I LOVED the idea behind the writing of this novel; that Peter (from the annex) survived, escaped to america, and then hid his identity.
i loved the fear of circumcision - and that he would be discovered because of it. haha - penis betrayal - it isn't really anything i thought of till now.
all in all - the story was intriguing - and entertaining, but kind of poorly written, disappointing in its vagueness and overly sexualized characters. (we tend to think - since we are so sexed as a culture - that people everywhere have always been like this.

Wanted to love, but the writing style made it meh.
Sometimes Peter has “flashbacks” but with the way it’s written, it usually hard to differentiate when these happen.

Would I read it again? No.
Am I happy I read it? Indifferent.
Is my world view better because I read it? Unsure.

The end got a little confusing, but I think that was the point. Very interesting, and had a lot of historically accurate information.

I loved and enjoyed reading this story. The "What if" of a life; honoring and remembering the past in its truth; Beautifully written. Had me hooked once I was ready to say goodbye to the characters.

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.

one of the best books i will ever read.

After roughly the first third of this book, you may be tempted to skim through the remaining pages, convinced by the somewhat static pacing and dry language that the climax has come and gone. Don't give in. The rest of the novel is not more of the same, but a subtle exploration of one (fictional) man's reconciliation of his horrific experiences as a Jew in World War II Europe with his contemporary life as a seemingly "normal", successful suburbanite in 1950s America. By the end, you'll be thinking about survival, guilt, memory, family, and loyalty in new ways.

What I appreciated most about the book, though, were the quieter moments: the narrator Peter's succinct description of watching his young daughters sleep, for instance, or a brief conversation he has with his wife in bed regarding the removal of his concentration-camp tattoo. These subtle glints of insight elevate The Boy Who Loved Anne Frank from what could have been a sensationalistic, overwrought book--the sort of book that the dreadful title unfortunately evokes.

I really enjoyed it up until the last 2 or 3 chapters. It had a lot of edge-of-your-seat suspense, but I thought the end was unrealistic. It was obvious he was suffering severe PTSD, and I don't think just one visit to the psychiatrist would have completely cured it. I think it would have been great if the book had just ended with Peter's final visit to Dr. Gabor. It seemed to me like after that one visit, everything just magically went back to being OK again. I'm not sure that would have happened in real life. I was in a hurry to get through the last several chapters because by then I had stopped enjoying the novel and just wanted it to be over with. I would recommend it as an interesting book but I would never want to re-read it myself just because of those last 2 or 3 chapters.

I really liked this book more than I thought I would. The novel is based on the supposition that Peter, the boy Anne Frank loved when they were hidden away from the Nazis in a house in Amsterdam for two years, did not die in the camps but lived.

Most of us who are familiar with Anne Frank’s story know what became of the young boy Peter van Pels, because it is well established that he died in a concentration camp in 1945. This story alters the history and tells the tale of Peter, who not only survived the war but also made his way to America, got married and started a family. But when he finds his wife reading the newly published "Diary of a young girl" one night and sees the child Anne's picture, he goes into such shock he loses his voice and when But he tries to reclaim his past he cannot.

If you can allow yourself the suspension of disbelief over this one point of Peter’s survival, The Boy Who Loved Anne Frank is an interesting novel.

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.]

Wanted to love this but hated it and couldn't finish

heartbreaking. this book was so sad to read, peter's character was very well formed and his pain was so well portrayed.

the best books make you think, this one most certainly did.