Criminality

            The setting, Nazi Germany, forces us to think about what is right and what it wrong, specifically dealing with laws. To abide by the law meant to persecute your neighbors and support the suffering of your fellow humans. Was it better to follow the rules or follow your morals? And if some of the laws were wrong, how does one know which are okay to bend or disregard and which aren’t? Surely some of Nazi Germany’s laws made sense and weren’t unique. But if you’re operating on the assumption that some laws can be broken, where do you draw the line? Our main character proudly considers herself a thief, as does her best friend. Lengthy discussion might not be able to resolve whether it’s moral of them to steal. At first, Liesel is fairly innocent, just taking books off the ground. Soon she is stealing from the mayor’s wife and even goes so far as making a boy crash on his bike so that they can steal his food. Obviously, that’s illegal. While it’s right for stealing to be generally illegal, do the circumstances excuse it? After all, that boy was rich and probably still had plenty of food to eat that evening whether or not his basket was taken. Meanwhile Liesel and Rudy shared the food in it with other kids who were living off of small rations in big families. One could liken them to Robin Hood in this situation, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Is it really wrong to make more stomachs full than would have been before? That time perhaps, they weren’t in the wrong despite having broken the law. But other times might not have been quite so noble, and the question is where to draw the line. I think that line is impossible to define as each person has a different opinion on where it would be. Different people have different views, which is why it’s hard to decide on laws and punishments. Was it really right to steal from a farmer who was trying to make a living off that fruit? Maybe not. But was it wrong enough to be punished for thievery when all they wanted was to ease their hunger? Maybe not. There may never be an answer when considering things such as breaking the laws in Nazi Germany, where many of the laws were just plain wrong, even though they were supposed to be preventing wrongdoing. After all, after the war, the people who went against the Nazi regime were celebrated and honored, and the law-abiding citizens were shamed. How were the people in these countries supposed to decide what to do after it reached the point where there was almost no resistance to the Nazi regime? I think maybe breaking the law isn’t bad simply because it’s  “breaking the law,” it’s bad because you’re committing an act that was considered bad enough that a law was made against it. And in most cases, the people creating the laws were reasonable and just. But it’s hard to judge who’s right and who’s wrong when the moral guide of law starts to dissolve under a corrupt system and each person has to privately decide which rules should be abided by and which ones just shouldn’t. Having the protagonists be rule-breakers brings this question to mind and makes you reevaluate what laws have to do with right and wrong as you read The Book Thief.