The last time I saw her was red. The sky was like soup, boiling and stirring. In some places, it was burned. There were black crumbs, and pepper, streaked across the redness.
Earlier, kids had been playing hopscotch there, on the street that looked like oil-stained pages. When I arrived, I could still hear the echoes. The feet tapping the road. The children-voices laughing, and the smiles like salt, but decaying fast.
This time, everything was too late.
The sirens. The cuckoo shrieks in the radio. All too late.
Within minutes, mounds of concrete and earth were stacked and piled. The streets were ruptured veins. Blood streamed till it was dried on the road, and the bodies were stuck there, like driftwood after the flood.
They were glued down, every last one of them. A packet of souls.
Was it fate?
Is that what glued them down like that?
Of course not.
Let’s not be stupid.
It probably had more to do with the hurled bombs, thrown down by humans hiding in the clouds.
–– Markus Zusak, The Book Thief
What leads the complement of predicator, and it is the syntactic subject in what-clause. When I interpret this sentence in my own tongue, I have two possible ways: (1) interpreting all the aforesaid meanings, complement leader and subject in its clause; (2) interpreting the whole what-clause as a nominal complement.
Which one is to be adopted to interpret the sentence well as an English aspect?