What do you think?
Rate this book
The Method
Mia Holl lives in a state governed by The Method, where good health is the highest duty of the citizen. Everyone must submit medical data and sleep records to the authorities on a monthly basis, and regular exercise is mandatory. Mia is young and beautiful, a successful scientist who is outwardly obedient but with an intellect that marks her as subversive. Convinced that her brother has been wrongfully convicted of a terrible crime, Mia comes up against the full force of a regime determined to control every aspect of its citizens' lives.
The Method, set in the middle of the twenty-first century, deals with pressing questions: to what extent can the state curtail the rights of the individual? And does the individual have a right to resist? Juli Zeh has written a thrilling and visionary book about our future, and our present.
The Method, set in the middle of the twenty-first century, deals with pressing questions: to what extent can the state curtail the rights of the individual? And does the individual have a right to resist? Juli Zeh has written a thrilling and visionary book about our future, and our present.
230 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
543 people are currently reading
4803 people want to read
About the author
Juli Zeh
53 books1,217 followersJuli Zeh is a German novelist.
Her first book was Adler und Engel (in English: Eagles and Angels), which won the 2002 Deutscher Bücherpreis for best debut novel.
Juli Zeh has lived in Leipzig since 1995. Zeh studied human rights law in Passau and Leipzig, passing the Zweites Juristisches Staatsexamen - comparable equivalent to the U.S. bar exam - in 2003. She also has a degree from the Deutsches Literaturinstitut Leipzig.
Her first book was Adler und Engel (in English: Eagles and Angels), which won the 2002 Deutscher Bücherpreis for best debut novel.
Juli Zeh has lived in Leipzig since 1995. Zeh studied human rights law in Passau and Leipzig, passing the Zweites Juristisches Staatsexamen - comparable equivalent to the U.S. bar exam - in 2003. She also has a degree from the Deutsches Literaturinstitut Leipzig.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,172 reviews
May 1, 2020
Die meisten Dystopien haben es so an sich, das sie vor negativen Entwicklungen warnen wollen, die in unseren Gesellschaften passieren könnten (wie dem Verlust von Freiheit). Das kann sehr spannend, manchmal erhellend und sensibilisierend, aber auch immer wieder recht belehrend sein.
All das trifft auch auf Juli Zehs Corpus Delicti zu. Dass ich diesen Roman gerne gelesen habe, liegt auch daran, dass die Vision einer Gesundheitsdiktatur vielen Menschen gerade sehr greifbar scheint, denn Maßnahmen, die gegen die Ausbreitung des Corona-Virus getroffen wurden, schränken in der Tat unsere Freiheit ein.
Vor diesem Hintergrund liest man diese Geschichte... denkt sich oft, ja so gravierend sind die Eingriffe auch in der gegenwärtigen Situation ja (noch) nicht. Man ertappt sich aber auch dabei, dass man die ach so vernünftigen Argumente der Verteidiger dieses Systems (genannt DIE METHODE), in dem Gesundheit über alles gestellt wird, nicht immer von der Hand weisen kann. Ja, dass man vielleicht in bestimmten Situationen schon ähnlich gedacht hat (beispielsweise fände ich eine Impfpflicht gar nicht so falsch, aber auch das wäre ein Eingriff in die freie Entscheidung von Eltern). Also wo liegt die „gesunde“ Grenze zwischen Selbstbestimmung und Maßregelung durch den Staat? Dass man sich beim Lesen diese Frage stellt und gezwungen wird seine eigenen Argumente zu hinterfragen und/oder zu schärfen, macht die Freude beim Lesen aus.
Hinzu kommt aber die Person Juli Zehs. Wenn eine Schriftstellerin, die eben auch Juristin ist (derzeit Verfassungsrichterin in Brandenburg), dann interessiert mich umso mehr, was sie über Freiheit schreibt und über ein Rechtssystem in Zeiten von Gesundheitsüberwachung. Schwer wird es für mich aber meinem Vorsatz, Autor und Werk zu trennen, treu zu bleiben, wenn ich Zehs Äußerungen zum Lockdown in den Medien lese (z.B. hier https://www.spiegel.de/politik/corona...). So gut und richtig es ist, dass es Menschen gibt, die kritisch beobachten, ob wir sorgsam mit unserer Verfassung, mit unseren Grundrechten, umgehen, so muss man hier doch sagen, dass sie teilweise Unsinn redet. Und beim Lesen des Romans kommt mir dann die Erinnerung an solche Aussagen manchmal in die Quere.
Bis hierhin kann man meiner Review zu Recht vorwerfen, dass ich in zu starkem Maße moralische Maßstäbe ansetze (wobei ich der Meinung bin, bei meiner Lektüre darf ich immer die Art meiner Maßstäbe selbst wählen). Aber der Roman funktioniert auch als solcher für mich sehr gut, weil ich die auktoriale Erzählhaltung sehr einnehmend finde und manchmal fast wie eine Stimme aus dem Off hören konnte. Sehr gut kann ich mir daher eine Verfilmung, ein Theaterstück vorstellen, in der/dem diese Passagen zu Beginn einzelner Szenen nur aus dem Off kommen.
Die Figuren sind recht stereotyp (etwas was mir schon in Unterleuten auffiel), aber die Richterin Sophie, die gut sein will und es vielleicht auch ist, aber auf der falschen Seite steht, gefiel mir dennoch.
Gleichzeitig gibt es Anspielungen auf historische Figuren. Während die Hauptfigur Mia Holl an die „Hexe“ Maria Holl angelehnt ist, die im 16. Jahrhundert in Süddeutschland verfolgt wurde, erinnert der Chefideologe Heinrich Kramer an… genau, den gleichnamigen Mitverfasser des Hexenhammers.
Und als Fan amerikanischer Anwaltsserien mochte ich die Passagen der Gerichtsverhandlungen ebenfalls ausgespochen gern.
Viele negative Kritiken habe ich über den Roman gelesen: die Figuren zu klischeehaft, zu holzschnittartig, die Haltung zu belehrend. Alles richtig, nur dass es mich in diesem Fall gar nicht gestört hat. Obwohl, am Ende wird es mir dann doch etwas zu bunt.
Wie ich einigen Kritiken entnehme, war Corpus Delicti zunächst ein Theaterstück. Das erklärt einige der Unzulänglichkeiten. Was im Roman noch grob wirken mag, kann durch Regie und die Interpretation eines Schauspielers gewinnen.
Wer jetzt vor einer Lektüre zurückschreckt, dem empfehle ich diese Zusammenfassung: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUIF2...
Wer danach denkt, es handle sich um eine Seifenoper, den kann ich allerdings auch verstehen ;-)
All das trifft auch auf Juli Zehs Corpus Delicti zu. Dass ich diesen Roman gerne gelesen habe, liegt auch daran, dass die Vision einer Gesundheitsdiktatur vielen Menschen gerade sehr greifbar scheint, denn Maßnahmen, die gegen die Ausbreitung des Corona-Virus getroffen wurden, schränken in der Tat unsere Freiheit ein.
Vor diesem Hintergrund liest man diese Geschichte... denkt sich oft, ja so gravierend sind die Eingriffe auch in der gegenwärtigen Situation ja (noch) nicht. Man ertappt sich aber auch dabei, dass man die ach so vernünftigen Argumente der Verteidiger dieses Systems (genannt DIE METHODE), in dem Gesundheit über alles gestellt wird, nicht immer von der Hand weisen kann. Ja, dass man vielleicht in bestimmten Situationen schon ähnlich gedacht hat (beispielsweise fände ich eine Impfpflicht gar nicht so falsch, aber auch das wäre ein Eingriff in die freie Entscheidung von Eltern). Also wo liegt die „gesunde“ Grenze zwischen Selbstbestimmung und Maßregelung durch den Staat? Dass man sich beim Lesen diese Frage stellt und gezwungen wird seine eigenen Argumente zu hinterfragen und/oder zu schärfen, macht die Freude beim Lesen aus.
Hinzu kommt aber die Person Juli Zehs. Wenn eine Schriftstellerin, die eben auch Juristin ist (derzeit Verfassungsrichterin in Brandenburg), dann interessiert mich umso mehr, was sie über Freiheit schreibt und über ein Rechtssystem in Zeiten von Gesundheitsüberwachung. Schwer wird es für mich aber meinem Vorsatz, Autor und Werk zu trennen, treu zu bleiben, wenn ich Zehs Äußerungen zum Lockdown in den Medien lese (z.B. hier https://www.spiegel.de/politik/corona...). So gut und richtig es ist, dass es Menschen gibt, die kritisch beobachten, ob wir sorgsam mit unserer Verfassung, mit unseren Grundrechten, umgehen, so muss man hier doch sagen, dass sie teilweise Unsinn redet. Und beim Lesen des Romans kommt mir dann die Erinnerung an solche Aussagen manchmal in die Quere.
Bis hierhin kann man meiner Review zu Recht vorwerfen, dass ich in zu starkem Maße moralische Maßstäbe ansetze (wobei ich der Meinung bin, bei meiner Lektüre darf ich immer die Art meiner Maßstäbe selbst wählen). Aber der Roman funktioniert auch als solcher für mich sehr gut, weil ich die auktoriale Erzählhaltung sehr einnehmend finde und manchmal fast wie eine Stimme aus dem Off hören konnte. Sehr gut kann ich mir daher eine Verfilmung, ein Theaterstück vorstellen, in der/dem diese Passagen zu Beginn einzelner Szenen nur aus dem Off kommen.
Die Figuren sind recht stereotyp (etwas was mir schon in Unterleuten auffiel), aber die Richterin Sophie, die gut sein will und es vielleicht auch ist, aber auf der falschen Seite steht, gefiel mir dennoch.
Gleichzeitig gibt es Anspielungen auf historische Figuren. Während die Hauptfigur Mia Holl an die „Hexe“ Maria Holl angelehnt ist, die im 16. Jahrhundert in Süddeutschland verfolgt wurde, erinnert der Chefideologe Heinrich Kramer an… genau, den gleichnamigen Mitverfasser des Hexenhammers.
Und als Fan amerikanischer Anwaltsserien mochte ich die Passagen der Gerichtsverhandlungen ebenfalls ausgespochen gern.
Viele negative Kritiken habe ich über den Roman gelesen: die Figuren zu klischeehaft, zu holzschnittartig, die Haltung zu belehrend. Alles richtig, nur dass es mich in diesem Fall gar nicht gestört hat. Obwohl, am Ende wird es mir dann doch etwas zu bunt.
Wie ich einigen Kritiken entnehme, war Corpus Delicti zunächst ein Theaterstück. Das erklärt einige der Unzulänglichkeiten. Was im Roman noch grob wirken mag, kann durch Regie und die Interpretation eines Schauspielers gewinnen.
Wer jetzt vor einer Lektüre zurückschreckt, dem empfehle ich diese Zusammenfassung: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUIF2...
Wer danach denkt, es handle sich um eine Seifenoper, den kann ich allerdings auch verstehen ;-)
May 3, 2020
Juli Zeh entwirft in Corpus Delicti das dystopische Szenario eines diktatorischen Hygienestaats. Eine Gesellschaft in der Gesundheit zum absoluten Wert erklärt und als Normalzustand des Lebens definiert wird. Das Primat der Gesundheit bestimmt das gesamte gesellschaftliche Leben, sowohl im Verhältnis Bürger-Staat als auch im höchstprivaten Bereich des Individuums. Der Staat ist jeglicher Rechenschaftspflicht enthoben, gewährt dafür im Gegenzug seinen Bürgern Schutz vor Krankheit, Schmerz und Leid. Das Buch erfährt im Zuge der aktuellen COVID-19-Krise neue Popularität. Allerdings sehe ich trotz einiger Parallelen (Abstandsgebote oder das Tragen von Mundschutz) weniger Gemeinsamkeiten als Unterschiede. In der Gesellschaft von "Corpus Delicti" ist Gesundheit reiner Selbstzweck. Es gibt darin zum Beispiel keine akute Gefahrenlage einer Pandemie, aufgrund welcher ein staatliches Handeln zur Gefahrenabwehr geboten wäre. Zwar werden Freiheitsrechte momentan eingeschränkt, aber von einer Diktatur oder einer Aushebelung der Demokratie kann (zumindest bei uns in Deutschland) kein Rede sein. Gleichwohl berührt der Roman wichtige grundsätzliche Fragen, wie zum Verhältnis von Allgemeinwohl gegenüber dem Eigeninteresse, oder zur Abwägung zwischen Freiheit und Sicherheit. Gedanken, die auch in der aktuellen Situation von Interesse sind.
Problematisch finde ich allerdings die literarische Umsetzung des Themas. Die ist meiner Meinung nach völlig misslungen. Die Figuren und Dialoge wirken holzschnittartig und wenig überzeugend. Der Autorin war es offenkundig ein wichtiges Anliegen ihre Thesen zu vermitteln. Das merkt man. Leider hat sie darüber das Erzählen vergessen. Als Schüler hätte ich mich über so ein Buch gefreut. Alle Argumente werde einem wie auf dem Präsentierteller angeboten. Keine Schwierigkeiten daraus eine Interpretation zu basteln, die jeden Deutschlehrer glücklich machen würde. Mir war das einfach insgesamt zu platt, wovon auch die wenig subtilen Anspielungen zeugen. So gibt es eine terroristische Vereinigung RAK (=RAF), Antimethodismus (=Antikapitalismus), den Tod eines 27-jährigen Studenten Moritz Holt = (Benno Ohnesorg), um nur einige zu nennen. Am Ende wurde noch ein bisschen bei Heinrich Bölls "Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum" abgekupfert. Die pädagogische Intention dahinter ist eindeutig, was aber zulasten der Erzählqualität geht. Juli Zeh kann mit Sicherheit besser schreiben. Das hat sie mit dem großen Erfolg von Unterleuten bewiesen. Dagegen bietet "Corpus Delicti" zwar einige interessante Diskussionsanregungen, aber keine gute Geschichte.
Problematisch finde ich allerdings die literarische Umsetzung des Themas. Die ist meiner Meinung nach völlig misslungen. Die Figuren und Dialoge wirken holzschnittartig und wenig überzeugend. Der Autorin war es offenkundig ein wichtiges Anliegen ihre Thesen zu vermitteln. Das merkt man. Leider hat sie darüber das Erzählen vergessen. Als Schüler hätte ich mich über so ein Buch gefreut. Alle Argumente werde einem wie auf dem Präsentierteller angeboten. Keine Schwierigkeiten daraus eine Interpretation zu basteln, die jeden Deutschlehrer glücklich machen würde. Mir war das einfach insgesamt zu platt, wovon auch die wenig subtilen Anspielungen zeugen. So gibt es eine terroristische Vereinigung RAK (=RAF), Antimethodismus (=Antikapitalismus), den Tod eines 27-jährigen Studenten Moritz Holt = (Benno Ohnesorg), um nur einige zu nennen. Am Ende wurde noch ein bisschen bei Heinrich Bölls "Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum" abgekupfert. Die pädagogische Intention dahinter ist eindeutig, was aber zulasten der Erzählqualität geht. Juli Zeh kann mit Sicherheit besser schreiben. Das hat sie mit dem großen Erfolg von Unterleuten bewiesen. Dagegen bietet "Corpus Delicti" zwar einige interessante Diskussionsanregungen, aber keine gute Geschichte.
December 3, 2017
Mens sana in corpore sano?
Well, first of all, define health. Is physical strength and the lack of illness or disability the same as being healthy? Can it be measured, as suggested in this dystopian vision of a society religiously devoted to focusing on perfect appearance and fitness? Is healthy life the solution to our mental instabilities, and can it take on the role as a method to control human interaction?
The answer is yes and no. It can, but the "happiness" that is forced upon the human species as a result of the lack of physical pain is as hollow as anything an autocratic system forces down the throat of people without a choice.
If you ban all choice, it doesn't matter that the prescribed life is "healthy", it is nonetheless going to poison the human mind which longs to think and act and choose for itself, to find answers to questions it comes up with based on individual experience.
There is no system that applies to all people. Period.
That is the message of the novel in Orwell's and Huxley's spirit. No religion or method can capture the whole of humanity and turn them into obeying sheep. There will always be some that refuse to act like sheep.
BUT!
While it is not possible to brainwash a whole community into liking or supporting a system, there are methods within each religion (and any system claiming to own an absolute truth and one exclusive way of living is a religion, offering no diversity or choice, only rules) to enforce its effective survival.
The protagonist of this novel, Mia Holl, turns into a dissident when she sees the cracks in the system she has been taught to follow meticulously from childhood. When she discovers the injustice of its method, causing the death of her brother, she turns against her childhood beliefs and starts to oppose what she considered "absolute truth" before. This is a painful, dangerous and unsettling process, and she has to fight the fanatics of the system, whose raison d'être is to defend their belief with whatever methods work. Fake news stories are just the top of the iceberg. If the "method itself" - the religion - is threatened, even the most "progressive" of states will fall back on torture to silence those who refuse to be sheep. Mia can't win.
But she can understand:
"Nothing ever changes. One system is as good as another. The Middle Ages is not an era. Middle Ages is the name for human nature."
And she is a witch - a person stuck between worlds, between the wild and the dominant civilisation, between body and mind, between yes and no, between belief and atheism. She will have to burn. But her civilisation has a sophisticated way of dealing with terrorists or martyrs ("the same thing", as one character puts it). They refuse to give her an audience for her martyrdom. Willing to die for her beliefs, she is forced to live on in her body, while the mind is broken. It is like letting Winston Smith live after he has whispered: "I love Big Brother."
Brutal torture. A broken mind in a healthy body.
I read this novel on the suggestion of my son, who reads it with his class in school, and I had no particular expectations. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that there is a lot of food for thought, even though the general idea of a fanatic dystopian system has been told many times before.
The obscenity of focusing on bodily perfection is not far-fetched at all, and if the novel had any impact on me on a personal level, it must be the insight into the kind of creature I am myself - an individual sitting on a fence, stuck between embracing my society and cursing it - and the feeling that it is time to celebrate hangovers on Saturday mornings, for unhealthiness is a privilege we can't take for granted.
Recommended!
Well, first of all, define health. Is physical strength and the lack of illness or disability the same as being healthy? Can it be measured, as suggested in this dystopian vision of a society religiously devoted to focusing on perfect appearance and fitness? Is healthy life the solution to our mental instabilities, and can it take on the role as a method to control human interaction?
The answer is yes and no. It can, but the "happiness" that is forced upon the human species as a result of the lack of physical pain is as hollow as anything an autocratic system forces down the throat of people without a choice.
If you ban all choice, it doesn't matter that the prescribed life is "healthy", it is nonetheless going to poison the human mind which longs to think and act and choose for itself, to find answers to questions it comes up with based on individual experience.
There is no system that applies to all people. Period.
That is the message of the novel in Orwell's and Huxley's spirit. No religion or method can capture the whole of humanity and turn them into obeying sheep. There will always be some that refuse to act like sheep.
BUT!
While it is not possible to brainwash a whole community into liking or supporting a system, there are methods within each religion (and any system claiming to own an absolute truth and one exclusive way of living is a religion, offering no diversity or choice, only rules) to enforce its effective survival.
The protagonist of this novel, Mia Holl, turns into a dissident when she sees the cracks in the system she has been taught to follow meticulously from childhood. When she discovers the injustice of its method, causing the death of her brother, she turns against her childhood beliefs and starts to oppose what she considered "absolute truth" before. This is a painful, dangerous and unsettling process, and she has to fight the fanatics of the system, whose raison d'être is to defend their belief with whatever methods work. Fake news stories are just the top of the iceberg. If the "method itself" - the religion - is threatened, even the most "progressive" of states will fall back on torture to silence those who refuse to be sheep. Mia can't win.
But she can understand:
"Nothing ever changes. One system is as good as another. The Middle Ages is not an era. Middle Ages is the name for human nature."
And she is a witch - a person stuck between worlds, between the wild and the dominant civilisation, between body and mind, between yes and no, between belief and atheism. She will have to burn. But her civilisation has a sophisticated way of dealing with terrorists or martyrs ("the same thing", as one character puts it). They refuse to give her an audience for her martyrdom. Willing to die for her beliefs, she is forced to live on in her body, while the mind is broken. It is like letting Winston Smith live after he has whispered: "I love Big Brother."
Brutal torture. A broken mind in a healthy body.
I read this novel on the suggestion of my son, who reads it with his class in school, and I had no particular expectations. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that there is a lot of food for thought, even though the general idea of a fanatic dystopian system has been told many times before.
The obscenity of focusing on bodily perfection is not far-fetched at all, and if the novel had any impact on me on a personal level, it must be the insight into the kind of creature I am myself - an individual sitting on a fence, stuck between embracing my society and cursing it - and the feeling that it is time to celebrate hangovers on Saturday mornings, for unhealthiness is a privilege we can't take for granted.
Recommended!
April 5, 2022
It is so bad, I want to give u a zero, but that’s not possible, so I give u a one
May 30, 2020
Update: in these corona/covid19-times this dystopia absolutely is relevant. Perhaps, or better, hopefully, we're not going to go the way of the 'Method' like in this book, but I guess 'social distancing' and 'quarantine measures' in some way are going to be part of our future.
Normally I'm not a fan of the genre of dystopia, but this is a very successful example. I think it even is a nice 21st-century variant on Huxley's Brave New World. Especially the basic concept – a world in which physical health takes precedence over anything else – is cleverly worked out. And, of course, like with Huxley, the intrigue evolves around people who cannot live with that coercion.
Zeh presents a world, somewhere around the middle of the 21st century, in which everyone has to adhere to 'The Method': people at all time must submit their medical data to the government and proof that they are doing everything to keep healthy (through records of daily exercises). The novel follows the young scientist Mia Holl who tries to fit in, but at the same time is revolting against this 'health obsessed' regime.
Fortunately, Zeh does not present a completely black & white portrait of this world: the rebellious good ones also have their drawbacks and the ruling Methodists (mostly) can also see the negative sides of their system. Also positive is that the book is short enough to stimulate the reflection on the problem of regulation and free will, without to be pushy (which was the case in the previous books by Zeh). I only questioned the role of the "ideal lover" in the beginning, which to me is an annoying magical-realistic element, and especially questioned the role of Heinrich Kramer who is presented as a kind of supreme authority, but also acts as a (very hypocritical) journalist. A journalist as Supreme Conscious of the world? My God, the chills are running down my spine!
Normally I'm not a fan of the genre of dystopia, but this is a very successful example. I think it even is a nice 21st-century variant on Huxley's Brave New World. Especially the basic concept – a world in which physical health takes precedence over anything else – is cleverly worked out. And, of course, like with Huxley, the intrigue evolves around people who cannot live with that coercion.
Zeh presents a world, somewhere around the middle of the 21st century, in which everyone has to adhere to 'The Method': people at all time must submit their medical data to the government and proof that they are doing everything to keep healthy (through records of daily exercises). The novel follows the young scientist Mia Holl who tries to fit in, but at the same time is revolting against this 'health obsessed' regime.
Fortunately, Zeh does not present a completely black & white portrait of this world: the rebellious good ones also have their drawbacks and the ruling Methodists (mostly) can also see the negative sides of their system. Also positive is that the book is short enough to stimulate the reflection on the problem of regulation and free will, without to be pushy (which was the case in the previous books by Zeh). I only questioned the role of the "ideal lover" in the beginning, which to me is an annoying magical-realistic element, and especially questioned the role of Heinrich Kramer who is presented as a kind of supreme authority, but also acts as a (very hypocritical) journalist. A journalist as Supreme Conscious of the world? My God, the chills are running down my spine!
August 26, 2022
Wirre Science Fiktion Geschichte um ein die menschliche Gesundheit kontrollierendes Staatssystem......sprachlich kompliziert und inhaltlich zu konstruiert konnte mich dieser Roman so gar nicht mitnehmen......
Die zwei Sterne gibt es von mir für das durchaus interessante Thema....auch wenn ich persönlich die schriftstellerische Umsetzung als mangelhaft empfinde....!
Schade.....Juli Zehs Romane lese ich sonst wirklich gerne....
Keine Leseempfehlung.....Sorry....!
Die zwei Sterne gibt es von mir für das durchaus interessante Thema....auch wenn ich persönlich die schriftstellerische Umsetzung als mangelhaft empfinde....!
Schade.....Juli Zehs Romane lese ich sonst wirklich gerne....
Keine Leseempfehlung.....Sorry....!
March 31, 2023
Jeder Mensch kann den Computer anschalten und beginnen zu schreiben. Jeder kann ein ganzes Buch daraus entwerfen. Jeder kann dieses dann veröffentlichen und die lokale Buchhändlern mit Geld bestechen, um die Kopie den Besuchern auszustellen.
Das heißt aber nicht, dass jeder es sollte, und ich wünschte, Juli Zeh hatte ihren Computer aus dem Fenster geschmissen und kein einziges Wort geschrieben.
Juli Zeh hat mich, vom ästhetisch unsehbaren Cover, bis zum Ende des schrecklichen Literaturwerkes, mit ihren möchte-gern philosophischen Paragraphen bis in die Albträume verfolgt, und allein für diesen Grund, hoffe ich,
dass sie, wenn sie den Drang bekommt ihre merkwürdigen Meinungen preiszustellen, einfach auf ihren Händen sitzt und sich nicht bewegt, bis ihre Haut blau anläuft, um die Menschheit von solch furchtbaren Wörtern zu schonen.
Ich habe noch nie so viel Aggressionen beim Lesen bekommen und so viel Unglück für die Charaktere erhofft. Sie könnten alle mit den schlimmsten Foltermethoden umgebracht werden, und ich würde der Person, die das gemacht hat, mit meinem ganzen Leben danken.
Juli Zeh, bitte, bitte mach uns allen ein Gefallen und hör auf zu schreiben.
Das heißt aber nicht, dass jeder es sollte, und ich wünschte, Juli Zeh hatte ihren Computer aus dem Fenster geschmissen und kein einziges Wort geschrieben.
Juli Zeh hat mich, vom ästhetisch unsehbaren Cover, bis zum Ende des schrecklichen Literaturwerkes, mit ihren möchte-gern philosophischen Paragraphen bis in die Albträume verfolgt, und allein für diesen Grund, hoffe ich,
dass sie, wenn sie den Drang bekommt ihre merkwürdigen Meinungen preiszustellen, einfach auf ihren Händen sitzt und sich nicht bewegt, bis ihre Haut blau anläuft, um die Menschheit von solch furchtbaren Wörtern zu schonen.
Ich habe noch nie so viel Aggressionen beim Lesen bekommen und so viel Unglück für die Charaktere erhofft. Sie könnten alle mit den schlimmsten Foltermethoden umgebracht werden, und ich würde der Person, die das gemacht hat, mit meinem ganzen Leben danken.
Juli Zeh, bitte, bitte mach uns allen ein Gefallen und hör auf zu schreiben.
December 30, 2020
A speculative near future utopia where the state controls and commands all, for the good of all, supposedly fairly and without violence. This is the story of how this state and its state apparatus handled dissent. Will it learn from history? Can it maintain integrity? This book, originally written in German, is very interesting and also very disturbing. 8 out of 12.
April 13, 2009
Die Idee ist gut, die Sprache gefällt mir, aber trotzde nur drei Sterne. Irgendwie erinnert alles ein bisschen an Dürrenmatt, wirkt konstruiert, und aus der Hauptperson (warum nennen Schriftstellerinnen ihre Heldinnen andauernd Mia?) wird man gar nicht schlau. Erst ziemlich farblos, dann unentschlossen, erst dargestellt als rational, dann plötzlich als emotional, irgendwie geschlechtslos und am Schluss Jeannne d'Arc oder Chea Guevara.
April 10, 2024
Auch beim zweiten Mal lesen war dieses Buch immer noch eine literarische Katastrophe. Die Story ist einfach nur langweilig und die Charaktere nicht mehr ganz richtig im Kopf. Mia ist ein Mysterium für sich, denn WTF💀 Und wirklich NIEMAND kann mir erzählen, dass da nichts mit Mia und Kramer gelaufen ist!!!!
Ich fiebere schon darauf hin, wenn ich dieses Buch einfach entsorgen kann :)
Hätte ich das Buch nicht lesen müssen, dann würde es noch irgendwo in einem Laden liegen, weil ich mir in meinem ganzen Leben dieses Buch nie freiwillig ausgesucht hätte zu lesen. Es hat mich nicht angesprochen und das hat sich auch durchgehend gezeigt, als ich das Buch gelesen hab. Zum Glück waren die Kapitel kurz und schnell zu lesen, aber die Frage bleibt ob ich alles verstanden hab?¿ Absolut Nein. Es war verwirrend und ich hab oft den Überblick verloren. Und das Ende huch???? Also was aus Mia geworden ist frag ich mich immer noch. Ich fand sie von Anfang an schon eher fragwürdig, aber am Ende… Und das mit Kramer. Also alles ganz ganz komisch. Was ist da bitte zwischen den beiden abgelaufen. Einfach nur nein!!!
Ich fiebere schon darauf hin, wenn ich dieses Buch einfach entsorgen kann :)
Hätte ich das Buch nicht lesen müssen, dann würde es noch irgendwo in einem Laden liegen, weil ich mir in meinem ganzen Leben dieses Buch nie freiwillig ausgesucht hätte zu lesen. Es hat mich nicht angesprochen und das hat sich auch durchgehend gezeigt, als ich das Buch gelesen hab. Zum Glück waren die Kapitel kurz und schnell zu lesen, aber die Frage bleibt ob ich alles verstanden hab?¿ Absolut Nein. Es war verwirrend und ich hab oft den Überblick verloren. Und das Ende huch???? Also was aus Mia geworden ist frag ich mich immer noch. Ich fand sie von Anfang an schon eher fragwürdig, aber am Ende… Und das mit Kramer. Also alles ganz ganz komisch. Was ist da bitte zwischen den beiden abgelaufen. Einfach nur nein!!!
August 2, 2023
ich werde es dem kultusministerium nie verzeihen, dass sie mich diesen schrott haben lesen lassen.
no-thanky
November 14, 2014Unconvincing
I have to admit that dystopian visions of a totalitarian future are not high on my list of favourite genres, unless of course it's Orwell, but the very first line of this really got my hackles up:
Oh bollocks.
Health is the absence of disease, no more and no less. You can't be more healthy than healthy.
The prologue continues in an overblown, artificially grand sounding declamatory style, which so set my teeth on edge that I immediately googled the purported author, only to find that Heinrich Kremer does not exist, at least not as the author of a treatise on health as principle of governmental legitimisation. He did exist once, as a German inquisitor of the 15th century.
Oh, OK, so this is a spoof, I geddit.
Unfortunately, it is also the premise for this future world: one in which the health police have taken over and run an over-efficient Nanny state in which any kind of behaviour that might be a risk to health is forbidden, in which the citizens are expected to keep tabs on and report their blood count, sleep patterns, nutrition diary, blood pressure, urine samples, sport profiles etc etc etc.
Another admission: I've only read 30 pages, but so far there is no explanation of how we got from here to there. I mean most New World Orders need some kind of previous cataclysm to warrant their existence, something like a world wide war, or a devastating environmental disaster, disease, pestilence, whatever. Something adequately destabilizing which makes the formation of a totalitarian state vaguely plausible. Juli Zeh will probably claim that this is not meant to be a realistic vision of the future, but rather a model to examine what the consequences of state control of our health might be. But I can't help feeling that she is tilting at the wrong windmills. It may well be true that there is a kind of health brigade that try to persuade us that we can be even more healthy than healthy, but usually it's no more than a marketing ploy to push some spurious 'health giving' product, super-food or anti-oxidant, or a 'wellness' programme that is mostly designed to part me from my money (how will that make me feel better?).
It's true that there are numerous government campaigns to persuade us to eat more fruit and veg, lose weight, quit smoking and so on, but the only reason why these campaigns are numerous and strident is precisely because governments are well aware that the three single measures that would improve the general health of the nation in one fell swoop are absolutely unthinkable. All any government really needs to do is make smoking, alcohol, and cured meat illegal. There you go. Easy.
Er, no. Because the one sacred value of our Western democratic world, the one that outweighs all the rest put together, is freedom. The freedom to fuck your life up any way you want to. The totalitarianism of this model is getting in the way of what might have been a sensible appraisal of how to curb spiralling health care costs.
Next!
I have to admit that dystopian visions of a totalitarian future are not high on my list of favourite genres, unless of course it's Orwell, but the very first line of this really got my hackles up:
Gesundheit ist ein Zustand des vollkommenen körperlichen, geistigen und sozialen Wohlbefindens - und nicht die bloße Abwesenheit von Krankheit.
Health is a state of complete physical, spiritual and social wellbeing - and not the mere absence of disease.
Oh bollocks.
Health is the absence of disease, no more and no less. You can't be more healthy than healthy.
The prologue continues in an overblown, artificially grand sounding declamatory style, which so set my teeth on edge that I immediately googled the purported author, only to find that Heinrich Kremer does not exist, at least not as the author of a treatise on health as principle of governmental legitimisation. He did exist once, as a German inquisitor of the 15th century.
Oh, OK, so this is a spoof, I geddit.
Unfortunately, it is also the premise for this future world: one in which the health police have taken over and run an over-efficient Nanny state in which any kind of behaviour that might be a risk to health is forbidden, in which the citizens are expected to keep tabs on and report their blood count, sleep patterns, nutrition diary, blood pressure, urine samples, sport profiles etc etc etc.
Another admission: I've only read 30 pages, but so far there is no explanation of how we got from here to there. I mean most New World Orders need some kind of previous cataclysm to warrant their existence, something like a world wide war, or a devastating environmental disaster, disease, pestilence, whatever. Something adequately destabilizing which makes the formation of a totalitarian state vaguely plausible. Juli Zeh will probably claim that this is not meant to be a realistic vision of the future, but rather a model to examine what the consequences of state control of our health might be. But I can't help feeling that she is tilting at the wrong windmills. It may well be true that there is a kind of health brigade that try to persuade us that we can be even more healthy than healthy, but usually it's no more than a marketing ploy to push some spurious 'health giving' product, super-food or anti-oxidant, or a 'wellness' programme that is mostly designed to part me from my money (how will that make me feel better?).
It's true that there are numerous government campaigns to persuade us to eat more fruit and veg, lose weight, quit smoking and so on, but the only reason why these campaigns are numerous and strident is precisely because governments are well aware that the three single measures that would improve the general health of the nation in one fell swoop are absolutely unthinkable. All any government really needs to do is make smoking, alcohol, and cured meat illegal. There you go. Easy.
Er, no. Because the one sacred value of our Western democratic world, the one that outweighs all the rest put together, is freedom. The freedom to fuck your life up any way you want to. The totalitarianism of this model is getting in the way of what might have been a sensible appraisal of how to curb spiralling health care costs.
Next!
Read
February 3, 2023This made me think of chess puzzles and how they are different to playing chess. To me Zeh was rather like a chess grandmaster delighting in creating devious chess puzzles, perhaps ones unlikely to arise ever from an actual game, and finding more pleasure in that than in a game of chess. Or perhaps as a judge in a constitutional court her mouth waters imagining certain principles or ideas being tested in court, potential legal strategies and dream trials. Maybe she is like a fantasy football fan and thinks up fantasy trials combinations of judges, cases and legal teams that might produce sparkling results.
Which is all to say that I thought this novel too clever for me to take it seriously.
It made me think of reading Andorra, specifically how much more I had enjoyed that, while the reading experience felt to me very much like reading Brave New World; this is a also a novel set in a dystopia, while in Brave New World some of the characters struggled for the right to be unhappy, here the fight is for the right to be unwell. The guiding principle of this near future society is that the citizen must be healthy, which taken to its legal and logical extreme produces a curious dystopia. This premise reminded me of a description I had read of Samuel Butler's Erewhon based on colonial New Zealand where to be sick was to be criminal, while committing a crime was regarded as a sickness. Zeh explores the limits of the society she imagines through the case of her heroine, there was a tang of Antigone about the story - a sister struggling against authority for the sake of her dead brother. Still I was very much unengaged, the prose read smoothly, it was all clever enough, but I will not be wandering the streets, knocking on doors, and stopping passers by to preach that salvation is to be found between these pages.
Which is all to say that I thought this novel too clever for me to take it seriously.
It made me think of reading Andorra, specifically how much more I had enjoyed that, while the reading experience felt to me very much like reading Brave New World; this is a also a novel set in a dystopia, while in Brave New World some of the characters struggled for the right to be unhappy, here the fight is for the right to be unwell. The guiding principle of this near future society is that the citizen must be healthy, which taken to its legal and logical extreme produces a curious dystopia. This premise reminded me of a description I had read of Samuel Butler's Erewhon based on colonial New Zealand where to be sick was to be criminal, while committing a crime was regarded as a sickness. Zeh explores the limits of the society she imagines through the case of her heroine, there was a tang of Antigone about the story - a sister struggling against authority for the sake of her dead brother. Still I was very much unengaged, the prose read smoothly, it was all clever enough, but I will not be wandering the streets, knocking on doors, and stopping passers by to preach that salvation is to be found between these pages.
May 3, 2020
Reading this again after a decade I had to demote it and remove a star.
It’s too much on the nose, almost stereotyped. You can tell it was born a play and somehow morphed into a short novel. The medieval witch trial, set in the near future, is too thinly veiled for my taste. Still, not a bad book, if you like dystopias. Some whiff of Orwell and Kafka was pleasantly sensed.
Where health becomes duty, method becomes madness (& ignorance is strength).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
It’s too much on the nose, almost stereotyped. You can tell it was born a play and somehow morphed into a short novel. The medieval witch trial, set in the near future, is too thinly veiled for my taste. Still, not a bad book, if you like dystopias. Some whiff of Orwell and Kafka was pleasantly sensed.
Where health becomes duty, method becomes madness (& ignorance is strength).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
April 19, 2019
1-2 Sternchen. Pathetisch und „zäh“.
„Keine Stühle stehen am nicht vorhandenen Tisch. Unter dem Fenster macht sich die Ermangelung einer Schlafstätte breit, während kein Schrank die fehlenden Regale zur Hälfte verdeckt. Der restliche Raum wird vollständig von klinischer Sauberkeit eingenommen.“ (S. 202)
„Keine Stühle stehen am nicht vorhandenen Tisch. Unter dem Fenster macht sich die Ermangelung einer Schlafstätte breit, während kein Schrank die fehlenden Regale zur Hälfte verdeckt. Der restliche Raum wird vollständig von klinischer Sauberkeit eingenommen.“ (S. 202)
January 10, 2021
I did not like this book. It is literary fiction, purporting to be science fiction. One reviewer is cited in the front matter as likening the author to a 'female Orwell'. That in itself should have been a warning. Likening any author to an other-gendered version of some dead white classic is suspect. Sure enough, this book is indeed somewhat stuck in the 1940s when "1984" was published. There is no sense of what has happened in the sci fi genre in the past 20 or even 50 years. There is not even a sense of what happened in the _world_ in the past 20 years. The novel, though published only ten years ago in 2009, is stuck in a binary dualism more reminiscent of Cold War Hollywood than of our post-2001 multi-dimensional planet. The one-dimensional focus on goodies (individualistic rebels) vs baddies (colluders with an oppressive state) means that no character is rounded; all are cardboard cut-outs who sprout abstract dicta and long-winded political tripe ad nauseam and at the drop of a hat. The main character who is described as reticent and a loner nevertheless manages to stand up in court and deliver a perfectly thought-out polemic to a room full of hostility.
This is the future (mid-21st century) but the one-dimensional focus on the future's main (only?) instrument of state oppression, "health", also means that some key aspects of what worries us about the future are left out, to wit: the health of our planet. And yes, ecological disaster was on the agenda in 2009. Indeed, it has been on the agenda since the 1970s and certainly has precedents in sci fi writing. But then, this is the sort of science fiction of people who never read science fiction so they think George Orwell is the last word in sci fi and have no clue as to genre tropes, genre nuances, genre world-building, genre anything. The world-building is very poor. Do these people never do anything besides obsess about "health" and "the right to be ill"? Does nobody ever go to the movies, wash a dish, knit a jumper, squee, chat, obsess over their Star Wars figurine collection?
Isolating the main obsession from all else (to wit: poor world-building) means that the "health" focus makes no sense. Everybody is constantly spraying disinfectant and worrying about microbes -- but there is no sense that we need microbes to survive and stay healthy, that what we do to nature is a danger to our health, that it's not as simple as positing the squishing of mud between one's toes as the antidote to all OTT cleanliness mania. And no sense that some sort of health regulation may be a good thing: if you are in favour of "health", you are, in this book, a baddie by default.
And even so, even just reading this as literary fiction: I hated the lack of nuance and roundedness. I also hated the lack of female friendship and the unthinking dominance of men in politics and the judiciary. Three female characters (neighbours in the MC's house) are described in the most ridiculously hysterical effeminate way, and I did not discern any irony here.
Finally, what’s with the screaming? Whenever anyone (and especially any women) get upset, they start SCREAMING. (“Schreien”, in German) I dislike these sorts of histrionics in my novels. I prefer quiet understatement that leaves space for the reader’s own emotions.
Format: A pleasant, small, fits-into-my-bumbag size, with a pleasantly semi-floppy cover that is half-way between a hardback and a paperback, covered in some sort of pretend-cloth which is pleasant to touch. Nice smooth paper, clear font, a ribbon to mark the page.
Read in German.
I feel angry after having read this.
ETA Jan. 2021: As many parts of the world enter a second or third lockdown, this book resonates even more awfully. The "right to be ill" has a terrible ring to it during this corona pandemic, and smacks of anti-vaccer rhetoric. Zeh could not, obviously, have predicted covid-19 but the underlying Weltanschauung of this novel can be appreciated as suspect even more so in 2021.
This is the future (mid-21st century) but the one-dimensional focus on the future's main (only?) instrument of state oppression, "health", also means that some key aspects of what worries us about the future are left out, to wit: the health of our planet. And yes, ecological disaster was on the agenda in 2009. Indeed, it has been on the agenda since the 1970s and certainly has precedents in sci fi writing. But then, this is the sort of science fiction of people who never read science fiction so they think George Orwell is the last word in sci fi and have no clue as to genre tropes, genre nuances, genre world-building, genre anything. The world-building is very poor. Do these people never do anything besides obsess about "health" and "the right to be ill"? Does nobody ever go to the movies, wash a dish, knit a jumper, squee, chat, obsess over their Star Wars figurine collection?
Isolating the main obsession from all else (to wit: poor world-building) means that the "health" focus makes no sense. Everybody is constantly spraying disinfectant and worrying about microbes -- but there is no sense that we need microbes to survive and stay healthy, that what we do to nature is a danger to our health, that it's not as simple as positing the squishing of mud between one's toes as the antidote to all OTT cleanliness mania. And no sense that some sort of health regulation may be a good thing: if you are in favour of "health", you are, in this book, a baddie by default.
And even so, even just reading this as literary fiction: I hated the lack of nuance and roundedness. I also hated the lack of female friendship and the unthinking dominance of men in politics and the judiciary. Three female characters (neighbours in the MC's house) are described in the most ridiculously hysterical effeminate way, and I did not discern any irony here.
Finally, what’s with the screaming? Whenever anyone (and especially any women) get upset, they start SCREAMING. (“Schreien”, in German) I dislike these sorts of histrionics in my novels. I prefer quiet understatement that leaves space for the reader’s own emotions.
Format: A pleasant, small, fits-into-my-bumbag size, with a pleasantly semi-floppy cover that is half-way between a hardback and a paperback, covered in some sort of pretend-cloth which is pleasant to touch. Nice smooth paper, clear font, a ribbon to mark the page.
Read in German.
I feel angry after having read this.
ETA Jan. 2021: As many parts of the world enter a second or third lockdown, this book resonates even more awfully. The "right to be ill" has a terrible ring to it during this corona pandemic, and smacks of anti-vaccer rhetoric. Zeh could not, obviously, have predicted covid-19 but the underlying Weltanschauung of this novel can be appreciated as suspect even more so in 2021.
Read
June 13, 2017This story is set in the future, in the middle decades of this century. Juli Zeh imagines a scenario where the governments of the world have abandoned all political systems except one: the Method. All industry that damages the air or soil quality has ceased and the primary focus is on maintaining optimum health in the population by means of strict controls of food, drink, drugs, health, hygiene, exercise and genetic data. People live in controlled areas and anywhere beyond those areas is considered potentially contaminated, and therefore forbidden. A lot of things are forbidden.
Zeh has created an extreme version of the Nanny State where the individual matters little except in relation to the group and reason has replaced religion.
The style tripped me up at the beginning. There is a lot of dialogue and it rarely sounds natural. At first I thought this might be a translation problem but then I began to imagine the novel as a play and suddenly, it worked for me. The dialogue is like a set of speeches; the characters’s words sound like they are meant to be declaimed, like a series of perfect sound-bites. The action of the novel could easily take place on stage too, as there are very few characters and a limited number of settings. I think it would work very well as a provocative piece of theatre.
The plot is interesting, even intriguing in some places. There were a few details that weren’t sufficiently explained but that may have been my failure to understand some of the finer points.
The main characters are sparsely drawn but nevertheless, I found them all realistic except for one, Heinrich Kramer, the originator of the Method, whose multi functional role in the plot I found unlikely. On another level, however, I could see how he fitted in. Every story needs a likeable devil.
Zeh has created an extreme version of the Nanny State where the individual matters little except in relation to the group and reason has replaced religion.
The style tripped me up at the beginning. There is a lot of dialogue and it rarely sounds natural. At first I thought this might be a translation problem but then I began to imagine the novel as a play and suddenly, it worked for me. The dialogue is like a set of speeches; the characters’s words sound like they are meant to be declaimed, like a series of perfect sound-bites. The action of the novel could easily take place on stage too, as there are very few characters and a limited number of settings. I think it would work very well as a provocative piece of theatre.
The plot is interesting, even intriguing in some places. There were a few details that weren’t sufficiently explained but that may have been my failure to understand some of the finer points.
The main characters are sparsely drawn but nevertheless, I found them all realistic except for one, Heinrich Kramer, the originator of the Method, whose multi functional role in the plot I found unlikely. On another level, however, I could see how he fitted in. Every story needs a likeable devil.
April 29, 2024
Das Buch ist zu platt und nicht interpretationsoffen, da die Autorin alles zu offensichtlich dargestellt hat und selber Erklärung lieferte, als Schüler kommt es mir natürlich entgegen für z.B Diskussionen in der Schule, jedoch war es nervig beim lesen.
Das Konzept hat mir gefallen, auch wenn es nichts Innovatives war, da es stark an Orwell und Huxley erinnerte, die sogar in diesem Buch erwähnt wurden, sowie die Befassung mit der Seele, die auf Dostejewski anspielt, der ebenfalls erwähnt wurde.
Die Hexen Metapher/Allegorie war zunächst eine gute Idee wurde aber dann corny durch die offensichtlichen Anspielungen darauf im Laufe des Buches. Dasselbe gilt für die RAF und Benno Ohnesorg Anspielung.
Allgemein fand ich es gut und angenehm zu lesen, aber ich verspürte öfters Fremdscham, da die Autorin ihre Message umschrieben hat, als ob sie es einem kleinen Kind erklären will. Zusammengefasst corny aber trotzdem okay.
4/10
Edit:
Für die mündliche Prüfung musste ich es nochmal lesen und es ist noch schlimmer als vorher. Mehr will ich nicht sagen.
2/10
Das Konzept hat mir gefallen, auch wenn es nichts Innovatives war, da es stark an Orwell und Huxley erinnerte, die sogar in diesem Buch erwähnt wurden, sowie die Befassung mit der Seele, die auf Dostejewski anspielt, der ebenfalls erwähnt wurde.
Die Hexen Metapher/Allegorie war zunächst eine gute Idee wurde aber dann corny durch die offensichtlichen Anspielungen darauf im Laufe des Buches. Dasselbe gilt für die RAF und Benno Ohnesorg Anspielung.
Allgemein fand ich es gut und angenehm zu lesen, aber ich verspürte öfters Fremdscham, da die Autorin ihre Message umschrieben hat, als ob sie es einem kleinen Kind erklären will. Zusammengefasst corny aber trotzdem okay.
4/10
Edit:
Für die mündliche Prüfung musste ich es nochmal lesen und es ist noch schlimmer als vorher. Mehr will ich nicht sagen.
2/10
November 10, 2023
Mia and Kramer should have banged
September 21, 2020
Dark and cynical but also surprisingly lively and frequently outrageously funny. I wish my brain were more alert and attuned to reviewing right now because this book has a lot to say and often says it in rather sly ways that slip in and niggle at one consciousness (not to mention one's conscience) in a manner difficult to dismiss. It's a sort of 'Faust' for the modern age.
Despite the fact that Zeh's health-obsessed dystopia is based around the after-effects of a global pandemic, this 2009 novel (based on Zeh's 2007 play) really doesn't feel as if it's addressing our current 2020 situation or any variant thereof. Rather, it's a very political book, in some ways a very specifically German book, satirizing some politicians' manias for systems, statistics, and structure; for conformity and good taste at all costs. In the Mephistophelean character of Heinrich Kramer*, the reader and the protagonist, Mia Holl, both see the seductiveness of a whole-hearted belief in "the Method", in an ordered world where everyone has a place and knows that place; the lure of a more natural order, is represented by Mia's brother, Moritz, who is imprisoned for crimes against the Method, when we begin the book. Zeh fills out her story with interesting, sympathetic secondary characters and the little ensemble pieces that she devises for Mia and the people around her are delightful to read and very theatrical in their language and pacing.
This is by no means a perfect book, and I'm not even sure it's a politically astute book, but it is one that worked for me as a reader, that left me thinking and feeling long after I finished the last page. And I really can't ask for much more than that.
*It is worth noting that Heinrich Kramer was also the name of a real-life 15th century Alsatian Dominican monk and witch hunter/inquisitor, best known for his vastly influential and widely distributed treatise, Malleus Maleficarum.
Despite the fact that Zeh's health-obsessed dystopia is based around the after-effects of a global pandemic, this 2009 novel (based on Zeh's 2007 play) really doesn't feel as if it's addressing our current 2020 situation or any variant thereof. Rather, it's a very political book, in some ways a very specifically German book, satirizing some politicians' manias for systems, statistics, and structure; for conformity and good taste at all costs. In the Mephistophelean character of Heinrich Kramer*, the reader and the protagonist, Mia Holl, both see the seductiveness of a whole-hearted belief in "the Method", in an ordered world where everyone has a place and knows that place; the lure of a more natural order, is represented by Mia's brother, Moritz, who is imprisoned for crimes against the Method, when we begin the book. Zeh fills out her story with interesting, sympathetic secondary characters and the little ensemble pieces that she devises for Mia and the people around her are delightful to read and very theatrical in their language and pacing.
This is by no means a perfect book, and I'm not even sure it's a politically astute book, but it is one that worked for me as a reader, that left me thinking and feeling long after I finished the last page. And I really can't ask for much more than that.
*It is worth noting that Heinrich Kramer was also the name of a real-life 15th century Alsatian Dominican monk and witch hunter/inquisitor, best known for his vastly influential and widely distributed treatise, Malleus Maleficarum.
March 25, 2024
The book is advertised as a dystopian science fiction novel, but what it resembles more is a philosophical treatise, presented in the form of a polylogue between people with various convictions and backgrounds, which make the thoughts three-dimensional. The story is there only to give their positions weight. This is something Western philosophy has done since Plato and should do more often. But, understandably, if you decide to read Plato - or Berkeley's Hylas and Philonous, for example - for their narrative qualities, you may not understand why other people think so highly of them. For me, it was the other way round. Some of the plotpoints toward the end almost got a star off this book, but then I decided to keep it, as the philosophy, the language and also the anchoring of various thoughts in human types was so much better than f ex the "thought experiments" of quite a few highly acclaimed moral philosophers who present us with much worse stuff under the guise of academic philosophy.
So quite clearly, this is not the book to be picked up at random and definitely not one for a reader of science fiction, which probably explains many of the relatively low marks given to it by other readers. And clearly it is not for a tired evening after lots of work. This is the second book I've read by Juli Zeh (the first was Dark Matter, which I also liked a lot), and I hope to read more.
So quite clearly, this is not the book to be picked up at random and definitely not one for a reader of science fiction, which probably explains many of the relatively low marks given to it by other readers. And clearly it is not for a tired evening after lots of work. This is the second book I've read by Juli Zeh (the first was Dark Matter, which I also liked a lot), and I hope to read more.
July 22, 2023
Ich hätte mich auch umgebracht
February 2, 2022
nicht durchgelesen, schreckliches buch
January 15, 2018
3.5 stars or 7/10
A stylish addition to the dystopian future genre in the tradition of Orwell's 1984. Juli Zeh's version looks at society in the mid 21st century - a society completely obsessed with health, which has spawned a new political system (The Method) which requires citizens to comply with daily exercise, abstain from tobacco, alcohol etc. This is all tracked through accessing the data chip every citizen has implanted, and any deviation from this is considered a crime or, worse, an act of terrorism.
The book opens with the main character, Mia, grieving the death of her brother, who fell foul of the system. What follows is then an account of Mia, previously an advocate of The Method, gradually and grudgingly taking up the fight against the system.
I liked the way this book was written in its omniscient narrator style, not a method I usually warm to. The interaction between Mia and Kramer, the arch-villain of the book, are done very well, and to me were reminiscent of 1984's Winston Smith and O'Brien. Overall, it was a very enjoyable read, and a very credible nightmare vision for the future of Western society. The only frustrating thing, at least to me, was that the central event of the novel - the death of Mia's brother's girlfriend - is never explained adequately . I guess I should just accept that the reader has to make up their own mind about this, but I am the sort of reader who always wants to know these things for sure! This is the second book I have read by Juli Zeh (translated from the German), the other being 'Dark Matter' - I have enjoyed both, and will be looking for more
A stylish addition to the dystopian future genre in the tradition of Orwell's 1984. Juli Zeh's version looks at society in the mid 21st century - a society completely obsessed with health, which has spawned a new political system (The Method) which requires citizens to comply with daily exercise, abstain from tobacco, alcohol etc. This is all tracked through accessing the data chip every citizen has implanted, and any deviation from this is considered a crime or, worse, an act of terrorism.
The book opens with the main character, Mia, grieving the death of her brother, who fell foul of the system. What follows is then an account of Mia, previously an advocate of The Method, gradually and grudgingly taking up the fight against the system.
I liked the way this book was written in its omniscient narrator style, not a method I usually warm to. The interaction between Mia and Kramer, the arch-villain of the book, are done very well, and to me were reminiscent of 1984's Winston Smith and O'Brien. Overall, it was a very enjoyable read, and a very credible nightmare vision for the future of Western society. The only frustrating thing, at least to me, was that the central event of the novel - the death of Mia's brother's girlfriend - is never explained adequately . I guess I should just accept that the reader has to make up their own mind about this, but I am the sort of reader who always wants to know these things for sure! This is the second book I have read by Juli Zeh (translated from the German), the other being 'Dark Matter' - I have enjoyed both, and will be looking for more
October 26, 2020
Den dritten Stern hat dieser Roman nur bekommen, weil das Thema inmitten einer Pandemie besonders aktuell und interessant ist. Die Frage, ob man zur Gesundheit verpflichtet ist, um das System zu erhalten, kann man sich natürlich jederzeit stellen, wenn ich das Buch allerdings vor einem Jahr gelesen hätte, wäre das hier eine zwei Sterne Bewertung.
Leider hat mir weder die Umsetzung des Themas noch die Erzählweise besonders gefallen. Einzelne Gespräche und moralisch-philosophische Fragen haben mich zum Nachdenken gebracht, die Geschichte selbst war aber irgendwie schwer nachzuvollziehen und die Figuren sowie das System der Dystopie für mich zu undurchsichtig.
Leider einer der schwächeren Juli Zeh Romane, aber trotzdem eine "nette" Wochenendlektüre.
Leider hat mir weder die Umsetzung des Themas noch die Erzählweise besonders gefallen. Einzelne Gespräche und moralisch-philosophische Fragen haben mich zum Nachdenken gebracht, die Geschichte selbst war aber irgendwie schwer nachzuvollziehen und die Figuren sowie das System der Dystopie für mich zu undurchsichtig.
Leider einer der schwächeren Juli Zeh Romane, aber trotzdem eine "nette" Wochenendlektüre.
July 10, 2012
I don’t think this is a bad book. I just didn’t get it.
I have two problems. The first problem is the premise. This is a utopian/dystopian novel based upon the idea of a society that provides a healthcare system which is so universal and so highly advanced that it has all but eliminated pain and disease from the citizen population. The only way in which it is able to do this is by closely monitoring the health of its people at every stage of their lives; this means frequent, mandatory blood/stool/skin testing, and (apparently!) it also means a total ban on alcohol, cigarettes, all food except for that which comes in protein and vitamin tubes, and all drinks except hot water and lemon. (Presumably other drinks are permitted, but this last example is intended as a weirdly literary signal to the reader that this government is so puritanical they won’t even permit tea and coffee. Hot water and lemon is mentioned all the time! Look how mean they are! As if we didn’t already have decaf?)
Never mind that these details seem unlikely. The most implausible part of this is that such a system bears no reality to anything actually happening in any modern society. We are supposed to believe that this is a world which has been designed according to perfectly rational, utilitarian criteria; yet the standards by which this rationality has been developed are never really explained in the novel. One could equally argue – and plenty of quite rational politicians already do – that it would be far more ‘rational’ to cut government-funded healthcare programs and expect every individual to buy their own health insurance from an open, regulated marketplace, at every stage choosing from a variety of standards of care according to what they can afford and (perhaps) how much autonomy they might wish to surrender.
Many people (myself included) would have concerns about this way of doing things, but regardless, in a world where the costs of advanced medical treatment are effectively unlimited, this is the way healthcare is going. And it makes Zeh’s libertarian fantasy of a Big State crushing the will of a poor little person look distinctly old hat. If this were a book about the limits of a wholly rationalised view of existence I might have a little more patience, but the healthcare thing gets in the way. Whatever you think of ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ or ‘Brave New World’, one could at least say that they added to our understanding of the society in which their respective authors lived; this book certainly fails in that regard.
The other problem is that at no point does the author seriously consider that a perfectly efficient and all-encompassing healthcare system might actually be a really good thing for society. One reason for this is to do with the novel’s protagonist, Mia. The reader is expected to believe that she has a variety of relationships in her life which make her a dangerous alien to society at large; there is her brother, who was imprisoned after being found with a girl he’d apparently raped and murdered; there is her ‘ideal inamorata’, a kind of imaginary friend who hangs out in her apartment; and maybe above all there is Mia’s relationship with her own unclean body and her unkept surroundings.
She is certainly compelling, and her words and thoughts are often beautifully written, though the English translation is at times somewhat stilted, and there’s nothing like the cool/crazy/icky fascination with the body that we found in Charlotte Roche’s ‘Wetlands’. The real problem is that Mia feels like a literary creation of a deliberately contrarian nature. Whenever she feels anything, whether it be physical pain or emotional anguish or whatever, you never really feel like it is something the Method could fix. Which is the point, I know, but that hardly seems fair to the conceit binding this whole thing together.
Let me try and put it another way: if ever such a society were to come to pass, there’s no doubt that a huge number of people would be helped. It’s basically impossible but if it were applied worldwide, it would indisputably be mankind’s greatest achievement. And it wouldn’t necessarily involve banning booze or caffeine or any of the other dystopian sci-fi trimmings this novel describes, nor would it involve a total sterilisation of human culture. What I find objectionable is this endless romanticising of pain and death, and the author’s notion that such a society would find it necessary to seek out and punish somebody like Mia for choosing to be different. I just didn’t get it.
I have two problems. The first problem is the premise. This is a utopian/dystopian novel based upon the idea of a society that provides a healthcare system which is so universal and so highly advanced that it has all but eliminated pain and disease from the citizen population. The only way in which it is able to do this is by closely monitoring the health of its people at every stage of their lives; this means frequent, mandatory blood/stool/skin testing, and (apparently!) it also means a total ban on alcohol, cigarettes, all food except for that which comes in protein and vitamin tubes, and all drinks except hot water and lemon. (Presumably other drinks are permitted, but this last example is intended as a weirdly literary signal to the reader that this government is so puritanical they won’t even permit tea and coffee. Hot water and lemon is mentioned all the time! Look how mean they are! As if we didn’t already have decaf?)
Never mind that these details seem unlikely. The most implausible part of this is that such a system bears no reality to anything actually happening in any modern society. We are supposed to believe that this is a world which has been designed according to perfectly rational, utilitarian criteria; yet the standards by which this rationality has been developed are never really explained in the novel. One could equally argue – and plenty of quite rational politicians already do – that it would be far more ‘rational’ to cut government-funded healthcare programs and expect every individual to buy their own health insurance from an open, regulated marketplace, at every stage choosing from a variety of standards of care according to what they can afford and (perhaps) how much autonomy they might wish to surrender.
Many people (myself included) would have concerns about this way of doing things, but regardless, in a world where the costs of advanced medical treatment are effectively unlimited, this is the way healthcare is going. And it makes Zeh’s libertarian fantasy of a Big State crushing the will of a poor little person look distinctly old hat. If this were a book about the limits of a wholly rationalised view of existence I might have a little more patience, but the healthcare thing gets in the way. Whatever you think of ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ or ‘Brave New World’, one could at least say that they added to our understanding of the society in which their respective authors lived; this book certainly fails in that regard.
The other problem is that at no point does the author seriously consider that a perfectly efficient and all-encompassing healthcare system might actually be a really good thing for society. One reason for this is to do with the novel’s protagonist, Mia. The reader is expected to believe that she has a variety of relationships in her life which make her a dangerous alien to society at large; there is her brother, who was imprisoned after being found with a girl he’d apparently raped and murdered; there is her ‘ideal inamorata’, a kind of imaginary friend who hangs out in her apartment; and maybe above all there is Mia’s relationship with her own unclean body and her unkept surroundings.
She is certainly compelling, and her words and thoughts are often beautifully written, though the English translation is at times somewhat stilted, and there’s nothing like the cool/crazy/icky fascination with the body that we found in Charlotte Roche’s ‘Wetlands’. The real problem is that Mia feels like a literary creation of a deliberately contrarian nature. Whenever she feels anything, whether it be physical pain or emotional anguish or whatever, you never really feel like it is something the Method could fix. Which is the point, I know, but that hardly seems fair to the conceit binding this whole thing together.
Let me try and put it another way: if ever such a society were to come to pass, there’s no doubt that a huge number of people would be helped. It’s basically impossible but if it were applied worldwide, it would indisputably be mankind’s greatest achievement. And it wouldn’t necessarily involve banning booze or caffeine or any of the other dystopian sci-fi trimmings this novel describes, nor would it involve a total sterilisation of human culture. What I find objectionable is this endless romanticising of pain and death, and the author’s notion that such a society would find it necessary to seek out and punish somebody like Mia for choosing to be different. I just didn’t get it.
May 16, 2016
A modern version of Orwell's 1984, combined with themes from Kafka's classic The Trial, the novel (published in 2010) depicts a totalitarian society where health is sacred and the belief in science absolute.
The story is fast paced and combines a scifi-setting with a crime story which works really well. The book raises important questions about individual rights vs state power and the matter of 'state imposed health' is highly relevant today (given our increasing obsession with a 'healthy lifestyle').
The story is fast paced and combines a scifi-setting with a crime story which works really well. The book raises important questions about individual rights vs state power and the matter of 'state imposed health' is highly relevant today (given our increasing obsession with a 'healthy lifestyle').
February 4, 2023
I’m not religious but I do believe that this is what hell looks like if there is one
February 13, 2016
A dystopia in the true sense: a satire funny and poignant. Well paced, this book avoids boredom by refusing to waste time with world building.
March 6, 2018
My GOD this is pretentious and try-hard.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,172 reviews