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. 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). 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. denkt sich oft, ja so gravierend sind die Eingriffe auch in der gegenwärtigen Situation ja (noch) nicht. Vor diesem Hintergrund liest man diese Geschichte. 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. Das kann sehr spannend, manchmal erhellend und sensibilisierend, aber auch immer wieder recht belehrend sein.Īll das trifft auch auf Juli Zehs Corpus Delicti zu. 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.ĭie 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). 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. I read this novel on the suggestion of my son, who reads it with his class in school, and I had no particular expectations. It is like letting Winston Smith live after he has whispered: "I love Big Brother."īrutal torture. Willing to die for her beliefs, she is forced to live on in her body, while the mind is broken.
They refuse to give her an audience for her martyrdom. But her civilisation has a sophisticated way of dealing with terrorists or martyrs ("the same thing", as one character puts it). Middle Ages is the name for human nature."Īnd 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. 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. Fake news stories are just the top of the iceberg. 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. 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. 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. 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. There will always be some that refuse to act like sheep. No religion or method can capture the whole of humanity and turn them into obeying sheep. That is the message of the novel in Orwell's and Huxley's spirit. There is no system that applies to all people. 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. 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. 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?
0 kommentar(er)
