I hate to pile on, but--

1. Arendt did not portray Eichmann as a "banal bureaucrat" or suggest that he was "just following orders"--although that is what you will almost always read in secondary sources. You can't possibly think that this was her point if you read Eichmann In Jerusalem.

2. I continue to encounter articles and books that describe the zeal with which Eichmann did his work (in Hungary and elsewhere) and present this as if it's a "scoop" or new revelation that in and of itself undermines Arendt's analysis. But again, one could actually read about all this in Eichmann In Jerusalem!

I should add that I don't see why the banality of evil idea "lets us off the hook" or would "make it seem as though the search for an explanation of the mystery of evil done by 'ordinary men' is over." It seems easier to argue that the exact opposite is true. Simply attributing evil acts to evil people is more of an act of intellectual surrender. In contrast, the banality of evil implicates us all and cries out for analysis and explanation.