpersonal concordance or ―good boy‖ – ―nice girl‖, and the second stage in the third
level, that is the universal ethical principle orientation. The reason why the writer chooses those stages is because those stages have the same concern as this study.
a. The Instrumental-Relativist Orientation
In this stage, right actions are the actions which can satisfy one‘s need
stage are fairness, reciprocity, and equal sharing. Reciprocity itself means ―you scratch my back and I‘ll scratch yours‖ (Kohlberg, 1981: 17).
b. The Interpersonal Concordance or “good boy –nice girl”
Based on this stage, what is considered as good behavior is the behavior which pleases or helps the others and is approved by them. Behavior itself is judged by the intention which then determines the consideration of being nice or not. ―There is much conformity to stereotypical images of what
is majority or ―natural‖ behavior‖. ―He means well‖ becomes important for the first time because one can earn approval by being ―nice‖ (Kohlberg, 1981: 18).
c. The Universal Ethical Principle Orientation
This stage is the universal principles of justice which highlights the reciprocity and equality of human rights, and respect for the dignity of human beings as individuals (Kohlberg, 1981: 19). So, this stage means that the dignity of human beings as individuals must be respected since every individual has his own right just as the same as the others.
Briefly, the first stage has the conformity to obtain rewards and have favors returned. The second stage explains the conformity to avoid disapproval and disliked by others, while the third stage elaborates the conformity to avoid self-condemnation (1981: 19).
quality which can ease the person to define the acts which are appropriate to be conducted.
Another theory comes from The Moral Nature of Man by A. Campbell Garnett. In his book, he highlights the essence of responsibility which is stated below.
Every man‘s obligation is simply to do his best for all. For that and that alone is he responsible. If he does that, he does what is morally right. He may be mistaken. He may be weak in body or mind…If, however, he does his best to produce the best for all, he does what is morally right (1952: 206-207).
Briefly, according to Garnett, what is considered as responsibility is the action which can give the best for all despite the fact whether that person may be mistaken or bodily weak. Once someone can practice that responsibility, he is already morally right.
While according to Carl Wellman in Morals and Ethics, he states that each person should be respected, this means that every person must be allowed by others to exercise his reason (1975: 200). That quotation implicitly highlights the freedom which actually lives in every individual, saying that every individual has his own freedom even to state his reason.
C. Theoretical Framework
This part will explicate the theories that are used by the writer to analyze this study. The writer uses theory of character, the relation of literature and morality, theory of friendship, and theory of morality in order to answer the questions stated in problem formulation. The distribution of the theories will be explained in the following paragraphs.
Theory of character is applied to get the better understanding of the characters in the story. Using the theory, the writer will be able to grasp the nature of the characters in the novel. Theory of character will be used to answer the first problem formulation.
The relation of literature and morality explains the coherence between literature and morality, meaning to say that morality somehow has the correlation with literature and vice versa. The relation of those two things proves that morality, in some aspects, can be a part of literature.
Theory of friendship is applied to identify the characteristic of friendship which is experienced by the main characters. Theory of friendship will be used to answer the second problem formulation.
21
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter consists of object of the study, approach of the study, and method of the study. Object of the study is the novel, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Approach of the study is the approach that is used by the writer to analyze the novel, while method of the study is the method which is used to explain the steps in analyzing this study.
A. Object of the Study
In this study, the writer analyzes the novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas which was written by an Irish writer, John Boyne. In the very last page of the novel, Boyne told about the idea of writing this novel which began on April 2004 when he imagined about the two boys who had been taken away from homes and friends to the terrible place were sitting on either side of the fence. This idea then inspired him to tell the story about those two boys under the name Bruno and Shmuel. The Boy in the Striped Pajamas consists of 215 pages. It was published by David Fickling Books in 2006.
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas tells about a nine-year-old boy named Bruno, a child of a Nazi commandant, who made friend with a Jewish child named Shmuel. The story began when Bruno and his family had to move from Berlin to the countryside near the concentration camp where Shmuel was. Bruno‘s father did not allow him to go to that area which Bruno called a
‗farm‘, but his boredom made him disobeying his father‘s ban to do exploring until that ‗farm‘, which actually was a concentration camp to arrest the Jews.
Bruno is depicted as a naïve explorer. He is told as a child who likes doing exploration, which then his favorite on this, made him meet Shmuel, who lived at the concentration camp near Bruno‘s house. At the same time, he is described also as a naïve child because of his lack of knowledge about the surroundings, which means the racial struggle happened in this country that caused the extermination of the Jews. Shmuel himself was a Jew. But instead of taking his father side to be the opposite of the Jews, he made a contact with Shmuel and built a friendship in the middle of this racial struggle.
Bruno‘s contact with Shmuel was getting closer when they often met
and talked each other. Bruno‘s kindness increased the quality of their friendship in which different race was not considered as the essential matter, Shmuel‘s openness toward Bruno also one thing which could maintain their
B. Approach of the Study
For this research, the writer uses the Moral-Philosophical Approach. The basic concept of Moral-Philosophical based on the book A Handbook of Critical Approach to Literature is to elaborate the larger function of literature that is to teach morality and to probe philosophical issues as the basic position of critics (Guerin, et al, 2005: 77).
Literature may have many larger functions. Two of them are to teach morality and to investigate philosophical issue. Moral philosophical approach is the approach which elaborates these two functions as can be seen from literature itself.
This approach fits to this research since this research focuses on the moral values which may be revealed from the novel. Moral values become the prominent point in this study rather than the other elements which appear in the novel.
C. Method of the Study
In analyzing this work of literature, the writer applied some steps. The first step was reading the novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. By reading the novel thoroughly, the writer would be able to achieve the good understanding toward the novel, particularly about what the novel tells about. The next step was the writer decided what the topic that was going to be analyzed and formulated the problem formulations which were related with the topic.
After deciding the topic and problem formulation, the writer collected the data from many references to support the evidences or arguments which were found out in analyzing the novel. The next step was the writer started to analyze the novel based on the topic which has been chosen and then applying the references to support the idea so the writer could strengthen the arguments of any statements.
25
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS
This research aims to analyze the moral values in the novel The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. In order to figure out the moral values, the writer will answer the questions based on the problem formulation stated in the first chapter. The first question is about how the characters in the novel are depicted. The second question is about how the friendship of the main characters is described. The third question is how the moral values can be revealed through the main characters‘ friendship. The writer will explore the
novel by elaborating the answer based on the order of the problem formulation.
A. The Description of Main Characters in the Novel
This part aims to describe the characters in the novel. The characters analyzed in this study are only the main characters in the novel, Bruno and Shmuel. The decision to describe only the main characters, not all the characters that appear in the novel, is because the main characters themselves are the living beings in the story who can bring the descriptions about their friendship that will be discussed later. Each character definitely has his own special characteristics which indicate the quality of their friendship.
consideration to pick Bruno as the first character to be discussed is because Bruno is the core of the story. Bruno‘s role in the story is completed by
Shmuel‘s characters which then the depiction of Shmuel‘s characters is become essential also because Shmuel is Bruno‘s best friend, whose
characters are believed can show the descriptions of their friendship.
1. Bruno
Bruno is the central character in the story. His existence always appears from the beginning of the story until the end. In the novel, Bruno is depicted as a nine-year-old boy. Based on theory of character which is stated by Abrams, the fact that Bruno is a nine-year-old boy can be seen from the dialogue between Bruno and his sister‘s friends when they keep insisting that Bruno is only six years old. Based on that theory, the method that is used is showing method that is indicated by the dialogue. ―I‘m not six, I‘m nine,‘ he protested, trying to get away‖ (2006: 22).
Besides depicted as a nine-year-old boy, Bruno is also depicted as a son of a Nazi commandant. The proof of it, based on Lukens‘ theory of character, can be seen from the author‘s comment. Meanwhile, based on Abrams‘ theory of character, this quotation uses telling method.
All he could say was that his father was a man to watch and that the Fury had big things in mind for him. Oh, and that he had a fantastic uniform too (2006: 5).
The word ―to watch‖ means that Bruno‘s father is a supervisor of a certain matter, which can be replaced by the word ―commandant‖. The Fury
calling him Fury. From that knowledge, it can be concluded that Bruno‘s father is an important man who runs the Führer‘s plans. The description of the
uniform, which is fantastic, is also one of the reasons why Father is called as the commandant. The diction ―fantastic‖ means that there is something that makes his father‘s uniform look great and different from other soldiers. This is
because he is a commandant.
As both a nine-year-old boy and a son of a commandant of Nazi officer, Bruno owns characteristics which somehow show his age. Other Bruno‘s characteristics that are revealed in this chapter are adventurous,
critical, spontaneous, kind, and naïve.
a. Adventurous
In the novel, Bruno is told as a boy who likes exploration. His fondness of exploration makes him become an adventurous boy. Based on Lukens‘ theory of character, the method that is used to reveal this characteristic is by speech. Abrams‘ theory of character is also applicable for the disclosure of it. Based on his theory, the showing method is used, in which the author shows it by the dialogue.
‗I want to be an explorer,‘ said Bruno quickly. ‗I wish you luck,‘ said Pavel.
‗Thank you.‘
‗Have you discovered anything yet?‘
‗Back in our house in Berlin there was a lot of exploring to be done,‘ recalled Bruno. ‗But then, it was a very big house, bigger that you could possibly imagine, so there were a lot of places to explore. It‘s not the same here‘ (2006: 83-84).
the corner when the family had dinner. Bruno told a story to Pavel after several days he arrived to Auschwitz that when he lived in his old house in Berlin; he often did some explorations because his house in Berlin was bigger than his house in Auschwitz. That is the reason he could easily do exploration when he was in Berlin. Then, Bruno started to compare it with the situation in Auschwitz where the house was not as big as his house in Berlin and he could not do his favorite as the same as when he was in Berlin.
Bruno‘s liking on exploration is proven by his hobby, which is reading
books about exploring and adventure. In Lukens‘ theory of character, the way that is used to prove this fact is speech method. ―I like stories about knights and adventure and exploring‖ (2006: 98). That is why when his teacher, Herr
Liszt, started teaching history, Bruno started imagining about something dealing with adventure and exploration. Theory of character by Abrams‘ that fits to this quotation is telling method, in which the author tells directly about Bruno‘s mind.
(There was one good thing that Herr Liszt had taught him about in their history lessons: men like Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci; men with such adventurous stories and interesting lives that it only confirmed in Bruno‘s mind that he wanted to be like them when he grew up) (2006: 102).
Bruno did not like the lessons that Herr Liszt always gave to him because they were only about geography and history. But then Bruno tried to draw the positive side of his negative feeling toward Herr Liszt‘s history
that Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci were the travelers who invented the big things, Bruno then wanted to be like them, who had such an adventurous life.
Bruno is an adventurous boy because he likes doing exploration and reads many books about adventure and exploring. Even, when he knows the story about Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci, whom he knows that they are travelers, Bruno is willing to have such an adventurous life just like them.
b. Critical
Besides being characterized as an adventurous boy, Bruno is also depicted as a critical boy. This depiction can be seen from the way Bruno keeps questioning himself about the situation that happened in his surroundings. Based on the Abrams‘ theory of character, the method that fits to this proof is telling method, in which the author describes the condition that can be seen from the quotation below.
It was as if it were another city entirely, the people all living and working together side by side with the house where he lived. And were they really so different? All the people in the camp wore the same clothes, those pajamas and their striped cloth caps too; and all the people who wandered through his house (with the exception of Mother, Gretel, and him) wore uniforms of varying quality and decoration and caps and helmets with bright red-and-black armbands and carried guns and always looked terribly stern, as if it was all very important really and no one should think otherwise. What exactly was the difference? He wondered to himself. And who decided which people wore the striped pajamas and which people wore the uniforms? (2006: 100).
Bruno saw all the people inside the ‗farm‘ wore the striped pajamas. Then, he
compared the appearance of people who wore the striped pajamas with the people who often wandered in his house who wore the different type of clothes and prominent symbol; those were the bright red-and-black armbands. The description of bright red-and-black armbands represents the Nazi symbol, which explains that those people who wandered in Bruno‘s house were the soldiers.
Bruno becomes critical when he is questioning himself about the reasons that make those two kinds of people different. He is able to make the two kinds of people noticeable for himself and put the comparison between them before really analyzing what makes them different.
Bruno‘s curiosity becomes plausible when he often saw one of those people who lived inside the camp, worked in his house as a servant who liked peeling vegetables in the afternoon and waited on the corner while the family had dinner. He was Pavel, one of the Jewish prisoners. Bruno‘s critical
thinking arises when at one time he tried to discover the truth about Pavel‘s
life by asking some questions to Maria, the overpaid maid in his house. The disclosure of Bruno‘s critical thinking uses Lukens‘ theory of character, which is speech method. Meanwhile, Abrams‘ showing method is also applicable. It
is shown by the dialogue.
‗He said he was a doctor,‘ said Bruno. ‗Which didn‘t seem right at all. He‘s not a doctor, is he?‘
‗No,‘ said Maria, shaking her head. ‗No, he‘s not a doctor. He‘s a waiter.‘
‗Pavel is not a doctor any more, Bruno,‘ said Maria quietly. ‗But he was. In another life. Before he came here.‘
Bruno frowned and thought about it. ‗I don‘t understand,‘ he said (2006: 137).
Bruno kept questioning whether Pavel was a doctor or not. It is because at one occasion, Pavel helped Bruno when he fell from the swing. He took care of the wound and said that back at his past life, he had worked as a doctor. Pavel‘s recognition caused disbelief to Bruno, whom he knew that
Pavel was only a servant who helped for the family. Therefore, to make it clear, Bruno asked several questions to Maria in order to know the truth about Pavel.
The fact that Pavel belonged to the people inside the camp can be seen from the striped pajamas that he wore, and Bruno was already familiar with those kinds of clothes since he often saw those people using those costumes from his bedroom window. However, he did not understand who they were and what they did. So, to fulfill his curiosity, he dared to ask his sister, Gretel. Bruno‘s action of asking some questions to his sister is an application of Abrams‘ theory of character, which is showing method. The showing method
is specified through the dialogue.
‗I want to know about the fence,‘ he said firmly, deciding that this was the most important thing to begin with. ‗I want to know why it‘s there.‘
Gretel turned round in her chair and looked at him curiously. ‗You mean you don‘t know?‘ she asked.
Actually, Bruno considered his sister as a Hopeless Case because of her behavior which often annoyed Bruno and her acts which showed as if she had been older than she really were. Nevertheless, Bruno was a critical boy and it forced him to better ask her. During his life in Auschwitz, he thought that the flaw lied to him and his family so he could not go to the camp to play, whereas, there is an explanation about it which can be seen from their dialogue below. To reveal the explanation that is given by Gretel, Abrams‘ theory of character is applied, which is showing method that is shown by the dialogue.
‗I know we‘re not,‘ said Bruno in frustration. ‗I‘m asking you, if we‘re not Jews, what are we instead?‘
‗We‘re the opposite,‘ said Gretel, answering quickly and sounding a lot more satisfied with this answer. ‗Yes, that‘s it. We‘re the opposite.‘
All right,‘ said Bruno, pleased that he had it settled in his head at last. ‗ And the Opposite live on this side of the fence and the Jews live on that.‘
‗That‘s right, Bruno.‘
‗Don‘t the Jews like Opposite then?‘ ‗No, it‘s us who don‘t like them, stupid.‘…
…‗Well, why don‘t we likethem?‘ he asked (2006:183).
This conversation happened when Bruno started to wonder what made the people who lived inside the fence different as people who lived outside the fence. When finally he got the answer, he was not quite satisfied and kept questioning about what kind of people he and his sister were and also the reason why the two kinds of people could not fuse together.
tries to discover Pavel‘s true life by asking some questions to Maria. It is
because he knows that Pavel wears the striped pajamas and he must belong to people inside the fence, but he works in Bruno‘s house. Third, Bruno is
puzzled with the origin of those who wear the striped pajamas and the origin of himself. Eventually, he asks his sister, whom he know that she is a Hopeless Case, but Bruno keeps questioning her in order to get the good understanding about what he is asking about.
Bruno never leaves the situation happened without any explanation. He never leaves the questions without any answers. That is why he is being critical.
c. Spontaneous
As a child, Bruno also has the characteristic of being spontaneous. Applying Abrams‘ theory of character, it can be seen from the dialogue between Bruno and Father below. Therefore, it uses the showing method.
‗There are hundreds of children here,‘ said Bruno, without really thinking about his words before saying them. ‗Only they‘re on the other side of the fence‘ (2006: 191).
Bruno‘s spontaneity does not only happen when he is involved in
conversation with his father, but he also does it when he talks to his sister, Gretel. The dialogue below shows that Bruno often let the words slip from his tongue without really thinking about it. To reveal the proof, the writer applies Lukens‘ theories of character; those are speech and author‘s comment. The direct quotation below shows Bruno‘s speech, while the statement after the
direct quotation is author‘s comment.
‗I hate the rain too,‘ he said. ‗I should be with Shmuel by now. He‘ll think I‘ve forgotten him.‘
The words were out of his mouth quicker than he could stop them and he felt pain in his stomach and grew furious with himself for saying that (2006: 153-154).
Bruno was willing to visit Shmuel, but the rain spoiled his plan. So, he was not able to go outside and only stayed in his room when Gretel came and invited him to have a chat. When he tried to share his boredom caused by the rain, he spilled the beans that he must have been with Shmuel. He said those words spontaneously, because after that he felt that he was so reckless and became infuriated with himself. Shmuel was his secret that no one needed to know, even Gretel. But Bruno accidentally told his secret and regretted after that.
d. Kind
Bruno is a nine-year-old boy who is kind and care about his friend. His depiction of owning the character of kind is shown by Shmuel‘s opinion
toward him. The theory that is used is Lukens‘ theory of character, which says that the disclosure of character can be done by other‘s comment.
Shmuel bit his lips and said nothing. He had seen Bruno‘s father on any number of occasions and couldn‘t understand how such a man could have a son who was so friendly and kind (2006: 196).
Shmuel was one of the Jewish prisoners who lived inside the fence. He often saw Bruno‘s father inside the fence when he was in charge. He worked
as a commandant and did cruel things toward the Jews. Shmuel began to wonder how such a man could have a son like Bruno who was very kind and friendly.
Shmuel may think that Bruno is a kind boy because Bruno often visits Shmuel and brings him some food. It is indicated by the action that Bruno does in one day when he visits Shmuel. Based on Lukens‘ theory of character, the disclosure of Bruno‘s kindness uses the action method.
Bruno broke into a smile when he saw the figure coming towards him and he sat down on the ground, taking the piece of bread and the apple he had smuggled with him out of his pocket to give to Shmuel (2006: 193).
The depiction of Bruno‘s kindness is seen from two ways. First is by Shmuel‘s opinion who says to himself that Bruno is both kind and friendly.
The second way is by the actions that Bruno often does to Shmuel, which is giving some food which Shmuel needs.
e. Naïve
The last character of Bruno is naïve. To analyze this characteristic, the writer uses Abrams‘ theory of character, which is telling method. The author of the novel delivers Bruno‘s thought by telling it. It can be seen from the
quotation below.
Packing them?‘ he asked, running quickly through the events of the previous few days to consider whether he‘d been particularly naughty or had used those words out loud that he wasn‘t allowed to use and was being sent away because of it. He couldn‘t think of anything though. In fact over the last few days he had behaved in a perfectly decent manner to everyone and couldn‘t remember causing any chaos at all (2006: 2).
Bruno does not understand about the intention of moving. He thinks that when the whole family has to move to the other place, it must be because he is being naughty and unwanted. Whereas, the family needs to move to the other place because it has the concern with Father‘s job.
Bruno‘s naivety is also shown when he whimpers to Father to go back
to Berlin. He does not understand about the reason why he needs to move. Bruno‘s protest toward his father is shown by his speech below. Based on
Lukens‘ theory of character, it uses the speech method.
Fury and maybe that will be an end to it. Maybe he‘ll forgive you if you‘re very sincere about it‘ (2006: 50).
Bruno still could not accept the decision that his father has made to move to Auschwitz and leave Berlin. He guessed that the order to move was because his father has done something wrong that made the Fury got angry. He asked his father to apologize to the Fury so the Fury would forgive him and the family did not need to move.
Bruno is naïve because of his ignorance toward the situation. What he knows is only something which he can see in front of his eyes. He does not own the knowledge to see further the reasons beyond certain facts.
2. Shmuel
In the story, Shmuel is Bruno‘s precious finding. It is indicated from the dialogue happened between them. Using the Abrams‘ theory of character, the method that is used is showing method that is shown through the dialogue.
‗The thing about exploring is that you have to know whether the thing you‘ve found is worth finding. Some things are just sitting there, minding their own business, waiting to be discovered. Like America. And other things are probably better off left alone. Like a dead mouse at the back of a cupboard.
‗I think I belong to the first category,‘ said Shmuel. ‗Yes,‘ replied Bruno. ‗I think you do‘ (2006: 114-115).
left alone. Other characteristics of Shmuel are lonely, open, dependent, and naïve.
a. Lonely
Judged by the appearance, Shmuel is a sad looking boy. This appearance then goes into the characteristic which describes him as a lonely boy. Shmuel‘s appearance, which is sad-looking, represents his characteristic, which is lonely. Relating to the theory of character by Abrams, telling method is applicable for this unveiling. Meanwhile, based on Lukens‘ theory of character, the disclosure of it is done by describing the appearance.
The boy was smaller than Bruno and was sitting on the ground with a forlorn expression…His skin was almost the colour of grey, but not quite like any grey that Bruno had ever seen before. He had very large eyes and they were the colour of caramel sweets; the whites were very white, and when the boy looked at him all Bruno could see was an enormous pair of sad eyes staring back (2006: 106-107).
The description appears when Bruno met Shmuel for the first time. He was sitting on the ground with an extremely sad expression. Bruno noticed that Shmuel looked very sad when he stared back to Bruno and all that Bruno could see was a pair of sad eyes.
inevitably brings him an appearance to be always sad-looking which then continues into loneliness.
b. Open
Shmuel is very open to Bruno although they have only met for several days. He can share all the stories he has, including his past life and the changing that he experiences when he moves to Auschwitz. The unveiling of this character uses Lukens‘ theory of character. The method that is used is speech method. Meanwhile, if uses Abrams‘ theory of character, the method
that is used is showing method that is indicated through the dialogue between Bruno and Shmuel.
‗All I know is this,‘ began Shmuel. ‗Before we came here I lived with my mother and father and my brother Josef in a small flat above the store where Papa makes his watches. Every morning we ate our breakfast together at seven o‘clock and while we went to school, Papa mended the watches that people brought to him and made new ones too. I had a beautiful watch that he gave me but I don‘t have it any more. It had a golden face and I wound it up every night before I went to sleep and it always told the right time. ‗What happened to it?‘ asked Bruno.
‗They took it from me,‘ said Shmuel. ‗Who?‘
‗The soldiers, of course,‘ said Shmuel as if this was the most obvious thing in the world (2006: 126).
Shmuel maintains his openness toward Bruno though Bruno is a foreigner who accidentally discovers him. They become best friend. From that point, Shmuel becomes open to Bruno and shares the story about his ups and downs of life.
c. Dependent
Shmuel becomes Bruno‘s best friend, and the contradict comparison
between them forces Shmuel to be dependent toward Bruno. In the camp, he suffered from starvation, and Bruno‘s daily visit made Shmuel rely on him, particularly for food. The proof that indicates that Shmuel is dependent can be seen from the dialogue between Bruno and Shmuel. Based on theory of character by Abrams, it uses showing method that is indicated through the dialogue.
He didn‘t want to ask the next question but the pains in his stomach made him.
‗You don‘t haveany food on you, do you?‘ he asked.
‗Afraid not,‘ said Bruno. ‗I meant to bring some chocolate but I forgot.‘…
…‗You don‘t have any bread, do you?‘ Bruno shook his head (2006: 131).
Shmuel‘s condition which means lack of food forced him to dare
asking for food to Bruno. Even, when Bruno told him about the chocolate that he meant to bring but he forgot, Shmuel still asked whether he brought some bread or not.
Shmuel‘s dependency did not only occur for food, but also for help.
proven by the speech uttered by Shmuel. Therefore, based on Lukens‘ theory of character, speech method is used to analyze this character.
‗You said we‘d need to find evidence,‘ said Shmuel, who was feeling upset because he thought that if Bruno didn‘t help him, then who would? (2006: 209).
Shmuel was puzzled when one day he knew his Papa was missing without knowing anything about his disappearance. Then he told Bruno about this bad news and hoped that Bruno would be able to help him finding his Papa. From the quotation above, it is explicitly mentioned that Shmuel would be very disappointed if suddenly Bruno gave up the idea to find Shmuel‘s Papa. He thought nobody would help him except Bruno. So, he only counted for Bruno as the only one who could help him.
There are extreme distinctions between Bruno and Shmuel. Bruno has his own house and can live his life normally. He eats food whenever he wants and never lacks it. Everything is available for him. Meanwhile, Shmuel is a Jewish prisoner who lives in the concentration camp, which of course it is not his own house. The soldiers never give enough food for him and he suffers from starvation. Food becomes the thing that can make him survive.
Fortunately, Bruno is very kind to him. Bruno‘s existence really helps
d. Naïve
Shmuel is also depicted as a naïve child. In fact, he lived in the concentration camp with such unpleasant condition and often got the rude attitudes from the soldiers. He did not know actually what was happening inside the camp though. It is expressed by the way he talked to Bruno the bad news about his Papa. This depiction can be seen from the dialogue. Based on Abrams‘ theory of character, it uses showing method, which is indicated by
the dialogue.
‗Well?‘ asked Bruno. ‗What was it?‘ ‗Papa,‘ said Shmuel. ‗We can‘t find him.‘
‗Can‘t find him? That‘s very odd. You mean he‘s lost?‘
‗I suppose so,‘ said Shmuel. ‗He was here on Monday and then he went on work duty with some other men and none of them have come back.‘
‗And hasn‘t he written you a letter?‘ asked Bruno. ‗Or left a note to say when he‘ll be coming back?‘
‗No, said Shmuel…
…‗I imagine the men were taken to work in another town and they have to stay there for a few days until the work is done. And the post isn‘t very good here anyway. I expect he‘ll turn up one day soon.‘
‗I hope so,‘ said Shmuel, who looked as if he was about to cry (2006: 194-195).
In fact, Shmuel knew that Papa was missing and he felt that it was peculiar since he saw his father on Monday and worked on duty with the other men. The bad news was he did not return after that and Shmuel did not realize the reason behind it. The naïve side of him is also shown by putting a hope to Bruno‘s naïve prediction. Bruno said that his father someday would come
Shmuel is naïve because he is lack of knowledge. Shmuel‘s lack of knowledge is also proven almost at the end of the story when he searched for Papa with Bruno. The unveiling of this character is shown by the dialogue. Based on Abrams‘ theory of character, showing method through the dialogue
is applicable.
‗Does the marching go on for long?‘ he whispered because he was beginning to feel quite hungry now.
‗I don‘t think so,‘ said Shmuel. ‗I never see the people after they‘ve gone on march. But wouldn‘t imagine it does‘ (2006: 211).
Eventually, Bruno helped Shmuel to find his father inside the fence. While they were finding, the soldiers ordered all the prisoners to go on a march. It happened in all of sudden and made Bruno and Shmuel trap in the middle of the march. Bruno started to feel anxious and asked Shmuel whether the marching would go for long or not. Shmuel answered that it would not because he never saw the people anymore after they went on march.
Shmuel really has no idea about the purpose of getting in the march. He thinks that it is only a daily routine that the prisoners must do without knowing the fact that the march purposes to lead them to death. Shmuel‘s
belief that he never sees the people who go on march does create neither a suspicious thinking nor a harmful action. He thinks that getting in the march is a normal activity which does not cause any worries.
B. The Depiction of Friendship between Bruno and Shmuel
