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.