Bernhard Schlink’s The Reader
My theory of the book is that Schlink was not referring to Michael or Hannah with the title “The Reader,” but is referring to us. In the first part of the novel, he gives us the affair, one that despite Michael’s youth and a heavy reliance on sex with little conversation is not scandalous and is even presented positively. Hannah is mysterious and moody but appears to be hiding some secret pain. Michael is young and innocent but cares deeply for Hannah. There are a few hints of the age imbalance, but the net for Michael is give to us as positive. Schlink is just setting us up, however; the sympathetic characters of part one are not so sympathetic after all – Hannah was a guard in the SS and is accused of complicity, if not outright responsibility, in the deaths of hundreds of female Jewish prisoners; Michael, ruined emotionally by the teenage dalliance with Hannah, can’t take simple steps to help Hannah or simply make her life in prison a little better, much less offer her any sort of absolution for breaking off a relationship that, ultimately, was wrong. Did Michael have an obligation to come forward during Hannah’s trial with his exculpatory evidence – or to at least confront Hannah about it? Why would Hannah refuse to set aside her shame to avoid a horrible fate – did she want to go to prison, to seek absolution through the justice system because the dead could not absolve her? Hannah’s choices are particularly mysterious, since she rarely speaks to Michael when they’re together and has but a handful of lines of dialogue after part one. In a short novel, Schlink presents moral dilemmas while also challenging us to reconsider our loyalties to the two main characters. Why are those two sympathetic in part one, when ultimately, we know so little about them, and some of what we know is less flattering than we believed at first glance? Is the responsibility on the author to reveal everything at once, or on the reader to consider all possibilities before drawing conclusions or developing attachments to specific characters?
Does Kate Winslet get repeatedly naked in the book?
Seriously, though, was the original novel in German? If so, is anything lost in translation?
The beginning of the movie was almost laughable with how much she got naked. It was literally a few times every 5 minutes…
Overall, the movie was enjoyable, if not frustrating as Michael is forced to deal with a dilemma.
Seriously, if you do not mind see a 40 year old naked for a better portion of an hour, it is worth seeing.
if you do not mind see a 40 year old naked for a better portion of an hour, it is worth seeing.
Kate Winslet turned thirty-two during filming.
Might want to check your &round() subroutine, Jonathan.
Keith, unrelated but I am always in class during your chats. I know you are against clutch hitting and elevating your game with RISP, but what do you think about the idea that a good baserunner and threat to steal can affect a pitcher? Does this actually lead to distraction and better pitches for the hitter to hit?
I guess Jonathan Small also plans on never being in a relationship with someone over 40, since he seems to have a trouble with their naked form. Well zinged, K.
I have been in a similar May-December relationship and enjoyed the movie’s portrayal of the lovers individual levels of emotional attachment. Is this worth reading? You have written a great summary and posited some interesting questions but this is not a review.
Mitch: I believe BP did a study in their Numbers book that indicated that a speedy guy on first had a negative effect on the hitter at the plate.
Jigga: Yes, it’s worth reading.
Re Mitch’s speedy runner at first/BP study thing: I believe Tango Tiger found something similar in The Book. I don’t remember if he found the effect to be a net negative, but I believe he pointed out that it was distracting to both the pitcher and the batter.
Were they able to determine the “cause” of the negative? Was it, as wickethewok said, a matter of distraction? Does it have to do with defense being aligned differently? Pitchers pitching differently?
Was this specific to a speedy runner on first or any runner on first? Very interesting thing to look at. I also wonder if there is a split between lefties/righties (both pitching and hitting), because of the different view/relationship with the runner.
Haven’t read the book, but I thought the movie was mediocre at best, for reasons having to do with the story, which I am sure are straight from the novel. In particular I found the fact that Hannah would hide her secret and accept her fate unbelievable. I felt the same about Michael not being able to have a “normal” relationship with women because of his willing participation in the relationship with Hannah, even given the circumstances of the trial. I assume Hannah’s fate is the same in the book as in the movie, which was also a stretch. The themes might be flushed out a bit more given the choices the characters make, but the fact that I found them implausible took something away.
JK-
I haven’t read or seen the movie, so color me ignorant. But do you really find it “implausible” that a 15-year-old involved in a relationship with a 30-year-old would have trouble forging normal relationships down the road? Regardless of how willing a participant he was (a questionable term to use given his age), I find it entirely plausible and highly likely that this relationship would have impacted him for relationships down the road. I can’t speak to the rest of the book, but unless the characters are incredibly poorly developed, I struggle to see how that section of the story is implausible.
BSK-
The way the issue was portrayed in the movie, my answer is unequivocally, yes. I think some of this has to do with the actor playing the young Michael. He is adequate at times, much less so in other moments. http://volokh.com/posts/1230229488.shtml
This post sheds some context on the issue legally, although it doesn’t eliminate the moral question (or precisely solve the legal one).
Thanks Keith.
BSK-It could potentially be that both the pitcher and hitter get out of rhythm from all of the pickoffs or even pitchouts. Of course, I had no idea that it had a negative impact on both, so this is just a random thought.
I am not exactly sure why people feel the need to get fired up about what I said…some people do not go to the movies to see naked people, and some people felt it was over the top.
Obviously, the relationship is critical to the story, but not everyone wants to see her naked that much.
My statement should NOT have been taken “seeing an 18 year old naked at the movies is way better than a 40 year old” thats not what I meant.
I disliked the movie, mostly because I felt like it glossed over the fact that Hannah’s selfishness ruined a young boy’s chance to have a normal childhood and turned her into too sympathetic a character.
I loved this book when I read it 5 years or so ago and was thus taken aback when I read the review of the film in the Times.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/movies/10read.html
I still haven’t seen the film yet, but I don’t recall the novel making Hannah an overly-sympathetic character or trying to forgive her for being a Nazi death camp guard.
Rather, I agree with Keith’s interpretation of the book as presenting two very flawed characters. I especially like the theory of “The Reader” referring to us readers. I recall also being very sympathetic to the characters in the first half and then having trouble dealing with the characters’ flaws in the second half, having already fallen in love with them.
I’ll have to watch the film before I can truly judge the accuracy of Dargis’ review, but I suspect she allowed her deserved skepticism of yet another holocaust film to cloud her judgment.