Bernhard Schlink’s The Reader dives into one of the most heavily weighed possible social concerns in human history: the Nazi Holocaust that took the lives of over six million people. Attempting to make the gloomy subject matter manageable for her readers, Schlink cleverly dulls down the topic by focusing on the single cross generational relationship between her narrator, Michael Berg, and the thirty six year old Nazi war criminal, Hannah Schmitz.
Amongst the most significant topics that the reader is able to draw from the novel is when years later, Michael learns that his ‘cougar’ lover was a guard at a concentration camp whose job it was to select people to kill off. The questions that he has no choice but to ask himself parallel the ones that Germany had to face in the post war years when Michael, like other citizens of Germany, had to question how they could have loved murderous beasts like Nazi soldiers.
Moreover, Michael represents the Germans who watched and were dominated and controlled by Nazi’s like Hanna. I believe that Schlink’s primary goal for his novel was not to make his readers decipher between the moral question of right and wrong. Rather, I believe his main point that he wanted to convey to his readers was that it was ordinary people like Hanna and Michael who facilitated the atrocities committed by the Nazis.
Although Hanna’s and Michael’s actions are questionable, especially in part one, they are no different from you or I. The events of the Holocaust can not be attributed to one giant, sweeping force of evil, but rather, it was caused through complicity and passivity which are the traits possessed by Michael and many others. Hanna’s question “What would you have done?” is addressed directly to the reader because it illustrates the tough positions that all German citizens found themselves in.
People like Michael gave the dominant beings, like Hanna the power to do as they pleased. In a way, Schlink suggests that if the element of passivity was eliminated, the Holocaust could have very well never happened in the first place. This idea serves as a critique on the mind set of human beings and proves to be one of the most essential ideas that the novel possesses.
Amongst the most significant topics that the reader is able to draw from the novel is when years later, Michael learns that his ‘cougar’ lover was a guard at a concentration camp whose job it was to select people to kill off. The questions that he has no choice but to ask himself parallel the ones that Germany had to face in the post war years when Michael, like other citizens of Germany, had to question how they could have loved murderous beasts like Nazi soldiers.
Moreover, Michael represents the Germans who watched and were dominated and controlled by Nazi’s like Hanna. I believe that Schlink’s primary goal for his novel was not to make his readers decipher between the moral question of right and wrong. Rather, I believe his main point that he wanted to convey to his readers was that it was ordinary people like Hanna and Michael who facilitated the atrocities committed by the Nazis.
Although Hanna’s and Michael’s actions are questionable, especially in part one, they are no different from you or I. The events of the Holocaust can not be attributed to one giant, sweeping force of evil, but rather, it was caused through complicity and passivity which are the traits possessed by Michael and many others. Hanna’s question “What would you have done?” is addressed directly to the reader because it illustrates the tough positions that all German citizens found themselves in.
People like Michael gave the dominant beings, like Hanna the power to do as they pleased. In a way, Schlink suggests that if the element of passivity was eliminated, the Holocaust could have very well never happened in the first place. This idea serves as a critique on the mind set of human beings and proves to be one of the most essential ideas that the novel possesses.
No comments:
Post a Comment