You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.65 AVERAGE
3.65 AVERAGE
I had unfair expectations for this to be a traditional novel. Instead it is an overwritten heavy handed philosophical vehicle for a didactic lecture.
This book really makes you question the relativity in all situations, and wonder what reasons people have for their actions.
Comments were really varied and interesting with this bookclub meeting. I had very little sympathy for the main female character feeling that she was no more than an exploiter and 'ped'. Couldn't help but think about my own teenage boys so felt quite 'opinionated' at our meeting about my lack of empathy for her plight. (usually I'm a lot more empathic... truly:)
After I saw The Reader in the theater, I was inspired to buy the English language version of the book. However, with an already long queue of books to read, and since I already knew the storyline, this one stayed at the bottom of my list. Or at least until my German teacher highly recommended reading the original German version, which he said was written more or less at my reading level. This immediately appealed to me for a couple of reasons. First, I’ve been jonesing to finally read an entire book in German, but hadn’t been able to find one that matched both my ability and my reading interests. Second, already knowing the storyline reinforced my understanding of what I read, making the whole process a lot less daunting. And whaddya know, I did it! And I’m considering doing it again!
The German language is so specific and exact, I don’t know how it’s ever properly translated into English without losing all its nuances and still maintaining its eloquence. Take the title, Der Vorleser, for example, which literally means “the person who reads to someone else.” We don’t have such a specific word in English, so it’s translated simply to “The Reader.” Close obviously, but no cigar, and seems to offer up some literary ambiguity in the meaning of the title (if you know the storyline, you know what I mean), which actually doesn’t exist in the original German.
Anyway, well worth the read (I was sobbing at the end), and helped keep my brain nicely immersed in the language, even during my down time. Hooray!
The German language is so specific and exact, I don’t know how it’s ever properly translated into English without losing all its nuances and still maintaining its eloquence. Take the title, Der Vorleser, for example, which literally means “the person who reads to someone else.” We don’t have such a specific word in English, so it’s translated simply to “The Reader.” Close obviously, but no cigar, and seems to offer up some literary ambiguity in the meaning of the title (if you know the storyline, you know what I mean), which actually doesn’t exist in the original German.
Anyway, well worth the read (I was sobbing at the end), and helped keep my brain nicely immersed in the language, even during my down time. Hooray!
Откровенно! Это первое, что приходит в голову. Некоторые части чувствуешь и переживаешь физически, больше того - «физиологически». Начинается роман как рестроспектива.
Далее - описание суда над нацистскими преступниками и проблема покаяния. Автор откровенно пишет: «Но любовь к родителям - это единственная любовь, за которую не несёшь ответственности. А может быть, надо отвечать и за любовь к родителям». Лучше не описать то, до чего дошёл немецкий народ в порыве покаяния...
Далее - описание суда над нацистскими преступниками и проблема покаяния. Автор откровенно пишет: «Но любовь к родителям - это единственная любовь, за которую не несёшь ответственности. А может быть, надо отвечать и за любовь к родителям». Лучше не описать то, до чего дошёл немецкий народ в порыве покаяния...
I tend to frown upon those who watch movies based on books and never read the books. I'm very anal and typically read the book before I watch the movie. Otherwise, I feel as though I'm not allowing the text and its message to affect me, move me, teach me as it should. For whatever reason, I put The Reader on my netflix list and, although I fully intended to push it back in my queue until I read the book, forgot and once I received it in the mail, felt compelled to just watch it. In short, shame on me. But I must say that while I won't make a habit of this, I still thoroughly enjoyed the book and, as per usual, found it to be more enjoyable than the film. However, don't misunderstand me, the movie was excellent.
In my opinion, this book raised a lot more questions than it answered. It would lend itself to a book discussion beautifully. Before I list my questions, I felt the novel addressed a lot of very interesting issues....such as: accepting, understanding, coexisting with the WWII generation of Germans (either those directly involved in the war effort, silent bystanders, or those who easily accepted those involved afterward); dealing with one's German identity as part of a post-war generation; coping with feelings of guilt due to relationships with the WWII generation; what is law? what societies record in written word as law, what societies actually practice as law, or what simply is to be done, a set of moral code perhaps disregarded or overlooked by the human race altogether?; and finally, why some so easily participated in mass genocide. Schlink proposes the theory that, for some, death is merely part of routine and everyday life. While those committing murder are cognizant of their actions, they are seemingly desensitized and unaffected by taking life. The author compares the actions and thought processes of concentration camp officials to those of executioners. I'm not widely read when it comes to the Holocaust or WWII, but have read a few and these topics seem to rarely be addressed in other books I've read. I liked the fact that Schlink prompted the reader to reflect on these topics.
On to my questions... I loved the characters in this book and tried desperately to digest what Schlink cooked up on the pages, in hopes of understanding the motives behind their actions, but often failed. What did Michael really mean to Hanna? What did Hanna really mean to Michael? Obviously, he cared very deeply for her. None of his later relationships compared to what he believed he had with Hanna. He never stopped fantasizing about her. He never missed even an hour of her trial, sent her the cassettes for 10 years of her imprisonment, and was committed to getting her back on her feet after her release. WHY DIDN'T HE TELL THE JUDGE THAT SHE WAS ILLITERATE?! At first I assumed it was a puerile and vindictive decision in response to the way Hanna picked up and left him without any answers, but then it seemed as though it was something much more complex. Was Michael struggling with the fact that he would be rectifying something she allowed to go so horribly wrong? Did the information about the other imprisoned "readers" cheapen the time he spent with Hanna or make him feel as if he was being used? Was he embarrassed to associate himself with someone deeply involved in the war effort? I'm sad to say that it remains a mystery to me! Also, I would've liked to have known more about how Hanna dealt with her personal demons. As the warden described, she did in fact deal with them while imprisoned.
I liked that Schlink described the typical behavior of an illiterate. I knew little about it and found it to be very enlightening and helpful in understanding Hanna's character.
Overall, excellent book. Highly recommend this one!
In my opinion, this book raised a lot more questions than it answered. It would lend itself to a book discussion beautifully. Before I list my questions, I felt the novel addressed a lot of very interesting issues....such as: accepting, understanding, coexisting with the WWII generation of Germans (either those directly involved in the war effort, silent bystanders, or those who easily accepted those involved afterward); dealing with one's German identity as part of a post-war generation; coping with feelings of guilt due to relationships with the WWII generation; what is law? what societies record in written word as law, what societies actually practice as law, or what simply is to be done, a set of moral code perhaps disregarded or overlooked by the human race altogether?; and finally, why some so easily participated in mass genocide. Schlink proposes the theory that, for some, death is merely part of routine and everyday life. While those committing murder are cognizant of their actions, they are seemingly desensitized and unaffected by taking life. The author compares the actions and thought processes of concentration camp officials to those of executioners. I'm not widely read when it comes to the Holocaust or WWII, but have read a few and these topics seem to rarely be addressed in other books I've read. I liked the fact that Schlink prompted the reader to reflect on these topics.
On to my questions... I loved the characters in this book and tried desperately to digest what Schlink cooked up on the pages, in hopes of understanding the motives behind their actions, but often failed. What did Michael really mean to Hanna? What did Hanna really mean to Michael? Obviously, he cared very deeply for her. None of his later relationships compared to what he believed he had with Hanna. He never stopped fantasizing about her. He never missed even an hour of her trial, sent her the cassettes for 10 years of her imprisonment, and was committed to getting her back on her feet after her release. WHY DIDN'T HE TELL THE JUDGE THAT SHE WAS ILLITERATE?! At first I assumed it was a puerile and vindictive decision in response to the way Hanna picked up and left him without any answers, but then it seemed as though it was something much more complex. Was Michael struggling with the fact that he would be rectifying something she allowed to go so horribly wrong? Did the information about the other imprisoned "readers" cheapen the time he spent with Hanna or make him feel as if he was being used? Was he embarrassed to associate himself with someone deeply involved in the war effort? I'm sad to say that it remains a mystery to me! Also, I would've liked to have known more about how Hanna dealt with her personal demons. As the warden described, she did in fact deal with them while imprisoned.
I liked that Schlink described the typical behavior of an illiterate. I knew little about it and found it to be very enlightening and helpful in understanding Hanna's character.
Overall, excellent book. Highly recommend this one!
This book really earned its Oprah's Book Club sticker. It was simplistic and obvious and just not that interesting, despite the topic: a 15 year-old German boy reads to his 40 year-old lover, who turns out to be a Nazi criminal. I think the trial scene actually had some interesting twist but I still found the whole thing weak.
Short, to the point, very easy to read.
I don’t usually read books like this but I found it in my bookshelf, not sure from where.
I am intrigued to see how the movie version of this is.
I don’t usually read books like this but I found it in my bookshelf, not sure from where.
I am intrigued to see how the movie version of this is.
dark
emotional
Earlier this year, I read [b:The Children's Book|6280379|The Children's Book|A.S. Byatt|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1239650784s/6280379.jpg|5768221]by A. S. Byatt, and the book stuck with me. The Reader is something like that, though it sticks with me in a different way. Both books make you think, but The Reader makes you think in a way that causes you to doubt yourself. I'm not sure if I really got this book, and I'm not sure if any reader is suppose to get this book.
It's one of those books.
The main issue is the character of Hanna. Is she a pedophile? I'm not sure. Schlink does seem to try to excuse her. After she takes Michael to bed, she implies that she believed he was a college student. Then she thinks he is seventeen, not the fifteen he really is. Does her belief that Michael is 17 make her less of a sexual predator. I know that if she were a 36 year old male, we wouldn't see it that way. It seems that Schlink is trying to give her a weak out, a very, very weak out. I don't like that type of manipulation.
It is very clear that the relationship is unhealthy. It is abusive, Hanna is manipulative. Additionally, in some ways, the relationship feels like a male wish fulfillment. See, I'm so macho that older women dig me, type of a feel. That could be the result of the abuse. The relationship does change Michael, for the worst. It saps his emotion.
Yet, the first section is told like a love story, an sexual awakening story. An older woman introduces an younger man into the realm of sex story. (And why are those stories so different in tone from the older man introduces younger woman to sex stories?). It is a weird juxtaposition.
Then comes the trial of Hanna, and in many ways this is the best part of the book. The idea of guilt and coming to terms with it, the question of when the call for justice must end, or even if it must, the question of when enough self flagellation and apology is enough. All these are raised over the last two thirds of the book.
It is here that Hanna comes across as more sympathetic. It is no surprise to the astute and careful reader that Hanna herself cannot read. What is important is that of all the defendants Hanna is the only one who takes responsibility for her actions. She refuses to lie, at least in the most basic sense; out of all the women she comes across as the best because she acknowledges the fault. The others do not. This is where the reader is made to feel a degree of sympathy for her. It is where Michael comes across as victim and unfeeling executioner. We want him to do more than he does, and yet, we understand why he does not. He parallels Hanna here, to a far lesser degree, but it is there.
It is the trial too that seems off. It comes across as muted, so much so that I can understand [a:Daniel Mendelsohn|6225|Daniel Mendelsohn|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1209062053p2/6225.jpg]'s reaction to the movie version (which I have not seen). It does seem to be unjust. And yet. And yet, perhaps that is what Schlink is trying to show, how repetitive horror numbs people. Is this a good thing, a bad thing, or simply a survival mechanism?
There is such a sense of numbness in this novel. I have never read anything where the characters feel this numb. This numbness seems to be a theme of the novel. The coldness that life and it's loves, aches, horrors can do to us. There are different levels in the book. Hanna, Michael, judges, jury, the mother and daughter. All are numb. The reader to is numb by the end of the book.
Except, by the end of the book Michael is no longer numb. It seems the reader changes places with him. Perhaps Schlink is preaching against allowing numbness to take over. Michael’s life would’ve been better if he hadn’t been numb; Hanna would have been better if she hadn’t been numb; and so on.
Maybe that’s the point.
It's one of those books.
The main issue is the character of Hanna. Is she a pedophile? I'm not sure. Schlink does seem to try to excuse her. After she takes Michael to bed, she implies that she believed he was a college student. Then she thinks he is seventeen, not the fifteen he really is. Does her belief that Michael is 17 make her less of a sexual predator. I know that if she were a 36 year old male, we wouldn't see it that way. It seems that Schlink is trying to give her a weak out, a very, very weak out. I don't like that type of manipulation.
It is very clear that the relationship is unhealthy. It is abusive, Hanna is manipulative. Additionally, in some ways, the relationship feels like a male wish fulfillment. See, I'm so macho that older women dig me, type of a feel. That could be the result of the abuse. The relationship does change Michael, for the worst. It saps his emotion.
Yet, the first section is told like a love story, an sexual awakening story. An older woman introduces an younger man into the realm of sex story. (And why are those stories so different in tone from the older man introduces younger woman to sex stories?). It is a weird juxtaposition.
Then comes the trial of Hanna, and in many ways this is the best part of the book. The idea of guilt and coming to terms with it, the question of when the call for justice must end, or even if it must, the question of when enough self flagellation and apology is enough. All these are raised over the last two thirds of the book.
It is here that Hanna comes across as more sympathetic. It is no surprise to the astute and careful reader that Hanna herself cannot read. What is important is that of all the defendants Hanna is the only one who takes responsibility for her actions. She refuses to lie, at least in the most basic sense; out of all the women she comes across as the best because she acknowledges the fault. The others do not. This is where the reader is made to feel a degree of sympathy for her. It is where Michael comes across as victim and unfeeling executioner. We want him to do more than he does, and yet, we understand why he does not. He parallels Hanna here, to a far lesser degree, but it is there.
It is the trial too that seems off. It comes across as muted, so much so that I can understand [a:Daniel Mendelsohn|6225|Daniel Mendelsohn|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1209062053p2/6225.jpg]'s reaction to the movie version (which I have not seen). It does seem to be unjust. And yet. And yet, perhaps that is what Schlink is trying to show, how repetitive horror numbs people. Is this a good thing, a bad thing, or simply a survival mechanism?
There is such a sense of numbness in this novel. I have never read anything where the characters feel this numb. This numbness seems to be a theme of the novel. The coldness that life and it's loves, aches, horrors can do to us. There are different levels in the book. Hanna, Michael, judges, jury, the mother and daughter. All are numb. The reader to is numb by the end of the book.
Except, by the end of the book Michael is no longer numb. It seems the reader changes places with him. Perhaps Schlink is preaching against allowing numbness to take over. Michael’s life would’ve been better if he hadn’t been numb; Hanna would have been better if she hadn’t been numb; and so on.
Maybe that’s the point.