Meaghan Sylver reaction 3

One major idea I pulled from The Reader was that everyone has flaws that are highlighted by society. Even institutions have flaws so not only does everyone have a weakness but so does everything.

Weakness is a topic showcased in this novel. It begins with the weakness of the boy while he is sick. Schlink shows how many people take advantage of an inadequacy and use it to create a better scenario for them. This can be seen when Hanna takes in the boy at the point where he thinks he is feeble and then builds him up to knowing a new life, only to surprise him later on. Another system that shows its weakness is the court. Even though made by the government and therefore expected to be accurate and strong, the court itself has many flaws. Not only are people wrongly accused but also there is a tension present which seems to have an affect on everyone.

Part three brings in a creepier feeling to me and makes me question my feelings about the book. I think this is where the power of manipulation has been most visible all year. Hanna has been able to manipulate the young 15 year old throughout the book and it is clear she has made a lasting impression upon him. Her manipulation was so powerful that it was able to last through not only a long time but through many events.

Alan Armony's Reaction #3

I am happy with the way The Reader ended. Finally, I understand why the book is called the reader. I found it very interesting that Michael only communicated to Hanna through tapes of him reading books. I still am not sure as to why he did that. It could be because he was trying to help her learn how to read while she was in prison, but I think that subconsciously Michael was trying to get back at her for the pain she caused him by mocking her since she cannot read. I never expected Hanna to commit suicide, on the day of her release nonetheless. However, I do understand why she would commit suicide. I think she committed suicide because she really was not a bad person and she couldn’t live with the fact that she had helped so many women go to die in such a bad way. I would have considered suicide if I were in her situation as well. Also, add on the embarrassment she must have felt from being illiterate, depression and suicide are very logical effects. I’m not sure what to think of the woman that Michael visits in the U.S. What does she represent? I think that Schlink added her as a human personification of Michael’s subconscious. This is the first time that Michael is actually able to express what he is thinking, the first time he is able to tell someone about his relationship and feelings toward Hanna. I think that was a good way to end the story, coupled with Michael finally realizing his love towards Hanna by visiting her grave one time. I enjoyed this book more than most of the other books because I think it has a much deeper and more understandable moral behind the story than the other books we have read thus far.

Zane Van de Put Reaction #3

I thoroughly enjoyed the last part of the Reader. The last part tied up the novel perfectly and finally made me like it. It was short, full of action, and interesting. I think the third part was definitely the best part of the novel. As a whole, the novel was an easy and fast read. However, there were times, especially the first part, where the novel was extremely boring and hard to focus on.

Obviously the major plot point of the third part is Hanna committing suicide. She hangs herself the day before being released from prison. I could not understand why she would do this. She spent so much energy on getting released early. She makes an appeal for clemency and the parole board granted the appeal. Why would Hanna do this and then hang herself the day before she leaves? Could she not deal with going back to the real world after eighteen years in prison? Or did she feel to guilty about what she did in her past and felt that she did not deserve to leave prison? The ending does not grant the readers any answers and leaves them empty handed.

The main theme of the third part of the novel is Absolution. This theme is brought up during the conversation between Michael and the survivor of the burning church. The survivor asks Michael if she should grant Hanna absolutism after finding out that Hanna’s last wish was to give the survivor seven thousand marks. I do not think Hanna should get any absolutism. She did a terrible thing by letting those people die in the burning church. Hanna lied to many people and used kids for sexual desires and reading.

At the end of the novel, it seems as if Hanna gets a happy ending while Michael does not. Hanna’s seven thousand marks go to a Jewish Charity for Illiteracy and it goes under her name. While the somewhat innocent Michael is left to deal with Hanna’s death and live the rest of his life. 

Wesley Groves Post #3

The relationship between Hanna and Michael is very interesting.  Many different factors from their relationship caused the novel to develop in a certain way.  Mainly, the factors that I focused on were the age difference and the perspective of the novel.
An obvious, upfront abnormality in their relationship was the age difference of the two.  Not even that necessarily, because although the age gap was large it was only strange because of Michaels age. had he been, say 5 years older it would not have been as weird.  But this young 15 year old boy was quick to fall for the first woman he ever had feelings for (easily mistaken for love, as he had never felt it before)  Had Michael been older, things would have been different.  He would not have fallen in love with her, and he most likely would have based their relationship off of personality and not the fact that this is the only woman who has ever slept with him.  An older Michael would have not been pushed around by Hanna and would have seen her for who she is.
This leads to the other interesting thing about the novel.  To me at least, the novel seemed to focus on Hanna a lot more than Michael.  Since Michael is the narrator, that creates a curtain of mystery we will never see behind.  While we see how she can be viewed by others, we are never allowed into Hanna's head.  We do not get to see her side of things, and never get to see her motives.  This only helps to make her actions and past even more intriguing, at least to me.

Alex Williams Reaction 3

            Overall this book was enjoyable in that it was a quick and simple read. I read with a certain bias because of the themes paper we were given. As I read, I kept trying to tie everything in with the themes we were given, and with some of them I just don’t think they have strong support. I saw Michael and Hanna’s relationship as one sided, with Hanna holding all the power and constantly manipulating Michael. At the same time though, I thought she really did care for him. Perhaps in the beginning he was simply an object for her to use, but I think it developed into more than that. She wanted him to not miss school and do his work and when she was in prison she eventually communicated with him.

            Part 3 was a shock with Hanna’s death. I did not think this would be the kind of story that would have a happy ending, but I was still surprised that Hanna killed herself right before she got out. I thought that maybe the guilt was too much for her. She felt that as long as she was in prison, she could live because she was being punished, but when faced with freedom, she thought that she did not deserve this and took her own life as a final punishment for what she did. However, even though she was a Nazi, I don’t think she is as guilty as the court portrayed her. She held readings for those who were sent to their death and she took responsibility for many things she did not do. She taught herself to read in prison, and instead of reading something she would enjoy, she tortured herself with memoirs written by holocaust survivors. She clearly regretted what she did and even left all her money with the hope that she could make amends for what she did.

            Michael was also heavily affected. This one relationship screwed up his entire life. After Hanna, it seemed he was incapable of love. His marriage failed and he does not have a good relationship with his daughter. It seemed that Hanna left him empty, void of deep emotion like others around him. It seemed that he was just going through the motions when he was donating her money and he only visited her grave once.  

Hernán Prieto Reaction 3

I continued to read the novel "The Reader" I found myself in a peculiar place. Over the first two parts of the novel my emotions were clear as to the character of Hanna. She was a woman who was clearly taking advantage of a minor, not only physically but also mentally. Mentally as in when Michael when he found out that Hanna had left or as he said abandoned her life and completely disappeared this created a series of events that lead to his mental instability (throwing up, not eating) when this occurred I as the reader felt relief, and in a sense figured that Michael was no longer going to be affected by him. The sense of disgust towards her was slowly fading, until we found out that she was a nazi, it was when her trial began to go down hill (as expected), she was sentenced to jail and then ends up committing suicide, and also we find out that she was illiterate that's when my emotions are changed, although very little, although contradicting, I did find myself feeling bad for her. And the situation she was in. 

When I finished the novel, I couldn't understand if I liked the novel or if I didn't but it was interesting and in a sense it did help in an insightful way.

Jerry Bonnell Reaction #3

By the conclusion of The Reader, I have come to realize that innocence and guilt are not necessarily absolutes. We  attempt to maintain order and balance by manifesting our ideals in a judiciary system. However, despite our best efforts, even the structured Court is more inconsistent in nature than we would like to admit. Trials are a search for factual evidence leading to a black-and-white judgment devoid of nuance and inconsiderate of human emotion and consciousness. By making rulings according to laws and precedent, the judicial system fails to recognize the complexities and incongruities of human nature. We are not perfect, though the judiciary holds us to a false notion of perfection.

Enter Hanna, the woman on trial for War Crimes as an SS officer during World War II. From the moment of her introduction, it is clear that she is not perfect. She makes a morally ambiguous decision of seducing a teenage boy, and subsequently leaving him without a formal farewell. We are automatically forced to hold a strong prejudice against her actions. “What is wrong with her and why would she deceive such a young boy?” are questions that we ask during the novel’s unraveling. When she is revealed to have been a former SS officer during the war, these questions suddenly have an answer. We assume that she is a caricature of a Nazi, as depicted by the media. But, in fact, her role during the war is not much different from that of an Allied soldier, in that she followed orders and tried to help ease the pain of her prisoners when she could. It can be said that she made the best of a bad situation and that given her position, it would have been difficult to make different decisions. This is most apparent when she questions the presiding judge on the trial. “What would you have done?” she asks, and he is unable to respond. Yet even the reader is lured into this question. What is the appropriate course of action? To follow orders or to accept death? Can a person be held to the impossible standard of upholding morality while also faced with a life-or-death situation?

This book masterfully tackles some of the deepest questions of our human nature, without pushing the political envelope too far. In the case of Hanna, was she supposed to act altruistically or in the interest of her self-survival? Likewise, does Michael’s love for Hanna change the gruesomeness of her seduction and arguably her abuse of him as a teenager?  

Chris Winters reaction #3

Part 3 of the reader found me a bit befuddled. I kept. Coming back to the idea of this awkward and rather unsuitable relationship between Michael and Hanna. As a result of his young relationship with her it in essence scars him for the rest of his life ultimately leading to Michael showing no love and desire to be with his wife Gertrude. I know that Michael is glad to have had the relationship with Hanna but in the end it prevents him from ever loving again, losing his wife Gertrude, and denying the rights to his daughter as he so mentions in the story.

What I ultimately thought this book was getting at was that not every boy has the luxury of a complete childhood, whereas for a lot of kids we wait until the age of 18 before we accept the full range of our responsibilities and privileges of adulthood. In some cases children will have doting parents that cocoon them until they are 30 years old, never letting them experience the real world.

Overall I did enjoy reading this book, even though the ending was one that caught me off guard and frustration that Michael created in my mind. It was a rather quick read and it seems as though that might have made it a bit of a better read since the beginning was a bit disturbing depending on who you ask. In he end I found it fitting that the author inserted what seemed to be a somewhat happy ending by dedicating pretty much the life of Hanna to help those who are illiterate and as we'll those affected by the Holocaust.

Luis Santos #3

I ended up enjoying the book. The third part was my favorite because it contained such a big plot twist. I was not expecting Hanna to kill herself. Not even close. I thought she was going to be released and live with Michael. But no. The lady kills herself. I guess she did it because she knew she was not going to be able to adapt to life outside of the prison. I just didn’t understand the relationship Michael has with her once he goes to visit her. I couldn’t tell if they still had feelings for each other. Even though Michael claims thought out the whole second and third part of the book that when he looks at Hanna he feel nothing, why does he think about her so much? And also, why does he read her so many books while she is in prison? He says he doesn’t feel anything for her, but then he does things that suggest he really loves her, and then to top it all off, once she does die, he only visits her once in the cemetery. Why did he only see her one time? And it was not even a visit that he wanted to do, it was a visit that he felt he had to do once he received a letter from the Jewish Organization. I also found it interesting how the author decided to finally tell readers the protagonist’s name with only a couple of pages left of the book. Its as if he finally became a person. He finally became someone once Hanna died. Because while Hanna was a live, we only knew Michael as “kid”. And then after she hangs herself we learn that his real name is Michael. As the story came to and end, I started to feel really bad for Michael. I realized how he had practically thrown his life away. Its like Hanna was his peak. That’s when he was the happiest and then everything when downhill from there. He numbed himself so hard, that he became unable to feel any kind of emotion. His life became somewhat meaningless.

Philip Kaifer Post 3

Of all of the novels we have read this year, The Reader stands out to be the most of a story, Schlink does not go out of his way to make philosophical breakthroughs that really aren’t significant. Instead, he tells the story of a man’s life, using his own thoughts and social interactions with other people to convey both the simple and the complex duality of life. This is one of the few stories where I was able to learn more not from its narrative, but its dialogue. Michael is faced with so many problems and throughout his life he has developed so many misconceptions that he is unable to gauge what is happening around him. The narrative of the story is entirely the thought process of Michael, and therefore it is clouded from the truth as well. The only accurate recollections that Michael makes involve the dialogue he has with others. When the dialogue is not present, the story is extremely hard to follow. He himself admits to this when he describes the lecture that he was preparing. His own thoughts and deductions about philosophy and law lead him to non-sequiturs and false conclusions about the events he remembers witnessing or reflecting on. Regarding Michael’s relationship with Hanna, there are so many parallels to Germany during World War Two. Hanna is representative of the Nazi regime while Michael represents the young, naïve population who willingly joined the Nazi party. This parallel also applies to Hanna when she was younger, when she joined the German occupation as a prison guard for the Nazi concentration camps. She was in essence used by Nazi Germany to attain its own goal while she had to suffer the consequences that lasted the rest of her life. Hanna in a way used Michael in order to get satisfaction and to feel appreciated as well as in control. Michael, meanwhile, is unable to control himself as a 15 year old boy and so he is easily manipulated and controlled by her, just like Hanna was controlled by Nazi Germany.

Olivia Thaler blog 3

Firstly I would like to talk philosophically about something I read. During the trial, Hanna shows her wittiness as she reverses the roles between her and the judge and practically makes the judge look pathetic. They asked her if she understood that she was sending people to their deaths. She replied that the as more people came in, they had to make room for those new ones, and had to kill the old ones. She then asked the judge what it is that he would have done if he was put in that situation. The entire room and the judge were dumbfounded, and the judge ended up finding a way to answer the question, without answering it completely. This is very controversial because it has to do with the value of human life and whether one should act indifferently towards it. Does one person’s value ever outweigh another person’s? She clearly did not have an option. I was impressed with the way Hanna handled the entire situation. It seems to me that she would rather spend time in prison than face feelings of shame and guilt. She did not lie or try to go around the truth, rather, she pointed out things in the defense that were unfair to ask. At times, her own lawyer could not get her to act in the way he thought was appropriate and that may have got her out of more jail time. I respected her for living up to the truth and still remaining strong and respectful; but I do not agree that what she did should be respected. Michael’s life after the trial can be considered “messed up.” He becomes ill again. I think seeing Hanna and her trial brought back these feelings. This was brought back to him because of his previous relationship with her and because he cannot handle the understanding or accept everything that occurred in Germany. 

Alan Armony's Reaction #2

I enjoyed this section of the book much more than the first part. Before I even started reading the second part, I knew two things. I knew that this part was going to be much more interesting and I knew that Hanna Schmitz would come back in to the story. I was right about both. As soon as I learned that the case that Michael was studying had to do with a group of women, I had a feeling one of them was Hanna. What I was not expecting was that in the end we would learn that she was illiterate. This explains why she wasn’t promoted to a better job. This also confuses Michael and what he thinks of Hanna. He feels bad for her knowing that she wasn’t promoted because she couldn’t read and she had to keep this secret for so long, but he also has a distaste for her for helping to kill all these innocent jewish women. The reader also learns that she forced these women to read to her before their deaths. This could have a double understanding as well. Michael feels like she could have been soothing these women before they had to face death or she could have simply been using them to learn how to read and write and then killing them so that they wouldn’t tell her secret. I think that Hanna’s illiteracy is a parallel to the jewish women. These women were simply born into jewish families, they did not choose to be jewish or to be killed like this, surely if they knew they would be killed for being jewish and they had the choice, they would most likely choose not to be jewish. Similarly, Hanna did not choose to be illiterate, she was born into it. Now she is being prosecuted because she was the one looking over these women. She was looking over these women because she had not been promoted and she had not been promoted since she was illiterate. Therefore, she was being prosecuted because she was illiterate. I hope the final part is as interesting as the second.

Libby Evans Part #3

*Spoiler Alert* So, Hanna had left and Michael is a sad little messed up person. He is now in a trial involving Hanna's being charged for a war crime as a Nazi. He is one of the lawyers working on the case. Meanwhile Michael has gotten divorced and a bunch of other family stuff. Hanna's appearance has changed. She looks more worn down, but still has a hold on him. She is tried and found guilty of setting a church on fire (for helping plan it). She is sent to jail and Michael is confused. He starts communicating with her, but never visits. Instead, he sends tapes of his reading books (resuming the same relationship they had before). However, he never says anything personal. Michael learns later that Hanna was illiterate and learned to write while she was imprisoned. Michael realizes she never could have planned out the crime (and why she left in the first place). Hanna's pride kept her ever admitting her handicap. 

Chris Winters reaction #2

Part two definitely has a different kid of twist to it; even though the overall the main idea of part one was rather twisted in its own nature. Hanna’s secrets are revealed and Germany’s past is explored. Michael adopts an oddly detached, clinical and calloused view of Hanna, which I felt showed, or symbolized the “numbness” of the German people. Michael’s generation accuses that of their parents in the service of enlightenment. But hypocrisy is evenly distributed among all people and moral outrage is unattractive. What I enjoyed possibly the most about part 2 was the in ability to find out Hanna’s secrets, and they seem to run deeper than most, and evidently she becomes a national scapegoat. Is Hanna willing to sacrifice the rest of her life to maintain a relatively trivial lie that embarrasses her? That’s truly what I want to figure out and hopefully as the story progresses this should become evident. As well, what is it exactly that she gained from her false image, which in essence crippled her and paralyzed her. Up to this point, I must say that it is a rather quick read and I think its do to Schlink’s writing. His writing has a certain style that is flat and flows, but I believe that this may have been a deliberate mimicking of bureaucratic and legal matter-of-factness. At this point, Michael’s lack of sympathy for Hanna disappointed me, and I assumed that I was looking at three stars at most. Hopefully as the story goes on, my questions will be answered and new ones can be formulated.

Jerry Bonnell Reaction #2

The spectacle of the Court seems to draw in most, if not all, of our beloved protagonists. Such was the case with Meursault in the Stranger or Josef K. in The Trial. It renders the idea of Law absurd, and completely distorts the strict boundaries and procedures we place on it to ensure “justice.” The high judges look down below at the defendants, while they stand waiting for their final judgment. Such was the case in Hanna’s trial. On a study trip, Michael is sent to take notes and observe the proceeding War Trials. There, he stands high above from the stands, analyzing every minute detail that occurs throughout the trial. He is like the scientist and Hanna the specimen. A shocking twist in the power vertical that was exposed in part one.

Shockingly enough, Hanna admits to false charges and contrives a story about the night when the church burned. Then the reader discovers another revelation – Hanna is illiterate. This upset is startling and forces us to take a second glance at her seemingly lustful relationship. Who needed who? Who was the weak one? Perhaps, they both are. She would rather extend her prison sentence than admit to her weakness. Even in a place promising eternal justice, she would rather prefer her own death.

Michael claims he “felt nothing” throughout the trial, attempting to convince himself that he no longer needed Hanna. Yet it seems to me that he is only going through denial. His relationship with Sophie is evident of that. Hanna was the catalyst for Michael’s maturation, both physically and emotionally, regardless of the masochism involved in their relationship. He claims he is a confident man now, yet I still see a boy on crutches. The allusion to the Odyssey could not have been more accurate. Hanna is no different from the Sirens on the island, attempting to lure in sailors to their very death. Michael’s identity is shattered without the sexual comforts that Hanna provided him with. I am left wondering how Michael will pick up the broken shards, if he ever manages to do so.

Hernan Prieto Reaction 2

It was interesting to have a view of both parts and actually make a comparison of both. Part one can be simply explained as the first part of the affair giving the reader and insight to the abuse that Hanna in a way was able to devise a plan that made her have the upper hand and then giving the reader the idea that she was abusing him. As the novel continued and part one came to an end, part two began. It was interesting to think how two parts of one book can be so different and in a way give off a new complex and different vibe. As part two began, the reader got the feeling in a matter of seconds of darkness. It was then revealed that Hanna was a Nazi. This created an alternate world that also connected to the one established in part one of why Hanna was so evil and in a way was manipulating her "lover". The darkness shown in part two contradicts the darkness in part one. Michael, when he realized of the war crimes begins to concentrate on his studies, and I'm result beings to move on. 

The novel was interesting, I'm not sure if it was the best but the ideas and plot made for an unimaginable read. 

Meaghan Sylver reaction 2

The change between Michael in part 1 and part 2 is evident. In the beginning Michael appears to be an innocent young man looking for someone to show him how to love and growing up with that person, Hanna, and becoming extremely accustomed to her. In part 2 Michael realizes how much of a fool he was and vows to never love again. This motivation of having Hanna who left him sets him apart from the next part of his life. He becomes very detached to those who he dates. For example, he spends time with Sophie and when she is finally able to have sex with him he tells her they cannot be together and it is evident he does not truly love her.

It almost seems as if Michael has been completely brainwashed by Hanna that his brain cannot take in anything else. It seems at the beginning of part 2 that if he is even remotely reminded of his relationship with Hanna through another relationship that he would just terminate it. With the idea of giving love a rest, and appearing to abandon the idea as a whole, Michael starts to focus on his studies and the novel becomes filled with more intellectual information. Michael becomes wrapped up in his study with mechanical devotion until the idea of war crime sweeps him off his feet.

I believe this book is for a mature audience and is at the right level for the audience reading it, meaning this class. I also find it very interesting so far although I must admit to finding part 1 more interesting than part 2.

Philip Kaifer Post 2

Hanna’s reemergence into Michael’s life in part two of The Reader changed my opinion of the Novel as a whole. Part 1 seemed to me to be rather shallow, the complexity of the relationship between Hannah and Michael seemed fake. I also realized early on in the story that Hanna was most likely illiterate, when she believed that Michael had abandoned her at the hotel on their bike trip. However, Part 2 revealed a portion of her past and explored how she had been using Michael. Her exploitation of “the weak” as a Nazi prison guard sheds light on Michaels roll in her life. The parellels between Hanna’s relationship with Michael and the children she exploited as a Nazi also lead to the question: If she sent all those she used as a guard to Auschwitz, what is going to be the equivalent for him? And if this parallel ends at just the reading, what exactly is the significance for Hanna?

Olivia Thaler blog 2

This portion of the novel was interesting but in my opinion, a boring read. I am not sure how that makes sense, but I am sure many others would agree. I think the trial was too long and the constant thought processing over and over again was a drag.

This portion delves into the Hanna and Michael relationship and explains much of it too. On the emotional level, Michael considered Hanna his first love, but probably for the wrong reasons simply because he was young, ignorant, and therefore vulnerable to an older woman. In the trial, Hanna is revealed as a Nazi prison camp guard. She clearly possesses some feeling of authority because she plays this role, and this was practiced on Michael. Another thing that was explained is the fact that in the first part, she was sometimes in vulnerable state despite her being normally direct and confident with Michael. This occurred when she cried after she thought he abandoned her, and also when she really wanted him to read to her. We find out that she is illiterate, which explains why she found so much enjoyment in his reading to her. Obviously she is not educated, so it may be safe to assume that she did not grow up in a functional way, which may be why she seeks attention of younger, “weaker” kids that she can take advantage of. It would be interesting to know even more about her past. I understand why the author put so much emphasis on the fact that Michael was “sick.” Overall, taking advantage of younger kids for sexual purposes is a mind game. Picking the weak is a part of that, and Hanna was clearly always around the weak in the past. That is why Michael was an easy target and why she picked him out to be that target. 

Wesley Groves Reaction #2

The power of shame can control people, even if it causes them to put themselves in a worse situation to avoid it.  Hanna could have eased the sentencing on her if she had owned up to being illiterate.  But the power of the humiliation that comes with that was too great for her.  Insecurities control the way we act every single day, even if nobody can notice it, what we think that other people think of us is what ultimately drives our choices.

An interesting concept that I saw in this part is the cliche saying about bullies.  "Bullies try to ignore their insecurities by belittling others."  I saw this especially true in Hanna.  The way she gets around her illiteracy, is by choosing a weak target to read for her.  She has power over the sick because they have no strength.  This causes them to see her as a dominant figure and they can not, and would never, cause any harm to her.  Picking on these targets allows her to be read to by a person who would never even think to question why she does it.  It is a great plan, and I truly do believe she is a good person, but her insecurities are driving her to be mean.

Luis Santos #2

The second part of novel was so boring to me. There were just a couple of interesting parts. The part where we find out that she was a Nazi and the part where we find out that she is illiterate. Other than that the story became very slow. The trial went on and on and all that we saw was Hanna not speaking. Why didn’t she tell the judge that she was illiterate? That would have gotten her out of some jail time. I understand that she is ashamed but is she really that ashamed that she would rather stay longer in jail and have numerous of people hate her for something she did not do?

            The second part also mentions how Hanna would have sick girls from the camp read to her. This explained a lot. When I first started reading the book, I thought the fact that the boy was sick was a major part of the story. In fact I thought the story was going to revolve around that. As the novel went on, however, the boy quickly recovered, and his sickness was never really mentioned again. I did not understand why the author started the book with his sickness but then never mention it again. After reading part two it all came to place. The fact that the boy was sick was mentioned because it tied into the fact that Hanna would only call on sick girls to read for her. Hanna goes for the weak. Maybe its because the weak are the only people that she feels as if she has more power over. After all, when you are illiterate, a 5 year old can seem to be more powerful simply because he can read and write. I wonder where the third part of the novel will go and if us as readers will ever find out if Hanna had good intentions for the girls (as the “kid” thinks) or if she is just a cold hearted bitch.

Zane Van de Put Post 2

I did not enjoy part 2 that much.  I know it did have two major plot twists but overall it was extremely boring to read. The boring part of the section was probably the trial. I think it went on for too long. The author should have shortened it because it was hard to focus. Michael also started to ramble on which made it harder to focus as well.

The two major plot twists involved Hanna. Through the trial, the readers find out that Hanna was a Nazi prison camp guard and that she is illiterate.  The illiterate part is probably the most revealing thing of this section. It explains many of Hanna’s past actions. For example, why Hanna made Michael read to her and why she freaked out that morning on their bike trip. What I found interesting was that Hanna would rather have a longer jail time than reveal to the public that she is illiterate. Hanna also lied that she wrote the cover up story about what happened that night when the church burned. I do not understand why Hanna would not reveal her weakness to shorten her prison time. It does not make any sense to me. Did she rather save the embarrassment than shorten her prison time? Or is she does not smart enough to know what is better.

It is revealed that Hanna actually made other young, “weak” kids read to her at the prison camps. I think that meant that Hanna took advantage of Michael and considered him weak. That also explains why the author included the beginning part of Michael having hepatitis. The sickness made him weak and vulnerable to Hanna. This also shows that Hanna did not love Michael back in the past. I am interested to see what happens after the trial. 

Libby Evans #2

*Spoiler Alert*

Thank goodness I have already read this book becuase I do not want to do it again. Ok, so by now the relationship between Hanna and the "kid" has developed and become more weird. Thankfully, Hanna left, but of course He can't let her go. It seems like he might go back to normal, but nope. He has to develop some weird fetish for pantyhose. Of course this was Hanna influenced by his second time meeting her. Also, he is unable to emotionally connected to anyone. Even though Hanna is gone she still had a hold on him. She was his "first love", I put these in parentheses because this is what he thinks. By being this he is unable to forget about her. So, the damage Hanna did to his psyche (in his youth) affects his future.

Philip Kaifer Post 1

The first part of The Reader is an exploration into relationships and with family, friends, and lovers. While it is not completely independent from the other parts of the story, it is very unique in its style and its explicit subject matter. Hanna is a very confusing character in the first part of the novel, she seems irrational and even abusive to Michael. It is not until later in the novel that it becomes clear exactly why she acts the way she does and what her behavior represents. The title of the novel refers to Michael as “The reader.” Hanna seems to be using him and abusing her relationship with him and his emotional attachment to her.

Libby Evans blog post 1

What is this? Well, I read this book so I will try not to include any spoilers. I think by now the whole "shower thing" has happened. So...I think it should be pointed out he has hepatitis, but is having a relationship with a controlling cougar. Sooner or later she is bound to get this, I mean...health class 101. Also, another concerning point he is like 16-17 and she is maybe 40. Age should not make such a difference, but come on. 23 years difference? That is kind of weird. However, the book is original in its choice of topic which is notable. Other than that...it is 100+ pages which somewhat traumatize the reader.

Chris Winters Reaction #1

            The Reader thus far hasn't been one of the most interesting books that we have read thus far, maybe because I have only read up to part 1, but it is a rather quick read. As I read part 1 I began to notice that it seemed as though this book is an exercise in memory– that of the narrator, the German nation, the reader, and me. As I conned with part ! I came across some themes that I thought might be pertinent to the overall story such as guilt, shame, and the impotence of law.
             Considering that the book is divided into three parts, I am hoping that each part gets progressively more interesting since the first part didn't seem to lift me off my feet. In Part 1, Michael has an affair with Hanna and that seemed to catch my attention considering that most 15 year olds only dream about having that opportunity. i guess you could say that was probably the main act throughout part 1 that enticed me to continue reading.
              I was surprised as I continued to progress though the novel that at first Michael abandons himself to Hanna. Throughout part 1 it seemed as though Hanna gets easily offended, and Michael always appeases until Michael starts resenting and silently notices a teenage girl.hopefully as the story progresses we will learn how their relationship maintains itself.