Talk:The Reader

message: The article originally stated that The Reader was "first published in the USA in 1995."  This can't be right, because (a) the book first came out in Germany, (b) the copyright page of the Vintage (English language) version, the book is copyright 1995 by a German publisher, and copyright 1997 by the German-to-English translator, Carol Brown Janeway.  If this information is incomplete or misleading, by all means change it.  --zenohockey 22:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishing dates 

message: The article includes the statement that vorlesen has just one meaning: to read aloud. There is another meaning in the context of e.g. a university, where it can mean "to lecture" or at least bears this connotation, hence 'Die Vorlesung' - 'the lecture'. Whether this is actually relevant to the analysis of the book I leave others to judge. For me, 'Der Vorleser', along with 'Austerlitz' (W. G. Sebald) and 'Jacob the Liar' (Jurek Becker), is one of the most thoughtful German novels on the subject of the Holocaust. The translators of 'Der Vorleser' and 'Austerlitz' also did an outstanding job (I can't comment on the translation of Jakob der Lügner').  --TraceyR 22:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vorlesen

message: There's no source for Juliette Binoche's having been slated to play Hanna. I can't find any, apart from the IMDb message board for the film, which isn't really citable. --zenohockey 23:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film: Juliette Binoche 

message: The article says that Michael's illness in the start of the book is hepatitis. It's jaundice, surely? 'Gelbsucht'? --clashcitizens 17:47, 26 September 2007
:In the English version it says "hepatitis;" it's the first line of the novel.   María (críticame) 16:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jaundice is a common symptom of hepatitis. Daniel Case 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, I forgot about that!  I wonder if that's what the German is referring to. María (críticame) 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Gelb" means yellow, so without looking at my German dictionary, or the German wiktionary, yes, I think. Daniel Case 18:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that I was wondering whether the original German started with something similar to "I had jaundice" or "I had jaundice caused by hepatitis" or what-have-you.  Does the German even mention hepatitis?  That's what I was wondering.  María (críticame) 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The German book starts with the sentence Als ich fünfzehn war, hatte ich Gelbsucht. (When I was fiftheen I had jaundice.) -- 178.24.216.212 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Illness

message: I wonder if this novel is based on a true story, or even the author's autobiography. Is there any clue on this? sentausa (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that's a testament to Schlink's skill. No one has ever said this is anything but fiction. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is semi-autobiographical in that the author shares similarities with the narrator; they are both children of WWII and have legal backgrounds.  I've never heard that the events in the book are based on a true story, however, so I suspect the aforementioned similarities are why his article states that the novel is "partly autobiographical".  María (habla conmigo) 17:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of whether it's an autobiography or fiction was asked during the Oprah Show.  "Though Bernhard admits that The Reader does contain some autobiographical elements, it is not an autobiography.  When asked if he had a real-life Hanna in his own past, Bernhard says, 'I am from the Old World and have an old-fashioned sense of privacy.'"  You can make your own judgement whether that's a yes or no reply.   202.123.89.4 (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, thanks. I think we can use that. Daniel Case (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: If you can find a source for that, it might be worth putting in. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not in the article because it would be original research unless a reliable source made the same observation. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  True story? 

message: Where did Schlink claim that most of the criticism that this novel is apologist for the Holocaust comes from people closer to his own age than the older generation? In any case the people closer to his own age are most of the people writing nowadays, but Elie Wiesel for one has criticized the novel (or at least similar works; I can't remember the source now, but I'll look it up and add it here). And even if he claims it, does that make it true? GUSwim (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it was something I was looking for a couple of years ago when I wrote the article, when we were less strict about sourcing than we are now. I do remember reading it, it might even have been in something linked from the German article, I don't know. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it's referring to a photograph the quoted character is discussing. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, the book does discuss this in more detail (much of it is Michael's internal monologue, ruminating over it. I quoted some in the themes section, but not the relevant parts). Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: This article says that in the end he tells his daughter about his relationship with Hanna, although it did happen in the film, I have checked my novel and it did not end like that. Is this because I have the new edition or is that fact wrong?
--Tieu yeu nu (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're right. Often, after a movie comes out based on a book, people edit the book article either thinking they're editing the movie article or because they think the movie follows the book more closely than it may actually do. Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telling his daughter 

message: There is one important error in this article, and that is the statement that the affair between Michael and Hanna both is and was illegal. The current age of consent in Germany is 14, and Michael is one year above that. The only exception to this is if somebody aged 14-15 is sexually abused and turns in their rapist, in which case it is treated like any other rape case. It's important to do your homework, and not assume that all countries have the same age of consent. Regardless of what we may think of the morality of the act, it is completely legal by today's legal standards, and while I cannot say that I have read lawbooks from the Nazi era, I know that the current law is just an affirmation of what was already legal praxis. Most periods in history have had an age limit of 14 or 15, and unless he was abused, received some kind of material compensation, or was promised a cosy little future with her involving wedding bells, it is and was completely legal.
:That was in a bit from the German Wikipedia article that I translated. Daniel Case (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it's a bit more complicated than that, unfortunately...German law at least of today provides for a "Juniors" class, so to say, which means that adolescents between 14 and 17 years of age are allowed to have sexual relations among themselves but not beyond. That leads to the farcical situation that a young couple that was perfectly legal to make love before the older partner turned 18 is no longer so afterwards until the younger one does, too. The German language page also relates to a guideline for teachers of literature classes in Switzerland (where the legal situation as basically the same) which explicitly states that the illegality of the proceedings described has to be pointed out to the pupils. Arno (from Germany), --87.139.7.40 (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing like a response 11 years later! Yes, some U.S. states have also created so-called "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions where the couple is, say, in the same school or something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality 

message: A chance to get information to improve this article! Bernhard Schlink will be talking about The Reader on the edition of the BBC radio programme World Book Club broadcast on 1 January 2010 at 8pm GMT. EdQuine (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean 2011, right? Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bernhard Schlink on the BBC's World Book Club

message: Under the Characters section, I removed "who actually appear in the mimetic sense", to make it "...none of the significant characters have names."
That seems complete - as far as I can tell, the "mimetic sense" doesn't anything to the meaning of the sentence, and it raises the reading difficulty significantly. --Chriswaterguy talk 05:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "characters who actually appear in the [[mimesis|mimetic]] sense" 

message: *sigh*
These paragraphs are still only cited to the primary text. Failing the inclusion of secondary sources, they are original research.
===Style===
Schlink's main theme is how his generation, and indeed all generations after the Third Reich, have struggled to come to terms with the crimes of the Nazis: "the past which brands us and with which we must live."The Reader, p. 181. For his cohorts, there was the unique position of being blameless and the sense of duty to call to account their parents' generation:
... [which] had been served by the guards and enforcers, or had done nothing to stop them, or had not banished them from their midst as it could have done after 1945, was in the dock, and we explored it, subjected it to trial by daylight, and condemned it to shame ... We all condemned our parents to shame, even if the only charge we could bring was that after 1945 they had tolerated the perpetrators in their midst ... The more horrible the events about which we read and heard, the more certain we became of our responsibility to enlighten and accuse.The Reader, pp. 92–93.
But while he would like it to be as simple as that, his experience with Hanna complicates matters:
I wanted simultaneously to understand Hanna's crime and to condemn it. But it was too terrible for that. When I tried to understand it, I had the feeling I was failing to condemn it as it must be condemned. When I condemned it as it must be condemned, there was no room for understanding. But even as I wanted to understand Hanna, failing to understand her meant betraying her all over again. I could not resolve this. I wanted to pose myself both tasks—understanding and condemnation. But it was impossible to do both.The Reader, p. 157.
Hanna and Michael's asymmetrical relationship enacts, in microcosm, the pas de deux of older and younger Germans in the postwar years: Michael concludes that "the pain I went through because of my love for Hanna was, in a way, the fate of my generation, a German fate."The Reader, p. 171. This idea plays itself out in the scene where the student Michael hitchhikes to the Natzweiler-Struthof concentration camp site during the trial, to get what he hopes will be some sense of the place. The driver who picks him up is an older man who questions him closely about what he believes motivated those who carried out the killings, then offers an answer of his own:
An executioner is not under orders. He's doing his work, he doesn't hate the people he executes, he's not taking revenge on them, he's not killing them because they're in his way or threatening or attacking them. They're a matter of such indifference to him that he can kill them as easily as not.The Reader, p. 151. 
After the man tells an anecdote about a photograph of Jews being shot in Russia, one that he supposedly saw, but which showed an unusual level of insight into what a Nazi officer shown might have been thinking, Michael suspects him of being that officer and confronts him. The man stops the car and asks him to leave.The Reader, p. 152.
===Metaphor===
Michael is aware that all his attempts to visualize what Hanna might have been like back then, what happened, are colored by what he has read and seen in movies. He feels a difficult identification with the victims when he learns that Hanna often picked one prisoner to read to her, as she chose him later on, only to send that girl to Auschwitz and the gas chamber after several months. Did she do it to make the last months of the condemned more bearable? Or to keep her secret safe? Michael's inability to both condemn and understand springs from this. He asks himself and the reader:
What should our second generation have done, what should it do with the knowledge of the horrors of the extermination of the Jews? We should not believe we can comprehend the incomprehensible, we may not compare the incomparable, we may not inquire because to make the horrors an object of inquiry is to make the horrors an object of discussion, even if the horrors themselves are not questioned, instead of accepting them as something in the face of which we can only fall silent in revulsion, shame and guilt. Should we only fall silent in revulsion, shame and guilt? To what purpose?The Reader, p. 104. 
===References===
===Discussion===
I mean, the stuff under "Style" is odd because it's about theme rather than style, and some of it's already covered under "metaphor" - but it still needs to be cited to secondary sources if it is to be included. Similarly, the excerpt above under "Metaphor" may well mean what the article currently says it means, but we need reliable sources that assert this, not editors' own analysis of the text. It's all very lovely for a paper but not very encyclopedic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I had described it originally as "theme and technique", but someone else later decided to rename it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I suppose it could be re-combined under your original heading if everyone felt that was necessary. However, that doesn't correct the more immediate problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OR according to a strict reading of the policy, but personally I find it okay because there's nothing contentious in it. It's almost just a description of the obvious themes, and I think sources would be fairly easy to find. I have no problem, though, if someone wants to rewrite it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My defense (had I been asked to give one at the time I'd written it) was that I hoped that it might be obvious from the quoted bits, in a mannner analogous to how original images are permitted as an exception to OR in order to support assertions made in the text. For example, when I find as I sometimes do that the buildings and other things listed on the National Register of Historic Places that I write about often have changed somewhat from the way the way were described at the time of nomination, I know the picture in the infobox will often support what I have to write in the text even if there is no source for it. A specific example of this is Beekman Friends Meeting House, a long-abandoned yet intact building when it was listed, but an overgrown ruin when I photographed it).I do admit this insistence on citing interpretations of text can sometimes go overboard. In a review of an article someone else had written about a U.S. Supreme Court decision, an editor insisted that our text should not presume to summarize or describe the Court's opinion (when I write those articles, I quote frequently and at some length because the original text is PD and there's no issue there; but I can't do that forever and it's easier for the reader if I paraphrase in between the quoted sections with really (I like to think) pungent judicial prose)) without citing someone else who did. Legal writing may be a bit denser than journalistic prose, but it's not impenetrable and I think we are on firm ground doing so ourselves. Hypothetical legal arguments or cases suggested or implied by the decision are, however, properly the province of legal scholars writing on their blawgs or in law reviews, and those should only be included in our articles when someone else has entertained them in those fora.Perhaps this situation does call for some discussion as to what would be proper literary and textual analysis under OR; however I do understand that with works of literature there may be less tolerance here because it inherently subjective. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think anything so obviously supported by the primary text as to be uncontroversial would belong in the synopsis, not in the themes. We can't analyze, but we can report (or paraphrase) what the text says outright. (Or if there are secondary sources, we can discuss is as analysis.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the synopsis is just fine.  Not everything needs a citation, only facts that could be challenged.  A book can be used as a primary source for a summary of itself.  Wikipedia editors are competent to summarize content.  If somebody read the book, they can very well summarize what it said.  There is no need to find a secondary source that summarizes the book, and then we must summarize what the secondary source says.  That would be silly.  If there are specific parts of the summary you object to, please state what seems dubious and we can look for sources.  Please don't wholesale remove a perfectly good summary. That's not helping Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 18:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted last time you falsely claimed that I had removed content from the summary, that's not what this discussion is about. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  I am not claiming anything "falsely". Jehochman Talk 20:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that I blanked or hid anything from the synopsis when I in fact only ever blanked or hid things relating to analysis would be false, yes. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Roscelese, I think the point here is we're saying it's better to have that material in the article than to see it removed. It's not contentious; it's nicely written; and it's informative. It would benefit from having secondary sources, and maybe it could be rewritten to accommodate them. No one is arguing against that, I don't think. But if the option is leaving it as it is, or blanking it, I think we're saying leave it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend starting by moving the parts of "Style" that don't discuss style and that instead discuss themes into "Metaphor," which already discusses that particular theme. That'll certainly make the task seem less daunting. As for the last part of "Metaphor," do you think that could be moved into "Synopsis"? Is it more or less a paraphrasing of the text? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with moving non-style issues into Metaphor. Not sure what you mean by the last part of Metaphor, but if you think it's better in Synopsis, I have no problem with you moving it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to "Michael is aware that all his attempts to visualize..." through the end of the section, which is sourced only to the primary text. I think that if the non-quote part is basically a paraphrase of text from the primary source, it can go in "synopsis"; if instead it's some editor's analysis, a secondary source should be found. (We already have secondary references about Michael's reaction to Holocaust media, but not making the same point or with the same quote.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I have no problem with you moving material or rewriting it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm hesitant to do anything about that stuff in "Metaphor," though, unless I know it really is basically a paraphrase that could go in "Synopsis" - can someone who remembers the book better than I do clarify? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair bit of it is visible on Amazon if you use the search facility. If you read from page to page it will stop you, but if you jump around using search you get to see more. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still OR 

message: I mean, the stuff under "Style" is odd because it's about theme rather than style, and some of it's already covered under "metaphor" - but it still needs to be cited to secondary sources if it is to be included. Similarly, the excerpt above under "Metaphor" may well mean what the article currently says it means, but we need reliable sources that assert this, not editors' own analysis of the text. It's all very lovely for a paper but not very encyclopedic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I had described it originally as "theme and technique", but someone else later decided to rename it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I suppose it could be re-combined under your original heading if everyone felt that was necessary. However, that doesn't correct the more immediate problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OR according to a strict reading of the policy, but personally I find it okay because there's nothing contentious in it. It's almost just a description of the obvious themes, and I think sources would be fairly easy to find. I have no problem, though, if someone wants to rewrite it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My defense (had I been asked to give one at the time I'd written it) was that I hoped that it might be obvious from the quoted bits, in a mannner analogous to how original images are permitted as an exception to OR in order to support assertions made in the text. For example, when I find as I sometimes do that the buildings and other things listed on the National Register of Historic Places that I write about often have changed somewhat from the way the way were described at the time of nomination, I know the picture in the infobox will often support what I have to write in the text even if there is no source for it. A specific example of this is Beekman Friends Meeting House, a long-abandoned yet intact building when it was listed, but an overgrown ruin when I photographed it).I do admit this insistence on citing interpretations of text can sometimes go overboard. In a review of an article someone else had written about a U.S. Supreme Court decision, an editor insisted that our text should not presume to summarize or describe the Court's opinion (when I write those articles, I quote frequently and at some length because the original text is PD and there's no issue there; but I can't do that forever and it's easier for the reader if I paraphrase in between the quoted sections with really (I like to think) pungent judicial prose)) without citing someone else who did. Legal writing may be a bit denser than journalistic prose, but it's not impenetrable and I think we are on firm ground doing so ourselves. Hypothetical legal arguments or cases suggested or implied by the decision are, however, properly the province of legal scholars writing on their blawgs or in law reviews, and those should only be included in our articles when someone else has entertained them in those fora.Perhaps this situation does call for some discussion as to what would be proper literary and textual analysis under OR; however I do understand that with works of literature there may be less tolerance here because it inherently subjective. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think anything so obviously supported by the primary text as to be uncontroversial would belong in the synopsis, not in the themes. We can't analyze, but we can report (or paraphrase) what the text says outright. (Or if there are secondary sources, we can discuss is as analysis.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the synopsis is just fine.  Not everything needs a citation, only facts that could be challenged.  A book can be used as a primary source for a summary of itself.  Wikipedia editors are competent to summarize content.  If somebody read the book, they can very well summarize what it said.  There is no need to find a secondary source that summarizes the book, and then we must summarize what the secondary source says.  That would be silly.  If there are specific parts of the summary you object to, please state what seems dubious and we can look for sources.  Please don't wholesale remove a perfectly good summary. That's not helping Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 18:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted last time you falsely claimed that I had removed content from the summary, that's not what this discussion is about. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  I am not claiming anything "falsely". Jehochman Talk 20:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that I blanked or hid anything from the synopsis when I in fact only ever blanked or hid things relating to analysis would be false, yes. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Roscelese, I think the point here is we're saying it's better to have that material in the article than to see it removed. It's not contentious; it's nicely written; and it's informative. It would benefit from having secondary sources, and maybe it could be rewritten to accommodate them. No one is arguing against that, I don't think. But if the option is leaving it as it is, or blanking it, I think we're saying leave it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend starting by moving the parts of "Style" that don't discuss style and that instead discuss themes into "Metaphor," which already discusses that particular theme. That'll certainly make the task seem less daunting. As for the last part of "Metaphor," do you think that could be moved into "Synopsis"? Is it more or less a paraphrasing of the text? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with moving non-style issues into Metaphor. Not sure what you mean by the last part of Metaphor, but if you think it's better in Synopsis, I have no problem with you moving it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to "Michael is aware that all his attempts to visualize..." through the end of the section, which is sourced only to the primary text. I think that if the non-quote part is basically a paraphrase of text from the primary source, it can go in "synopsis"; if instead it's some editor's analysis, a secondary source should be found. (We already have secondary references about Michael's reaction to Holocaust media, but not making the same point or with the same quote.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I have no problem with you moving material or rewriting it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm hesitant to do anything about that stuff in "Metaphor," though, unless I know it really is basically a paraphrase that could go in "Synopsis" - can someone who remembers the book better than I do clarify? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair bit of it is visible on Amazon if you use the search facility. If you read from page to page it will stop you, but if you jump around using search you get to see more. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion