i do not care that the nazi can’t read

This book just fell short with me, on oh so many levels. One thing that did intrigue me and that I have not yet seen much of is the perspective of Germans after the Holocaust and their views on the Third Reich and Hitler's agenda, especially of the younger generation of that time. That was really the only thing that struck me about this book. The rest was just not enough. For one, the affair between MIchael and Hanna was deplorable. Is it supposed to not be as bothersome because it is an older woman with a teenage boy, rather than an older man with a teenage girl? Either way, in my opinion, it's just not palatable and I felt neither sympathy for either of the characters nor did I feel that it was relatable on many levels at all whatsoever. The writing fell flat for me and was rather dry. Not in the beautiful sparse language trends of Hemingway, but in an annoying succinct manner that just left each situation as it occurred "as is" with nothing left to ponder. I noticed that this novel has won awards and while it means absolutely nothing to me because her choices are not always great or even good in the least, but it was on Oprah's Book Club list a number of years back. Neither are good enough reasons for anyone to read this book, in my opinion. Spare yourselves and read a nice historical account of Germany after the Holocaust, if you are inclined. I am sure it would be much richer reading in any case than this novel.

The biggest problem I had with this book was the fact that it made me feel...nothing.
I didn't feel connected to the characters or to any part of the plot. This is quite a bummer, as it deals with a pretty heavy topic.
I feel like the author intended to write the story this way though, because the writing style in general has a certain type of "coldness" to it, and the true feelings of a character are never really explored. Some people might not be bothered by this, but I personally simply prefer feeling close and connected to the characters of a story.

This doesn't make the entire book bad though. It certainly was interesting, and Bernhard Schlink is skillful with how he uses words. He describes mundane activities in a wonderful and fascinating way, and this makes me understand 100% why so many schools choose this novel as part of their required reading material.
I also appreciated how he always got straight to the point, instead of writing unnecessary details to prolong the plot points we all already know are coming.
I also couldn't help but feel disgusted at the things taking place in the first part of the book, and I wish the problematic aspects were explored further, instead of just brushing upon the issue later on.

Overall, this was a good book to read inbetween, but nothing life changing or special.

La historia está inspirada en el período inmediatamente posterior al nazismo (después de 1945) y narra la vida de una mujer analfabeta y de su joven amante de 15 años, que acaban encontrándose cara a cara ante la justicia, la una como acusada y el otro como estudiante de Derecho, tras una temporada sin que el segundo tuviese noticias de la otra.

La parte conmovedora de la historia es la falta de cultura de esta peculiar acusada de crímenes nazis, frente a cuya condena se mantiene la duda de si ésta fue capaz de leer los documentos que le presentaban en su propio juicio, así como si realmente participó de una manera tan destacable en la comisión de dichos crímenes. No deja de ser chocante ver cómo Michael termina grabando lecturas en casete para esta mujer, leyéndole, entre otras muchas cosas, historias sobre cómo se cometieron los crímenes nazis según la versión de diversos autores.

Nos encontramos ante unos personajes principales con los que se empatiza fácilmente y que trasladan ternura y humanidad. Asimismo, denuncian el manejo y la utilización arbitraria de las personas en tiempos de conflicto. No obstante, no me han agradado nada en la parte final de la historia en tanto que podrían haber aprovechado para trasladar de una forma indirecta la idea de que los judíos tampoco sabían leer, por lo menos en relación con las situaciones que les tocó sufrir. Y esto no deja de ser una forma más de justificar actos tan atroces como los acaecidos en Alemania.

Recomiendo la lectura, sobre todo para cuando apetezca algo ligero.


NOTA: 8/10

There are certain books which have an impact on one, without one being able to put one's finger exactly on the reason why. 'The Reader' by Bernhard Schlink is such a book.

The experience of reading this book was like taking a train ride through a pleasant landscape: you mosey along comfortably, enjoying the view and the climate, settled and relaxed. The journey is comfortable enough without being anything out of the ordinary. Then suddenly, the train enters a section of the countryside which is breathtaking in its beauty, and you are jolted out of your somnolence. You sit up and watch, your nose glued to the window, watching with rapt attention. You are unaware of the journey's passing, of temporal time, so engrossed are you in the present experience.

The tale of 15-year-old Michael Berg (the first-person narrator) and thirty-something Hanna Schmidt, a tram conductor in post WW-2 Germany is pretty sordid in the beginning; having collapsed from hepatitis in front of her house, he is taken care of and helped home by her. Michael's thank-you visit to Hanna after convalescing, however, becomes a voyeuristic session and it's not long before they are lovers. It is an adolescent's fantasy come true, a bit like Lolita in reverse.

The tale takes on a different twist once Michael starts reading to Hanna. Apparently, she can't get enough of his stories. So their sexual escapades are now connected to prolonged reading sessions which each one of them enjoys. But Hanna still remains an enigma to Michael with her erratic behaviour, an enigma which becomes all the more inexplicable when she disappears on the threshold of her promotion as tram driver.

The next time he sees her, she is in the dock. Hanna is charged as a Nazi war criminal, a guard of a small concentration camp near Cracow, a satellite camp for Auschwitz. She is accused, along with others, of causing the death of a group of camp inmates by locking them up in a burning church. As a law student, Michael is covering her trial. Hanna's strange, self-destructive behaviour in the courtroom as well as her unusual acts as the camp guard (providing vulnerable young inmates with special status in the camp, to read books to her, until they were sent to Auschwitz to their death) intrigue him. One day, linking it to their sex-cum-reading sessions, he makes a startling discovery about his one-time lover...

Later on, Michael is a disillusioned middle-aged man, with a failed marriage and a colourless life. He finds that he cannot exorcise Hanna from his psyche. At the end of his tether, he hits upon a unique solution: Michael finds solace for himself, as well as redemption for Hanna, through his old medium - that of reading.

***

Ultimately, what is this book about? Is it about paedophilia, or an adolescent fantasy? Is it about Nazism, and man's cruelty towards man? Is it the tale of a Germany coming to terms with its Nazi past, disguised as a coming-of-age story?

I, personally, would like to see it as an allegory on the redemptive power of storytelling. In all cultures, bards enjoyed a special, revered status - in India, it approaches the divine (think of Vyasa and Valmiki). Here, Hanna's sins - both the carnal as well as the homicidal - are linked with getting stories read to her; so, unusually, is her redemption in the last part of the book.

Hanna Schmidt is a masterly creation. In the short span of 200+ pages, the author has brought to life an engrossing character who remains a puzzle until the very end.

This is one holocaust story which does not take the trodden path.

«اگه تو جای من بودی چکار می‌کردی؟»

این جمله تنها دلیلیه که این کتاب به یادم می‌مونه

داستان از جایی شروع میشه که مایکلِ پانزده ساله در خیابان مریض میشه و زنی بهش کمک می‌کنه. بعدها رابطه‌‌ای بین این دو شکل میگیره که بعضی‌ها اسمش رو عشق می‌گذارند، ولی به نظر من فقط اروتیکه‌. زن بزرگ‌تری که از پسر کم سنی سواستفاده جنسی می‌کنه. اما داستان اصلی سال‌ها بعد از این رابطه اتفاق میوفته، وقتی مایکل راجع به گذشته‌ی هانا می‌فهمه

قلم نویسنده به معنای واقعی کلمه خشک و یکنواخته. هیچکدام از کاراکترها برای من جان نگرفتند و اهمیت پیدا نکردند. زمان در کتاب سریع جلو می‌رفت، اما من بزرگ‌شدن پسر و پیر شدن هانا رو حس نمی‌کردم. از همه بدتر مکانیکی نوشته شدن احساسات و صحنه‌های اروتیک بود که من رو از داستان خیلی دور نگه داشت

برعکس کتاب، در فیلم اقتباسی تمام این ضعف‌ها جبران شده بود و کیت وینسلت شخصیت هانا رو برای من زنده کرد. تمام احساسات، گذر زمان و تلخی داستان به بهترین شکل تصویر شده و این داستان بی‌روح انگار زنده شده بود

اما دلیلی که این کتاب به یک کلاسیک تبدیل شده تابو شکنیه. اول رابطه‌ی نامتعارف مایکل و هانا و از اون مهم‌تر نگاه نویسنده به زمان حساسِ پس از جنگ‌ جهانی دوم در آلمان. زمانی که آلمانی‌ها باید با آنچه انجام داده بودند رو به رو می‌شدند و حتی برای سکوتشون شماتت می‌شدند. زمانی که سوال‌های بزرگی در مورد درست و غلط مطرح شد. چطور باید نازی‌ها رو محاکمه کنیم؟ کسی که در اون زمان در چهارچوب قانون عمل کرده رو می‌تونیم با قوانین الان محاکمه کنیم؟

فرض کنید قانون الان کشتن فردی رو مجاز می‌دونه و تو در جایگاهی قرار داری که باید این کار رو بکنی. اگر فردا قانون عوض بشه و همه به این نتیجه برسند که اون قتل توجیهی نداره، آیا تو قاتلی یا فقط در چهارچوب قانون عمل کردی؟ آیا باید خودت می‌فهمیدی که این‌کار اشتباهه؟ بر چه اساسی؟ این سوالاتیه که هربار پس از یک تغییر اساسی در هر سیستمی پیش میاد و اصولاً جوابش رو ساده می‌کنند: گیوتین، اعدام، حبس ابد

الان واقعا دارم فکر می‌کنم که اگر من بودم چکار می‌کردم؟

M's Books : کتاب و صوتیش رو هم اینجا گذاشتم
۱۴۰۰/۷/۲۰

While this was a fairly quick read, and admittedly, I found myself quite immersed from the first few pages, this story failed to give me a sense of the feels, and any real liking or pity, for any of the characters. It may sound harsh, but it is exactly how I feel having finished this book this morning.

This is a story set around a love affair between a fifteen year old boy, and a woman in her thirties. Although "making love" is mentioned frequently, and our main characters seem to spend most of their precious days doing so, I cannot say this is as erotic as others say. Personally, I have read other books which I would definitely put higher on the scale.

The book jumps straight into the love affair, which I wasn't expecting, and it develops from there. Hanna was an odd character, and I believe she was actually very lonely. It is only nearing the end we learn how much of a complex person she really was.

This story has a Holocaust setting, which originally attracted me to the book, and I do think the way in which it is used, really gives the reader an opportunity to think about moral, and what is right.

It was easy to read and fairly interesting, but I've knocked a couple of stars off for the lack of character development. I simply couldn't connect with them.

Set in post WWII Germany, The Reader is the story of the ‘affair’ between the 15 year old student, Michael Berg and the 36 year old Hanna Schmitz who was a tram conductor.

The book is divided into three parts.
The first is about Michael and Hanna’s relationship and Hanna’s obliging Michael to read for her every time before their sexual intercourse.
In the second part, six years have passed since Hanna’s disappearance, when Michael learns that she is on trial for war crimes committed at Auschwitz.
In the third part of the book, Michael is going through his feelings of love , grief and betrayal as after 18 years, Hanna is going to be released.

The story was one I would have loved to read about, but for the flat and sparse writing style of the author, didn’t care much about the characters, nor about the events.
Or maybe it was the translation which was lacking?

If Hanna’s illiteracy was used by the author as a metaphor to portray the ignorance that allowed an entire generation to perpetrate, or, at least, to comply with the crimes of WWII? I’m not so sure about it. After all, the germans were not more ignorant than other people at the time. Far from it.

My hypothesis is that Hanna’s illiteracy represents the inability of reading behind daily events and interpreting their possible consequences, which may sometimes be catastrophic.

For Hanna, there was nothing wrong on being a SS guard in a concentration camp. It was part of her job, as it was for thousands of others. Allegedly, they were just following the law of the time and did not dare to reflect if it was right or wrong. As people hardly ever do, at all times. The illiteracy means the absence of the power to question and to confront, a sort of numbness we feel as we follow a tedious daily routine.

Hanna learned to read with Michael’s tapes. Michael read Hanna romances, but also books on ethics and moral. Therefore, she also learned with him to interpret her own life and found out her own responsibility in what happened to prisoners sent to Auschwitz. She learned further about it reading books about concentration camps.

That also happened to the generation who lived during the war and took part on it. They only realized the magnitude of their doings as the war was over, as the Allies found the piles of bodies in camps, published their photos in newspapers and as germans faced their accusators.

Before Hanna was released, she realized that she would not find forgiveness and understanding outside. Not even from the one who had loved her, what brought her to suicide.

By the way, one thing I like about the film that is not on the book is the last scene, where Michael decides to tell his daughter the role Hanna played in his life. It represents the process of struggling to come to terms with the past (that has even a specific word in german: Vergangenheitsbewältigung!).

In Germany I have seen many parents in memorials to jews and museums telling their children who Hitler was and that what he did was wrong. It is relieving to find out that they have learned that only open dialogue and discussion about what happened can avoid it from happening again. And also help people to come to terms with it.

Great reading!

booring. is that a review?? this was just very flat to me. i wasn't offended by the subject matter - i could care less about the "scandalous" elements. but the writing was so clinical and thin. at one point, i blamed the translation, but c'mon - its not that hard to translate german to english (i can't do it, of course, but it's supposed to be one of the easiest translations) i have nothing helpful to say about this except i was bored bored bored. the characters were unappealing, the "twists" were ho-hum, and i thought it very dry .i don't know what oprah was thinking...



come to my blog!

This is not a book that I wanted to read. So many times while reading books about the Holocaust, I feel a disconnectedness from the events. It's a mixture of two things. The first is that the sheer scope of events is just too large, too horrific, for one person's words to do justice to it. The second, and this could partly be due to the first problem, is that I detest being manipulated by my books. With a lot of Holocaust literature the villains are stock characters; the malevolent Colonel with no humanity, staring cold-eyed at the prisoners before sending them off to their deaths. I find this to be a drastic over-simplification of the tragedy and one with a great potential for allowing such a dehumanizing event to occur again.

It's simple to hate Count Dracula or Emperor Palpatine. They have no identity aside from their thirst for power and willingness to inflict any cruelty for any whim. They are a delightfully uncomplicated type, divorced from standard concepts of morality- purely evil. Nazis, quite understandably, get tarred in this same way. We see the pictures of bodies stacked hundreds of feet high at Bergen-Belsen, the haunted eyes staring out past barbed wire, the jackboots marching in lockstep, The Triumph of the Will- these are all images etched into the collective memory. No civilized person could do such a thing, the mind recoils. These are not people but demons brought to Earth. This is a phenomenal disservice to those who suffered so horrifically at their hands. How can we properly work to prevent such a travesty from ever occurring again when we choose to reject these people from the human community? We need to understand what can move someone to such a place that pushing the button to fill a shower with Zyklon B is just another day at the office. We need to see how easy it is to give in to what Hannah Arendt dubbed the "banality of evil." To recognize those aspects within ourselves and then to strive to work against them constantly. Allowing Nazis to become human in our mind does not excuse any of the crimes they committed. Rather it opens us up to the understanding that the same potential exists in all of us. When we understand this, that we all have the capability of becoming something monstrous simply through acquiescing to the dominant trends in society, by going with the flow, only then can we truly make strides in guaranteeing the truth of the mantra "Never Again."

And it is easy, this acquiescence. It is as easy as taking a new job to avoid having a shameful secret found out at an old one. The next thing you know you're guarding prisoners at a work camp. From there, it's just another small step to selecting who gets shipped back to Auschwitz and who stays. The option for rebellion doesn't even raise its head; either you do the task or someone else will, raise a fuss and you may just find yourself on the train with them. Next step you find yourself standing outside a flaming church, hundreds of women locked inside and, though you have a key, you do nothing simply because nobody told you to and to release the women would mean to set them free (which was definitely verboten). That's all it takes. A simple abdication of responsibility and 300 women cook within the stone walls. Please believe, understanding does not equal forgiveness. It does not mean you have to like that person one iota, but an effort should be made to see how such things are possible- how each decision moved them further and further down the road to the Nuremberg Tribunal. Yet, as Schlink's main character, Hanna Schmitz, asks in especially gripping moment, "What would you have done?" How do you get off that merry-go-round when its already spinning? Delightfully, the author does not hand the reader a satisfactory answer, for what possible answer could there be?

The book was not all death, doom and gloom. That's just the bit that struck me the hardest, because the author built such an affinity between myself and Hanna. Seduction via literature has to be my favorite thing ever and the early scenes where this takes place were some of the most tightly coiled eroticism I've ever had the pleasure of reading. Later, when the scope of what Hanna has done becomes clear, the reader, much like the young narrator, must reconcile his affection for her with these revelations. It's a struggle, to be sure, but one that helps make The Reader one of the most impacting books I've yet read.

schlink, nazi almanyası'nın gölgesinde yaşanan suçluluk duygularını ve kişisel sorumluluğu ustalıkla işlerken, aynı zamanda insanın içsel çatışmalarını ve arayışlarını da mercek altına almış romanda. romanın sonunda yaşanan duygusal anlar ve karakterlerin içsel çatışmaları beni derinden etkiledi, bu yüzden schlink'in dokunaklı anlatımını çok sevdim.