Also, some people are saying its "too soon." Why? Why are we only allowed to discuss (because that's what this book is: a discussion) touchy subjects after everyone who can remember them is gone? Wouldn't it be better for us as a society to bring everything out in the open when there are still people who can contribute to the discussion first-hand? And who decides when "enough" time has passed?

Especially for those of us who aren't Jewish, I think we should welcome anything that brings the Holocaust to the forefront. I know, for me, we read maybe a paragraph in a history book about it and – that was it. Couldn't discuss it or try to figure out how something like that could have been so accepted. Wasn't allowed, wasn't important. Or maybe it was too horrible, too 'real.' Even as a child, it pissed me off. So maybe that's why I'm defending the book now.

I say let the discussion happen. And to be clear, the discussion needs to be about the events, the culture, how this happened and how to make sure it never happens again – not about whether or not someone should have written a book.

On the other hand, I do agree with everyone who's said that the history is too painful and too near still. That said, everyone seems to be writing about and making films about Nazis these days; and people have fictionalized more recent historical figures, even if those historical figures had less horrific stories behind them.

So I suppose in the end, I don't really know. But I am certain that it's a reader's choice to read or not to read.

I could give Rosoff a big hug for being another reader who wasn't enthralled with 'The Boy in Striped Pyjamas'.

I'm just going to say that I don't think you're part of a survivor family whose scars show oh, so clearly. To compare these scars to AIDS or to the attempts to show the greatness of common people (although was Schindler really common? Hmm.) in the face of such horror shows you don't understand the depth of the survivor phenomenon. There is such outrage among the second generation that Jews — that their RELATIVES — were led like lambs to the slaughter that books and movies of people who fought back are necessary. The truth remains vital, especially in the face of so much disbelief and distrust the doubters bring to the table.

Heck, author Steven Beeber was brash and brave enough to show how the Holocaust birthed an entire genre of music, one that is still vital and alive today. This is the power of the survivor phenomena. An entire genre of music. Think about that.

As for your other examples, the other Holocaust stories/movies have a validity because they seek to help with the healing process. This book, as I've seen it presented thus far (and frankly, I had a hard time dealing with Holocaust lit before realizing the depth of the dysfunction the event left behind, so I will not be reading this book, either), takes a REAL person and twists things around.

That is where the pain comes in. Remember the fuss over the book The Apple? A survivor made up a story that he passed off as real because he needed to heal, to prove there is kindness in the world, even if he had to invent it.

I'm sorry. The time isn't right. Yes, we should talk about this stuff. Yes, it belongs on its own shelf in the fiction section. Yes, further down the road, we can tout Historical Holocaust Fiction as possessing the same validity that Historical Queen Elizabeth holds.

Once the bulk of the pain has passed. And it is. Studies are showing that the third generation does not wear some of the trauma of their parents and surviving grandparents. Those scars are healing over. But I wonder. The pain, the horror… I thought I'd become immune to it until I heard it out of the mouth of a survivor who means a lot to me. Looking at someone you love and hearing these tales… it changes your life. It truly does.

There will be a time and a place for this sort of fiction. As someone for whom this event, which happened years before my birth, is still so very real, I'm just stating from the trenches that the time is not now.

While writing a fictionalized diary of someone real is not that big a deal as long as it's clearly stated as fiction, Anne Frank's diary is a special case because holocaust deniers are constantly declaring the original fiction to begin with. Here you have something that people refuse to accept as true and something like this complicates matters more.

An author can't be held responsible for what a few crazies do with what they have written, but I feel they do have to responsible enough to be aware of the circumstances surrounding the subject they write about and consider seriously the impact of what they publish.

Hell, the book could mean nothing to anyone and fade out of memory without anyone caring. The idea of it just tickles me the wrong way.

It is however entirely within my right to decide I have no interest in reading such a work.

I'll pass, thanks.