Late February 2009
Thursday night's discussion was one of the best we have had - driven by a book with much to talk about.
Only Chris amongst those present had seen the film of The Reader, so we came to the book free from too many images of Kate Winslet to distract us. Before getting into the content, there was much comment on the writing style, which worked for everyone with perhaps the exception of Steve. THe precise adjectives used escape me two days later, but things like 'spare' and 'precise' were used. The basic drift was Schlink's ability to write about complex issues is clear, concise ways and cover ground over a few pages that other authors would have taken an opus magnus to cover was generally complimented. Steve had his traditional problem with being disconnected from the writers pen through the translator and found some of the description a bit clunky - 'Germanic' I think was the phrase. However, equally everyone found some very clever and insightful one liners in the book (e.g. the one Richard identified about remembering beauty).
To the subject matter. There were essentially three different story-lines identified in the book:
· The tension between different German generations in relation to their response to, and culpability for the atrocities during the war (e.g. Will)
· A love story (e.g. Chris)
· How a person's communication problems create barriers between them and the world around them, resulting in an inability to sustain relationships and even understand personal responsibility for actions such as murder (e.g. Rob)
Or indeed was it about all three?
(Post meeting note: Neil added a fourth option - it was about how women can screw up men's lives)
There was much discussion about Hannah, and our reactions to her. which varied from strong dislike from the outset, to those who quite warmed to her. The former saw her as an essentially evil woman who preyed upon an innocent young man for her own needs, then abused and denied him, rendered him unable to sustain a relationship for the rest of his life, and was basically a murderer who not only saw no personal responsibility for her actions but didn't even show a willingness to consider anything other than herself. The latter saw a woman damaged by society's responses to her illiteracy, unable to cope or know how to handle that other than to run away and ultimately destroyed by (for example) the legal systems need for an easy victim in the court case and then her inability to handle the shift in the power relationship with her 'kid' on her potential release from prison.
Other issues covered ranged about and beyond the book itself, including:
Neil's question about the outcome for Hannah. There was no consensus but suggestions ranged from (i) the above point about not being able to accept the shift in power in her relationship with her former child lover in him being the person in control and providing upon her release from prison, (ii) it was her final rejection of him (iii) her having learnt to read meant she no longer had anything in life to strive for (iv) her new-found ability to read meaning she had begun to understand the implications of her actions in the war and thus finally accepted responsibility and did what she did. Who knows?
The difference in 'acceptability' to readers between a woman in her mid thirties seducing a boy of 15 compared to a man in his 30s seducing a girl of 15 (inevitable comparison with the seediness of Humbert Humbert in Lolita) but of course Hannah was really doing him a favour by initiating him into the delights of sex (allegedly)...
The extent to which people are responsible for their actions when their life and/or the world around them creates situations whereby the degree of 'free choice' they have over their decisions is debatable.
So in conclusion a general thumbs-up, other than from Ras and with Steve not completely certain yet having only just finished the book that morning and wanting to give some time for it to mull or ferment in his mind (or other alcoholic analogies).
7.04
