Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!dual!decwrl!kilian@pbsvax.DEC (Michael Kilian/DTN: 225-6017/MS: HLO2-3/M08)
From: kilian@pbsvax.DEC (Michael Kilian/DTN: 225-6017/MS: HLO2-3/M08)
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: THE PAINTED BIRD by Jerzy Kosinski
Message-ID: <204@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 11:25:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.204
Posted: Wed Aug 28 11:25:32 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 08:32:27 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 47


    It's been a while since I read _The Painted Bird_ by Jerzy Kosinski,
yet the book still remains vivid in my mind. It is by far the most violent
book I have ever read.  Not only are the acts of violence frequent, but they
seem to very "imaginative" (for lack of a better word). We are not talking
about simple killings by guns or war, but the grotesque tortures
adolescents sometimes think about. Many scenes seem to be designed to just
elicit a groan or wince.

    The question I have is whether all of this violence really contributes
to a meaningful development of the theme. Certainly the Holocaust was horrible
and grotesque, and certainly _The Painted Bird_ addresses man's inhumanity
to man, but how does the endless string of horror address the issue of why
this happens? 

    The superficial answer from the book is that prejudice and superstition
are the large motivating force. Because the Gypsy Boy is different,
he is the butt of many attacks. Yes, he is the painted bird, yet isn't that
quite obvious and can't that be inferred from a few acts of violence? Isn't
there more to be explored than how man is inhumane to man and shouldn't there
be more emphasis on why?

    As I remarked, it has been a while since I read the book. I seem to remember
though that the encounters the boy has on his travels are relatively short.
There is not a lot of development of any of the characters, and I would tend
to say that even the boy is not developed that well. He is much like a voyeur
on the violence, often the victim, sometimes the participant. Yet, I remember
the violence, not the boy, not his character. I remember the bird and how
the boy is like the bird, I don't remember how much I liked or sympathized
with the boy.

    Maybe the Gypsy Boy is supposed to represent the nameless many of the
Holocaust. Maybe he represents the anonymity of the victims of the Holocaust,
the burned in numbers, the coercion of Jews from vital people to nameless,
often hopeless, numbers. Unfortunately, I feel that the continuous violence,
the never letting up, doesn't let me ponder that till I put the book away
for some time. The violence is too pervasive, it gets in the way of thinking
of the victims.

    _The Painted Bird_ may be a powerful statement on the Holocaust to some
people. To me, it is too vivid in its depiction of hate and destruction;
the book is not long enough to have enough character development between
the violence. To some, it may say that we are all painted birds in some respect
and the world is a brutish place. Have we really expanded our way of thinking
by this reductionist statement?

                                                        -- Mike Kilian