Let me start out by saying that this book is admirably ambitious in its attempt to draft a "tribute to humanity." The reviews on the cover were nothing but raves (of course). It is also unique in that it was written by a French guy--relatively rare for a fairly mainstream novel. Supposedly, it was written for intelligent people.
The story follows the parallel lives of two men who share the same irresponsible, perpetually absent, hippie mother. They grow up ignorant of each other's existence, but meet in adulthood and encounter each other throughout the book. Like two particles in an entangled state, they are both dysfunctional but in opposite ways. One is an obsessive scientist and the other is a compulsive hedonist. Through their experiences and the experiences of the people they affect, we are supposedly given a portrait of troubled humanity, culminating in the conflict of love versus innate selfishness and isolation. That's the tribute.
Unfortunately, the book fails to live up to its ambitions. Either Houellebecq's reality is supremely different from the average American's (mine), or he is careful to select aspects of humanity that are narrow to the point of absurdity. Like many of his ancestral existentialists, his thesis is sensational and unrealistic. His world is one of constant orgies, sadism, emotional isolation, and hippies (only the nymphomaniac hippies though). He sort of attributes these scourges to the rapid breakdown of Judeo-Christian values over the course of the 20th century. Paradoxically, the author appears intelligent: he knows his physics well enough to throw around names, and I completely agree with him that physics and biology need to communicate better. I couldn't find any inaccuracies in the book, just lots of inconsistencies:
1. Houellebecq portrays religion as a champion of morals and integrity. He ignores its support of child molestation, oppression, and warmongering.
2. I was unaware of the orgies that Houellebecq likes to describe. Apparently they are these New Age getaways where people have sex with each other to relieve the stress of their hellish day jobs. He seems to think a majority of people attend these things; however, from my surveys, it would appear that it's more of a clear minority bordering on imaginary. Maybe it's different in France--I didn't check there.
3. Houellebecq hints time and again that only women are capable of love, and that men are horrid go-getters who repeatedly trash the world. I appreciate his efforts to champion the females, but I would appreciate it more if he didn't assume all and only good women are characterized by a soft, servile persona and driving need to love and be loved. The distribution of these traits is scattered across many individuals, not all of whom are good or of a specific gender.
I didn't want to judge a book based on how its opinions clashed with mine, but I just did. Had the book been a smidgen less sensational, and more realistic (since the author is trying to send a message, I expect he would try to be realistic) it could have been carried into my good graces on the smoothness and honesty of the writing. I read 98% of it in one day. It's not a bad read, just don't expect to agree with anything.
The only valid take-home message in the book is that people should be less cruel to each other. Ignore his ideas as to why people are cruel to each other; if you're interested in that sort of thing, read "Obedience to Authority" by Stanley Milgram, or the works of Konrad Lorenz.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
hahaha a llama, I get it-- that's a great one!
He might have selected such narrow aspects of humanity simply because he didn’t feel up to the task of trying to justify his message for the staggering breadth of human character. Or maybe he felt (rightly, it seems) that his message wasn’t strong enough to withstand that kind of multiplicity of example – apparently he didn’t learn about the concession paragraph in grade school the way we did.
I think it’s the author’s prerogative to use or not use whatever examples or aspects of human nature they feel exemplifies their point best. What I don’t like is when I feel like I’ve been deliberately tricked – like the author knows deep down that their argument is invalid and so has hidden the contrary evidence – or at least that the author knows that his or her chosen message is not particularly compelling when seen without their imposed blinders.
This may be the most egregious issue that I see, based on your review. If the author is pushing a social message (his ‘tribute’) in an even more open way than any other author pushes some social message in their work, then it ought to be a good one. “People ought to be less cruel” doesn’t really count, in my book.
Post a Comment