The Boy Who Loved Anne Frank

by Ellen Feldman

"An appealing and inventive novel…original and cathartic." ―Dana Kennedy, New York Times On February 16, 1944, Anne Frank recorded in her diary that Peter, whom she at first disliked and eventually came to love, had confided to her that if he got out alive, he would reinvent himself entirely. This novel is the story of what might have happened if the boy in hiding had survived to become a man. Peter arrives in America, the land of self-creation, and passes as a Christian. Successful in business and rich in love in the boom years of the 1950s, he thrives in the present, plans for the future, and has no past. But there is a cost to his charade. When The Diary of a Young Girl is published to worldwide acclaim, it triggers paralyzing memories of his experiences in the secret annex in Amsterdam. The diary is his story too, and once the floodgate of memory opens, his life spirals out of control. Based on extensive research of Peter van Pels and the strange and disturbing life Anne Frank's diary took on after her death, this is a novel about the memory of death, the death of memory, and the inescapability of the past. Reading group guide included.

Genres: Historical Fiction, Fiction, Holocaust, World War II, War, Book Club, Jewish

284 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

About the author

Ellen Feldman is an American writer. She grew up in New Jersey and attended Bryn Mawr College, and graduated with B.A. and an M.A. in modern history. She also worked for a publishing firm in New York City and continued with graduate studies at Columbia University.
Feldman currently lives in New York City and East Hampton, New York.

Reviews

[Sarah (is clearing her shelves) · Rating 4 out of 5]

8/8 - It was interesting reading this because I kept forgetting it wasn't real, that Peter hadn't actually survived the Nazis and made it to America. I was very impressed with the amount of research Feldman put into the story and I really liked the quotes, taken from numerous sources, that started each paragraph. Those quotes gave authenticity to what was happening in the story, they seemed to make Peter fit in to the documented events completely believably.

Some of Peter's actions and reactions to life were a bit weird and I found it hard to understand why he did some of the things he did. But then I'm not a survivor of anything (except a few heart operations), so I know that I have no way of knowing how I would behave if I was Holocaust survivor. So while I didn't understand some of his reactions to every day life, I didn't question the legitimacy of any of it, I just found it hard to relate to.

At the start I was surprised to read that they had no records of exactly what happened to Peter after the secret annexe was discovered. I was sure I remembered there being the final information for each of the inhabitants of the Secret Annexe in the epilogue or notes at the end of The Diary of Anne Frank. But it has been over a year since I read it, so I figured maybe I was misremembering. It turns out I was not, that Feldman had used the mistake of a tour guide (got to say that's a pretty stupid mistake for a tour guide of the Secret Annexe to make) to create her alternate history. A stupid mistake that lead to a pretty good book that I would recommend to anyone who enjoyed The Diary of Anne Frank or any other piece of literature on the subject.

[Melissa · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was looking forward to reading this book after having enjoyed Feldman's other novel, Lucy. However, I was highly disappointed by this book. The title of this novel is deceiving--I was expecting a story about the romance or friendship between Peter and Anne while in hiding and the impact of this relationship on Peter's and/or Anne's lives following the war. It may have been a more interesting twist if Feldman had wrote the novel as if in addition to Peter, Anne had survived the Holocaust as well. Instead, Feldman provides us with a rather boring account of Peter's life after the war and how he was so upset about his experiences during the Holocaust that he pretended he was not Jewish. For me, Peter was a very unlikable, unconvincing, and overly dramatized character.

[Liv · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was so much more than I expected it to be. Thoughtful, incisive, challenging, taut, fraught with emotion and memory. My obsession with Anne has led me down some weird rabbit trails, but this one paid off in the end. 4.5 stars.

[Indya · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yay, finally finished my first book of the year!

[Ana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fiquei um bocadinho desapontada com este livro. Interessante o suficiente para manter a vontade de ler, mas não o que estava à espera.
A premissa é muito interessante. E se Peter Van Pels, amigo de Anne Frank, e habitante do Anexo Secreto, tivesse sobrevivido?
Nesta história de ficção especulativa, Peter, consegue sobreviver aos campos da morte e iniciar uma nova vida na América. Mas Peter é um jovem diferente do que Anne conhecia. Peter quer esquecer todo o seu passado e a sua identidade judia, mas o passado teima em bater-lhe à porta...

[Sally · Rating 4 out of 5]

When author Ellen Feldman visited the house in which Anne Frank hid during World War II, the tour guide mistakenly informed the group that young Peter Van Pels, whose family went into hiding with the Franks, was the sole survivor of the group. Feldman was enthralled by a statement in Anne’s diary, quoting Van Pels, that if he managed to survive he’d reinvent himself completely, and even when she later found out that Peter had not survived, she was already committed to Peter, determined now to give him the reinvented life he never got.

In The Boy Who Loved Anne Frank Feldman creates a life for Peter in America, where he passes as a Christian, has a family, and leads a successful, happy life until Anne’s diary is published, followed by a controversial play and film. Anne’s story is Peter’s story, and now all that Peter has attempted to bury claws it way to the surface, all he’s pretended to be crumbling around him.

At first I was troubled by Feldman’s ignoring the fact of Peter’s death – I’m an author of historical fiction who clings doggedly to what facts do exist – but by the time I was finished with this insightful and compelling book I was grateful to Feldman for giving Peter that reinvented life, just as Anne’s diary gave her life. I was also not aware of all the controversy surround the publication of Anne’s diary and the subsequent play and film.

I’ve been thinking of this book often since I finished it and expect it will continue to resonate with me for a long time.

[Mrs. Katie Laugen · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Boy Who Loved Anne Frank by Ellen Feldman is an intriguing novel; however it had a disappointing ending. This is a story of "what if" Peter Van Daan [Van Pels] had lived? He survived the concentration camps, but the Red Cross has no record of him living. So what does he do? He moves to America, where he marries a Jewish girl (but insists that he is not Jewish himself) and starts a family. His family knows that he was in Amsterdam during the war and was sent to a concentration camp, but he claims as a resistor, not a Jew. Will Peter's repression of his past catch up to him? What happens when Anne Frank's infamous diary goes public?

The story was very intriguing because of the mystery behind Peter, and I kept wondering about his past. This is what kept me moving forward with the reading. There was a lot of psychology in his character to analyze, and it was fascinating. The ending was frustrating because the ending was almost-too-expected, too easy. I would recommend this book to those interested in learning the affects the Holocaust had on victims, but they should realize that this story is fictional.

[Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. The author clearly did her research, used archival material, but made the story compelling and hard to put down. While it could be a stretch to imagine that Peter Van Pels survived the War, the author made it seem real and very imaginable. Terrific read!

[Kristin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Decently interesting, but the writer chickens out in the end and (SPOILER) has the boy who was never going to admit he was Jewish admit he was Jewish. Kind of defeats the purpose of writing the book, now doesn't it? We've all seen Schindler's List and so we're not in need of any more sappy endings that are sad yet inspiring. The psychology of the character in the first half of the novel is interesting, interesting enough for me to keep reading and for me to give this a few stars, but not enough for me to feel this was a book that needed to have been written, that really captured another way of seeing things. I guess that's how it goes with concept books, though; they always look better than they are. I mean, how can you pass up such a great, slightly gothic-sounding title as "The Man Who Loved Anne Frank." Do it, pass it up, if you can.

[Jamie Wyatt Glover · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was kind of hard for me to get through. Not because I didn't like it, but because it was a bit slow moving and hard to get into. I liked it though. It was told from an interesting perspective. Everyone talks about Anne Frank (who's diary made me cry I might add, but then again what sad book doesn't? *sigh* I'm such a baby), but Peter was never reported dead or alive. I like the idea of him being alive and still caring about Anne. I didn't regret reading this book, but it was wasn't the most fantastic and brilliant book I have read either.

[Dawn · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm not saying this book was horrible, nor was the character, Peter, who was supposed to have loved Anne Frank in his youth and is now living the best he can as an adult, without her.

But I thought the story would explore the relationship between the two a little bit. Other than the very rare, occasional quote from Anne's diary concerning a thought about Peter, I had a tough time finding any ties, connections, or any kind of affection, between the two, and I found that absence disappointing.

[Eric Klee · Rating 3 out of 5]

The novel by Ellen Feldman attempts to weave a story about the "what ifs" of the boy Peter van Daan from The Diary Of Anne Frank. Such as, "What if Peter survived the Holocaust, moved to America, and changed his name to Peter van Pels?"

In this imaginary scenario, Peter is still "in hiding" in America. He keeps his secrets from everyone. Nobody knows that he escaped the Nazis. When the book, play, and movie about Anne Frank's diary come out, nobody knows that he's "the boy who loved Anne Frank." Nobody even knows he's Jewish (or used to be), including his Jewish wife. While I understand why he'd still be protective of his identity after having been through what he went through, it seems excessive to carry that burden for years and years without even telling his faithful (and Jewish) companion. Peter doesn't really have any friends to speak of, at least there weren't any developed in the novel. They're all business and life acquaintances that he keeps at a distance. In fact, we, the readers, never really get to know anyone in the novel. After reading the book, I vaguely feel that I know Peter. Therefore, I never felt that he loved anyone, especially Anne Frank. Character development is not this novel's strongsuit. Maybe that's the author's point; that Peter's past prevented him from getting attached to anyone. But that wouldn't explain how he was able to meet, court, and marry his spouse.

Peter's reaction to the release of the book, play, and movie, that of paranoia and anger, didn't feel like an accurate depiction for the situation either. I wanted more feeling. More emotions. More insight into his past. I didn't get it. Instead, he ignored it or, in one scene, treated it like a ticking timebomb that he had to violently dispose of.

Not to spoil the book for anyone, but in his old age, Peter does finally begin to attempt to come to terms with his past and talk about it. For me, though, it was too little, too late. I no longer cared.

Would I recommend this book? Only for diehard "fans" of Anne Frank and/or the author, Ellen Feldman. It doesn't stand on its own as a great novel. It's more of a companion piece, and a not-so-great one at that.

[Denisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

"- Ai avut vreodată sentimentul că vrei să pleci și totuși să rămâi? "

"Nu uita, unde ai fost și ce ai văzut nu o să te facă prea plăcut în ochii oamenilor."

"- Am încercat să nu te trezesc.
- Nu tu m-ai trezit. Absența ta m-a trezit."

"prinzi mai multe muște cu miere decât cu oțet"

[Grace RS · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book, and I had a hard time putting it down. To some extent, it reminds me of Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment," as it delves into the psychological state of a man tormented by survivor's guilt, PTSD, anger, shame, revenge, violence, anxiety, etc., which eventually leads to a confession and surrender. Peter failed to unbolt the door to the building, and he believes this led to the Green Police arresting all of them and their eventual murders. He even assumes crimes committed by other Jews.

It is an amazing book idea: what if Peter, the boy who lived in the annex with Anne, had survived? Anne writes that Peter claims that if he survived, he would never tell anyone of his Jewish heritage, and so Feldman creates a story of a man running from his identity but learning to face the past and confront his trauma when in 1952, Anne Frank's diary gets published in English. With all the romanticized attention Anne Frank's diary received (from plays, movies, statues, even lawsuits), Feldman imagines Peter struggling with his own story being brought to light, especially when the movie presented his father as stealing food from the others. The Peter that Feldman creates takes on a lifeforce of its own--he seems so genuine, which is possible due to all the obvious research that went into this book. Peter loses his voice early on in the novel, and in a way, Anne gave him his voice back; but more importantly, Feldman granted him a voice, giving him a story to tell, allowing him to defend himself, his father, and even Anne.

The writer does a phenomenal job presenting the aftermath: those who struggle with their belief in a God after 6 million Jews died, or others who long to shoulder the suffering when they have no inkling of the horrors that transpired, and those who learned to despise their own heritage. She also depicts how disastrous it is for people to either overly romanticize the holocaust, like some have done with Anne Frank, or those who refuse to even accept the accuracy of what occurred.

The writing is superb. There are so many amazing quotes from this book, but I will leave my favorite passage.
“But I was not crying for anything in that house. I was crying for the innocence of that father walking home through the blushing Amsterdam evening, for the hope of that woman scrubbing a new flat for a new life, for the boy who thought he was safe. I was crying for a world that saw a war coming, that feared the worst, but had no inkling how bad the worst could be. I was crying for a world that, for all its misery, had not heard of concentration camps, or mass showers that spray death, or chimneys that spew human ashes, or medical experiments on men who happen to have red hair or children who happen to be twins. I was crying for a paradise I had tried to recreate for my wife and children, and myself, and for my failure. I cried for the second murder of my parents, the one I had committed by silence.”

[Gina · Rating 4 out of 5]

I did enjoy this book more than I thought I would but I still feel like I didn't really like have to read this book. "Anne Frank the Diary of a Young Girl" was a way better book. This book just kind of tells us Peter's life after he was with Anne and also how he reacts to the falsehoods and just the movies about Anne's diary and Anne's diary itself. To conclude, this book was meh.

[Audrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mixed feelings. I enjoyed the concept immensely, and was intrigued enough to wonder how it would end, but the style wasn’t for me. I had trouble following at times, but ultimately, the research was solid even in a fictional setting.

[bookyeti · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5 stars

There are very few women my age who have NOT read The Diary of Anne Frank. It is one of the few secular books that have had an impact on my life. The author, Ellen Feldman, draws from that harrowing true life story and offers us a glimpse of what may have happened if Peter - Anne's young love - would have survived the Nazi regime and continued to live his life, after immigrating to America.

The young Jewish boy, Peter van Pels (or van Daan as Anne renames him in her diary) was hidden in the "secret annex" along with the Frank family; he was never reported as dead or alive after the War. What IF Peter van Pels, the boy who loved Anne Frank, survived the Holocaust? Would he have remained trapped in a psychological annex for the rest of his life? That is the story Feldman weaves in this scenario of 'what ifs'. It is written from Peter's perspective as he struggles mentally with what he has been through, what he has survived, and things he will never be able to forget.

While it was not the narrative I was expecting (to be honest I thought it was book about Peter and Anne while they were living in the annex), it was an interesting read and one of those stories that make you think.

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I stumbled upon this book--not even sure where. It feels like a disservice saying this book was amazing. Because it was so much more than amazing. It changed me. I know that I'm a different person as a result of this book. Perhaps, it just solidified my obsession with Anne Frank or maybe it's because I'm older now, than when I first discovered Anne and her diary---but the book gave me hope that survival is always possible. That our past may haunt us but in the end when we trust and embrace the past we are able to move forward.

It is rare that i find a writer that has such grace with words. The words seem to float on the page, despite being so heavy.

[Kirsty · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have very much enjoyed the novels of Feldman's which I have read to date, but was a little disappointed by The Boy Who Loved Anne Frank. Whilst the idea behind it - that Peter, of diary fame, survives the Holocaust and emigrates to New York - was inventive and quite original, it was neither as absorbing nor as engaging as I was expecting it to be. It did not plunge into the emotional depths which I was expecting, and I did not feel as though Peter's voice was authentic enough. He was not a likeable character, certainly. There were rather a lot of flaws within the novel, and it did not strike the chord which I expected it to.

[Kate · Rating 3 out of 5]

i loved the idea behind this story but then it didn't quite read as well i i thought it would.
A good book, but not a great book. I wanted to hear more about Anne i guess and of course the book was more about the future and Peter living his life now, trying to forget the past but then because of the publishing of Anne's diaries being forced to confront his life in the secret annexe all over again. but still i felt that Anne was pushed away and forgotten within this story.

[Kristen · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is another book I had hoped would be better than it was. The idea of Peter van Pels (who hid in the attic with Anne Frank) surviving and creating a new life for himself in the US, only to have his secret past reawakened when her diary was published, was very interesting to me. But I was disappointed that such a great idea was not executed well in the telling of this story.

[Debbie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked it. It certainly wasn't the best written book but it really provided alot of insight into the life of a post war survivor who thinks that by moving to a new country and hiding his past and his heritage that he will be able to leave it all behind and the reality that no matter how hard we try those things did happen and it will continue to impact you and your life. Even in a new country.

[Lauren Tivnan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I looked forward to reading this book, but I just couldn't finish it. The main character of Peter was just unconvincing and well, ordinary (which might have been the point I guess). He had such an incredible story to tell and it just was never told.

[nomadreader (Carrie D-L) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinating premise, but it felt somewhat long and overly drawn out.

[Laura · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not what I was expecting. I thought there would be more about Anne Frank and a budding romance. It was hard for me to get into this one. But my friends loved it.

[Tema Frank · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m always trying to do more things than the number of hours in a day allows, so it is rare that a book is powerful enough to make me put aside everything else (well, almost everything) and focus on reading it to the end. The Boy Who Loved Anne Frank, by Ellen Feldman, is one of those rare books. Obsessed as I was with work and family in 2005 when it came out, I missed it then. Luckily, books remain available long after their publication date. If you haven’t read this one, get it now!

Inspired by incorrect information from a tour guide at Anne Frank house, who told the visitors that the fate of everyone who hid in the secret annex was known except for that of Peter van Daan, Feldman’s book imagines what might have happened had Peter survived. (In fact, the Red Cross concluded that he died in the Mauthausen concentration camp three days before it was liberated.) The novel supposes that after being released he ultimately made his way to the United States. Tall, blue-eyed, German-accented, and almost Aryan-looking, he decides to pretend not to be Jewish, in the hopes of protecting himself and someday his children from ever being subjected to Hitler-like atrocities.

That, of course, involves a delicate and confusing balance. He has numbers tattooed on his arm, and doesn’t deny having been in a concentration camp, but it leaves people confused about where to place him: good guy or bad guy? Jew or Jew-hater?

As an unreliable narrator, Peter's skills in self-deception are reminiscent of those of Stevens, the butler in Kazuo Ishiguro’s brilliant book, The Remains of the Day. Peter keeps trying to distance himself from those he denigrates as having been unable to move on with their lives and put the past behind them. Yet, despite his claims to the contrary, the past is haunting him too and he isn’t doing nearly as well as he pretends.

The author does an outstanding job of showing the complexity of his situation and his emotions. As an aspiring novelist myself, I was also struck by the beautiful writing and turns of phrase. Those of you who think “literary fiction” is too slow, don’t worry: the plot keeps the pace moving quickly. But as you read you can also savour descriptions such as:

“Shadows swallowed the corners of the room. Beneath the window, an air conditioner muttered intelligible threats. Against one wall, a black leather chaise crouched. I gave it wide berth…”

Or, when he has his first serious girlfriend in America: “We were so sure we had a future, we were beginning to build a past… We walked the streets, our fingers linked together in a pickproof lock against the world.”

When he finds himself drawn to a synagogue, despite his reluctance to have any association with Judaism: “A chorus of amens rose to the ceiling like a flock of birds flushed out of a swamp. They would have made easy targets.”

I suspect the book would work well even if you are one of the rare people who haven’t read the diary of Anne Frank (or seen the movie or a play based on it). That said, especially given that the diary figures prominently in the plot, it would probably be a good idea to either read or watch The Diary of a Young Girl, by Anne Frank, first. You don’t need to remember all the details, so if you read it a long time ago, don’t worry: get yourself a copy of The Boy Who Loved Anne Frank and dive in. You will be moved by the story, the many ethical issues it raises, and the gorgeous writing.

[Although I know we all perceive books differently, I was surprised by the mixed reviews on Goodreads. Reading them it seems that many people were expecting the book to be about a romance between Peter and Anne. So I'll warn you now: that's not what the book is about.]

[Vicky Wong · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is very much a “book club” book, which is not to say it’s a bad thing, I’ve read and enjoyed plenty of books that would be considered “book club” books. I thought this book was just ok and was willing to rate it about 3/5 even if it was a bit predictable, but then I got to the author’s not at the end and felt a bit conflicted.

First the good, overall a decently-written book, a well-told story about trauma in the Jewish community in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, survivor’s guilt, and coming to terms with your past.

It also touches upon interesting themes related to the legacy of Anne Frank, how it has taken on a life of its own spawning a play and movie, the ways in which her legacy is at times misappropriated, and the people (very often men) who have argued over who is the authoritative voice on the life of Anne Frank.

Now to the bad, despite it being set in 1950s America, I didn’t feel rooted or transported into that time period, this could be in huge part because we spend so much time in Peter’s mind, but even so the lack of a sense of place and setting is one of the book’s weakest points.

Your interest in the book and in Peter also hinges on the fact that he was Anne Frank’s love interest, and a cynical part of me feels you could tell maybe 75 percent (maybe even 50 percent) of this story without evoking Anne Frank. While the release of Anne Frank’s diary and the effect it has on people who survived is an interesting premise to consider, I felt that Feldman could still tell a perfectly good story about surviving the Holocaust without hanging onto the coat tails of Anne Frank’s diary.

Anne Frank is a surprisingly peripheral presence in this book and it could be because of the theme mentioned earlier of how people claim to speak for her, but it just felt like Feldman probably didn’t want to wade into that debate either despite doing a whole book about just that.

And now to the major problem I had with this book, which is that while the book is based on the premise that Peter van Pels’ records couldn’t be found and we don’t know what happened to him (and this was based on a comment a guide for Anne Frank House made which inspired Feldman), we then get to the author’s note at the end to discover that Peter actually died in the Mauthausen concentration camp but at that point Feldman said Peter had been living in her mind for several years.

So much of this book hinges on Peter trying to seek redress of some form because his own father is portrayed in the diary, play and musical of Anne Frank’s life as not a nice person and as a bread-stealing thief, and that these inventions are to keep an audience interested.

For a book that explores what it means to misappropriate one’s legacy, knowing that the real Peter van Pels actually died made me go “well, isn’t Feldman doing exactly the same thing by completely reimagining Peter’s story even though at the time of writing the book she knew full well that he had died?”

For Feldman to still go ahead and write this book even though she knew he had died felt like a violation of Peter and that day a bit uncomfortably with me as a reader.

[Pam · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Boy Who Loved Anne Frank: A Novel is by Ellen Feldman. This is an interesting novel but it must definitely be said that it is fiction all the way. It answers a question of what might it look like if Peter or one of the others in the Annex had lived. How would they act and what would they do? The idea of this book came from a tour guide at the Annex in 1994 when he told the group he was leading that they had documentation of the deaths of all the members of the Annex except Peter. In actuality, the Red Cross had identified his number at Mathausen in 1945 and that he had died on May 5. However, the idea of his having survived had been born and eventually turned into this book. The book sounds so realistic that if you didn’t know better, you might think it was true. The book is definitely well-written and easy to read. Peter, himself, tells the story.
On August 13, 1946, a young man stepped off a ship carrying refugees from Europe to the United States. He got in line with his documents to go through customs and enter the United States. Since he had no birth certificate or any other documentation, he had been given a Certificate of Identity in lieu of a passport. Unlike other documents, this one did not give his religion. Since his name was van Pels and sounded Dutch, the customs man decided he must be Christian and welcomed him to the US. Peter had heard the man talk to others who were Jewish and knew he was being treated differently so he did not tell the man he was Jewish. Since Peter felt only derision and shame at being a Jew and he no longer believed, he decided to not be Jewish as far as anyone knew. He managed to create a new person in the place of the old Peter van Pels. It was only years later, after being married and having two children that Peter began having dreams that he didn’t understand. When his wife started reading a new book, The Diary of Anne Frank, he completely lost his voice for no apparent reason. Thus began his work with a psychologist to help him figure out why he had no voice. Even in talking with Dr. Gabor, Peter never told him who he was and what he might have done after the war. Peter is having more problems with dreams and flashbacks that he doesn’t understand. He begins to get more and more confused as does the book. What will Peter end up doing?

[Marah · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed. While I know that the blurb of this book was about Peter trying not to live in the past, I also was expecting him to grieve Anne Frank later on. I just finished reading her diary. I wanted to mourn with someone who had truly known her even if it's just a simulation in my head prompted by a realistic alternate fiction novel.

But no, it almost barely does that, this book is more focused on Peter's trauma and his every day struggle. His grief is there, but mostly focused on his parents. He did eventually acknowledge the diary and admits to missing Anne, but he won't even want to see her father lest he is pulled back to the past like him.

And while his silent suffering is a testament to his hurting over her and loved ones who had passed on, I was disappointed that the novel didn't divulge into the mourning and acknowledgement part. At least, it didn't seem enough to me, so maybe that's just me.

The plot is also interesting but also quite slow, that I couldn't help but skim the remaining pages. I didn't like what I saw.

Peter and Otto didn't even have a proper reunion, and while I respect that the author probably didn't want to somehow (further?) mar Otto Frank's survival by writing such that may border on pandering (yes, even for this novel), it still made me feel heartbroken that in the story, Otto Frank had refused to acknowledge Peter as the real Peter for a number of reasons that involved lawsuits and heartbreak.

I don't think they even got to talk to each other until Otto died. Which is almost silly, because there is a high possibility that Otto would try to investigate a person claiming to be Peter Van Pels, despite everything, even though there's a chance of danger/embarrassment.

Hell, in real life, Otto was practically comforted by the fact that a penpal of his has Anne as her first name (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...) and thus confided and trusted her, what more could he be with the whole lot as 'Peter Van Pels'? And the real deal too?

This really has a good execution, if only it pulled through in the end with something more satisfying as a conclusion. I truly wanted to like this book, and I did during the first half. Too bad I can't say the same for the rest.

[Jill Meyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recently finished "Anne Frank: Unbound", an anthology about Anne Frank and her continuing influence on the arts and media today. One of the books mentioned as being part of this trend was Ellen Feldman's novel, "The Boy Who Loved Anne Frank: A Novel of Remembering and Forgetting". The book's premise is what if two of the Jews hiding in the Amsterdam Annex survived, not just one. Feldman's novel supposes that young Peter van Pels survived as well as Otto Frank.

In Feldman's story, van Pels survives his stays in both Auschwitz and Mauthausen and is able to emigrate to the United States after the war, sponsored by a distant relative who had emigrated earlier. Van Pets arrives at Ellis Island not knowing exactly what he wants to do with his life, but knowing that he does not want to live it as a Jew. After working in a restaurant for a while, he meets a man who is looking for a partner in a Levitttown-like home building firm. Peter and his (Jewish) partner make a lot of money and Peter emerges as a successful businessman as well as husband and father. Despite his claim of being a Protestant Dutch emigrant who just happens to have spent time in Auschwitz (the tattoo on his left arm gives that away), he falls in love with and marries a young Jewish woman. However, in the late 1940's, "The Diary of Anne Frank" is published and Peter van Pels' life begins to change. He still hides who he is but with the book and then a play and a movie out there in the world, his mind begins to unravel as he remembers things that happened in that Annex attic.

Ellen Feldman's book is a very good read that I think would particularly resound as a choice for a book club. There are a lot of good discussion points as she brings up our identity as both seen by ourselves and the world around us.