Small Boat

I have mixed feelings

It is a very short novel, and I would say I really liked the first half. But saying that I “liked” it feels strange, because the subject is very disturbing. The book is based on a real tragedy. A small boat with migrants is sinking in the waters between France and England. The people on board call for help. The French authorities say the boat is in British waters. In the end, no one comes to rescue them. The boat sinks, and around 30 people lose their lives. After this, the novel focuses on the woman who answered the emergency call. She is being questioned, and we follow the story mostly through her thoughts. What makes the book so uncomfortable is that she does not see any fault in what she did. She stands by her decision. She keeps repeating the same sentence: “I did not tell them to leave.” Being inside her mind feels heavy. It is difficult to read because you are forced to see her way of thinking. I do not agree with her at all, but the book makes you understand how she justifies her actions. It becomes a psychological story about responsibility, denial, and emotional distance, especially in the context of immigration. The first half felt strong and intense. But in the second half, the repetition became too much for me. I understand that this was probably intentional, to show how fixed she is in her thinking. Still, it felt dragged out, and my interest slowly faded. In the end, I gave it three stars. It is an important and thought provoking book, and it gives a lot to discuss. But overall, it felt a bit uneven to me.

What a challenging read!!! Achtung es folgt eine etwas längere Rezi — ich möchte meine Gedanken zu dieser Lektüre nicht verlieren. Lets go: Small Boat ist kein typischer Roman, es ist viel mehr eine philosophische Erörterung — aber eingewoben in eine (leider) so alltägliche Situation, in die viele Menschen, zumindest so oder so ähnlich, kommen könnten (denken wir zum Beispiel mal an Obdachlose). Besonders mitgenommen haben mich die Fragen danach ob: Man sich auch durch Nicht-Handeln schuldig machen kann. Und: ob keine Meinung zu haben auch eine Meinung ist. Ausserdem kann über nichts Nachzudenken auch eine Art von Denken darstellen.

UUUFFFFF. every few pages i‘ve been saying this while exhaling. what a book. actually it‘s more than a book. reducing this to just fiction feels wrong on so many levels. this is a punch to the gut. reading this made me physically ill, nauseaus. i had to stop reading at half because i needed to take a break, let it sink in and think about it. from the first page on i knew this is a masterpiece. i can‘t remember the last time i‘ve read such a philosophical masterpiece. it reminds me so much of the stranger from camus - my fav book. it‘s basically the same premise but more direct, put in an ethical situation, that happens all the time. then i googled the author: a french philosopher, who teaches philosophy and his speciality is kirkegaards existentialism. not camus, but very much the same. i felt it immediately. and i‘m even more proud of this masterpiece of his, what a brilliant teacher and philosopher he must be, how lucky his students are. i can only repeat: a masterpiece. i dont think i‘ve read a book that gave me such a physical reaction to it yet. it was so eery, so uncomfortable, so evil and nauseauting. but also so smart, so convincing, so manipulative. i switched sides constantly, arguments from both sides were convincing. but all in all it‘s still evil - it‘s a brilliant way to capture arendt. hach i‘m in love. first thing i did was rave to my friend camille about it. i just couldn‘t sit with it alone. and i wanna lend it to everyone i know, go read it, i wanna shout. so i‘ll shout it to you as well: GO READ IT. i don‘t know how this didn‘t win the bookerprice. what could top that?