The discussion about the novel was very lively and also controversial, as many participants initially disliked it. It was perceived as cumbersome, uninspiring, and fragmented. The question was raised as to what the novel, as a specifically literary text, can contribute to the entire complex of the NSU trial – precisely because it rejects many of the conventions of the courtroom/trial novel: the text does not seek to give readers the opportunity to empathise with the subjects involved in the trial (defendants, victims, lawyers, judges); it also fails to accomplish what legal sociology explores. Instead, the aim (according to one thesis) is to make the position of the audience visible and strong, first and foremost, as an independent position in the proceedings. Modern court proceedings are modelled on a theatrical constellation, and just as in theatre everything is directed at the audience, but the audience is rarely directly addressed, the same is true in court proceedings. The novel attempts to change this: The precarious “we” in the audience is understood as an equally precarious representation of the democratic public, which sees its own political and moral principles being tried in court. Who is included in this “we”, who is excluded (explicitly: the Nazis in the audience), who is on the margins? There was discussion about whether the novel, by typifying the individual characters in the audience, itself excludes or marginalises individuals (“Bloggerklaus”, “Aktenyildiz”), or whether these mechanisms are first made visible through the typification.

Over the course of the discussion, the text was actually better understood by most people—even those who were initially very hostile—and its specific literary concerns also became clearer. But that doesn't mean, of course, that people prefer reading the text. The novel remains unwieldy, and that's probably what it's meant to be.