Houat's houith Houellebecq?

[Whifflingpin]

Inspired by some posts by Unnamable, I have now read Whatever and Atomised by Michel Houellebecq.

Given that atheism is discussed in this forum, and that the books may be treated as atheist texts, I think my questions belong here, rather than the general literature or philosophy sections.

Near the end of Atomised, the protagonist states, "Facts exist and are linked together by laws; the notion of cause simply isn't scientific. The world is precisely the sum of information we have about it."

Is that the main message of the book?

Can that be taken as an atheist credo? the atheist credo?

Are these the questions I should be asking?

If not, what should I ask, and, what answers should I expect?

Obviously, answers which relate to the books I've mentioned would be more helpful than those which use quotations from authors I've never read.
Non-atheists need not answer these questions, because I am already familiar with enough religious answers, thanks.

.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I've managed to be an atheist for over 20 years without a credo. I think most do. I would no more follow another atheists views than I would religious views; not completely anyway. I treat life like a jigsaw where no-one has all the pieces. We need to pick them up where we can.

I'd love to comment on Houellebecq, but I've only just bought Atomised and won't get around to it for a while I fear. If this threads still around then, I'll come back and let you know what I thought.

[The Unnamable]

Near the end of Atomised, the protagonist states, "Facts exist and are linked together by laws; the notion of cause simply isn't scientific. The world is precisely the sum of information we have about it."

Is that the main message of the book?
I don’t really know how to respond here. I don’t think of books as having a ‘message’. I don’t think Houellebecq gives a **** what we think. He draws our attention to many of the horrors of today’s world and rubs our noses in it.



Can that be taken as an atheist credo? the atheist credo?

Are these the questions I should be asking?
Who, apart from you, can decide what questions you should be asking, unless you mean it in terms of critical approaches, which I assume you don’t?


If not, what should I ask, and, what answers should I expect?

Obviously, answers which relate to the books I've mentioned would be more helpful than those which use quotations from authors I've never read.
Non-atheists need not answer these questions, because I am already familiar with enough religious answers, thanks.

The way you have defined the topic seems to invite only comments about Houellebecq’s atheism. I don’t take this to be a particular concern of the books you mention. So I don’t know if what I might say would be relevant. I think he is more interested in expressing his visceral loathing for what he thinks we’ve become. And, as someone I know who will be reading this post said, “Some people get it and some people don’t.” That is not to say that some people are the chosen few perceptive enough to see it but that some people’s experiences and observations mean that they consider such thoughts and feelings as at least authentic.

Here are some of the parts from Whatever that resonate with me:

“I don’t like this world. I definitely do not like it. The society in which I live disgusts me; advertising sickens me; computers make me puke. My entire work as a computer expert consists of adding to the data, the cross-referencing, the criteria of rational decision-making. It has no meaning. To tell the truth, it is even negative up to a point; a useless encumbering of the neurons. This world has need of many things, bar more information.”

“I realise that I’m smoking more and more; I must be on at least four packs a day. Smoking cigarettes has become the only element of real freedom in my life. The only act to which I tenaciously cling with my whole being. My one ambition.”

“We need adventure and eroticism because we need to hear ourselves repeat that life is marvellous and exciting; and it’s abundantly clear that we rather doubt this.”

“I don’t understand, basically, how people manage to go on living. I get the impression everybody must be unhappy: we live in such a simple world, you understand. There’s a system based on domination, money and fear – a somewhat masculine system, let’s call it Mars;”

“Next I notice that all these people seem satisfied with themselves and the world; it’s astonishing, even a little frightening.”

“All that remains is resentment and disgust, sickness and the anticipation of death.”

What follows will no doubt be considered off topic. I’ve had a few P.M.s from people asking me for some writing. As I explained, I only write e-mails to friends. I have not sent any but I’ll post one here now as it might go some way to explaining why I like Houellebecq.


The Golden Age of Television

I have just watched a repeat of a ‘Trisha’ show. It’s a sort of toned-down Jerry Springer but far more earnest. A predominantly female audience with an average age of early twenty-something sat in their synthetic Sunday best to watch the entertaining disembowelling of a family unable to cope anymore.

Looking every part the dysfunctional family they were booked to portray, the four sat in a row facing their tricoteuses. On stage right was the mother; a toothless, wheelchair-bound husk of a woman with a grimy neck-brace and a continuous supply of tears burning their way down her ravaged face. Two girls, one about 17 the other about 14, sat in the centre. A bewildered and ineffectual dad, not the biological father of course, sat at the other end. His forearms appeared to be unfeasibly hairy at first, but a second glance revealed a sprawling network of tattoos, finished off with a small black bird on the right of his neck. The girls, despite their apparent anguish and premature awareness of life’s grinding hardness, had taken care to prettify themselves for their moments of celebrity. They nevertheless looked like a couple of runaway, drug-abusing prostitutes.

The problem that had brought this family to the attention of Trisha’s researchers was the mess and untidiness of their house. I told you it was toned-down. Our Trisha (like one of the family, really), feeding off the obligatory audience approval claps at her dispensing of psychowisdom, suggested that what this family really needed was a ‘Cisco’ wall chart year planner. That way a cleaning rota could be devised. Lovely. Problems solved. Trisha must have undergone some very rigorous academic study of family psychology to offer such pearls. To validate her own authority as a spokesperson for the down and damaged, we were also treated to the mandatory act of self-revelation as Trisha admitted to having ‘suffered with depression’. It has inspired me to want to rush out tomorrow and purchase the best Cisco chart I can get my hands on and then start putting my own life in order with a few coloured stickers and a good, solid marker pen.

We were still to enjoy the money shot. A girl of twenty and a man she had always called her father, sat centre stage awaiting the results of a DNA paternity test. In front of a large contingent of baited breath, she opened and read the verdict. He was not her biological father. She ran out and I wondered why I hadn’t.

Surely this is exactly what television ought to be – intrusive on personal grief, concerned only with the inane and sensational and, above all, produced by people utterly lacking in principles or talent.

It’s no longer a matter of anything but time.

[Whifflingpin]

"I don’t think of books as having a ‘message’. I don’t think Houellebecq gives a **** what we think. He draws our attention to many of the horrors of today’s world and rubs our noses in it."
OK, I recognised the last part in what I was reading - although, leaping wildly from content to style- I think that the X-o'clock News does that better. (Not politics - but last week there was a report of the conviction of a man who, amongst other things, pressed his baby son's face against the bars of a gas fire - way beyond any depravity I found in Whatever or Atomised.)

But if Houellebeqc doesn't give a damn about his readers' thoughts, is he merely throwing his paintpot at the public? (He has the right to do that of course, but if that's all he's doing, I shall probably stick at the two books of his that I've read.)



"Are these the questions I should be asking?" Just my way of trying to open the discussion to the things I've missed - so yes, everything in your post is on-topic.

"I think he is more interested in expressing his visceral loathing for what he thinks we’ve become." Yes. Now, that "visceral loathing etc," sanitised into the doctrine of original sin, is just the starting point for christianity. Is it the end point for a) Houellebeqc b) atheists in general c) atheists in particular? Ah, you've aleady answered a) and maybe c) by quoting “All that remains is resentment and disgust, sickness and the anticipation of death.”

"I have just watched a repeat of a ‘Trisha’ show." You have my unbounded admiration, I do not have the courage to confront, willingly, such vileness* and degradation. I had to watch one once, and by the time it finished I felt that global warming, tsunamis, bird flu could not come quickly enough. (*I first wrote "horror" rather than vileness, but it's not even horror, it's just a sticky clinging mucus.)

So, what is it that enables atheists to bear their fardels again each day, without resorting to the bare bodkin?

[beer good]

Just an observation: I think you'll run into a problem whenever you start wondering what "atheists in general" think/do/believe. They're a pretty heterogenous lot since the one thing they all have in common is LACK of a common belief. IMO, you might as well ask what "people who are allergic to peanuts in general" think/do/believe.

[Whifflingpin]

Agreed, Beer Good; I've been as careful as I can, without boring repetition, to show that I recognise individuality, and Xamonas too has made that point - so, if you are an atheist, would you answer two questions?

1) Keeping to the original topic, do you agree with Houellebeqc's line, "All that remains is resentment and disgust, sickness and the anticipation of death?”


2) What is it that enables you, an individual who also happens to be an atheist , to bear your fardels again each day, without resorting to the bare bodkin?

.

[beer good]

Agreed, Beer Good; I've been as careful as I can, without boring repetition, to show that I recognise individuality
Oh, absolutely. I just happened to point that out here because it's an assumption that seems to turn up in a lot of discussions here...

Well, I don't call myself an atheist, but I'm sure some would so since you asked:

1) Spontaneous answer: no, I do not. The world's OK. Then again, I didn't care much for "Atomised" and have never read anything else by Houll... Hell... Holl... Michel, so I don't know the context of that quote. (And I'm thinking maybe I should therefore have stayed out of this thread...) But as for
Facts exist and are linked together by laws; the notion of cause simply isn't scientific. The world is precisely the sum of information we have about it. That, I could probably agree with on an intellectual level, even if I think it's a very prosaic way of looking at it.

2) Yikes. Dictionary, dictionary... "Bodkin: A small, sharply pointed instrument for making holes in fabric or leather." If you're asking how I put up with crap without slitting my wrists, well, one answer would be that I don't believe in an after-life, and so no matter how ugly life may get, it beats the alternative. As for the rest... well... good friends, good books, good music, good beer, good things in general. Don't particularly see any need to resort to faith nor bodkin.

I sometimes get the feeling when discussing these things that people with a strong religious belief seem to assume that atheists or agnostics or whatever we're to call us have an equally strong non-belief - which Michel H. obviously seems to have - whereas it's my experience that to most non-believers (and, at least in my country, the majority of believers) faith or lack of same really isn't a huge deal. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll recant everything on my deathbed just to be on the safe side. :D

[rachel]

ah Beer, you are so endearing. but perhaps you should recant now. the way things go a person is mulling over a really beautiful metaphysical poem, doesn't see the bus coming as he/she walks along and ......... :lol:

[kilted exile]

Here are some of the parts from Whatever that resonate with me:

“I don’t like this world. I definitely do not like it. The society in which I live disgusts me; advertising sickens me; computers make me puke. My entire work as a computer expert consists of adding to the data, the cross-referencing, the criteria of rational decision-making. It has no meaning. To tell the truth, it is even negative up to a point; a useless encumbering of the neurons. This world has need of many things, bar more information.”

“I realise that I’m smoking more and more; I must be on at least four packs a day. Smoking cigarettes has become the only element of real freedom in my life. The only act to which I tenaciously cling with my whole being. My one ambition.”

“We need adventure and eroticism because we need to hear ourselves repeat that life is marvellous and exciting; and it’s abundantly clear that we rather doubt this.”

“I don’t understand, basically, how people manage to go on living. I get the impression everybody must be unhappy: we live in such a simple world, you understand. There’s a system based on domination, money and fear – a somewhat masculine system, let’s call it Mars;”

“Next I notice that all these people seem satisfied with themselves and the world; it’s astonishing, even a little frightening.”

“All that remains is resentment and disgust, sickness and the anticipation of death.”


Yet again someone I had never heard of, but these quotes sound interesting I think I'll have to go down to see if I can find it in the bookshop this weekend.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Agreed, Beer Good; I've been as careful as I can, without boring repetition, to show that I recognise individuality, and Xamonas too has made that point - so, if you are an atheist, would you answer two questions?

1) Keeping to the original topic, do you agree with Houellebeqc's line, "All that remains is resentment and disgust, sickness and the anticipation of death?”


2) What is it that enables you, an individual who also happens to be an atheist , to bear your fardels again each day, without resorting to the bare bodkin?

.

1. No. There is also drinking beer, reading good books, listening to music, and having sex which, though transitory (some more than others), are more than capable of taking one's mind off the nasty stuff for a while. :nod:

2. I keep my bodkins chastely covered - that helps. Bare bodkins are a trifle too naked for my taste. And I found an agency that bears my fardels for me for a small price - very good value, I can put you in touch if you'd like. :lol:

[Sami]

The only book by Houellebeqc that I’ve read is “Platform” and I thought it was very, very difficult (apart from everything else there’s the funny looks you get from people who catch a couple of lines as they’re glancing over your shoulder when you’re reading on the bus!).


1) Keeping to the original topic, do you agree with Houellebeqc's line, "All that remains is resentment and disgust, sickness and the anticipation of death?”
Personally I don't agree with this and, on the basis of reading this one book, I’m not too sure that Houellebeqc completely agrees either – trying to work out how fully he accepts the deliberately one-sided view he’s presenting was the difficult thing for me. In “Platform” it seemed to me that the main character really loves his girlfriend. She’s a confusing character, but the emotional attachment the narrator feels for her is pretty clear. So it seems that love is still possible, in spite of the disgust he feels for the world around him.

[The Unnamable]

"I don’t think of books as having a ‘message’. I don’t think Houellebecq gives a **** what we think. He draws our attention to many of the horrors of today’s world and rubs our noses in it."
OK, I recognised the last part in what I was reading - although, leaping wildly from content to style- I think that the X-o'clock News does that better. (Not politics - but last week there was a report of the conviction of a man who, amongst other things, pressed his baby son's face against the bars of a gas fire - way beyond any depravity I found in Whatever or Atomised.)
Most of the criticism of Houellebecq has focused on his views on Islam and the allegedly pornographic nature of many passages. He’s also been attacked for being racist, homophobic and sexist. I doubt he likes kittens, either.

While I take your point about the X-o’clock news, something that happened in school today has made me wonder. One of my students (16) asked me if I had seen any Internet videos of a hostage being beheaded. I said no. Someone once sent me a link to one but I didn’t open it, nor ever would I. The student then, with no sense of the horror of what he was telling me, explained how he had seen a man having his head ‘sawn’ off with a large knife. Not only had he seen it but so had 90% of the class. Some also told me that their younger siblings (down to 10) had also seen these videos. I don’t think this is a cultural thing because I have no doubt that the same is true wherever there is an unfiltered Internet. I wonder if a piece of fiction about the atrocity might make people consider it as something more than entertainment.

I think it raises an interesting question. Is depravity more affecting in fact or fiction? Which is more revealing of human depravity, a photograph of the dive-bombing of Guernica or Picasso’s Guernica?

Houellebecq has been compared to Beckett. This flatters him beyond sense. However, I can see why the comparison has been made. I hope the following comments about Beckett by John Calder will be relevant to the question I posed in the preceding paragraph:

“A scene depicting the horrors of a concentration camp, torture, or execution, however realistic, can never catch the real essence of human cruelty, the despair of those who are trapped, the suffering and universal helplessness of all life in the face of predation and the destructive power of nature or man. The absence of any divine power able or willing to prevent suffering or improve the human condition, the indifference of nature, and our own very limited understanding of the universe in which we live have given modern man, especially in time of war, a sense of helplessness; this helplessness can be countered only with a resigned stoicism, interrupted perhaps with bursts of anger that the world is not the better place we know it could be, so that we should have the intelligence and conscious awareness to perceive the depth of our universal tragedy; if there is a God, why should he treat us so badly or be so indifferent? Beckett has set out to depict this sense of helplessness.”

I also hope that there are a few examples there of what atheists think, feel and believe.



But if Houellebeqc doesn't give a damn about his readers' thoughts, is he merely throwing his paintpot at the public? (He has the right to do that of course, but if that's all he's doing, I shall probably stick at the two books of his that I've read.)
I don’t think he’s just doing that. He does give a damn about the thoughts of some of his readers – those who recognise the world he exposes. He certainly gives enough of a damn to provide them with exactly the kinds of observations they’ve been waiting for someone to make. This is not to say that he’s only for the select few. He doesn’t give a damn about those who condemn him. While this is probably nothing more than a pose, I find it hugely refreshing. At last, there is someone prepared to tell it exactly as it is to those who see it.


So, what is it that enables atheists to bear their fardels again each day, without resorting to the bare bodkin?

Well, I can’t speaker for my people, :D but for me, that’s a good question. To be honest, it’s something I’ve thought about often. Rationally, it seems right. So there are obviously things that prevent me from reaching for the instant quietus.

Every day when I get up, I know it’s not going to get any better ‘til I go back to sleep again. I can never be happy but I’m content with my lot most of the time. I accept the harsh terms on which I exist. It’s all utterly meaningless and therefore so is saying so. This forum and everything else in my life just helps fill the hours ‘til the eternal footman snickers one last time. I am just waiting for Godot. But I’m here for the time being and so I need to find something to do, so I do. I love and hate and scream and cry and laugh just like everybody else. I understand the need to believe but I don’t.

I’ve sometimes wondered if things would be different if human beings lived forever. I think we’d simply have more crossword puzzles and spend more time wondering which deodorant to use.

[The Unnamable]

Personally I don't agree with this
You don’t have to. But don’t you feel like that sometimes?


and, on the basis of reading this one book, I’m not too sure that Houellebeqc completely agrees either – trying to work out how fully he accepts the deliberately one-sided view he’s presenting was the difficult thing for me. In “Platform” it seemed to me that the main character really loves his girlfriend. She’s a confusing character, but the emotional attachment the narrator feels for her is pretty clear. So it seems that love is still possible, in spite of the disgust he feels for the world around him.

Why wouldn’t it be? How could he be disgusted if nothing ever matters? On the other hand, perhaps love is simply moments of excitement or tenderness doomed in advance to failure except in the memory where it becomes fixed and idealised.

There is a comment just a few pages into the novel when the narrator is telling us about the police inquiries into his father’s murder. He had been questioned by the investigating officer.

“The rest of the interview proceeded more or less normally; I had watched a few made-for-TV movies, so I was prepared for this kind of conversation.”

You would expect the interview to have been traumatic but our sensibilities have been so dulled by our exposure to the relentless crassness of modern culture that it’s just another TV moment. Worse than that, it seems that now reality mirrors art. He continues a few pages further, “I wasn’t unhappy, I had 128 channels”. In a world based on the pursuit of sensation, isn’t that what happiness has become?

[Sami]

Why wouldn’t it be? How could he be disgusted if nothing ever matters? On the other hand, perhaps love is simply moments of excitement or tenderness doomed in advance to failure except in the memory where it becomes fixed and idealised.

I’m really not sure how to answer these questions, (I meant it when I said that I found this book very difficult), but I’ll have a try. Probably both – their love was both the thing that mattered against the world and it was momentary; this was the sadness about it. The relationship gave the narrator a temporary break from his monotonous life, and I suppose this was echoed in the focus on tourism.

I remember thinking that at least there was some change in the narrator. There was a difference between his detachment at the start, at the stage you mention when his happiness comes from having 128 TV channels, and the end of the book. At first he’s sort of numb and automatic but at the end, (and I hope I’m not giving away the story), he has to make an effort to be detached and to deliberately dull his feelings. So there wasn’t a constant feeling of hopelessness throughout the whole book and he seemed marginally better off in the end than beginning. I was thankful that the narrator’s love was presented as a sincere feeling. He had genuine hopes for the future, and as I was reading it I shared those feelings. For me, this is what made the book bearable.


You don’t have to. But don’t you feel like that sometimes?

Yes, of course I do – I think we all feel disgusted and hopeless at times, don’t we? But I only feel like this sometimes - its not my whole view, and I try my best to resist it becoming so. My friend who suggested the book to me would probably agree with this statement more strongly than I do, so maybe I am the wrong audience for this type of book.

[Theshizznigg]

I've managed to be an atheist for over 20 years without a credo. I think most do. I would no more follow another atheists views than I would religious views; not completely anyway. I treat life like a jigsaw where no-one has all the pieces. We need to pick them up where we can.

I'd love to comment on Houellebecq, but I've only just bought Atomised and won't get around to it for a while I fear. If this threads still around then, I'll come back and let you know what I thought.


Ahh XM, thats exactly why I like you.
Spoken like a true Atheist.


Maybe we should sit, and waste all our times in trivial pursuit of why were here. Or maybe we could give up endless philosophical thought, and live our lives to the fullest of our expectations.

Shizz.

"Theism, ah Theism, I should start a Theism, call it Monosolocoquistianism, and base it all on the fine art of staring at milk jugs."

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Ahh XM, thats exactly why I like you.
Spoken like a true Atheist.


Maybe we should sit, and waste all our times in trivial pursuit of why were here. Or maybe we could give up endless philosophical thought, and live our lives to the fullest of our expectations.

Shizz.

"Theism, ah Theism, I should start a Theism, call it Monosolocoquistianism, and base it all on the fine art of staring at milk jugs."

You stare at your milk jugs. I find endless philosophical debate more to my taste. ;)

[Theshizznigg]

Yes debate is all good, or so we say.

While some of us are much better than others. I'd go so far to say, as that there are many master debators, but I prefer to be a cunning linguist myself. :D

"I want an apple pie!" "But mine Fuhrer, there are not apples!"
"Then make the apples, no excuses!"
- Later Hitler sat down to a nice steaming pie.
"Mmm delicous, apples of the valley?" "No mine Fuhrer! Apples of the Road."

Oddity Express Number #1

[The Unnamable]

I’m really not sure how to answer these questions, (I meant it when I said that I found this book very difficult), but I’ll have a try.
Thanks for trying. What, exactly, did you find difficult? In terms of simply understanding what the hell the writer is on about, it isn’t nearly as difficult as many of the works discussed here. Perhaps you found it difficult by trying to read it on the bus? :lol: That bit made me laugh and I've had the same experiences, once by making the mistake of reading it in the staffroom.


So there wasn’t a constant feeling of hopelessness throughout the whole book and he seemed marginally better off in the end than beginning. I was thankful that the narrator’s love was presented as a sincere feeling. He had genuine hopes for the future, and as I was reading it I shared those feelings. For me, this is what made the book bearable.
I’m not sure he’s in any way better off. He expects his rotting body to be found in some Pattaya ****-hole. If you’ve ever been to Pattaya, you’ll know just how desperate a thought this is.


Yes, of course I do – I think we all feel disgusted and hopeless at times, don’t we? But I only feel like this sometimes - its not my whole view, and I try my best to resist it becoming so. My friend who suggested the book to me would probably agree with this statement more strongly than I do, so maybe I am the wrong audience for this type of book.
I think I’m the right audience. :D

[Sami]

Perhaps you found it difficult by trying to read it on the bus? :lol: That bit made me laugh and I've had the same experiences, once by making the mistake of reading it in the staffroom.
Yikes - I’d imagine this would be much worse than the bus. Presumably you have a professional relationship with your colleagues so you’d be obliged to give an explanation. Complete strangers on a bus just quietly assume you’re a pervert, and then try to switch seats at the first opportunity. :nod:


In terms of simply understanding what the hell the writer is on about, it isn’t nearly as difficult as many of the works discussed here.
True, in one sense it’s very readable. Also true, that it might be easier than some other works discussed in this forum, but then I can think of many other books where I’d lack the confidence to offer any comment at all.

The political message of "Platform" was difficult. It made me squirm but, in the end, people like me probably could use being less comfortable.

The other reason I found it tough was because I couldn’t feel any empathy with the characters, particularly the girlfriend. My first reaction was to think, well obviously she’s just a male fantasy of the stereotypically perfect woman. She’s the best of both worlds, there we go, Houellebecq is a misogynist after all. But at the same time she’s interesting because she’s sort of empty – maybe empty isn’t quite the right word. She doesn’t seem to have any preferences, or any thoughts, or any kind of response to the world at all. I couldn’t get a sense of how she felt about things. Is she totally compliant? I don’t think so exactly. She was just sort of flat, as a character. I found this interesting because she’s a major player in the story. (Sorry, can’t remember her name – I borrowed this book, I don’t own a copy).

It’s not just that I couldn't recognise myself in her character, but that she wasn't like any person that I could imagine existing. I suppose this might be partly because the story wasn’t told from her perspective but I don't think it was only this.

[The Unnamable]

Complete strangers on a bus just quietly assume you’re a pervert, and then try to switch seats at the first opportunity. :nod:
Or worse – they ask you back for a coffee. :brow: :D :brow:


The other reason I found it tough was because I couldn’t feel any empathy with the characters, particularly the girlfriend. My first reaction was to think, well obviously she’s just a male fantasy of the stereotypically perfect woman. She’s the best of both worlds, there we go, Houellebecq is a misogynist after all. But at the same time she’s interesting because she’s sort of empty – maybe empty isn’t quite the right word. She doesn’t seem to have any preferences, or any thoughts, or any kind of response to the world at all. I couldn’t get a sense of how she felt about things. Is she totally compliant? I don’t think so exactly. She was just sort of flat, as a character. I found this interesting because she’s a major player in the story. (Sorry, can’t remember her name – I borrowed this book, I don’t own a copy).

It’s not just that I couldn't recognise myself in her character, but that she wasn't like any person that I could imagine existing. I suppose this might be partly because the story wasn’t told from her perspective but I don't think it was only this.
First of all, I’d forgotten that you are female. This will make a difference, I think – although it was a female who first recommended Platform to me. Perhaps I should have questioned her motives. :D

As for Valérie, she seems to accept those bits of the world she likes and simply ignores the rest. I agree that she isn’t the focus and I assume it’s her attitude to sex that you find problematic. At times, she seems like a porn fantasy. But I have met women like her in that aspect. Both male and (to a far lesser degree, admittedly) female extreme sexual behaviour can find an outlet in Thailand. This is probably one reason the novel resonates with me. I’ve met people and listened to their stories. I’ve also witnessed a lot of what goes on, as they say. Some things would shock Houellebecq himself. If you really want to read some of them, it’ll have to be via PM but if Houellebecq disconcerts you, you might prefer to remain free of it. I’m not being mocking there – some of it I wish I didn’t know.

[Sami]

As for Valérie, she seems to accept those bits of the world she likes and simply ignores the rest. I agree that she isn’t the focus and I assume it’s her attitude to sex that you find problematic. At times, she seems like a porn fantasy. But I have met women like her in that aspect...

Yes, I think that’s basically it, although I found her attitude towards her career totally confusing as well. All can say, is that I can think with this book, but I wasn't able to feel with it. That's a very clumsy way of putting it. I could talk about the political issues it raises, (not here obviously), and I have strong feelings about those issues based on my experiences of the world. But because I couldn't recognize any of the characters the specific story it presented, he made the issues seem abstract. Or to put it another way, it interested me, but it didn't move me. It probably speaks very differently to a female reader than a male audience – most books do. It also probably has a different impact if you have first hand familiarity with Thailand and the things he’s talking about.

Just to be clear, Houellebecq doesn’t “disconcert” me because I’m a terrible prude who would rather pretend that none of these things are happening in the world. It’s more that I wonder whether he has the most effective approach for getting people to open up to considering these questions. For example, of the hundreds of people who visit this website only a few seem to have read him, or perhaps others have read him but are choosing not to join the discussion. If things are going on that “you wish you didn’t know”, or that we could say ought not to be happening, then we should be not only repulsed by them, but also trying to think of a way to improve the situation. I find Houellebecq paralyzing, but then I suppose it’s good sometimes to at least try to discuss books you find hard so there you go.

[The Unnamable]

Yes, I think that’s basically it, although I found her attitude towards her career totally confusing as well.
Isn’t yours? Mine is (insofar as it can be given such a term). :lol: That’s what I like about a lot of more recent Literature. It shows us characters who, like me, can’t seem to live their lives in straight lines in the way I assume many must be able to.


All can say, is that I can think with this book, but I wasn't able to feel with it.
I can understand this – and I must say I was a bit surprised to find myself feeling with his next book, Atomised (although it’s called The Elementary Particles in the edition I have). I found some of it heartbreaking.


That's a very clumsy way of putting it. I could talk about the political issues it raises, (not here obviously), and I have strong feelings about those issues based on my experiences of the world. But because I couldn't recognize any of the characters the specific story it presented, he made the issues seem abstract. Or to put it another way, it interested me, but it didn't move me. It probably speaks very differently to a female reader than a male audience – most books do. It also probably has a different impact if you have first hand familiarity with Thailand and the things he’s talking about.
Not first hand in the important way!



Just to be clear, Houellebecq doesn’t “disconcert” me because I’m a terrible prude who would rather pretend that none of these things are happening in the world. It’s more that I wonder whether he has the most effective approach for getting people to open up to considering these questions.
Also just to be clear, I didn’t think you a prude or ‘afraid to look’.
I think this raises an interesting question (and one that has been directed at me and my ‘methods’ by a number of contributors). I think Houelle’becq neither feels under any obligation to present his ideas in such a way that we won’t be put off (he’s like Swift; I think he writes “to vex the world rather than divert it”), nor does he think there is any point anyway. It’s too late. It’s all over. Look at the evidence!



For example, of the hundreds of people who visit this website only a few seem to have read him, or perhaps others have read him but are choosing not to join the discussion. If things are going on that “you wish you didn’t know”, or that we could say ought not to be happening, then we should be not only repulsed by them, but also trying to think of a way to improve the situation.
There’s a line from Nightswimming by Michael Stipe that I like– “these things they go away, replaced by every day”. There’s so much of it so much of the time that I don’t have enough repulsion to go around. Some of it is even blackly and absurdly funny. I guess life is bigger.



I find Houellebecq paralyzing, but then I suppose it’s good sometimes to at least try to discuss books you find hard so there you go.

Houellebecq is paralysing because the world he shows us is beyond redemption. How can you face facts when they are all around you?

PS don’t feel obligated to respond.

[rachel]

Unnameable,
You have convinced me to read him. I am going to drink plenty of milk and eat a whole turkey first,(to calm me so I don't feak out , you know me) and then I will contribute to this from ICU at our only hospital. :D
By the way dear Unnameable, do you ever just, you know kick back in a nice hot bath, have a tray handy with your favorite drink on it and perhaps a lovely meal and well-
perhaps just read a comic book? ;)

[Theshizznigg]

Sometimes, The only solace I find is in my faith and my books, I must say that my fondness of reading which was already great, has magnified tenfold in the past five years.
:) Some of my biggest expenses are books, but I don't care, I love them all!

"Hiei and Kuruma, Kawaii, Kawaii! Kya!! Kawaii!!!!"
Annoying the younger.