smallholder
|
The Reader - warning may contain spoilers.SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!
Well I have just re-read this book and I find it as compelling as I did the first time I read it a number of years ago. Yes just occasionally the plotting is slightly contrived and it does not have wonderful descriptive passages. The writing is sparse but deliberately so I feel so as not to distract the reader from the moral and spiritual dilemma and arguments that it poses:
Why and how did ordinary Germans take part in the holocaust and how did they and the generation that followed them come to terms with what happened?
Can we still love someone when we know they have carried out a horrendous crime?
How would we feel about ourself knowing that we fell in love with 'a monster' ?
Anyone else have any thoughts on the book
|
tui
|
It is years since i read it but it is in my bookshelves so I will have another look. i remember not liking the book much when i read it.
It is an interesting question about our feelings about falling in love with a monster. I don't trust my judgement with men having fallen in love with unsuitable men 100%. of the time. They weren't monsters but I blame myself for the poor choices.
People can be very good at putting forward an acceptable public front. i don't know how we are supposed to get behind it.
|
cofnchoc
|
I've just finished it. I was intrigued that she was prepared to accept the condemnation for war crimes but not prepared to defend herself with regards to her illiteracy. To her, not being able to read was the greater crime.
|
smallholder
|
Until she had read for herself the horrors of what she and her fellow citizens had done and developed empathy for the victims.
Do you think the theme of literacy in the novel is used in a symbolic way? e.g illiteracy = a lack of compassion/awareness/empathy
And maybe it is convenient for her at first to use and hide behind this illiteracy, ie she doesn't have to admit to herself what she has done and been part of?
|
cofnchoc
|
It could be - she seduced a young school boy which perhaps shows her lack of awareness/empathy but as I type that I'm thinking that just because a person can't read/write does it mean that they lack those social mores. I think not. Do you think there was more of a 'special needs'issue other than her illiteracy.
I got the feeling that she did what she did in the camps because she was told by others in authority and hadn't the ability to question. But that doesn't answer the question as to 'everyone else' who was complicit in these atrocious crimes.
Have to say it's been a thought provoking read.
|
smallholder
|
No I don't think there was an SEN element as once literate she went on to read some pretty heavy going books.
I read an interesting article somewhere recently by a children's author I think ( sorry it so vague) about the importance of fiction for the development of empathy and a moral code. Now obviously I am not saying, nor was the author of the piece, that people who don't read fiction or those who are illiterate aren't empathetic however it seems to be implied/suggested in Schlink's book.
Why is the book called The Reader do you think? I'm going to mull this over!
|
Louiw
|
I've just finished this book (just!) and I have a lot to think about. I think the title is a catalyst to everything in her life. She was prepared to take responsilbility of being the writer although she was illiterate and would prefer the consequences of that disclosure rather than admit she couldn't read or write. She captured Michael from the beginning and he never escaped her.
An extremely thought provoking book. I liked the way there were few descriptions, it made it more sparse and, to me, gave it more impact.
|
smallholder
|
Yes I agree the sparse writing worked for me too.
The title could refer to her or the boy couldn't it, don't you think ?
|
Louiw
|
Yes, it was what tied them together over the years. He was still tied to her, and although he didn't think of himself as having anything to do with her, he still read for her for 18 years. That's some commitment, isn't it?
|
smallholder
|
It certainly is. The book made me think about love. What it must have been like for him to know he had fallen in love with someone who had done such terrible things. Where does that leave the love that you felt? Did he still love her? Why did he feel tied to her? I like books that make me think.
|
Louiw
|
Me too! I think he always loved her. He had to wrestle with his conscience throughout the whole of his life. I liked the way it didn't have a happy ending. Not with Hanna but neither with the Jewish girl he visited in America. Very poigniant that she didn't want the money but did want the tea caddy.
|
smallholder
|
Yes I agree I thought that was so much better than just refusing the money.
|
thehawk
|
Not sure I agree that Hannah was a monster. In the situation of war, people have no choice. The other 5 women were worse, in some ways, because they refused to face up to what they did. At least she was willing to take the punishment. Plus, was it 8000 people worked at Auschwitz and only 16 were ever punished. Justice?
|
smallholder
|
Was she though? Did she kill herself because she was guilty and felt remorse or was it cowardice or even in some way defiance with her even to the end still trying to stay in control of the boy? The book for me does not make this clear, which is what I like about it. Maybe the film interpretation is different.
|
thehawk
|
Cowardly for taking the wrap for writing the document, evn though she didn't? Or bravery?
Its a thin line.
WHich is why it is such a wonderfully subtle text.
|
smallholder
|
Exactly!
|
magpie nic
|
I finished reading it yesterday and it is very thought provoking. The biggest question left for me is why did she kill herself after so long- was it because she did not want to be tied to michael because she felt guilt at her life, or was it because then giving the money would have more impact? Or was it because she wanted Michael to be able to make choices he wanted rather than feeling obliged to support and care for her- was it a case of if you love someone set them free?
I did not suspect she could not read until he revealed it, and that made me question her actions more.I also kept thinking about whether or not I liked the characters- I think I sympathised with him, and in the beginning with her becasue I thought she might just need company, but then I did not like the way she seduced him to keep him so she could bend him to her will. And I did not like her for thinking being unable to read was a worse secret to reveal than what she did in the camp.
Hmmm, very thought provoking definitely!
|
smallholder
|
Yes it is because it makes you switch your viewpoint and beacuse it leaves you with all these questions that made me like it so much, Magpie.
Did you like it? Not everyone who reads it does.
|
magpie nic
|
Truthfully I do not know whether I liked it or not- I asked myself a lot as I read it, but in the end I decided it was not a book that I would like or dislike but I like the fact that it did make me think.
|
smallholder
|
Yes, I think I know what you mean!
|
Louiw
|
Yes, me too! I wasn't sure if I liked it but it made me think, and I read it to the end quite quickly!
|
