What I find interesting about The Reader is that it brings several moral questions to light. For example: is Michael and Hanna's relationship truly consensual or is Hanna taking advantage of a young boy? Also, should a relationship of this sort be condemned if it brings confidence and strength to a sick, lonely boy? Schlink is pushing the boundaries of what is socially acceptable. The story both horrifies the reader and makes him or her question its true morality. I find this novel can be related well to the classic Lolita, and the film Harold and Maude.
In Lolita, the reader cannot help but feel some pity for Humbert in his mad quest to keep Lolita for himself. Although his feelings are sick and easily frowned upon, the narrator point of view allows the audience to sympathize with him. In Harold and Maude, the young boy Harold finds happiness and passion as a result of his relationship with an elderly woman. Films and novels like these beg the question: is a relationship of this nature so bad if it brings happiness? And is society's opinion the only thing that makes it seem toxic?
Hanna and Michael's relationship becomes more and more dysfunctional as Part one progresses. Would it be better if it had never occurred at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment