Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Books, Criticism & Writing >

Michel Houellebecq 'Atomised'

00:28 / 10.02.03

SPOILERS, obviously. (Actually, do people normally talk about spoilers regarding literature? Hmmm.)

Well, it was deeply, deeply unpleasant. And, I suspect, for a generation in their 30's-40's, rather than fresh-faced twenty-somethings like me. Filthy, too.

The casual atrocities and tragedies of human relationships detailed in a continually barrelling manner, up until the frankly bizarre solitary research bit and sci-fi conclusion.

I'd definitely read Platform, though. I do think Houllebecq is well-attuned to the zeitgeist, despite the pseudo-apocalyptic leanings.

What about youse?

No star here laces

06:47 / 10.02.03

We had a thread on this before, but I can't find it anywhere.

I loved it. The board consensus was "reactionary rubbish", IIRC.

Zeitgeist indeed.

08:17 / 10.02.03

The old thread disappeared during one of the old board's periodic hissy fits, I think - it was about two years ago, after all...

I remember finding it pretty clinical and, struggling for an adequate word, lacking in humanity. Or no - presenting a very bleak view of humanity which is uncomfortably close to reality and which is therefore harder to accept, partly because the depiction is unlarded. And yeah, it was a bit reactionary.

.

08:47 / 10.02.03

I initially found it very funny, almost laugh-out-loud in places, but that was a product of my believing that the dark misanthropic attitude of the protagonists was a cunning post-modern attempt at an ironic dissection of stereotypical nihilistic/ existential themes. As I read on, however, I realised that there really was no ironic distance between author and protagonists, until I became so annoyed with the constant bludgeoning tone that I couldn't read any further. I've never picked it up again, so I still don't know if there was any worthwhile pay-off at the end... Worth finishing?

No star here laces

08:52 / 10.02.03

It definitely weakens toward the end.

Houellebecq is, indeed, a reactionary. I can't help but feel, however, that he puts his finger exactly on the defining issue of the age which is, for want of a better word, atomisation. I loved the fact that he was willing to tackle this in a book, because it's a subject that few authors have the ambition for.

I also respect the fact that he drew the synthesis between the parallel trends of self-gratification and individualism.

The bit that I suspect pisses people off is that he also throws new-age spirituality and sexual freedom into the mix as well, as part of the same package.

I think the important distinction has to be made between sexual freedom per se and the commodified attitude to sex that has arisen out of the interaction between this and the trends of self-gratification and individualism.

To whit, atomisation...

12:23 / 10.02.03

i got as far as the bit where he describes the brothers as being like light, either particles or waves depending on y'know, perspective. cutting edge literature? i thought, and put the book down. i liked the bit about the huxley brothers and the imprtance of eugenics to biology though. attenborough's little malthusian bit at the end of life of mammals last week made me think of atomised.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

16:22 / 16.04.03

I finally finished this last night (a second attempt- the first foundered on the fact that Ken McLeod published a novel the same day I started reading it the first time). I really liked it- not as much as "Platform", even though there was more to it. I actually thought the skiffy ending detracted from it, though. But yeah. Bleak as fuck.

Just started reading "Whatever" (his first novel) this morning- that's shaping up to be damn good, and, possibly, a little more easily accessible.

I think Cat's pretty close to the mark- presenting a very bleak view of humanity which is uncomfortably close to reality and which is therefore harder to accept, partly because the depiction is unlarded .

An uncomfortable, though rewarding, read.

17:25 / 16.04.03

"Houellebecq is, indeed, a reactionary"

Well...perhaps you knew that he wrote a biography of HP Lovecraft (Don't know if it's translated)? His a big fan of this well known asocial mysanthrope...

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

06:50 / 17.04.03

He wrote what ?

Fuck, I so have to read that. Even if it means learning French.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

01:27 / 08.06.05

His Lovecraft book "HP Lovecraft: Agains The World, Against Life" is now out in English. And he has a new novel out in November.

Book mods wanna respell his name so we can search for it?

02:42 / 08.06.05

another one in november? brill!

i love houellebecq and think his finger is well on the pulse - and though yes, his prose can by turns perhaps be disgusting, reactionary and self-important, it is nonetheless rich in a broad poerty i think unrivalled by most of his contemporaries. i don't read french though, so only know it in translation.

and that this book was soooo prescient of bali is quite scary...

i am actually about to re-read both platform and atomised; as soon as i get my copy of 'whatever' (which i think is the new [camus'] 'outsider') so i can read all four in succession. s'been a while since i read atomised now, many words ender the bridge...

btw: the first chapter of 'lanzarote' was the first time i think i ever read an opening chapter, went 'wow, fuck!' and immediately went back to page one and re-read it. fantastic writing - why doesn't he win everything??

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:07 / 08.06.05

If you want more 'fiction' of the 'quality' of Lanzarote, might I suggest a subscription either the 'letters' pages of The Sunday Sport, or the text found accompanying pseudo-lesbian photoshoots in many top-shelf magazines? The advantage of the former is that a tabloid such as the Sport will often also in its editorial pages offer a critique of the relationship between Islam and the West of the same intellectual and political calibre as that propounded by M. Houllebecq.

21:46 / 08.06.05

i think you may have actually touched on exactly m. houellebecq's point!

and recall the word 'fiction'...

03:31 / 09.06.05

Just quietly piping up that I felt bludgeoned and ripped-off by his relentless insistence on the impossibility of human connection in Atomised. I felt like he was just flipping me the bird the whole time. Straw men, anyone?

And, yeah, the science fiction thing was dumb. That's my considered critical opinion.

m.

03:50 / 09.06.05

fiction: isn't it all about drawing out a character (or with m h, characters) that we as readers don't necessarily like or even relate well to; to show us these perpectives of the human condition?

h's characters' views on islam, for instance, are in fact sadly very present in the french society, non?

this is fiction, it is about engaging the reader with a story and its players that affects the reader emotionally. we follow the protagonist, sometimes even though we mightn't like them. does anyone really find they 'like' grenouille in suskind's 'perfume'? yet do we not all agree that that is a superb tale beautifully and engrossingly told?

i think understanding of fiction is too often instructed from the perpective of 'oh well, if you like the characters it must be ok'... life is not so black and white. that is why i think the effort of the poetry inherent in h's prose is so strong and why i like the work, if not the protagonists. it shouldn't always be so easy.

the moral worths played out in houellebecq's prose may be subject to debate, but i think the quality of the writing is unquestionably not debatable. ...must get 'whatever' back tonight...

ONLY NICE THINGS

07:08 / 09.06.05

Ummm...

*Raises hand*

I'd like to question it. I found "Atomised" to be poorly written, although that may potentially have been the fault of the translator. There was no suspense, no real differentiation in the style and, liking or disliking notwithstanding, I simply could not bring myself to give a toss about the characters, who were paper-thin. The only person I felt any sympathy for was the woman who hung around with Brother Filthy, and then only because she was being forced by the demands of the plot to behave in such a bloody stupid fashion...

23:09 / 09.06.05

Yeah, I suppose what I was trying to say there about my dislike for the book was that his picture of a pointless, dangerous and uncaring universe didn't feel convincingly written, and came off more as a fable to prove his in-his-mind-already-proven point rather than a deep consideration of the human condition. Granted, he didn't get it wrong all the way through the book, but in the end it just felt like carping.

I'm well up for books and characters in books that make me feel uncomfortable, or that I dislike, as long as they provoke something else. Annoying or upsetting me or disappointing on its own just isn't enough.

It's too easy to go "well, you weren't supposed to like them anyway" when the whole thing about liking a character in a book isn't actually about whether you'd want to be their friend or not - it's more about them being convincingly human in whatever way.

m.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

16:05 / 04.11.05

Just started "The Possibility of an Island"... probably his funniest since "Whatever" so far.

I've also now read his Lovecraft one "HP Lovecraft- Against The World, Against Life" (a winner for the title alone), though I think I'll read it again and start a separate thread, as it's obviously gonna be of interest both to those who read MH and those who read HPL, and probably doesn't fit in a thread on his novels...

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:13 / 07.11.05

[In the preface to his new novel], Houellebecq also compares the relationship between men and women to that of an owner and a domestic pet. This role in society has been wiped away by the feminist movement.

'Women are not stupid,' he says, 'but they were not clever enough to realise that feminism did not bring freedom, but the opposite. That's why I'm glad feminism is dead.'

Michel Houellebecq, ladies and gentlemen.

All Acting Regiment

08:49 / 06.06.06

So, given that this doesn't look like the sort of thing I'd like, is it worth reading anyway to be able ot argue with it? The stink of shit seems to hang over it, but two friends have read it and are busy singing it's praises.

All Acting Regiment

14:58 / 12.08.08

So, a bump, I suppose. I'm one chapter into Atomised, and my impression so far is of a book that is essentially The Kite Runner or A Child Called It - manipulative trash that one is supposed to read for the urgent 'truths' or, here, 'ideas' it contains - with a nihilistic, reactionary set of values as opposed to a liberal (?) set of values.

I think one could very much write a book, fiction or otherwise, which dealt with the problems and questions of atomisation, individualism, etc. I don't think this is it, so far.

07:46 / 13.08.08

So, a bump, I suppose. I'm one chapter into Atomised, and my impression so far is of a book that is essentially The Kite Runner or A Child Called It - manipulative trash that one is supposed to read for the urgent 'truths' or, here, 'ideas' it contains - with a nihilistic, reactionary set of values as opposed to a liberal (?) set of values.

I assumed that the bump was going to be because of his new film (for those who don't know he's adapted his own novel The Possibility of An Island) which I have to say I'm pretty excited about - even though it will probably be rubbish. I haven't read a review yet but I've read that all the critics hated it - still, that's not necessarily any guide, I'm hoping it will be fun and unusual at least.
Anyway, I think that Atomised (or The Elementary Particles as it was before translation) is excellent; I loved the bleakness and the humour and thought that the "sci-fi" ending was both perfect (in that in retrospect it seemed totally logical) and perfectly unexpected. Though not so unexpected when he basically repeated it again in The Possibility of An Island.
Since reading Atomised a few years ago I've read Galapagos by Vonnegut and I think that there are strong similarities in the two stories in that SPOILER HERE it's about humans being saved (but also doomed) by essentially ceasing to be humans.
I'd be interested to know exactly what people are referring to when they describe it as reactionary. Misanthropic and curmudgeonly yes but reactionary wasn't necessarily the phrase that sprang to my mind on reading although I'm open to persuasion.

09:25 / 13.08.08

Oh yeah, meant to say, there's an article about him (presumably concentrating on the film and the continuing spat with his mother) in the G2 section of the Guardian today but I haven't read it yet.
Which reminds me - I don't think anyone has mentioned this feud with his mother or that she is apparently the basis for the distant mother character in Atomised.

09:25 / 13.08.08

Oh yeah, meant to say, there's an article about him (presumably concentrating on the film and the continuing spat with his mother) in the G2 section of the Guardian today but I haven't read it yet.
Which reminds me - I don't think anyone has mentioned this feud with his mother or that she is apparently the basis for the distant mother character in Atomised.

09:28 / 13.08.08

Whoops. Dunno what happened there...