Sign in with Facebook
Emily May's Reviews > The Reader
The Reader
by
by
I'm not really sure why this book is considered one of the best books of all time and managed to make into the big 1001 list. Most of the time, even if I don't like a book, I tend to understand why someone else picked it. In this case, I'm rather clueless. Is it, perhaps, that people see in it some message about humanity when Hanna won't purchase her freedom with the secret she has kept hidden for years? Is it the vivid sexual tale of a teenage boy with an older woman? Are we supposed to be shocked by it?
The novel starts with a romance when fifteen year old Michael finds himself ill on the way home from school and is taken in by a woman twice his age. They begin an affair which is described by numerous critics as "erotic". This was the first hurdle my enjoyment came up against. When I was fifteen with raging hormones and an extremely good-looking history teacher, I would probably have been able to appreciate the eroticism of such an opportunity - to have an illicit affair with someone much older and experienced. But that's just a bunch of teenage fantasies that would never have become realities. Now, it creeps me out. I couldn't see it as a love story, I saw it as being about an adult who takes advantage of a child (all very ironic when I think about my first interpretation of Lolita, but I guess I grew up somewhat).
It has been suggested that we are expected to draw parallels between Hanna's secret and the behaviour of most German people during the second world war, that is why Schlink deliberately set the novel in this fragile post-war period. But I'm really not a fan of stories that are one big metaphor for something else... or no, maybe it isn't so much that I don't like that, but more that it has to be done in a manner which I find appealing and it has to be obvious. I refuse to believe in metaphors that have been proposed by some random critic and then jumped on by everyone else. I'm trying not to give away Hanna's secret in case there are people who haven't worked it out straight away, but I wasn't buying into this metaphor.
This combined with the author's sparse tone quickly distanced me from the novel. I just prefer interesting and complex characters, an engaging plot, relationships I care about... I prefer all this over metaphor. In the end, metaphor is subjective and if I can't see it myself without someone else suggesting it to me then I believe either the author failed to make their metaphorical point clearly enough or the metaphor itself doesn't exist.
The novel starts with a romance when fifteen year old Michael finds himself ill on the way home from school and is taken in by a woman twice his age. They begin an affair which is described by numerous critics as "erotic". This was the first hurdle my enjoyment came up against. When I was fifteen with raging hormones and an extremely good-looking history teacher, I would probably have been able to appreciate the eroticism of such an opportunity - to have an illicit affair with someone much older and experienced. But that's just a bunch of teenage fantasies that would never have become realities. Now, it creeps me out. I couldn't see it as a love story, I saw it as being about an adult who takes advantage of a child (all very ironic when I think about my first interpretation of Lolita, but I guess I grew up somewhat).
It has been suggested that we are expected to draw parallels between Hanna's secret and the behaviour of most German people during the second world war, that is why Schlink deliberately set the novel in this fragile post-war period. But I'm really not a fan of stories that are one big metaphor for something else... or no, maybe it isn't so much that I don't like that, but more that it has to be done in a manner which I find appealing and it has to be obvious. I refuse to believe in metaphors that have been proposed by some random critic and then jumped on by everyone else. I'm trying not to give away Hanna's secret in case there are people who haven't worked it out straight away, but I wasn't buying into this metaphor.
This combined with the author's sparse tone quickly distanced me from the novel. I just prefer interesting and complex characters, an engaging plot, relationships I care about... I prefer all this over metaphor. In the end, metaphor is subjective and if I can't see it myself without someone else suggesting it to me then I believe either the author failed to make their metaphorical point clearly enough or the metaphor itself doesn't exist.
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
The Reader.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
August 19, 2012
– Shelved
August 28, 2012
–
Started Reading
August 29, 2012
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-18 of 18 (18 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Tatiana
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Sep 02, 2012 05:35AM
It's been awhile, but I remember that the only part of the book that struck me in any way was pertaining to how Germans dealt with their past as Nazi mass murderers, how they justified their actions, including Hannah, for whom her "secret" was of much more importance than either molesting a teen or being a concentration camp guard.
reply
|
flag
Emily wrote: "Yeah, I read that apparently [spoilers removed]"Well, that's too complicated for me:)
I think you spent too much time reading critics - not good.The story is not 'a metaphor'. It is as much a metaphor as To Kill A Mockingbird is a metaphor about racism in American society. It is a story the author made up to discuss a matter that is deeply embedded in the German psyche - what literature usually does, then, though the specific context can be confusing here.
People like Michael, who grew up in post-Nazi Germany, had to be raised while carrying a secret, a shame. Your beloved grandpa might have been killing Jews; your dear grandma sorting people out in Auswitch. Could you live with this, this legacy of absurdity? Apparently, no. That's why people never talked about it. Words were not enough to describe it, so it turns into a secret shame we collectively carry.
This novel is, effectively, one of the first efforts to talk about this. You see a trial in this book: law tries to rationalise what happened (the great debate of legal philosophy on who was responsible for what happened during the Nazi madness) but it cannot. Law cannot speak. In the same way that Michael couldn't react during the trial, feeling torn and ashamed.
The only way to do this was through literature. That's what the author did, and that's what the protagonists did. Reading books was eventually the way to find words for what couldn't be said.
And I don't think we're supposed to be shocked by the 'erotic' (but not abusive/exploitative, was it?) nature of the first part (hundreds of sexual initiation/coming of age stories out there) nor that it compares to Lolita, who was 12 (not 15) and that's -to put it lightly- statutory rape age.
Pippi Bluestocking wrote: "I think you spent too much time reading critics - not good.The story is not 'a metaphor'. It is as much a metaphor as To Kill A Mockingbird is a metaphor about racism in American society. It is a..."
Great answer, Pippi Bluestocking. That's exactly how the author meant it. I'm German and believe me, for many old people it's still a big tabu to talk about their youth in the Nazi time. And even the new, young Germany doesn't like to talk about it much. We have lots of discussions and documentaries but you know that there is this big black hole in those discussions because they want to forget more than remember.
"I think you spent too much time reading critics"I think someone is making assumptions. I wiki search every book I read, that is all. Most of what I talked about is common knowledge for anyone who is big into reading - this is quite a famous book, I didn't have to read a lot of critical opinion.
"The story is not 'a metaphor'."
If you'd read my review properly before commenting you would realise that I was discussing whether it was supposed to be a metaphor or not - not stating that it was.
"And I don't think we're supposed to be shocked by the 'erotic' (but not abusive/exploitative, was it?) nature of the first part nor that it compares to Lolita, who was 12 (not 15)"
Well actually, I don't know where you're from but in the UK (where I'm from) and every US state, a 15 year old is a minor and below the age of sexual consent. Therefore, if an adult has sex with them, the law defines it as abusive.
Last Friday, I finished reading "Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka. In the movie adaptation of this book by Schlink, Michael reads books to Hanna and one of those is Metamorphosis haha.
I tried to read this but didn't get far. However, I loved the movie. Kate Winslet is my fave actress.
I hated the movie, and therefore didn't bother to read the book, glad I'm not missing anything. And how is illiteracy a more shameful secret than child molestation? The whole premise of this just feels wrong.
Yep totally agree with you! As I was reading the first part I was incredibly bored. What is it supposed to shock people about the age difference? Well it didn't. The only interesting bit was when they were talking about the mass murders. The rest was....dull. Yep no idea why it's so popular. I could think of a few other holocaust novels that I would recommend above this one:/
"Dull" is a good way to describe it, if you ask me. And I completely agree, there are so many powerful and/or beautifully written books about the holocaust that are far better than this one.
I'm half way into the audio version and I'm tempted at every turn to delete it. But I keep hoping for some redeeming value, not so much for the characters because there is NOTHING remotely likeable about any of them, but for the book itself. If I had been reading it, I'm sure I would've quit before Part 2.
We are reading this book at my library, for a book club called Reel Talk (read the book, watch the movie, discuss). I agree with your evaluation in all ways; I'm not sure why it was so applauded. It definitely 'plodded' for me, but at such a slow pace and with such simple redundant word choices, I found myself bored and disinterested. I appreciate your review and attached comments, and will share them with our group.
Pippi Bluestocking wrote: The story is not 'a metaphor'. It is as much a metaphor as To Kill A Mockingbird is a metaphor about racism in American society. It is a..."Thank you for this. I didn't really find much depth to the book and voice that was used made me read it in a rather matter of fact way. I thus gave it a low rating and found it dull. i appreciate your comment as it has been the most helpful in understanding the 212 of boring that i had read.
I'm not sure the book really has much of a reputation as "one of the best books of all time" it seems like its become (in the English speaking world) much more popular with the general public than with critics, it wasn't nominated for any of the really big literary awards (the only one it won was the Fallada Prize, which is kind of a secondary award in Germany specifically given to emerging writers) and doesn't feature on any prominent "100 Greatest Novels" list I could find. It also received quite a bit of backlash from German critics. I think this book is a good example of how many times popularity gets conflated for critical praise (a mistake made by many) and I think the film adaptation only furthered that (which incidentally was also harshly received by many critics, despite it being nominated for several Oscars).
I completely agree with you. I was so bored by this book, and it’s odd because I’m usually only bored by books that are too densely written or actually boring in subject matter (Mobs Dick, for example). But this was simultaneously really easy to read and intensely dull. I didn’t care about any of the characters at all. Like you, I can usually figure out why a book appeals to people even if it doesn’t appeal to me, but I’m lost with this 🤷🏾♀�
I dont know why it would be a bad thing to see the relationship between them as problematic. This is also what i saw an young boy who tries to explain the unexplainable. I liked how the author created a person who is human, who did unhuman things, because this is exactly what happend during the Holocaust. Most authors arent able to write such a character and instead write a classic villain or a german who is actaully good and did nothing wrong. But the SS was neither. I didnt like how in the end Hannahs situation was kinda romanticised, but the conversation with the holocaust survivor discussed this a bit. I think the book is to be read as what it is, a narrative told by a boy about his first love, who then realizes the horrible things she did, but couldn't let his love stop. In the bookitself the narrator sometimes admits that he isnt sure what happend.
And lastly i think this book is german, and is clearly based on that. The realization of the 68th Generation that their loving parents where involved in this horrible regime, or atleast did nothing about it. How some of these people did inhuman things. And of course the children tried to somehow justify their parents behaviour, just like the narrator does with hannah.
I recently read Account Rendered by Melitta Maschmann, which is 100 times better than this. For one, it is an actual memoir by an actual Nazi -- one who later regretted everything bitterly and wrote this book as a letter to a one-time Jewish friend. It is bitterly honest and at the same time riveting. No metaphors here,
