The Reader

Pantheon Books1997.218 p.0679442790

A Novel by Bernhard SchlinkPublisher:Pub date:Pages:ISBN:

Awards Nominated for the International IMPAC DublinLiterary Award and Oprah Book Club selection

SynopsisHailed for its coiled eroticism and the moral claims it makes upon the reader, thismesmerizing novel is a story of love and secrets, horror and compassion,unfolding against the haunted landscape of postwar Germany.

When he falls ill on his way home from school, fifteen-year-old Michael Berg isrescued by Hanna, a woman twice his age. In time she becomes his lover--thenshe inexplicably disappears. when Michael next sees her, he is a young lawstudent, and she is on trial for a hideous crime. As he watches her refuJe todefend her innocence, Michael gradually realizes that Hanna may be guarding asecret she considers more shameful than murder.

Background I nformationThe Reader (Der Vorleser) is an award-winning novel by German law professorand judge Bernhard Schlink. lt was published in Germany in 19g5 and in theUnited states (translated into English by Carol Brown Janeway) in 19g7. ltconcerns itself with the difficulties of comprehending the Holocaust asexperienced by the generations growing up aftenvard, and whether it can beunderstood through language alone, a question increasingly at the center ofliterature about the Holocaust in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as itbegins to fade from living memory.

Schlink's book was well received not just in his native country, where it was achange from the detective novels he had been writing up till that point, winningseveral awards, but in the United States as well. lt became the first Germannovel to top the New York Times bestseller list and Oprah Winfrey made it aselection of her book club. lt has been translated into 37 other languages, andbeen assigned in college-level courses on Horocaust riterature.

Summary

Michael Berg is fifteen and suffering from hepatitis" When he gets sick in thestreet one day on his way home from school, a woman brings him into herapartment and helps him to wash up. Later, he visits the woman to thank her andis drawn into a love affair that is as intoxicating as it is unusual--their meetingsbecome a ritual of reading aloud (Michael reads to Hanna, at her request), tJt

Biography of Bernhard SchlinkBernhard Schlink (Born 6 July 1944 in Bielefeld) isa German writer with a legal background. Hebecame a judge at the Constitutional Court of thefederal state of North Rhine-Westphalia in 19BBand is a professor for public law and the philosophyof law at Humboldt University, Bedin, Germany asof January 2006.Contents

Bernhard Schlink was born in Germany in 1944. Aprofessor of law at the University of Berlin and apracticing judge, he is the author of several prize-winning crime novels. He lives in Bonn and Berlin.

Bernhard Schlinkwas born in Grossdornberg, Germany, in 1944, to a Germanfather and a Swiss mother. He grew up in the university town of Heidelberg, andwent on himself to a university career, earning a law degree and studying inHeidelberg and Berlin. His field is constitutional law, and in that field, he is arespected professor and author. He also serves as a judge with theConstitutional Law Court in Bonn. His career testifies to the hopes he had, buttime has brought its share of disillusionment: "l had a belief in justice andrationality that in fact was a secularised version of my parents' belief in God.Growing older I am losing that kind of belief."

Writing fiction came to Schlink relatively late. He became a successful writer ofmystery novels. He has written Selbs Justiz (with Walter Popp, 1987), Diegordische Schleife (1988), and Selbs Betrug (1992). "My mysteries are notentirely orthodox insofar as they don't just tell the story of a crime, they also dealwith recent German history." Two of the novels are the beginning of a trilogy thatwill present "Germany's post-war history in three mysteries." The third novel isbeing written.

The Reader was a departure. Published as Der Vorleser in 1995, the bookquickly proved to be a European success. There was a tremendous difference inthe impact Schlink was used to -- "the audience I've reached with this book ismuch bigger than the audience I'd reached with my mysteries." He attributesmuch of its success to having a focus different from the general run of GermanWorld War ll fiction: "The Reader is one of the first books, I think, that addresseshow the generation that came after deals with what the previous generation did."A United States edition appeared in 1997, and was well reviewed. The bookreceived a tremendous boost in sales when it was made a selection of Oprah'sBook Club, in February of 1999. lt has now been translated into 23 languages,

f nterview with Author (Ron Hogan, Beatrice, 1997 Link below)h ttp : //www. beatri ce. co mli n te rv i ews/s c h I i n k/

RH: Because you're primarily known in Germany as a writer of popular crimefiction, did The Reader catch your readers off guard?

BS: Not really. My mysteries are not entirely orthodox insofar as they don't just tell thestory of a crime, theyalso deal with recent German history. So this wasn't too far out for[readers]. But the audience I've reached with this book is much bigger than the audienceI'd reached with my mysteries.

RH: And that contemplation seems crucialto the way modern Germans approachthe problem of their past and their immediate ancestors.

BS: lt's been one of the big subjects for my generation. For many families it's a personalissue, because it pits fathers against their children. One of my favorite teachers, the onewho taught me English, taught me to love the English language, also taught usgymnastics and we could see his SS tattoo.

RH: Has it been dealt with in German literature prior to your novel? Part of theproblem for American readers is that, even if this was extensively discussed inGermany, we would know almost next to nothing about that because our exposureto European literature is so selective.

BS: There were many books right after the war, and then we didn't have very manybooks in the '5Os and early'60s. The literature from the '60s to the'80s is mainly aboutthe Holocaust itself. The Reader is one of the first books, I think, that addresses how thegeneration that came after deals with what the previous generation did. And that's why Ithink the book has found the interest it's found. My generation, and also the generationafter mine, wanted something that deals with the question of how we cope with theHolocaust and the participation of our role models in it.

RH: Perhaps these questions gain a certain prominence in German culture todayas an effect of reunification, as Germans are forced to ask themselves what it is tobe one Germany again.

BS: I think that's right, but reunification also raises questions about Germany fromabroad. There are new concerns, new interests, and new questions about how the restof Europe and America will live with a unified Germany. And in what used to be theGDR, the question of how one deals with the past is again a very real, up-to- datequestion with the aftermath of the collapse of Communism, and comparisons -- valid ornot -- are inevitable. But we all have to recognize that Germany is a nation with aparticular past, and we all have to cope with that past.

RH: What's next for you?

BS: My two mystery novels were always meant to be parts one and two of a trilogy, so Iwill write one last mystery that deals with Germany's post-war history. The first one wasabout how the past of the Third Reich still reaches into our present time; the second onewas about '68 and the terrorism of the '70s. And the third will be about what came afterreunification.

Bibliography

Titles in English

1997 The Reader, translated by Carol Brown Janeway, New york: pantheon

2001 Flights of Love; Sfories, translated by John E. Woods, New York: Pantheon

2005 se/f's Punishmenf, Bernhard schlink and walter popp, translated byRebecca Morrison, New York: Vintage Books

2007 se/f's Deception, translated by Peter constantine, New york: vintageCrime/Black Lizard

2007 Homecomrng translated by Michael Henry Heim, New york: pantheon

2009 se/f's Murder, weidenfeld & Nicolson, fo be released 13 March 2009

Literary Works in German

1987 Se/bs Justiz (Selfs Punishment; with Walter Popp)1988 Die gordische Schleife (The Gordian Knot), Zurich Diogenes1992 Se/bs Betrug, Zurich Diogenes

1995 Der Vorleser (The Reader), Zurich: Diogenes2000 Liebesfluchfen (Flights of Love) , Zurich: Diogenes2001 Se/bs Mord, Zurich Diogenes

2006 Die Heimkehr

Discussion Questions (From Reading Group Guideshttp :/iwww. read i nq g ro u pg u id es. com/q u ides R/readerl . asp

1. At what point does the significance of the book's title become clear to you?Who is "The Reader"? Are there others in the story with an equally compellingclaim to this role?

2. When does the difference in social class between Hanna and Michael becomemost clear and painful? Why does Hanna feel uncomfortable staying overnight inMichael's house? ls Hanna angry about her lack of education?

3. Why is the sense of smell so important in this story? What is it about Hannathat so strongly provokes the boy's desire? lf Hanna represents "an invitation toforget the world in the recesses of the body" [p. 16], why is she the only womanMichael seems able to love?

4. One reviewer has pointed out that "learning that the love of your life used to bea concentration camp guard is not part of the American baby-boomerexperience."* ls The Reader's central theme--love and betrayal betweengenerations--particular to Germany, given the uniqueness of German history? lsthere anything roughly parallel to it in the American experience?

5. In a novel so suffused with guilt, how is Michael guilty? Does his narrativeserye as a way of putting himself on trial? What verdict does he reach? ls heasking readers to examine the evidence he presents and to condemn him orexonerate him? Or has he already condemned himself?

6. When Michael consults his father about Hanna's trial, does his father give himgood advice? Why does Michael not act upon this advice? ls the father deservingof the son's scorn and disappointment? ls Michael's love for Hanna meant, inpart, to be an allegory for his generation's implication in their parents' guilt?

7 . Do you agree with Michael's judgment that Hanna was sympathetic with theprisoners she chose to read to her, and that she wanted their final month of life tobe bearable? Or do you see Hanna in a darker light: do the testimonies about hercruelty and sadism ring true?

B. Asked to explain why she didn't let the women out of the burning church,Hanna remembers being urgently concerned with the need to keep order. Whatis missing in her reasoning process? Are you surprised at her responses to thejudge's attempt to prompt her into offering self-defense as an excuse?9. Why does Hanna twice ask the judge, "what would you have done?" ls thejudge sympathetic toward Hanna? What is she trying to communicate in themoment when she turns and looks directly at him?

10. Why does Michael visit the concentration camp at Struthof? What is heseeking? What does he find instead?

11. Michael comments that Enlightenment law (the foundation of the Americanlegal system as well as the German one) was "based on the belief that a goodorder is intrinsic to the world" [p. 181]. How does his experience with Hanna'strial influence Michael's view of history and of law?

12. What do you think of Michael's decision to send Hanna the tapes? He noticesthat the books he has chosen to read aloud "testify to a great and fundamentalconfidence in bourgeois culture" [p. 185]. Does the story of Hanna belie thisfaith? Would familiarity with the literature she later reads have made anydifference in her willingness to collaborate in Hifler's regime?

13. One might argue that Hanna didn't willfully collaborate with Hitler's genocideand that her decisions were driven only by a desire to hide her secret. Does thisview exonerate Hanna in any way? Are there any mitigating circumstances in hercase? How would you have argued for her, if you were a lawyer working in herdefense?

14. Do you agree with the judgment of the concentration camp survivor to whomMichael delivers Hanna's money at the end of the novel? Why does she acceptthe tea tin, but not the money? Who knew Hanna better--Michael or this woman?Has Michael been deluded by his love? ls he another of Hanna's victims?

15. why does Hanna do what she does at the end of the novel? Does heradmission that the dead "came every night, whether I wanted them or not" [pp.198-991 imply that she suffered for her crimes? ls complicity in the crimes oi tfreHolocaust an unforgivable sin?

16. How does this novel leave you feeling and thinking? ls it hopeful or ultimatelydespairing? lf you have read other Holocaust literature, how does The Readercompare?

Discussion Questions from Novelist library databaseWhat does Hanna look for in Michael?

We should not lose sight of the fact that The Reader is set in a Germany in whichvast numbers of the men in Hanna's generation are dead. On one level, whatHanna is looking for is simply a man -- there are not all that many of themaround. The twenty-year age difference is striking, and -- in this country, at least -- apparently shocking. When Schlink appeared on Oprah Winfrey's televisionprogram, he was amazed to find how much of the studio audience's reaction wastaken up with the age difference. In Europe, it was pretty much a non-issue. Thisis not to say that finding a very young partner did not have ramifications that wereparticularly attractive to Hanna. Scarcely more than a child, Michael was veryimpressionable and malleable, and Hanna was very much a person who wishedto be in charge. As a child, Michael had not really made himself into a finishedperson -- this, too, fit Hanna's wishes. She was peculiarly uninterested in Michael

t--

as a person. Even something as simple as a birthday is passed over without athought: "When I had asked her about hers . . . she hadn't asked me what minewas." (p. 73) She does not use Michael's name when she speaks to him. Shecalls the shots and dictates the terms: "We did not have a world that we shared;she gave me the space in her life that she wanted me to have. I had to becontent with that." (p.77) That Michael is a schoolboy is a real convenience,since it means that he is in an environment in which it can be fairly natural tosupply the reading sessions that Hanna wants. In general, the relationship is onein which Hanna has identified her own needs, and arranged to have them filled,almost anonymously. While the sex is clearly a mutual pleasure, Michael is muchmore needy in that respect. He is a frustrated romantic, while Hanna is anopportunistic realist.

ls the age difference important?

One of the most striking aspects of the novel is the great disparity of agebetween Hanna and Michael. The relative ages take on an added importance asa way of examining the relationship between the WWll generation and that of thepost-war period. lt is an unusual pairing -- in this country it would be not only anoddity, but a crime (typically, a misdemeanor), As with other aspects of the novel,what is troublesome is that Hanna is in a position of control, and her actions havea flavor of taking improper advantage. On Michael's part, he is too engaged inthe relationship to worry much about demographics. As a child, it just doesn'tregister much: "Over thirty? lt's hard to guess ages when you're not that oldyourself and won't be anytime soon." (p. 15) Looking back from maturity, the gulfis much more noticeable: "When I see a woman of thirty-six today, I find heryoung. But when I see a boy of fifteen, I see a child." (p 40) Youth is the onequality that Hanna recognizes in Michael; she does not dignify him with hisproper name, but invariably calls him "kid." Translation makes attention tolinguistic detail dangerous -- English offers a cluster of associations with "kid,"from the camaraderie of youths (who could easily be technical adults) to theJazz-Age echoes of "Oh, you kid." These are not Schlink's associations. TheGerman term he uses for "kid" is Jungchen. lt is dated, appropriate to the time-frame of the novel, but mildly quaint in the contemporary world. lts connotationsdo not spill over into adulthood; it is not a male-bonding term (that we'd find, forexample, in the army), but a domestic term that would typically be used, e.g. by amother speaking of her pre-pubescent son. lt is a term that emphasizes therelative position of the padners, at the time that the relationship is still sexual.That it remains the way Hanna thinks of Michael is shown by the first words shespeaks when she finally sees him again, shortly before her scheduled release:"You've grown up, kid." (p. 196) Time has arranged that the appellation iscontradicted by the words of the brief sentence, but "kid" is still what Michaelmeans to Hanna.

"So what would you have done?" (p. 111)This is the central question of the book. lt is the implicit application of the Biblicalstandard -- don't judge if you are yourself guilty. Hanna clearly anticipates thatwhat she did would turn out to be what anyone would do. lt was not a piece of

grandstanding on herpart, "Hanna meant itas a serious question.,,(p. 111) ltwas as close as she wourd come to coming out onlop in a courtroomconfrontation' The personalization is crucii; ft,"lrog" comes off as evasive andnonresponsive when he frames his answer irpurronally: ". . . one must distanceoneself' ' '" (p' 112)The question is one that remains tive, that everyieader mustask himself. Can outrage replace plausibility,

""n *" be certain that -- faced withsocial and intellectual limitations like Hannis -- we would inevitably make themoral decision that seems so imperative from tne perspective of distance andsafety?

Was Hanna a monster or a victim?The Reader is an unusual book in.that the major characters will be accepted inremarkably different fashions by different reaoLrs. Hrnn" can be comfortablyplaced anywhere on a continuurn that runs all the way from ,,There but for theqtq99 of God go rl. to.".How can you do that and stiil cail yourserf human?,,Schlink, closer to the historical events that inspired the novel, seems to havemore sympathy with Hanna than many of his ieaders. paradoxicatty, ttris verysimply written, brief novel carries a message of unremitting complexity. Black andwhite are not the colors with which to forml useful morar picture; grays andunexpected shadings are more to the point. The rine between

"ggi"rio,- "novictim is not always clearly drawn. Michael ."rt"iniv r"arns that lesson. when, incourt' he belatedly learns of Hanna's dark side -- oi,'"t any rate, a still darker sidethan he already knew -- it undermines ail his prans ior entering the regalprofession' All the stock roles are compromised -- defending and prosecutingboth representing an irresp_onsibry sjvrize!

"*"gg"Ltion, ,,and judging was themost grotesque oversimplification of -"11." 1p. rz6j H"nna,s personal stance isstartling. At her triar, she is not ashamed. bettinj to ine truth seems moreimportant than finding a defense, and (apart trori ttre illiteracy), the truth was notsomething she felt that she needed to conceal. "Hanna wanted to do the rightthing' when she thought she was being done an in;ustice, she contradicted it,and when something was righfly craimJd or artegei, ,h"

""t nowredged it.,, (p.109) she seems baffled thal pebple would toot it her wartime actions and beoutraged' lt is Michael who defined the dilemma trrai rre never was able tocomfortably resolve: "l wanted simultaneousry to unJ"rrt"nd Hanna,s crime andto condemn it' But it was too terrible for that. wn"n itri"o to understand it, I hadthe feeling I was failing to condemn it as it must be condemned. when Icondemned it as it must be condemned, there was no room for understanding.,,(p' 157)while there was a feering that doing monstrous things did notinescapably brand one as "

tonit"r, how t6 accommodate 6oth those aspects ina single image is never made crear. rt is not "rrv, "nJ ,"y not be possibre.

ls there too much thinking going on?In its social context, the concerns examined in The Reader have the ring of truth,but it looks a bit overly introspective from an Americ"n p"rrp"ctive. world war lland the Holocaust were prime exampresgl flr9 orng;i, of unexamined action,and the horrible price that it could exact. The Germin g"n"r"tion that came afterthe war -- particurarry on the academic tevei --;; ;;"rstomed to rooking at

actions and their motivations in absolutely excruciating detail. Michael's father isa classic example of the potential problems: "He was a professor of philosophy,and thinking was his life -- thinking and reading and writing and teaching." (p. 30)It did not leave him in very close contact with life as it is lived by regular people.About the only advice we see him give is advising his son (during Hanna's trial)to do nothing. Preaching non-action is perhaps what we should expect from aprofessional philosopher. Schlink, himself a product of German academia, ispartial to the reflective life. "You can't remember things that really played a majorrole in your life without contemplation and reflection." One problem with acompulsive need to think and examine, is that the results will vary wildly with thequality of your equipment. Michael, at an age when hormones ought to count formore than syllogisms, finds himself thinking about sin and its penalties: "lf lookingat someone with desire was as bad as satisfying the desire, if having an activefantasy was as bad as the act you were fantasizing -- then why not thesatisfaction and the act itself?" (p 19) Thought is made equivalent to reality; it'san equation that is not invariably appropriate. When Michael visits theconcentration camp, he again compulsively examines his actions and feelings.He feels awkward trying to find something as mundane as a restaurant after thepsychological impact of the camp. On reflection, however, he decides that "myawkwardness was not the result of real feeling, but of thinking about the way oneis supposed to feel." (p. 155) There is a strong suspicion that this may well be auseful capsule description of how Michael approaches life in general.

Does the author play fair?

The author exercises his prerogative to heighten experience, even when theexperience is artificial to begin with. Schlink is a novelist, not a historian, and theneed artfully to order experience often takes precedence over creating a sense ofverisimilitude. "ln a way I always live with stories. I'm always thinking in stories,and play with stories. lt's a way of taking the world in." The author creates andcontrols the events that convey the story. In a normal long-term relationship, wewould expect an age mismatch to be gradually accommodated, to have a dayto-day continuity that begins to feel natural. lnstead, Schlink manages to make theage difference dramatically prominent by having Hanna locked up for eighteenyears. The reunited lovers are no longer the people they were; Michael "sat nextto Hanna and smelled an old woman." (p. 197) An even clearer example of theauthor's choosing the shape that events will take is found in the section whereMichael is talking to the survivor of Hanna's concentration camp. The woman --repeatedly referred to simply as "the daughter" -- has an uncanny understandingof the negative impact Hanna has had on Michael: "the marriage was short andunhappy and you never married again, and the child, if there is one, is inboarding school." (p.213) lt is an almost eerily impressive assessment from anear-stranger -- at least it is impressive until you remember that "the daughter" ismerely parroting the words that the author has given her. Schlink does what hethinks will put his message across. We can't really complain of his not playingfair; after all, we're playing by his rules.

Did Michael betray Hanna?

10

Michael tormented himself with a sense of guilt -- that it was not necessarilyjustified was irrelevant. He and Hanna had come passionately together in one ofthe brief periods of their respective lives in which the relationship could beexpected to prosper. He ignores the obvious mathematics of the situation, thatthe ratio is flawed, that 15 is not to 36 as 3g is to 60. Time not only brings adifferent set of characters (albeit with the same names) to face each other, but adifferent set of truths to apply to themselves. So much is revealed about Hanna,and the revelations would easily explain a sense of revulsion. What Michaelwants to establish is that he turned his back on Hanna before he had any goodreason to, and that this rejection is both grave and culpable. Even the rejection ismore perception than reality; the crime to which Michael pleads guilty is"disavowal," an amorphous crime that can "pull the underpinnings away from arelationship just as surely as other more flamboyant types of betrayal)' (p. T4)While people might generally be expected to feel that it is only good sense tohide the odd and illicit relationship from family and schoolmates, Michael windsup feeling that not acknowledging Hanna is not prudence, but betrayal. We havecome almost to the end of the book before we see Michael asking the basicquestion: "did I not have my own accounting to demand of her? What about me?"(p.201) lt is a belated sensibility that never really dominates his psyche. Michaelseems determined to suffer, and if he has to twist his facts into the right position,that is something that he can do: "the fact that I had not driven her away did notchange the fact that I had betrayed her. And if I was not guilty because onecannot be guilty of betraying a criminal, then I was guilty of having loved acriminal." (p. 134)ls Michael the last of a series?lf you think of Hanna as a predator, then you can think of Michael as the last of aseries. There was testimony at her trial to the effect that "she had favorites,always one of the young ones who was weak and dericate." (p. 1 16) Theprisoners at the camp had their obvious suspicions about why Hanna wasselecting her pets, but all that anyone learned for certain was that she had themread to her, and that eventually she sent them away on the transports to theirdeaths. Michael thought of a defense for her actions, one that did not make her apredator: "Say you wanted to make their last month bearable. That that was thereason for choosing the delicate and the weak." (p. 1 17) lt might be true,although the words were only Michael's imagining. On the other hand, Hanna'sselection of Michael can be made to fit the predatory pattern with very littleadjustment. When they met, Michael was young enough to be vulnerable, and ontop of that, he was sick with hepatitis. He vomits in the street, and Hanna comesto his assistance in a way that was "almost an assault." (p. 4) The glimpses ofher body that she allows him become the vehicle of his seduction. Eventually, ata time of her own choosing, Hanna abandons a still-ardent Michael. lf you harborsuspicions about Hanna, the parallels between her life as a concentration campguard and her life as a lover are chilling.

11

Are the sex roles reversed?

Dramatically. Michael spends a fair amount of time telling himself that hisrelationship with Hanna has made him much more comfortable and secure thanhis peers in dealing with young women of his own age. While that may besomewhat true, it does not mean that the relationship with Hanna follows astandard model. When Michael works himself up to the point of going to seeHanna (after the initial, accidental meeting), he finds she is not in her apartment.Waiting, he "heard slow, heavy, regular footsteps coming up the stairs. I hopedthat whoever he was, he lived on the second floor. lf he saw me -- how would Iexplain . . ." (p. 22)The footsteps belong to Hanna, but the misapplication of thepersonal pronoun turns out to be more prescient than Michael suspected. Hannais the dominant partner; she defines the area within which the relationshipunfolds. Michael's role is accommodation, learning what needs to be done tomaintain the relationship and acting accordingly. lf apologies are needed,Michael will make them. The age difference allows Hanna to figure appropriatelyas the partner with experience, the initiator and guide. Michael, young andinexperienced, inevitably inherits the role of the dominated partner. Hanna evenappears, on occasion, as a violent abuser. lf we retain any confusion about theroles, Schlink makes things crystal clear by a description of the couple's firstsexual pairing: "she was on top of me, looking into my eyes until I came andclosed my eyes tight and tried to control myself and then screamed so loud thatshe had to cover my mouth with her hand to smother the sound." (p. 25-26) Incontext, it makes perfect sense, but it is not behavior that follows sexualstereotypes.

For Further ReadingA. Manette Ansay, Sisfer

Louis Begley, Wartime LiesJoseph von Eichendorff, Memoirs of a Good-for-NothingGustave Flaubert, Sentimental EducationJohann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelm Meister's ApprenticeshipFranzKafka, The TrialThomas Keneally, Schindler's LisfThomas Mann. Confessions of Felix KrullAnne Michaels, Fugitive PiecesMichael Ondaatje, The English Patient;Andre Schwartz-Bart, The Last of the JustWilliam Styron, Sophie's ChoiceSherri Szeman The Kommandant's MisfressD. M. Thomas, The White Hotel

t2

Dramatically. Michael spends a fair amount of time telling himself that hisrelationship with Hanna has made him much more comfortable and secure thanhis peers in dealing with young women of his own age. While that may besomewhat true, it does not mean that the relationship with Hanna follows astandard model. When Michael works himself up to the point of going to seeHanna (after the initial, accidental meeting), he finds she is not in her apartment.Waiting, he "heard slow, heavy, regular footsteps coming up the stairs. I hopedthat whoever he was, he lived on the second floor. lf he saw me -- how would Iexplain . . ." (p. 22)The footsteps belong to Hanna, but the misapplication of thepersonal pronoun turns out to be more prescient than Michael suspected. Hannais the dominant partner; she defines the area within which the relationshipunfolds. Michael's role is accommodation, learning what needs to be done tomaintain the relationship and acting accordingly. lf apologies are needed,Michael will make them. The age difference allows Hanna to figure appropriatelyas the partner with experience, the initiator and guide. Michael, young andinexperienced, inevitably inherits the role of the dominated partner. Hanna evenappears, on occasion, as a violent abuser. lf we retain any confusion about theroles, Schlink makes things crystal clear by a description of the couple's firstsexual pairing: "she was on top of me, looking into my eyes until I came andclosed my eyes tight and tried to control myself and then screamed so loud thatshe had to cover my mouth with her hand to smother the sound." (p. 25-26) lncontext, it makes perfect sense, but it is not behavior that follows sexualstereotypes.

For Further ReadingA. Manette Ansay, Sisfer

Louis Begley, Wartime LiesJoseph von Eichendorff, Memoirs of a Good-for-NothingGustave Flaubert, Sentimental EducationJohann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelm Meister's ApprenticeshipFranzKafka, The TrialThomas Keneally, Schindler's LisfThomas Mann, Confessions of Felix KrullAnne Michaels, Fugitive PiecesMichael Ondaatje, The English Patient;Andre Schwartz-Bart, The Last of the JustWilliam Styron, Sophie's ChoiceSherri Szeman The Kommandant's MisfressD. M. Thomas, The White Hotel

t2