Imposant and pessimistic.The latter is good, because great art is about misery.
Funny you’re asking that now.There is a very recent discussion about the essay that Thierry Baudet has written about serotonin, the last book of Houellebecq.I did read that essay.
Houellebecq was often recommended to me and I started in Soumission, but from the very first page the author has been chained with his siege and his demagogy.And I do not like people who show and not at all of demagogy. So after a few chapters I was exhausted and I threw it away.
Baudet is also a terrible demagogue and even more koketteur, so I understand that link.Now that I’ve been plodding baudets essay (and thought twenty times, “Do you now express your best to formulate it as hard as possible, poser you are there?”) I have much less desire to read Houellebecq. And I’ve gotten an even bigger dislike of Baudet. He seems to be a huge fan of Houellebecq, although I get the impression that he has not fully understood a few concepts, but in doing so he does his best to describe that with so many difficult words that you do not easily understand that he leaves the shelf miss.
In that essay, Baudet mainly explains the theme ‘ individualism ‘ from the work of Houellebecq.Or rather: the assertion that modern individualism has been so far-beaten that it threatens to become our demise. Where Baudet goes into the fog is that he tries to illustrate this from his own practice and then says: In the Netherlands, euthanasia is legalised, which means that the environment of a person can help to express someone who starts as a burden on his family , to let his life end (I do not need to explain which piece of the law Baudet did not understand, I assume). And he also says that our society is in trouble because women are emancipation (a form of individualisation, I can agree with him, but I think correctly: a beautiful form) has been so far beaten that women are no longer good for their children and the Household can take care of. So, rightly so, he ended up on a tidal wave of vicious Twitter messages from an emanciped corner. And a third point where he totally miss the plank is his assertion that “mass immigration” (alone that tendentious word, disgusting) is an expression of our Western individualization. He does not even bother to explain it, probably because he would then expire too much in fallacies.
Then back to Houellebecq itself: On me it comes as if every kind of individualization is bad (I want to put some nuance on it), as if we are at the maximum now (then you as an author have little imagination, I think, I would have a novel W Illen read in the tradition of Brave New World in which the individualization trend is once more greatly extended) and that hereafter either a extinction of our culture follows either a take-over by for example Islam (although that is best a xenophobic Addition of Baudet have been, that is not clear).
In summary: Give my portion to Fikkie.
Have read elementary particles, Platform and Soumission.I do like that which is black gallige (because realistic approach). If you do not want to have your eyes in your pocket you will see that it is exactly what is described in Soumission to close every day. Or the binch becomes more closely. But Houellebecq does not take it in his description of the condition humaine by the greatest French writer ever: Louis Ferdinand Celine. There it abject anti-Semitism and other dubious political convictions of the last nothing to rid.
No, Yeral, I have not read anything and will never do that either.His view on life is so different from mine!
No, so no opinion.