When I first saw this book at the thrift-store months ago, I thought to myself that it had to be amazing. The cover image intrigued me, I'm interested in reading books that pertain to the Holocaust, and at only 218 pages, it's short so I felt sure that it would pack a punch.

The first part interested me, due to the fact that I felt the book was leading up to something really dramatic and exciting, but I never felt that spark that makes a book great. Everything felt a bit rushed, and matter-of-fact, and almost scripted. The beginning of Hanna and Michael's affair was so abrupt that it seemed unnatural.

The second part, which should have really interested me, as it's the part that dealt with the majority of the Holocaust issues, was interesting only because of Hanna's actions. Her secret wasn't really a revelation to me, as I had suspected it for quite a while.

The third part was boring to me. Michael annoyed me in his alienation from others, and his refusal to accept other women as they are and instead tries to make them fit into this ideal Hanna-mold that Hanna herself didn't even fit. It felt to me that he gave up living after his affair with Hanna deteriorated, just as he had given up against her so many times while they were together. Hanna was the star, and Michael was responsible for the stage-dressing and supporting roles.

One thing that irritated me throughout the story was Michael's inability to remember the things that he wants to tell us about. I understand that most people do not have 100% recall, but I counted at least 5 examples of where he would try to describe what he couldn't remember. This just seemed so lazy to me. Like the author expects the reader (meaning us) to do all the work of imagining the scenario for him, so that he does not have to give it life of its own. I suppose that some will say that Michael's inability to remember everything makes the story more real, but I just kept thinking what a cheat it was.

This was an OK book. I'd recommend it if I thought that the person would really enjoy it, but I myself felt disappointed by it over all.

Okuyucu'nun sinema uyarlaması çok çok sevdiğim filmlerden biri. Filmi bu kadar etkilediyse kitabı da aynı şekilde etkileyecektir diye düşünerek okumaya başladım ve kitabı bir çırpıda bitirdiğimde yanılmadığımı anladım. Film esnasında kafamda soru işaretlerine sebep olan pek çok noktanın aydınlandığını, Hanna'yı ve Michael'ı çok daha iyi anladığımı söyleyebilirim.

Kitap bence okuyucuyu zorlayan bir kitap. Akıcılık açısından bir zorlama değil bu, yarattığı çatışmalar sebebiyle bir zorlama. Hanna Schmitz'den belki de nefret etmek gerekiyor; ama bir şekilde yapamıyorsunuz, bir yerden sonra anlamaya bile başlıyorsunuz. Hani diyorlar ya "sempati değil, empati" diye, benim yaşadığım da tam olarak bu oldu. Bundan hemen önce Kötülüğün Sıradanlığı'nı okumuştum (aslında akabinde Okuyucu'yu okumayı da bu neden tercih ettim) ve Hanna bana yer yer Adolf Eichmann'ı anımsattı.

Bundan sonrası spoiler olabilir, şimdiden uyarayım:

Hanna, okuma yazma bilmeyen bir kadın ve bu durumdan dolayı da büyük bir utanç duyuyor. Bunu gizlemek için her şeyi yapmaya razı. Siemens'te çalışırken terfi etmek üzereyken sırf okuma yazma bilmediği anlaşılmasın diye SS'e katılıyor. Sırf okuyup yazamadığını belli etmemek için mahkemede bir yerden sonra kendisini savunmak yerine kendisine yüklenen suçlara razı oluyor.

Bunun yanı sıra "görev bilinci" fazla yüksek bir kadın Hanna. Yaptığı doğru mu yanlış mı düşünmüyor bile. Tıpkı Adolf Eichamnn'ın iddia ettiği gibi kendisine gelen emirler var ve bunu sorgulayamayacağına inanıyor. Ne kadar canice olsa da her şartta kurallara uymaya çalışıyor.

Şunu sorup durdum okurken: Peki neden? Bu utancı, yaptığı caniliklere bir gerekçe olarak gösterilebilir mi? Elbette hayır. Peki neden tam olarak öfkelenemiyoruz Hanna'ya, neden tam olarak nefret edemiyoruz ondan? Hanna dışındaki kadınlara daha az cezalar verilirken Hanna'nın ömür boyu hapse mahkûm edilmesiyle adalet gerçekten yerine gelmiş oluyor mu? Olmuyorsa neden o kadar duruşma yapıldı? Ayrıca kilisede pek çok kadını cayır cayır yanmaya terk eden sadece SS görevlileri miydi? Neden köyden kimse yardım etmeye yeltenmedi? Neden kimse onları suçlamıyor?
Bu kötülükleri yapan çoğu insanın Yahudilere karşı özel bir nefreti yok. Yaptıklarından ne zevk alıyorlar ne de onlardan pişmanlık duyuyorlar. Peki neden yaptılar bunu zamanında? Günümüzde bu tür "eziyetler" bitti mi?

"... ne emirden ne itaatten söz ediyorum. Celladın yaptığı emirleri yerine getirmek değildir. İşini yapar o, astığı insanlardan nefret etmez, onlardan intikam almaz, yoluna çıktıları, kendisini tehdit ettikleri ya da saldırdıkları için öldürmez onları. O insanlar celladın umurunda bile değildir. Öylesine umursamaz ki, öldürebilir de öldürmeyebilir de" (s. 131).

Okurken çok fazla soru sordum kendime; ama sanırım bunların büyük çoğunluğunu yanıtlayamadım.
Dediğim gibi filmi beğeniyle izlemiştim kitabı da çok severek okudum.

Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

Džinovska, guseničasta reč za „suočavanje sa prošlošću”. A kad je Nemačka u pitanju svi dobro znamo sa kojom i kakvom prošlošću.
Njoj pripada i Šlinkov roman, ali, čini mi se, na drugačiji način nego što mnogi misle. A, koliko vidim, govori se o dve krajnosti: ili da je u pitanju bolna ljubavna priča ili razračunavanje sa kolektivnom traumom spakovano u alegoriju o nepismenoj junakinji.
Sa bolnom ljubavnom pričom lako je poistovetiti se, a alegorija je nešto neprozirnija i njeno potencijalno razrešenje je da čitanje može spasiti svet, odnosno, da duše zatrovane neznanjem mogu da izvrše zločine.

E sad, ovako izložena idejna struktura dela ne deluje kao nešto ushićujuće, međutim, ja odavno nisam svaku rečenicu ovako upijao i zaista me odavno nije nešto tako lično prodrmalo. A da sve bude još čudnije, to se uopšte ne tiče Holokausta ili odnosa između petnaestogodišnjaka i žene u zrelim godinama, već zbog neke bubnjeće skučenosti što ulazi pod kožu. I uopšte nisam razmišljao o krivici, niti razlozima, već mi je, nekako, bilo svega žao. Na posletku niko ni do koga nije dopro.

I baš ne znam – Šlink mi je istovremeno sve: i do srži uverljiva priča i neuverljiva priča i talas emocija i kutija sa lutkicama. A verovatno je i dobro što je tako.

Nisam proveravao, ali sigurno postoji i audio-verzija ove knjige, što bi celoj priči dalo jedan zanimljiv obrt. Ko pročita, videće na šta smeram.

Film po romanu nisam gledao, ali sam zato pre koju nedelju, sasvim slučajno naleteo na „Werk ohne Author” od Donesmarka. Moćan film! Smerano trans-epohalan i razračunavajuć sa prošlostima. Kome se Šlink svideo, ovo će tek.

An excellent story, which has remained with me for more than a decade.

"So we said goodbye, even before we had to separate inside."

É um livro invulgar!

Uma prosa minimalista que esconde a profundidade das ideias e questões filosóficas que aborda.

Dividi a história em três partes:
1 - O relacionamento entre Michael (15 anos) e Hanna (36 anos) como metáfora do conflito geracional na Alemanha após a II Guerra Mundial.
2 - O dilema moral de Michael quando assiste a um julgamento por crimes de guerra, e descobre que Hanna está no banco dos réus.
3 - A compaixão de Michael para com Hanna.

Foi simultaneamente uma surpresa literária e um desafio moral, e a moralidade é complicada. Não somos todos cúmplices de grandes erros? Serão alguns erros demasiado grandes que permitam expiação? Será que aqueles que cometem grandes erros são dignos de compaixão?

Agora é ver o filme.

خیلی خوب بود. خیلی دوستش داشتم و حتما دوباره می خونمش و وقتی خوندم مفصل درباره اش مینویسم.

n  
لماذا كل ما كان لطيفاُ بالنسبة لنا يتبعثر فجأة عند استعادة الماضي، ألأنه توارى خلف حقائق قاتمة؟
n

- "القارئ" لبرنارد شلينك، رواية مبنية على ردّات الفعل، تحكي عن مرحلة خطرة وحساسة جداً، تلك التي تلت انهيار الرايخ الثالث وسقوط النازية، نظرة الجيل الثاني للجيل السابق، أسئلته الكثيرة عن المعتقلات والهولوكوست والتعذيب، اسئلة عن دورهم في هذه المعمعة، عن سبب رضاهم بالقيام بالتعذيب او المشاركة فيه او غضّ الطرف عنه كأنه غير موجود. رواية نقدية بإمتياز يتخللها العديد من الإستطرادات الفلسفية والفكرية بأسلوبٍ سلس ولغةٍ واضحة ومفهومة.

n  
حقيقة ما يقوله الواحد تكمن فيما يفعله
n

- ابتدأت الرواية بقسمها الأول بحادثة بسيطة بين ثلاثينية ومراهق، تطورت الأحداث الى علاقة جنسية بينهما مبنية على الرغبة المتبادلة وأصبحت لاحقاً تعلّقاً وحباً حسب صيرورة الأحداث اللاحقة وتأثيرها في الشخصيات، تميّز هذا القسم بوصف التعلّق والإنكسارات والأحوال النفسية للراوي. القسم الثاني اتى بعد سنوات اختفاء المرأة في محاكمة لمجموعة تابعة للأمن النازي حيث كانت المرأة في قفص الإتهام والراوي في "سيمينار" قانوني (او حقوقي) يتابع الجلسات، هذا القسم كان فيه الكثير من الأسئلة حول الذات والخيانة والقانون، والنقد للشخصية الألمانية الجامدة، الذنب، العار، وبعض الأفكار الفلسفية عن الخير والشر والخيارات الممكنة. القسم الثالث وهو فترة سجن المرأة اتى ليتمم ما سبق ويعطيه معنىً، النهاية كانت منطقية جداً فقد أدّت المرأة كفارتها (رغم انها لم تكن الملامة لكن عنادها دعاها لتحمّل كل اللوم) وذهبت الى المكان الأفضل بإرادتها.

n  
ان عمل التاريخ يعني بناء جسور بين الماضي والحاضر، وملاحظة كلتا الضفتين للنهر، والمشاركة بفاعلية في كلا الجانبين
n

- الرواية عذبة بطريقة غريبة، سلسة جداً رغم كمية الأفكار التي تحتويها، وتمسك بتلابيب القارئ الى ان ينهيها، لكن الترجمة افتقدت للتحرير فتكاثرت الأخطاء الإملائية الساذجة وبعض الأخطاء اللغوية مما نغّص القراءة بعض الشيئ.

n  
ان طبقات حياتنا مشيّدة بإحكامٍ واحدةٍ فوق الأخرى لدرجة اننا نصطدم دائماً بالأحداث السابقة في الأيام اللاحقة، ليست كمسألة تشكلت وذهبت لحالها، ولك كمسألة راهنة وحيّة
n

- أودّ الإشارة ختاماً الى خيطٍ حريري استمر في الرواية بين هانا ومايكل، بدأ حينما زجرته وأنبّته لينتبه لمدرسته واستعملت سلطتها المكتسبة لتحثه على النجاح ونجح.. وانتهى مع تعلمها للكتابة والقراءة مع نهاية الرواية بعد تشجيعه لها من خلال التسجيلات الصوتية.

the German writer Bernhard Schlink wrote an appealing and critical novel concerning human and moral questions and judgments

Baidausi visokių po/per/prieš Holokausto istorijų, bet turbūt nereikia aiškint, kad šioje viskas kitaip. Ir tikrai - labai gražu. Man gal čiut per daug melancholiška, lėta ir per daug širdies pavirpinimų, bet šiaip labai literatūriškai pakilus, klampus, sodrus reikalas. Net neguli ant vienos lentynos su visu Holokaustiniu popsu, patikėkit. Tai jei norisi tos temos, bet be tariamai istorinių pritempinėjimų, o dar ir atskleidžiant problemos atspalvius, plius mestelėjant meilės istoriją - tai imkit ir skaitykit. O po to filmą su Kate Winslet pasižiūrėkit, nes man gal per dešimt metų jis iš atminties visai nedingęs.

Първа среща с прозата на Шлинк.

Добър роман, на важна тема и умело поднесен.

Все пак, харесвам разказите му повече - там му е силата, според мен.

There have been many ways over the years in which literature has found a path to deal with the Holocaust and its consequences, but a book about the inability to be able to read might not seem the most obvious. Yet in terms of attracting a mass audience, something that Schlink has clearly done, this German novel with illiteracy at its heart published back in the mid-90's, has been a phenomenon amongst readers.

Bernhard Schlink's forth and easily most popular novel opens in post-war Germany when a teenage boy, Michael Berg (who also narrates), embarks on a love affair with a thirty-something woman, Hanna, who disappears, then years later turns up in the dock as a former concentration camp guard accused of the mass murder of Jewish women locked in a burning church. Michael, by now a law student observing the trial, realises that Hanna is a secret illiterate, a fact that has profoundly affected her actions in the past as well as fatally undermining her defence in court. Schlink says that writing about illiteracy "was there when I started to think about the book. I did a great deal of research into it, but I never had an objective beyond telling that story. I'm sure the things I think about and worry about in other contexts play into the stories I write. But I do not know how they do that, and I'm really uninterested in the epistemology of my writing." The theme certainly chimes, in terms of dramatically echoing the Third Reich's moral illiteracy, but the way the book has been enthusiastically taken up and used almost as documentary points to an impact that has far exceeded Schlink's immediate narrative ambitions.

The hapless Hanna, conscientiously unscrupulous in the performance of her labor-camp duties, committed crimes against humanity, obviously. But what of the young law student who denies her his word, his aid? The paralyzing shame, the psychic numbing, the moral failures of the lucky late-born are the novel's central focus. Nazi holdovers in postwar Germany are denounced only at the margins of the story, so to speak. But this oblique approach has its own power. In one quietly disturbing scene, Michael visits the nearest concentration camp, Struthof, in Alsace that had a sign on it indicating that it had been a gas chamber. But Schlink spares his readers the sickening details.

Literature is not only a bridge between the generations, sometimes it may get closer to the truth of recent history than benumbed eyewitness accounts. But this redemptive magic has its limits. Substituting great books for human contact is a cowardly dodge. At the novel's somber conclusion, Michael betrays Hanna yet again. On Hanna though, if one would call this more holocaust literature
than a legal thriller with sex in it, then criticism of the book, from people who treat it as Holocaust literature, are right to say that Schlink doesn't come to a proper judgment of Hanna. Schlink acknowledges that he has been criticised for not unambiguously condemning Hanna. Is this fair? I think his novel can be open to so many interpretations. Guess that's part of it's appeal.

All this aside, I just found the novel top to bottom rather bland. It brings up many questions, yes, and for the most part it at least held my curiosity. But seeing that it sold in huge numbers I expected much more. Maybe it's shortish length didn't help, it felt like not enough pages are actually given to alluding as to the true horrors of Hanna's crimes and the rest of it is simply the diatribe and musings of a teenage boy. Maybe I am missing the point? As books about the legacy of the holocaust go, there are much better ones out there than this. I will also say I much preferred the film over the book. With Kate Winslet giving a tour-de-force performance as Hanna.