Raoul's second post the reader

    So after reading part 2 of the read, I agree that it is completely different from part one. Not only does the time shift and the story completely flip but also the narrator began writing in a bit more mature manner. I think part two is more eventful than part one; however, I was frustrated a bit more in part two. Part one was happy and cute and what ever, while part two is serious (part one is in the bed while part two is in the court room). Any way I think that the situation is quite interesting. What Hanna is being tried for is often discussed in philosophy and in psychology. The problem is that Hanna and the other guard are basically being charged with crimes that they were ordered to commit. So do you disobey orders even though they are immoral. Well repeated famous studies have shown that most people would in fact kill if they were ordered to do so. So that question hanna asked to the judge "what would you have done?" is kind of ironic, because truth be told he would have done the same. Now on the matter of Hanna's illiteracy. It was obvious from part 1. However, I find it stupid that she ways her pride over her life. I think that, even though the father gave good advice for a general situation I think he was wrong about this one. I think the Michael should have told the judge and/or Hanna something.