Annexed, by Sharon Dogar. The story of the Anne Frank house from Peter's POV.
I've finished it now, and it was amazing. Hard to listen to, especially at the end in the camps, but amazing.
The author did take some historical liberties with the characters, and I was interested to hear what some of you might think about that.
First off, as some of you probably know (so it won't be a spoiler for everyone), Anne Frank's father was the only one who survived the Holocaust. So, the author did give Peter a more hopeful death than historically he might have had. I'm fine with that liberty, as it made the ending more bearable.
The part I'm having some trouble with are the liberties the author took with Peter and Anne's sexual feelings for each other. I do know there's a strong chance their relationship wasn't as squeaky clean as Anne portrayed in her diary, but there is a chance it was just as she wrote, and I'm not sure how I feel about putting different feelings/actions onto such a private matter.
Not that anything scandalous happens. Honest. The feelings they express and their actions, I'm sure, were fairly common for teens of their era and upbringing.
I'm also not a prude...I think it might have been nice if (like Romeo and Juliet) they would have at least had their "one night" together...they would (like Romeo and Juliet) both end up dying after all.
Still, it's not certain that the author's portrayal is how Anne and Peter really felt/acted. (unless there were some additional writings or testimony from her father that the author didn't put in the afterward).
What about you? What kinds of liberties do you think an author should/shouldn't take when it comes to historical figures?