SPOILER

I've returned to The Reader and have just passed the half way stage where he's in court watching the proceedings.
It did drag rather in the first half where it's just about him going to se her for sex and baths and reading, and very little else. The one highlight being the cycle trip.
And I felt the author missed a trick in the chapter where he starts off 'the next time i saw her it was in court' and ten goes on to give an overview of the weeks of trial and how 'he felt nothing' - a phrase repeated several times, to the point where I thought, no, I'm not feeling much - except possibly a mild case of boredom - too.

Anyway it picked up when he got to the depositions against Hanna and the guards and the narrator pointing out the mistakes made by the defendent, her lawyer and the judge, and it ties in with an earlier point the author/narrator made about whether it is right that the next generation tries the earlier generation for crimes which were not seen as crimes at the time. That links well with Hanna's question to the judge 'well what would you have done in my place', and there's no point in saying, in effect, 'well knowing then what I know now, I wouldn't have got into that situation in the first place'.
It has also become obvious, at the point where it's revealed she had her 'special girls' who came to read to her, that she cannot read - probably dyslexic. It explains why she didn't take the foreman's job, why she didn't take the drivers job, why she had him read toher, why, in the end, she ran away from him.
Just waiting to see how long before the author admits that to the reader.


- NaomiM

The READER - SPOILER ALERT

I'm afraid I guessed she couldn't read almost immediately. I think that's why I sympathised to some extent with her crime. (Does that sound too horrible to contemplate?)

There is this thing that we Brits have about how we never would have given in to Hitler and collaborated like the French. But I am not convinced.

No, I'm not convinced either, Jem, and we have our own crimes of complacency with are largely covered up - eg, the ship full of German jewish children which were not allowed to dock in UK ports.

I was just going to clarify the 'missed a trick there'. The author should have shown the shock of recognition of a familiar face in the court, by mentioning he's a student lawyer and part of his assignments is to observe these trials, and then mention seeing her. Even if the mc subsequently searches within himself for anything more than the initial shock and finds nothing, no-one who's human would not have experienced that inital frission and the author robs that from the reader. So I'm feeling a little hard done by right now.

Well I've just finished it. The second half was very good. As one of the reviews says, he 'objectifies' the holocaust. This isn't a sentimental tale, but a philosophical one.
Oh, well. On to the next book.

Which is?

Hmmmm....well I've given up on JSF's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close - the biggest load of self-indulgent **** I've see in a long time.

Went to the charity shop the week after the New Year and picked up a load of unread ex-christmas presents, so it's a toss up between Life of Pi, The Rotters Club, McEwan's Atonement or The Innocent, Ackroyd's The Clerkenwell Tales, Eric Syke's autobiography, Helen Dunmore's Your Blue-Eyed Boy, and a few others...or maybe a Terry Pratchett.




<Added>

What I'd really like, though, is another Curious incident of the Dog in the Night-time

SPOILER

his constipated emotional state was more likely to stem from his repressive family, especially the sadistic father

Just read the rest of the thread to see what difference there was between the film and the book, and was dsappointed by this cliched characterisation of the father. As Jem says, he's a philosopher and very much a hands-off father so the children have to make appointments, along with his students, to see him, but he is still happy to see them and help if and when he can.
There is a thread in the book about the next generation blaming their parents for actively participating in the atrocities, or merely being guilty of complacency. The boy's father is not complacent - he loses his job at the university for speaking out - but likewise, the family did not suffer; they kept their house and their belongings, and the father got his job back after the war.
He does,however, act as the single reason why the mc does not speak up for Hanna, why he doesn't betray her secret illiteracy. She wanted to go to jail to atone for her crimes - even though she was only doing her job, and doing it well.
The mc cannot reconcile that. He does not know how bad she was as a guard - he doesn't visit her to ask. But he truely loved her and that sours all his future relationships. She was his first love, and no other woman can compare with Hanna.

I'm still confused about the 'different endings' between the book and the film - what happened in the film?
In the book Hanna commits suicide the night before she is due to be released. It is largely the mc's fault. Although he sent tapes of books he read aloud, he never corresponded with her, never forgave her. She struggled to learn to read and write in jail so that thry could correspond, but he rebuffed her until eventually she gave up and let herself go.
When the mc finally visits to tell her of the arrangements he'd made upon her release - the appartment, the job - she sees in his eyes he never forgave her; that she could never atone for the sins she committed as a young woman in her early twenties. It is a tragedy for both of them; the next generation can never really escape the sins of the generation that came before.

- NaomiM

<Added>

sorry, I haven't made all the connections in the threads above.
Maybe it is a case of people aren't necessarily monsters, even if they do monstrous things.

<Added>

Further to the question of why he didn't speak up about her illiteracy - because his father said it was her choice whether or not to reveal it...
Maybe the writer was making the case that it is down to the individual to take responsibility for their own actions. Others should not intervene unless or until their help and assistance is requested. The father does not help the son until his help is requested. Likewise the son does not help Hanna until his help is requested - and she never asks.
When the prison governor requests his help as Hanna's release date comes up, he does help. He's not happy about it, but he feels a responsibility to give assistance.
Similarly he carries out Hanna's final wishes regarding the money.
Hanna should have asked for help, and maybe she did, with the notes she sent him, but he failed her by not responding, just as he had failed her on that last day when she saw him at the swimming pool with his freinds and he did not acknowledge her. Maybe she knew then that she could not rely on him to help her; she was on her own.

Yes, you have to kind of understand the peculiar mindset, an insight which the film didn't supply. The cost for isolated Hannah of being let down by the only person she felt close to was very great. Paradoxically, she had been the one to abandon him, initially. He seemed to have developed an emotional illiteracy, whether instilled by his father or as a result of his loss. I wonder if the book indicated this or whether it really was, as you seem to suggest, a rationalising and a defence of the characters' behaviour. I really must try to get a copy of the book.

Sheila

If you WWmail me your address, Sheila, I'll send you my copy, as I don't need it any more.

I think there is a problem in the book that the author objectifies the whole thing, so although the mc tries to retionalise it philosphicaly, for a lot of the time - especailly during the court case - he is emotionally numb. In a way, it forces the reader to make up their own mind as to Hanna's guilt, but it also means it's impossible to guage the emotional impact on the mc; because he isn't engaged, he is guilty of betrayal by default...

- NaomiM

Yes, that's a good way to put it, Sheila - he is emotionally illiterate. I don't think he didn't visit her because he couldn't forgive her. I think he was just dodging facing her and going back over their relationship. It's easier, if you like, for him to write it all down and rationalise it than come face to face with her. Also, he still imagined her as she was but we know at the end she is fat, old and "smells like an old woman." He just didn't fancy her.

..except, Jem, that he does relive their relationship in his dreams - well, the sex, anyway.
While I would agree with the emotional illiteracy for the part of it where he shuts down, it seems a bit pat in the circumstances. It's what men keep being accused of, but while it describes their actions (or lack of them) it's not the reason for them - he wasn't 'emotionally illiterate' when he met her; he understands what he's done to his wife; he tries to change with his lovers, but ultimately fails because none of them measure up.
In the end, the emotional illiteracy seems more the failing of the author, than of the mc.

Yes, I was too tactful to suggest that. (Not like me, so I must be going soft).

The bit about her getting old and fat reminds me of that horrid bit in a Dickens novel where he meets his childhood sweetheart and she's grown fat, too. Marvellous Miriam Margolies played the part in the film.

I'd love to have the book. I once borrowed another book from a very generous WW lady who lives on a Scottish island.

I'm planning to spend my tax rebate on a week in the Canaries, so I can read it then.

Sheila

Ooh, have a lovely time, Sheila. ALl that sun and time to read!

Yes, I need an antidote to London from time to time but can't usually stretch to two Winter breaks.

Naomi's book came, and I've ordered 'How Not to Write a Novel' from Amazon. I think I've already got a book with that title, but it was written a while ago. Anyway, I already know how not to write a novel - do it my way.

Incidentally, Jem, just read your immensely readable account of how to write a womag serial in 'Writers' News'. So practical. I like that tip about the strips of paper for the scenes. No good me laying it out on the floor as it would do my back in, but the spare bed is right beside my desk.

Sheila

Sheila!!!

That's the first I've heard of this! I subbed it in December and have heard nothing at all from the publisher since! I am onto him now immediately and thanks for drawing this to my attention.

Geri

<Added>

Just contacted him and sorted it out. It's in the post, apparently.