It’s said to be a parable.  But to me, it reads like a confession, and not one with clear intentions.  Maybe it’s because the confessor isn’t confessing the crime he thinks he has, but the crime he thinks others want him to confess.

Is the confessor the writer or Michael?  It’s hard to tell.  But whoever it is, he comes back and forth in this narrative.  He talks about humanity, philosophy, laws, love, and relationships.  He asks questions, repeats his feelings, answers his own questions, describes things, explains the things he describes…  But nothing is well explained or answered.  So, he had to constantly cover the inconsistency with Michael’s love over Hanna, his passion, and his guilt.  But even that is not well explained.

The real point of the book, however, is pretty obvious to me.  The diver with whom Michael had a conversation in the middle of the book has it stated aloud – People can be indifference about others’ death.  They can consider killing merely their work.  They can watch people to be executed right in front of them but only think the sooner the execution is finished, the sooner they go back home to have a cup of hot tea.  To me, that’s the main point of the book.  But apparently, it can’t be the point of any book.  Therefore, the writer has to make Hanna to kill herself, to make her realize her crime before she died.  But that part seems extremely vague and forceful.  More to that, the author at the end has to assure us it is mainly a love story.  But unfortunately, the excessive expression of Michael’s passion over Hanna which lacks the evidence throughout the book finally annoyed me a little at the end.

People can be very indifferent, numb, lack of conscience towards killing others’ lives.  They may force themselves to feel guilty later, and nevertheless, they may never find their guilt.  This is the only clear message I get from this book.  Maybe the writer was just not good enough to be sharp and sticking to his points.  Or maybe he just didn’t want to be.  Because he was too afraid.