Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.65 AVERAGE
3.65 AVERAGE
Good writing – praise be the translator! Better than usual plot and a couple of killer scenes, especially the very beginning and also the hitchhiking scene. Still there were a couple stretches where I thought the author was belaboring his point, and I found a couple of the psychological effects hard to swallow. Aside from that, the “secret” was obvious very early in the book. It wasn’t some huge revelation. Enjoyed it though. Quick read.
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Classic case of wishing I had read the book before seeing the movie. I enjoyed both, but I would have loved to discover Hanna's secret on my own. I would have loved to follow Michael through his life without the knowledge of where he was going to end up. That being said, the novel proved to be an excellent adjunct to the film; it was introspective (without being monotonous), providing a more in-depth examination of Michael's moral quandaries and intense guilt. It's nice to read a novel that makes you think - especially one with such rich use of literary devices.
As any novel about the Holocaust, "The Reader" was not always easy; in fact, there were times when it was horrifying, both in terms of content and what the characters made you feel. However, I think it does justice to the atmosphere of post-WW2 Germany without resorting to sensationalizing an event that had such a horrible and profound impact on so many.
The stark, sparse prose works very well with the subject matter, and though it was by no means a "thriller", I clipped along at a steady pace, always intrigued to know what would happen next. An excellent read, and I'm glad that I didn't pass just because I had already seen the movie.
As any novel about the Holocaust, "The Reader" was not always easy; in fact, there were times when it was horrifying, both in terms of content and what the characters made you feel. However, I think it does justice to the atmosphere of post-WW2 Germany without resorting to sensationalizing an event that had such a horrible and profound impact on so many.
The stark, sparse prose works very well with the subject matter, and though it was by no means a "thriller", I clipped along at a steady pace, always intrigued to know what would happen next. An excellent read, and I'm glad that I didn't pass just because I had already seen the movie.
I read this in 2 sittings, and I think the crux of the novel comes down to: “There’s no need to talk, because the truth of what one says lies in what one does.” This wasn’t embedded in one of the more philosophical or legal contemplative sections, but just dropped at the end of a chapter. It seems to be the narrator’s verdict, even if the rest of the book explored complex moral questions without always giving exact answers. (Hanna’s final verdict is also demonstrated in her actions, withheld here due to spoilers.)
“The tectonic layers of our lives rest so tightly one on top of the other that we always come up against earlier events in later ones, not as a matter that has been duly formed and pushed aside, but absolutely present and alive. I understand this. Nevertheless, I sometimes find it hard to bear. Maybe I did write our story to be free of it, even if I never can be.”
Really interesting look at collective guilt, the shame carried by societies (and how this is passed on to future generations), and the ways in which relationships contain and spread complicity. I saw that some thought this book slid into relativism, but I think that the first line quoted above is what ties the story together, ultimately cementing guilt amidst complex circumstances. I disagree that illiteracy was used to excuse any crimes related to the Holocaust; I think it was used as a mechanism to demonstrate the ways in which people with initial morally neutral reasons end up in situations where they then commit heinous crimes. Despite wishing to backtrack to remove themselves from the convoluted destinations, they are then stuck with what they have sown. I think understanding this process is not the same as condoning, and it is an important process to understand. All in all, a good discussion book and one that I will remember for a long time.
“The tectonic layers of our lives rest so tightly one on top of the other that we always come up against earlier events in later ones, not as a matter that has been duly formed and pushed aside, but absolutely present and alive. I understand this. Nevertheless, I sometimes find it hard to bear. Maybe I did write our story to be free of it, even if I never can be.”
Really interesting look at collective guilt, the shame carried by societies (and how this is passed on to future generations), and the ways in which relationships contain and spread complicity. I saw that some thought this book slid into relativism, but I think that the first line quoted above is what ties the story together, ultimately cementing guilt amidst complex circumstances. I disagree that illiteracy was used to excuse any crimes related to the Holocaust; I think it was used as a mechanism to demonstrate the ways in which people with initial morally neutral reasons end up in situations where they then commit heinous crimes. Despite wishing to backtrack to remove themselves from the convoluted destinations, they are then stuck with what they have sown. I think understanding this process is not the same as condoning, and it is an important process to understand. All in all, a good discussion book and one that I will remember for a long time.
I should admit that I watched the movie before I read this, which removed some of the pleasure of reading it because I knew all the events before they unfolded. Yet this is an important book, and though it was not new to me I did nonetheless enjoy reading it, not least because it explores concepts that interest me, collective guilt and retroactive justice.
Quotes
“Was it sufficient that the ordinances under which the camp guards and enforcers were convicted were already on the statue books at the time they committed their crime? Or was it a question of how the laws were interpreted and enforced at the time they committed their crimes, and that they were not applied to them? What is law? Is it what is on the books, or what is actually enacted and obeyed in society? Or is law what must be enacted whether or not it is on the books, if things are to go right?” (89)
“ ‘What would you have done?’ “
“She was not pursuing her own interests, but seeking her own truth, her own justice. Because she had to dissimulate somewhat, and could never be completely candid, it was a pitiful truth and a pitiful justice, but it was hers, and the struggle was her struggle.” (133)
“I also remembered the ovens of the crematorium that were on display in another barracks that contained cells. I remembered my vain attempts, back then, to imagine in concrete detail a camp filled with prisoners and guards and suffering. I really tried; I looked at the barracks, closed my eyes, and imagined row upon row of barracks. I measured a barracks, calculated its occupants from the information booklet, and tried to imagine how crowded it had been. I found that the steps between the barracks had also been used for roll call, and as I looked from the bottom of the camp towards the top, I filled them with rows of backs. But it was all in vain, and I was filled with a sense of the most dreadful, shameful failure.” (153)
“Whatever validity of the concept of collective guilt may or may not have have morally or legally-for my generation it was a lived reality.”
“The geological layers of our lives lie so tightly one on top of the other that we always come up against earlier events in later ones, not as a matter that has been fully formed and pushed as aside, but absolutely present and alive.”
Quotes
“Was it sufficient that the ordinances under which the camp guards and enforcers were convicted were already on the statue books at the time they committed their crime? Or was it a question of how the laws were interpreted and enforced at the time they committed their crimes, and that they were not applied to them? What is law? Is it what is on the books, or what is actually enacted and obeyed in society? Or is law what must be enacted whether or not it is on the books, if things are to go right?” (89)
“ ‘What would you have done?’ “
“She was not pursuing her own interests, but seeking her own truth, her own justice. Because she had to dissimulate somewhat, and could never be completely candid, it was a pitiful truth and a pitiful justice, but it was hers, and the struggle was her struggle.” (133)
“I also remembered the ovens of the crematorium that were on display in another barracks that contained cells. I remembered my vain attempts, back then, to imagine in concrete detail a camp filled with prisoners and guards and suffering. I really tried; I looked at the barracks, closed my eyes, and imagined row upon row of barracks. I measured a barracks, calculated its occupants from the information booklet, and tried to imagine how crowded it had been. I found that the steps between the barracks had also been used for roll call, and as I looked from the bottom of the camp towards the top, I filled them with rows of backs. But it was all in vain, and I was filled with a sense of the most dreadful, shameful failure.” (153)
“Whatever validity of the concept of collective guilt may or may not have have morally or legally-for my generation it was a lived reality.”
“The geological layers of our lives lie so tightly one on top of the other that we always come up against earlier events in later ones, not as a matter that has been fully formed and pushed as aside, but absolutely present and alive.”
I really liked this book and can't wait to see the movie. The flow was a little random, but overall I was interested the whole time.
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Loveable characters:
Complicated
It got me thinking, which is what I was looking for. Quick read.
I keep reading books that never reach their full potential, even though many people love it- and sadly this book falls into that mix.
I adored the writing style, especially in the first and last parts, because while we were focused on the main character growing up, I could see the potential of me loving this book. Sadly, in the end, I didn't love either of the characters, and felt, in a way disoriented by everything bad that happened because I couldn't feel bad for them, but wanted to.
I also have an extreme love for Kate Winslet, so I know that I'll be watching this film during this week.
I adored the writing style, especially in the first and last parts, because while we were focused on the main character growing up, I could see the potential of me loving this book. Sadly, in the end, I didn't love either of the characters, and felt, in a way disoriented by everything bad that happened because I couldn't feel bad for them, but wanted to.
I also have an extreme love for Kate Winslet, so I know that I'll be watching this film during this week.