Finally, there are two problematic consequences of understanding of the banality of evil. Hanna Schmitz as a subject of similar processes of academic literature helps to illustrate these problems. On one hand, the evil of society or the broad circumstances that lead to evil acts, are left untouched by Arendt's focus on the inpidual and their actions. The inpidual's responsibility is not totally absolved, but the problem still remains of what, if anything, makes a given situation evil. The case of Hanna Schmitz in this sense is heavily influenced by Arendt's argumentation. A way of illustrating this problem would be to ask: What is evil in what makes someone evil? On the other hand, Eichmann's guilt according to Arendt is based on the logic of 'an eye for an eye' or as is written in her book "just as you supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of a number of other nations  no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you".( Arendt, 279)
3 Victim and Perpetrator--Hanna's Dual Identities in The Reader
Bernhard Schlink uses Hanna's humanizing qualities to directly contrast the horrors of her crimes. Schlink requires readers to consider depictions of Hanna on both ends of a perpetrator-victim spectrum, in order to obscure the line between victim and perpetrator. He uses Hanna's humanizing qualities to directly contrast the horrors of her crimes. This strategy allows readers to think of Hanna as a multi-layered human being and forces them to truly consider the situation Hanna was caught in, as opposed to classifying her according to set stereotypes. In my opinion, Hanna is neither a perpetrator, nor a victim; rather, she is just a person who found herself in an unfortunate position during the war. 本哈德•施林克小说《朗读者》“平庸的恶”现象研究 (3):http://www.751com.cn/yingyu/lunwen_6476.html