Two questions. -- Jessica

1. Is Hanna afforded any absolution for her crimes? Does she achieve any sense of ‘atonement’?

Hanna goes to jail toward the end of the novel, by doing so one would think that she would have achieved some sense of ‘atonement’, however I don’t believe that Hanna’s sentencing is when her ‘atonement’ was achieved. Throughout the whole trial it could be said that Hanna was unaware of what she was being accused for, that she was ignorant to the punishment in which she would be receiving, however Hanna mentions to Michael, toward the end of the novel that “Not even the court could call me to account. But the dead can” suggesting that the court could judge her, and punish her for the crimes she had committed but no living person is able to tell her what she should feel or how she guilty she should be. This extract gives the reader the impression that Hanna is taking no real responsibility for her actions and is uncompassionate, however she follows on to say that “They [the ghosts] came every night, whether I wanted them or not. Before the trial I could still chase them away when they wanted to come” which goes to show that the crimes that she had committed was something that had a grand effect on the way she felt about things, her crimes are haunting her. The idea that Hanna feels over whelming guilt is further explored when she decided to commit suicide by hanging herself just before she was being released from jail, which raises the questions “did Hanna find it too difficult to cope with the guilt of her crimes? Was she so alone in the world that nothing could stop her from using death as an escape from the crimes in which she had committed?”

Through Hanna’s punishment and opportunity for atonement was somewhat reduced by her death, I do however believe that Hanna did achieve a small sense of atonement by the end of the novel. The fact that she was able to save and donate money to the girl who survived the Auschwitz camp shows her reflection on how the events in her life lead up to her being in jail and therefore her need to atone. The fact that the girl would not accept the money has no real significance to Hanna’s atonement, as the money being donated to a charity is granting all the atonement Hanna had desired.

2. Is Schlink guilty of the unforgivable act (especially unforgivable given his nationality) of making the unacceptable somehow acceptable and of deliberately using his skills as a writer to encourage readers to feel sympathy for Hanna?
In a way Schlink is ‘guilty’ of making the unacceptable acceptable by encouraging the readers to feel sympathy for Hanna. By showing her through the eyes of someone who loved her, the reader feels that she’s more of a real character. We are able to relate to the love that Michael feels towards Hanna and so through that the reader becomes more understanding and therefore more sympathetic. The fact that the reader gets to know Hanna before finding out about the crime she had committed is a very important factor in the way the reader feels about her, had we been shown Hanna in the war times, perhaps our opinion of her would be different. Schlink is guilty of portraying an inhumane character as humane, for portraying someone who did not love through the eyes of someone who loved them and for making this character, who had killed hundreds of people, someone we as human beings feel that we could love. Schlink is portraying her through the eyes of a generation after the war, mirroring the hardship that many German people had to deal with, learning that someone they loved and trusted had done something so horrible. By making the unacceptable acceptable, Schlink is helping those who were being torn between loving someone for who they knew them to be and hating them for what they had done. He’s giving the readers in site into the difficult choices being made and allowing us to feel the same emotional difficulties (though to a lesser extent) as others have had to do.

The Reader Questions- Annika

1) Is Hanna afforded any absolution for her crimes? Does she achieve any sense of ‘atonement’?

I think that Hanna does receive some sort of atonement by the end of the novel however it is only to a certain extent. She mentions to Michael that “Not even the court can call me [Hanna] to account. But the dead can”, which suggests that nothing the court does can decide how she feels inside, they can only punish her and put her in jail but they cannot determine whether she should feel guilty or not. Although it appears that she does not feel much responsibility at this point, Hanna then goes on to say that the dead “came every night, whether I wanted them or not” which shows the nightmares and suffering that she had to endure continuously from her actions and crimes. She says that they dead understand her which suggests that she recognises her wrong doings and that the reason why they visit her every night is to constantly haunt her and remind her of her crimes. Nonetheless, Hanna ends up committing suicide by hanging herself just before she is due to be released from 18years of prison which suggests that she cannot face the outside world in fear of her crimes or being alone (she does not have family or friends and to some degree not even Michael) therefore she escapes by killing herself. This does not grant her absolution or make her crimes any less sinful but just shows her as a coward or that she doesn’t feel a great deal of guilt or remorse. At the very end of the novel the survivor of the Auschwitz camp does not even accept the money offered by Hanna and thus does not grant Hanna absolution. She even criticises Hanna and calls her brutal showing that she certainly has not forgiven Hanna for her crimes. IN addition, the woman takes the tea caddy; something that was stolen from her as if she is taking back what ‘Hanna’ or the people Hanna represents took away from her. Although this does not show Hanna’s atonement the fact that she accepts to donate the money to and organisation shows that she understand Hanna’s intentions but she cannot forgive her, therefore in a way she is granted a miniscule amount of atonement.

2) Is Schlink guilty of the unforgivable act (especially unforgivable given his nationality) of making the unacceptable somehow acceptable and of deliberately using his skills as a writer to encourage readers to feel sympathy for Hanna?

I do not think that Schlink is guilty of encouraging the reader to feel sympathy for Hanna because he was not involved in the actual war crimes that many Germans partook in therefore he cannot be blamed or accused for something that he did not do, even if he is German himself. Schlink says himself that justice is very difficult and that many of the courts did not possess the capacity needed at that time. Schlink was a man growing up as a second generation just after the war, because of this he had to experience school and life while discovering that people close to him weren’t really who he thought they were; teachers turned out to have committed war crimes. All of this, Schlink says was very tough to deal with in particular for the people who actually committed these crimes, some with the un-intention of brutality, such as Hanna. I think Schlink makes the unacceptable acceptable through Hanna by making it possible for us to feel sympathy towards her (particularly in part 3 with the letters, her appearance and the judgment of the survivor)in order to show us that justice is not as simple as it seems; we cannot simply say this is wrong and this is right. Schlink leaves it up to the reader to decide if Hanna should be punished or whether she should be atoned because of this I do not think it is unforgivable that Schlink wrote the novel in this way as he is only trying to raise questions of justice and to allow the reader to see that not all “monstrous people who committed terrible crimes were monsters” and we should attempt to see past their crimes and forgive them.

Answer to 2 Questions

1) Is Hanna afforded any absolution for her crimes? Does she achieve any sense of ‘atonement’?
Hanna Schmitz goes to court for her war crimes. The court judges her and decides to place her in jail with a 15 year life sentence. Hanna says that “the dead can understand” her and her crimes which suggests that the court cant punish her and condemn her for what she’s done because the court does not understand what she’s done but the dead, those whom she’s killed understand her crimes and thus can condemn and punish her. She says that the dead visit her at night which suggests that she suffers from nightmares that are linked to her crimes. This suggests that because she is suffering and that this is somewhat a punishment from the dead that she is achieving a small proportion of atonement. I think that it is only a small proportion because it is only a nightmare and it is only making Hanna understand what she’s done. These nightmares results to her committing suicide. Although this shows the gravity of the affects the nightmare had on her, I believe that this doesn’t allow her to achieve a sense of atonement because her suicide was a way to escape her small punishment, being the nightmare. Finally the survivor women can’t accept her atonement, she says that her “years in imprisonment were not merely the required atonement” this shows the anger in the women, for such light punishment given to Hanna which suggests that the dead would have given her a more harsher punishment.

2) Is Schlink guilty of the unforgivable act (especially unforgivable given his nationality) of making the unacceptable somehow acceptable and of deliberately using his skills as a writer to encourage readers to feel sympathy for Hanna?
Bernhard Schlink is a fourth-generation person, which means he is four generations away from the people directly involved in the war. He wrote “the reader” to express the lifestyle he had as a kid to find out that those he admired had been a war criminal or have done terrible things during war. Schlink made the unforgivable act of genocides, acceptable in the eyes of Michael. I believe that this isn’t guilty but rather sympathetic, because people like Schlink are not directly involved in the war and yet they have to suffer in a way that Michael got hurt from having a relationship with Hanna.
Schlink uses his skills as a writer to encourage readers to feel sympathetic for Hanna because he was a person who admired another person who was like Michael being in a relationship with Hanna and this was what Schlink wanted to express. The way Michael wanted Hanna to be forgiven, especially seen when Michael at an older age and after hearing that Hanna had committed suicide goes out to fulfill her will. Schlink wanted to show the readers how he wanted his admired people to be forgiven. I do not think that it is guilty because this is the intentions Schlink had as an author to express to the reader, and as a reader I could understand what Schlink has gone through if we relate him to Michael, and thus giving us sympathy for him just like we did for Michael. Schlink only used his writing skills to express how he wanted his admired people to be forgiven just like Hanna being forgiven.

Homework

Answer the following questions:

1) Is Hanna afforded any absolution for her crimes? Does she achieve any sense of ‘atonement’?

2) Is Schlink guilty of the unforgivable act (especially unforgivable given his nationality) of making the unacceptable somehow acceptable and of deliberately using his skills as a writer to encourage readers to feel sympathy for Hanna?

Good luck!

'A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased'

'A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased'

This quotation talks about how Germany is still associated with the horrors of the Holocaust that took part in the 1930s even though it has been around 80 years that has gone by. Germany still holds the guilt and shame of the Holocaust even though it was the Nazi Party who performed these actions and they are now far gone. In my opinion, I think this is unfair as the Nazi Party doesn't mean Germany as a whole but a group of people that were led by Adolf Hitler. And this genocide was due to the ideology of a perfect Aryan race. Although the Nazi Party doesn't mean Germany as a whole, the extent to how morbid the actions were provokes an immense revolted reaction. This amplified reaction makes the judgement blur to blaming it on the country as a whole. The people of the world then raise the blame onto Germany as a whole when they are outraged by the actions when they should still know that the blame is placed on the Nazi party not on Germany.

When hearing about the medical experiments, the cruel beatings, executions and the discrimination or just watching Holocaust films like Schindler's List or The Pianist, our hatred for this movement is amplified therefore (with fury) our outrage causes us to blame Germany as a whole. This is unfair as not only isn't it this generation of German peoples' fault but it's not even all of the generation before them.

When someone announces that they are German, it is very common that the Nazi/Hitler/Holocaust jokes come to mind. This is greatly unfair as it's not something that Germans are proud about and they may even be sensitive about it.

The Tram

The tram is significant to the relationship between Michael and Hanna as this is what sparks off one of their fights. It is significant in the sense that Michael goes and visits Hanna outside of her house for the first time. Before the tram visit they had only met up inside her house as Hanna's house is the usual place where both their worlds came together. When coming to the tram, Michael steps into Hanna's world outside of the bubble that they share. This results in a fight which represents that Michael is not welcome in other parts of Hanna's life and that she holds a barrier of how much he is let in. This then gives the reader an idea that Hanna shelters herself off in order to conceal something which shows a flaw in their relationship. Michael steps into the second compartment and Hanna stays in the first with the tram driver, she doesn't go into the second compartment to greet Michael even though she knows he's there as she might be ashamed of him. This shows that she only accepts Michael when he's in her house. Outside of her house, she feels embarrassed of him and doesn’t acknowledge him at all.

Parents' House

This is the part where Michael brings Hanna to his parents’ house, in this part the significance is that it shows the domestic space which reflected Hanna’s personalities. Before in Hanna’s house, we see that she is dominant and in control, but in this part we can see that she is ‘shy’ and let Michael in control of the situation. This is shown by her actions in Michael point of view.

The significance of this part on affecting Hanna is through her actions on in Michael’s parents’ house. The phrase “her eyes exploring everything” this suggest that she is somehow loss and unfamiliar to the environment around her. That she is in need to understand this place where she has no power like a different world from her own. This is emphasis by the phrase “She felt like an intruder in our house this explain that she is out of place when she is in Michael’s parents’ house which contrast with the Hanna we saw when she is at her flat. Therefore the reader can see another part of Hanna and raise the question on why that she is like this.

The reader can see that Hanna is not as dominant as she was when she is in her flat. This might be that she is in different class from Michael which makes her to be unable to fit in the upper class like Michael’s place. And perhaps that later because she is illiterate which makes her to be unable to read the books that on the shelf which make her to feel out of control.

The significance of the trip to Hanna and Michael’s relationship (p.49 to 54)

In chapter eleven, Michael and Hanna decide to take a four day bike trip during Easter. Bernhard Schlink uses this trip to show us a new side of both characters. During the trip, everything is reversed; Michael becomes the dominant one who makes all the decisions and Hanna is the weaker one. This is a big contrast with the beginning of the novel.

In this chapter, Michael makes all the decisions and planning. Michael worked out the whole route on the map and Hanna “didn’t want to look, or even hear about it”. “Hanna didn’t just let [him] be in charge of choosing our direction and the roads to take. [He] was the one who picked out the inns where [they] spent the nights, registered [them] as mother and son while she just signed her name, and selected [their] food from the menu for both of [them]. This quote clearly demonstrates that Hanna wants to be lead and Michael as complete control over every aspect of the trip. He is without a doubt the dominant one in this situation. This comes to quite a shock or surprise to the reader as she was presented by Schlink earlier in the novel as an independent and self-reliant women. She was the dominant one in the relationship and during the trip the roles are completely reversed.

The trip is also used by Schlink to represent one of the main flaw in their relationship; miscommunication. Michael leaves early in the morning to surprise Hanna with breakfast and flowers, he leaves a note on the table saying he’ll be right back. However, he doesn’t know that Hanna is illiterate and is unable to read his note; she thinks he has left her. She was “trembling with rage and white-faced”, these are powerful of descriptions of anger showing how miscommunication is causing them trouble – he was doing a nice gesture but due to miscommunication it puts Hanna in a “fury” and makes her “burst into tears”. He had “never seen her cry”, this is the first time in the novel where we see Hanna as weak and fragile. It suggests to the reader that we don’t know much about her true personality. It gives a sense of mystery to her character. In addition, the reader sympathises and creates a closer emotional attachment to her when we see that there is more to her character.

To conclude, the trip is used by Schlink to show a complete new face of Hanna. In contrast with earlier in the novel, she is presented as weak and she lets herself be controlled by Michael. He is now the dominant one. Furthermore, during the trip, miscommunication leads to her crying. Seeing her cry creates sympathy and it creates a sense of mystery to her character as we are seeing a completely different side of her.

The Trip Together (49-56)

During this chapter when Hanna and Michael both go on a 4 day trip together, Hanna is presented to us as the weaker and less dominant character in comparison with Michael. He is the one who" picked out the inns" and "chose the direction of roads to take " when bike riding.
In this chapter we even see Hanna over reacting when she thinks that Michael has abandoned her without saying goodbye. She "bursts into tears" and "clung" to Michael showing how feeble and helpless she is because she loses control of her emotions and starts to cry, something that even Michael says "he had never seen" before. This sudden change in personality is quite contrasting to the first impressions we were given about Hanna. She initially appears very strong, independent and unreliant on anyone as she is in control of the relationship; she chooses what times the couple should meet and where, she tells Michael what to do an he follows her orders. In this passage however, it is the opposite as we see Hanna losing this control she has over the relationship and breaking down in tears resulting in "swollen eyelids" and "red blotchy cheeks". This loss of control that Hanna undergoes suggests that she is not as strong as she seems and that perhaps she has a softer side. It also suggests that Hanna only feels truly comfortable in her own house or 'space' e.i the kitchen because this is where she can be in control and have the most power in the relationship which we have seen by the previous events that take place in this domestic space. Due to this, Hanna may have become weaker as she does not feel as secure outside her comfort zone.
The passage also hints to the reader that there are flaws in their relationship, the main one being that they are not honest with each other and share no emotional connection. Michael does not know that Hanna is illiterate yet this is something you would know about your loved one, and the reader can assume or at least guess that at this point there is something 'wrong' with Hanna purely from the flustered way in which she acts when the letter is mentioned (also that fact that she never reads herself).
I think Schlinks main purpose for including the trip scene was to show the change in control in the relationship between Michael and Hanna when they are young.

"A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased"

I cannot completely agree or disagree to this statement because I don’t believe that most people in today’s young generation of Germans, and people in generations to come, feel guilty about the Holocaust. And I don’t think that they should. However, Germans today are still faced with stereotypes of being Nazi’s which could make them to feel angry and guilty.

The Holocaust is a one of the most terrible and horrifying violation of human rights in history. An approximate six million Jews were murdered; Nazi’s also killed people with disabilities, Soviet prisoners and civilians, homosexuals, Romani’s and other groups, which would bring the total number of victims to an approximate 11 million people. All these deaths were instigated by the power of one man, Adolf Hitler. You could argue that Germans were forced to act under the fear of the SS but I believe that some of them acted for themselves; however, we can’t make a generalization for either side of the argument. Many Germans at that time shared Nazi ideals and participated willingly to the Holocaust; these are the people who should feel guilt.

To conclude, I think that the Holocaust will always be viewed as one of mankind’s most terrible display of brutality but I don’t think that future generations and even today’s young generation feels guilt; they view it just like us, a gruesome and inexcusable act. They are completely innocent and shouldn’t be made to feel guilty. Germany’s dark past will never be forgotten but the guilt will slowly fade away.

"A thousand year will pass and the guilt of Germany will not "

I don't really agree to this statement, Germany as the country and the people itself has nothing to feel guilty or ashamed about. The past has haunted the people because of the horrible event that such as the Holocaust which the cause of this is not from the people but from the government, the ruler Hitler which order the people to do such things, killing innocent people that has done nothing wrong.

Even though, it may say that they people whose under the range of Hitler would felt guilty because of what they actually did and how the horrible images still haunted them. The guilt of being there and witness the genocide of the innocent people and the generation after the war has to bear the idea of watching the people from the generation before their fathers, teachers and people they know and love doing such thing to people. This make people to judge on is it because that what they done intentionally or forcefully.

As well as on how the other country view on the Germany, mostly France and Belgium which affected mostly from the war. They can felt hatred to Germany from what Hitler did to their country.

Even so I think that the Germans people will not be "a thousand year" in guilt because as the years passed the people are less affected by the war as the people during that time therefore the guilt of Germany will not last that long as the statement said.

The swimming pool as a significant place in "The Reader" -- Jessica

The swimming pool is mentioned quite a few times throughout the novel “The Reader” by Bernhard Schlink. The swimming pool is Michael’s personal space, away from Hanna and away from their relationship. Michael usually spends his time at the swimming pool with school friends “gossiping and flirting” and it is not really a place where Hanna is welcomed.

In the extract on page 79 however, Hanna chooses to cross the boundary into Michael’s personal space, this signifying her attempt at making a more personal connection in the relationship. The relationship between these two characters is purely lustful, and it lacks the emotional connection of a mature relationship. When Hanna chooses to enter the swimming pool area, she is not only over stepping the boundary in the sense of being in Michael’s space but in their relationship as well. The fact that Hanna is wearing an “open blouse knotted at the waist” shows how Michael’s thoughts on Hanna are based on the physical aspects, however when in his own space Michael questions these. The fact that he “didn’t jump to [his] feet and run to her” shows how when at the swimming pool he is able to take control of his feelings and distinguish between love and lust. The distance between Michael and Hanna at the pool also represents the distance and strain in their relationship at the time, as it later results in being the last time they see each other before the trial many years later. Michael hesitates when he first spots Hanna at the pool, he begins questioning both his own motives and those of Hanna as well, “did she want to be seen with me, did I want to be seen with her”, with questions such as these running through his mind, the reader is aware that Michael had never really thought about the type of relationship he had with Hanna, the fact that he questioned whether he wanted to be seen with her shows how he is doubting their relationship, perhaps caused by the large difference in age between the two characters. In my opinion Schlink uses the swimming pool to highlight the age difference between Michael and Hanna as one of the key difficulties in their relationship.

Significance of Swimming Pool on page 79

The swimming pool is a space that is significant to the relationship between Hanna and Michael. Bernhard Schlink shows this significance through the reaction of Michael when he sees Hanna by the pool and the thoughts he has.
Michael likes to see Hanna due to his lust for her, however when she appeared by the pool Michael didn't react as though he had this lust for her. Hanna was wearing an "open blouse knotted at the waist" this shows that she is wearing things that is very revealing and would often cause Michael to be lustful. Instead he "didn't jump to (his) feet to run to her" which contradicts to how he would normally act and therefore this shows how Michael is not lustful when he is in the pool or this space. Bernhard Schlink used this space to show that not only is Hanna uncomfortable with the age difference and finds it awkward but also that Michael finds it awkward as well.
Michael hesitates when he sees Hanna by the pool which shows that he is unsure or uncomfortable with Hanna being in his space. This is shown when he thinks of "did she want to be seen with me" and "did i want to be seen with her". This shows that Michael does not understand the reason for her being by the pool and the reason he was hesitating on whether he wanted to be seen with her. Furthermore he does not think whether he "wants to see her" but rather whether he "wants to be seen with her" which shows that there is an awkwardness between their relationship for them being seen together. Bernhard Schlink uses this to show how the age difference in their relationship causes the two of them to think of how other people will think of them and how their relationship is not strong enough for them to be seen together in other spaces.

"A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased"

This statement places judgment on Germany as a whole for being a nation that committed Genocides that devastated the world and history. The Holocaust murdered 6 million people from a purpose to eradicate a whole race, this is seen as an unforgettable crime and therefore Germany should condemn for their crime. However i believe that it is unfair to judge the whole German population and even the population of Germans to come within a thousand years in the future. The whole German population was under the control of Adolf Hitler and the fear of his elite S.S men and military and therefore the whole German population can't be judged for the aggression of one dictator. Some argue that the crime of the Holocaust is caused by the whole population of the German population for ignoring such gruesome horror, but on the other hand there were many people especially from other political parties from other nations of Europe that knew of these genocides occurring in Germany and they placed a blind eye on this situation. Furthermore to judge the next generations of German people for over a thousand years and make them carry the burden of this guilt is not fair because they don't have direct relation to the genocides at all. They are the ones who should be given a chance of freedom without an aggressive dictator controlling them with the use of fear. I do however agree to the fact that the crime Germany had caused in supporting the genocide and contributed to it to be a fact that should never be forgotten in a thousand years, especially by the Germans.

Response to "A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased" -- Jessica

This is a difficult statement to agree or disagree with. In part, I believe this statement to be true, the horror of the holocaust will never be forgotten and the people of Germany will never be allowed to forget the terrible thing that their country has done. However, I disagree that the people of Germany should feel the guilt of those of the generations before them. However horrific and no matter the impact the holocaust had on the rest of the world, the generations of German people today are no more responsible for the holocaust than anyone else in the world, they should not bear the burden of their ancestors.

Though most people have the ‘forgive and forget’ mentality and have followed it through to an extent, I believe that the German people perhaps take more blame onto themselves than anyone else does and this is because they personally are ashamed of what their ancestors had done. There need not be more ‘fuel’ placed on the ‘flame’ of guilt that this country already possesses. So in part this statement is true, the guilt of the German people will not be erased until they are ready to forgive themselves and their ancestors for the mistakes that were made.

In conclusion, I both agree and disagree with this statement that “a thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased”, as it is true that the memory of the holocaust will be used for years to come as an example of what we as humanity should not do, however the German people should not individually be punished for what they did not personally do.