Part 2 reaction

I was out sick on Friday and most of this weekend, so I only got to finish the book now. Part two was a melancholy read, but it brought up a lot of moral questions. The issue of guilt is widely addressed in the novel; both on the part of the perpetrators and on the part of the bystanders. Hanna is used as a scapegoat by her fellow defendants as a means of escaping prison time. However, she is also used as a relief of guilt for the witnesses. The countrymen and women who were witnesses to the fire could not justify why they did not overtake the group of confused women and break down the door. They were afraid, confused, and lacked the bravery to do so. Building Hanna up as a forceful, villainous leader allowed everyone to justify their actions by stating that they did not have the strength to overcome her.

I found Michael's conversation with his father very interesting. His father presented the idea that, when a human being is a child, it is acceptable and encouraged for parents to tell him or her what is best. Despite argument and anger, the child is never more right than his or her parents. When a human being becomes an adult, however, no one has the power nor the right to tell him or her what is best. Michael's father tells Michael it is neither his duty nor his privilege to intervene in what Hanna believes. He encourages Michael to speak to her and attempt to open her eyes, but says that it is ultimately Hanna's own decision. For whatever her reasons were, perhaps pride or shame, Hanna acted of her own free will. It cannot be anyone else's right to make her decisions for her.