Scan barcode
A review by tzurky
Hool by Philipp Winkler
4.0
Reading this book is like watching a train wreck - you just can’t look away. Specifically, it’s the train wreck of the narrator’s life and his friends’ and families’ lives. They’re irredeemably fucked up and the problems go very deep and very far back into childhood.
Now, there’s a really famous book about English hooligans (can’t remember the title now), which I haven’t read and which I suppose stars a very similar cast of characters and has a similar story. Just with different brands of beer and different teams, although the teams themselves and the game are irrelevant. The only things the hooligans need them for is an excuse to hate other people and want to bash their heads in and as a very superficial rallying point.
Nevertheless, derivative as this may be (and I can’t assess that), I’m giving the 4 stars because the book managed to draw me in despite the unlikable characters and horrible set of actions and events that constitute the plot and because it’s a good character study, albeit of very unpleasant people.
The take-away is the problem. This book puts me as a left-leaning person before a conundrum. There’s no systemic issue to point to here for the sorry state the characters are in. Quite the contrary, the system does work to make their lives that much more comfortable than they would otherwise have been (set this in the US and you could have kissed any medical treatment goodbye). So what is the appropriate reaction towards people doing their level best to ruin their own lives in a completely predictable manner? Do you set up a real nanny state (not the conservative talking point by which they usually mean not letting people die in miserable squalor because they don’t have health insurance) that teaches people some emotional maturity and resilience and forces them into therapy and constructive activities? It would arguably be justified given that, scientifically speaking, humans aren’t very well equipped to manage their own lives (e.g. because of the inability to accurately assess risk and other cognitive biases and flaws, not to mention a predisposition to different addictions etc.). Or do you give them the freedom and space to fuck up their brief time on earth and live an utterly miserable life as a result?
This is, of course, a rhetorical question. There is no way any country or organization would have the capacity to manage such an intricate system. Europe’s social democracies have already strained their administrative capabilities almost to breaking point and things are fraying at the seams. Sure, there is room for improvement, but not much and as big companies so eloquently show, organizations can’t exceed a certain size without the adverse effects of mismanagement setting in (even if corporate culture would come close to promoting the meritocracy it ostensibly champions instead of the comfortable system based solely on personal sympathies and relationships).
Now, there’s a really famous book about English hooligans (can’t remember the title now), which I haven’t read and which I suppose stars a very similar cast of characters and has a similar story. Just with different brands of beer and different teams, although the teams themselves and the game are irrelevant. The only things the hooligans need them for is an excuse to hate other people and want to bash their heads in and as a very superficial rallying point.
Nevertheless, derivative as this may be (and I can’t assess that), I’m giving the 4 stars because the book managed to draw me in despite the unlikable characters and horrible set of actions and events that constitute the plot and because it’s a good character study, albeit of very unpleasant people.
The take-away is the problem. This book puts me as a left-leaning person before a conundrum. There’s no systemic issue to point to here for the sorry state the characters are in. Quite the contrary, the system does work to make their lives that much more comfortable than they would otherwise have been (set this in the US and you could have kissed any medical treatment goodbye). So what is the appropriate reaction towards people doing their level best to ruin their own lives in a completely predictable manner? Do you set up a real nanny state (not the conservative talking point by which they usually mean not letting people die in miserable squalor because they don’t have health insurance) that teaches people some emotional maturity and resilience and forces them into therapy and constructive activities? It would arguably be justified given that, scientifically speaking, humans aren’t very well equipped to manage their own lives (e.g. because of the inability to accurately assess risk and other cognitive biases and flaws, not to mention a predisposition to different addictions etc.). Or do you give them the freedom and space to fuck up their brief time on earth and live an utterly miserable life as a result?
This is, of course, a rhetorical question. There is no way any country or organization would have the capacity to manage such an intricate system. Europe’s social democracies have already strained their administrative capabilities almost to breaking point and things are fraying at the seams. Sure, there is room for improvement, but not much and as big companies so eloquently show, organizations can’t exceed a certain size without the adverse effects of mismanagement setting in (even if corporate culture would come close to promoting the meritocracy it ostensibly champions instead of the comfortable system based solely on personal sympathies and relationships).