We had hardly finished greeting one another when the discussion on the book started. It was mostly very positively received, with the exception of Helen who found it very difficult to relate to the characters and admitted having “skimmed” through it. In our animated, even sometimes passionate exchanges, we touched upon many different points. Here is a selection:
- Houellebecq's alter egos:
- Jed,
- Houellebecq,
- the police inspector,
- Michou, the small, impotent, but entirely happy dog (perhaps the only figure in the book who is allowed to be happy?)
- Some found Jed an intriguing character, others found him passive and emotionally dysfunctional. Apparently incapable of experiencing real emotions, he provided a perfect mirror for the evolution of society. The very early loss of his mother was certainly one reason for his apparent coldness (and the resulting indifference of the reader) but was there more to it than that?
- We all agreed on the fact that Jed's father was by far the best developed character in the book and the easiest to relate to. This also triggered a discussion on the pros and cons of euthanasia. Was his father conceived simply as a counterpart to Jed with the father-son relationship becoming almost irrelevant? Are son-father relationships always that difficult (or indeed, daughter-father relationships, as one member ruefully claimed?)
- Of course, we also had to mention Olga. Was she really in love or was she just a trophy mistress in a “m'as-tu vu” world?
Why did she put him to the test in that typical female way? And as for Jed himself, how come he failed to react to her announcement of a well-paid job in Moscow even though he appeared to be affected by her departure?
- We also wondered if everyone would be able to cope with sudden wealth or whether it helped to have been born into a materially comfortable world like Jed. Michael Jackson and Mike Tyson, as well as lottery winners, cropped up as examples.
- We talked about plagiarism, not only Houellebecq’s acknowledged quotations from Wikipedia but the less publicized ‘borrowing’ of his title from a friend. Some of us were struck by other literary similarities, such as Fred Vargas for the murder scene, and the industrial vision of Christa Wolf’s Divided Heaven.
- We were amused by Houellebecq’s vitriolic portraits of TV personalities and fellow-authors (including Beigbeder, who is theoretically a friend!), not to mention the art world in general.
- Nature seemed to play a large part in the book, particularly by contrast with the encroaching industrialized world. We also all agreed that Houellebecq is a very visual writer.
- What made him slap the woman in the euthanasia organization when he had been so passive following the discussion with his father about his intentions?
- Why did this book get the Prix Goncourt? Maren tried to find the jury’s reasons for awarding the prize but apparently they don’t feel the need to justify their decision to the public.
- What's life like for a writer in the suburbs? Why is Michel Houellebecq living there?
If you have an answer to any of these questions, please share them with us on the blog!
To sum up, the evening was a real success, although we were very sorry to learn that Kathleen will soon be leaving us as her job is taking her to the States. On the administrative side we may shift the date of our next session some days if it means that Anjuli can join us (currently fixed on Thursday, 11th October).
There has also been a change of order in the book selection: Emily and Maren are switching, so the November session will be dedicated to Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany's. So it’s time to start thinking about a movie session and that little black number... ;-)
Caroline & Maren
