Bernhard Schlink, 'The Reader'

I remember the first time I read this book was in high school. (Though it's true the book had only been out for a few years.) I was in the middle of frequently reading Japanese romance novels. So I was used to detailed depictions of love and sexual relations. But the relationships in such books were usually 'sufficiently possible' relationships, whereas should I say this book strayed a bit from that range? A middle-school kid and a woman in her 30s can meet by chance, but the development from there, when I read it the 'first' time, again wasn't quite acceptable to me.

Because a book feels different depending on the age you read it, and because it's different reading it the first time versus the second time, it was certainly a novel with a lot more to study. When I first read this book, I think I read it considering myself a fairly mature high schooler, but seeing now that this wasn't the case.....in a way it's bittersweet, and in a way it also seems only natural.

Getting to the main point, this book's structure is very unique. The protagonist is 'Michael,' but the one your eyes keep going to is 'Hanna.' It can't be helped, because 'Michael' looks only at 'Hanna.' Since the narrator 'Michael's' focus is entirely on 'Hanna,' he depicts Hanna's appearance, speaks of his impression of what kind of person Hanna is, and depicts his own feelings about what kind of presence Hanna becomes to him. And the way he reads 'books' to Hanna is also full of great affection. In a way, should I call it the image of a relationship that has all the conditions of 'lovers'? But within such a relationship there is bound to always be contradiction. That contradiction seemed to begin from the point where 'Hanna' disappeared from Michael without a trace.

To sum up simply, this book put 'Nazism' as a common 'subject' into an uncommon 'structure,' but decisively it seems to have drawn in the uncommon yet 'important material' of 'a person who cannot read.' It's true that most Europeans and Jews remember the 'Nazi Party' as a demonic presence, as slaughterers, as destroyers. Because the Jews killed by the 'Nazi SS,' and World War II started by Germany, were a war literally stained with blood. But fundamentally I think the 'Nazi Party' was very remarkable. As I learned from a history book called 'Modern Times,' set in the modern and contemporary era, that I read last year, the 'Nazi Party' rose to become the ruling party with the full support of the people. At first the 'Nazi Party' too had little popular support, but the 'Nazi Party,' which had grasped the vulnerabilities of German society at the time, won the people's support with rational rhetoric and by promising to lead the nation's economy to revival, and as a result the 'Nazi Party' came to power in Germany. Of course it's true that the speeches of Hitler, who had ample 'orator' temperament, also had an influence, but fundamentally I think it was because the 'reparations' Germany had to pay as the defeated and leading nation of World War I were a very heavy blow to the German economy. It was also because, in a situation where, due to inflation, the value of the mark plummeted sharply and it was treated as nothing but paper rather than money, the people too turned their backs on the existing ruling party and the mainstream opposition party that had failed at 'reviving the economy.' Within such a social atmosphere, from the standpoint of someone like 'Hanna' who cannot read but is 'a person who must somehow make a living by working,' she had to find a way to get by, and that was precisely becoming a member of the 'Nazi Party.'

I'm a person who thinks that punishing 'pro-Japanese collaborators' is a very necessary thing, an utterly natural thing, yet a tragedy of history that we failed to carry out. As for why it's a tragedy of history: if someone committed pro-Japanese acts because they were truly dirt poor, I could understand at least a little, but it's a tragedy because even though it was damned wealthy people, people who were fairly well-off in their day, who committed pro-Japanese acts, we can't punish them. (Germany is, comparatively, in a better situation.) If asked whether the same punishment should be given to people like 'Hanna' too, I think I'd say I couldn't do that. This is exactly the point of what the law professor says in the film: 'People think society runs by morality, but society runs only according to law.' Should I say I felt just how harsh the law is, and on the other hand how it can only be utterly 'equal'?

Looking at Bernhard Schlink's profile photo, the face and impression are very similar to the figure who plays 'Michael' as a middle-aged man in the film. Is this a coincidence??? Or was it intended by the film director?? Anyway, well, the feel of the film was good. Because the material treated as important in the book seemed appropriately expressed.