Posted on 05/20/2019 7:37:56 PM PDT by cornelis
REVIEW ESSAY
Sérotonine
by Michel Houellebecq
Flammarion, 2019, 352 pages
For a brief moment, just before the end of Michel Houellebecq’s latest novel Sérotonine, a ray of hope seems to galvanize its protagonist. For a short while he seems to recover his lust for life. Having languished for years without a sense of purpose, Florent-Claude resolves to end his reliance on antidepressants. Gradually something akin to a will to live begins to resurface: he notices skirts by the bar in a café, girls, facial expressions, emotion, desire, and irritation at the mind-numbing TV programs he had been watching every day. Indeed, he actually throws out his screen and begins to think again about Thomas Mann, about Proust—about the fate of our civilization.
But it doesn’t last. The sun doesn’t rise. The glow on the horizon fades—just like in the closing passage of Houellebecq’s first novel, Extension du domaine de la lutte, in which the subject’s hope similarly vanishes after a delightful, optimistic afternoon in the country: “It will not take place, the sublime fusion,” he reflects, “the goal of life is missed.”1
And everything melts away into an all-encompassing void. No mercy, no comfort: the project of our civilization has come to an end.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanaffairsjournal.org ...
In some of his books (such as La carte et le territoire), Houellebecq allows his characters to achieve a degree of happiness in consumerism—as in the massive hypermarket where one can wander about endlessly in search of yet another self-indulgent pleasure—small comfort indeed. In Plateforme, the limitless supply of sex in Thailand’s coastal resorts leaves the author’s subjects on a temporary high. Yet even these delights finally fade amid the loneliness, the isolation, and the pointlessness of it all—and that is why Houellebecq’s books generally culminate in a kind of religious vision. From disappointment (at the lack of an all-embracing cultural ideal, romantic love, meaningful social intercourse) to depression. Then, via desperate consumerism and sexual hedonism, to a futile, feeble cry for help into the cosmos." read more
Thierry Baudet is the leader of ascendant and largest Dutch political party, Forum for Democracy,
Baudet uses the term “suicide” instead of “euthansia.”
Baudet will debate PM Mark Rutte on Wednesday, one day before May 23 elections.
If you allow yourself a brief moment to view the world from Houellebecq’s perspective, his philosophy is validated all around us. Consider the emancipation of women and the feminist ideology that underpins it (a favorite topic in Houellebecq’s work). The “liberated” status of women is usually celebrated as one of the great triumphs of late-liberal society. Today women, from an early age, are encouraged to pursue a career and be financially independent. They are expected to reject the traditional role of supporting a husband and strive instead for an “equal” relationship in which “gender roles” are interchangeable.But how has this really been working out for them? What happens when they hit thirty? If they continue to work full hours, building a family becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible. This is why women in the Western world increasingly tend to have fewer children—if they even have them at all. Work and children then often limit the time available for the maintenance of a committed relationship, and rare are the lovers that both work full hours, rear children, and invest sufficiently in each other for the marriage to remain healthy over time. An inevitable result of all this is the demographic decline of Europe. Another outcome is constant conflict, constant competition—and in the end, fighting, divorce, and social isolation—and a new generation of boys and girls growing up in such disfigured settings.
This frustration is expressed directly by the character Christiane in Les particules élémentaires:
Never could stand feminists. . . . always going on about washing dishes and the division of labor; they could never shut up about the dishes. Oh, sometimes they’d talk about cooking or vacuuming, but their favorite topic was washing dishes. In a few short years, they managed to turn every man they knew into an impotent, whining neurotic. Once they’d done that, it was always the same story—they started going on about how there were no real men anymore. They usually ended up ditching their boyfriends for a quick fuck with some macho Latin idiot. . . . Anyway, they fuck their way through two or three, maybe more if they’re really pretty, and wind up with a kid. Then they start making jam from Marie Claire recipe cards. . . .Liberation, once again, hardly liberates.. . . I know what the veterans of ’68 are like when they hit forty. I’m practically one myself. . . . They feel the presence of the Angel or the flower blossoming within but then the workshop’s over and they’re still ugly, aging and alone. So they have crying fits. . . . Especially after the Zen workshops. They don’t have much choice, really—most of them have money problems too.5
This desperate moralism opens the doors to massive numbers of immigrants, undermines real political communities, and makes distinctive national and civilizational aspirations impossible.
Civilizations don’t have aspirations, only individuals (and especially individuals who want to limit the aspirations of others) do.
Subsequently, he experiences up close how rural life is collapsing as a consequence of free trade and unfair competition from Third World countries.
People from the “Third World” (what a contemptuous term) have every bit as much right try to sell products to me or anybody else in the “First World” as anybody else.
When he finds out that his current Japanese girlfriend has been going to orgies behind his back, where she has serviced not only groups of other men but even three dogs (a pit bull, a boxer, and a terrier, as he specifies rather precisely), he resolves to disappear without a trace.
Fiction is one way, occasionally an extraordinarily lazy way, of understanding life. Often reality is better. My wife is Japanese, and we have been married for a quarter of a century, and have two children we love dearly. I am confident my wife, to whom I proposed only after knowing for years, has never sexually serviced a dog, nor engaged in any of these other activities. Perhaps the author is disturbed by the thought of a Westerner engaging in racial mixing,
Milk, grain, and meat from massive tillages in South America are dumped onto the French market, effectively sealing the fate of the farmers of France.
This problem is easily solved. All French farmers must do is grow foodstuffs the French (and others) want to buy,
Existential connections have become almost impossible since few are genuinely prepared to sacrifice short-term pleasure for the commitment required to establish a deep mutual connection.
I have established many “connections.” The value of them lies in the fact that I have discovered them myself, and not had them forced on me by traditions of no intrinsic ethical worth and that I had no role in establishing,
As for those of us who find the people who have the misfortune to be born in the rest of the world, and the cultures they have created over thousands of years, occasionally interesting, and see value in engaging with them, please let us live. Do onto enslave us to your fears of the different.
Sounds like everyone, including that writer at The Atlantic, needs a good hobby-something to occupy the hands and mind that’s apart from daily life.
Fascinating.
Excellent points.
Three American voters will read it.
The reality is that stupid people vote in every election.
The Democrats know that and take advantage of them.
These ideas need to be broken down. They need to be communicated at a level that Democrat voters can understand.
You what has made “profound, long term relationships” impossible? American women who treat their men like idiots or living ATM’s. Women who believe the liberal crap like “you can have it all!” When nobody really can and drive themselves slowly insane while attempting it. I love spending time with women , I’m in my mid fifties and would love to date. But the dating scene is so schizophrenic (as are many of the women) that I see no discernable upside to doing so. After 25 years in law enforcement and an ugly divorce that has bankrupted me I am just getting into a good place mentally and emotionally. I see no purpose in upsetting that hard-won peace of mind with a person who does not have their “ stuff” together.
/rant>
CC
Can't tell if your reaction is against Baudet or Houellebecq, and then whether your good experiences suggest that this essay is about nothing. Anyhow, I posted this because Baudet stands some chance of becoming the next prime minister of The Netherlands.
Civilizations don't have aspirations; individuals have civilizational aspirations.
Whether it's First or Third World is no matter: unfair is unfair even when it is termed "free" trade.
Put aside whether the author is disturbed about race or not, the key takeaway for what he sees is this: “The Koran turns out to be much better than I thought. I feel, rather, that we can make arrangements. The feminists will not be able to, if we’re being completely honest. But I and lots of other people will.” But that is not Baudet.
Interesting.
He talks about managers and corporations.
What I really find interesting, is what he doesn’t talk about.
Whether it's First or Third World is no matter: unfair is unfair even when it is termed "free" trade.
Indeed. But this assertion requires that we define “fair,“ does it not? (Surely we would be lazy thinkers if we did not.) Fair trade as I see it is when you want to sell to me and I want to buy from you, because I see it as best for me or my family, and no one presumes to use the power of the state to prevent us from doing so, nor to deny others the same right. How do you define “fair”?
Put aside whether the author is disturbed about race or not,
Why on earth should we “put it aside”?
...the key takeaway for what he sees is this: “The Koran turns out to be much better than I thought. I feel, rather, that we can make arrangements. The feminists will not be able to, if we’re being completely honest. But I and lots of other people will.
I do not understand why you think this is “the key takeaway” since it does not appear in this essay by Baudet. I judge Baudet by the evidence in front of me. In the evidence in front of me, among other things, he seems to admire a writer who thinks that Western men fall for Japanese women even as these women sexually service dogs. I oppose (perhaps you think differently) what I see to be the beliefs of Houellebecq and Baudet (again, I confess ignorance of the former) that Westerners should remain ignorant of and disconnected from people in the rest of the world, and goodness knows should not marry and have children with them. If you think differently, I plead with you to tell me why.
What if your free trade adversely affected all of your neighbors, which in turn actually affects you because now you are being required to assist in supporting them through higher taxes, and by neighbors I don't mean the ones that necessarily live within close proximity to you. Do you still think free trade is a valuable trait to uphold? That is the free trade this country, and many other western countries have been engaged in. Causing their societies to be decimated while your free trading partner has made their society richer. Not because of hard work or innovation, but because of weak wages paid and the theft of intellectual property.
To me that is not free trade at all, but rather stupidity of the highest degree. Because at some point in time, even you and your family will end up as losers too. You can only insulate yourself for so long before unfair trade will affect every American and other western societies. The acquisition of goods at lower prices does not necessarily result in the best for you & your family, when you look at the bigger picture and not just the single trade taking place.
1. Of course “neighbors” means people geographically near me. If you mean “fellow citizens” or “fellow members of my state,” say that. Speak precisely, always, and avoid emotionally laden words. I have real neighbors, they are terrific people and I am lucky to have them, we help each other out all the time. People who lobby the government to lower my standard of living to raise theirs are not my “neighbors.” They are thieves, who believe that since they cannot sell me a product I want to buy at a price I want to pay, they can use the government to force me to buy their product, or pay (perhaps far) more money to avoid doing so.
2. People are sometimes buyers, and sometimes sellers. If I am to pay $10,000 more for a car because it must be made in the USA, that is money taken from me and given to shareholders and employees of “American” auto companies, which is money I cannot spend providing for my wife and my children as I think best, which I would often do by purchasing goods and services from other “American” firms. Thus, these fellow “neighbors” too will lose money because I have to spend more on my car. There is no way around that. But maybe the jobs of those other Americans are not important?
3. The only way I have to pay higher taxes when people lose their jobs is if they cannot find other ones. I leave it to you to decide whether the best way to make that happen is to have a society where we prioritize preserving what is right now (or, worse, going back to what was 40 years ago), or to prioritize creating the future,
Do you still think free trade is a valuable trait to uphold?
I think liberty is fundamental, and free trade — the freedom of a person to spend his hard-earned money as he thinks best — is part of being free.
That is the free trade this country, and many other western countries have been engaged in. Causing their societies to be decimated while your free trading partner has made their society richer. Not because of hard work or innovation, but because of weak wages paid and the theft of intellectual property.
Anyone who wants to give up all the fruits of global economic growth since the lionized 1950s — few foreign products, smaller houses, one or no cars, no modern health care, and of course no computer technology — is free to do so anytime, and to save a lot of money doing so. That so few do suggests that the changes in American economic activity, including new opportunities generated by doing business with foreigners, are worth it.
You can only insulate yourself for so long before unfair trade will affect every American and other western societies.
1. You sound pretty confident, so you must know how this will happen. Describe your feared free-trade future, in detail.
2. Define “unfair trade.”
3. Explain to me why certain firms who can’t survive under free competition nonetheless deserve to survive anyway through government protection from competition. Please explain why this is not stealing from American families who would otherwise freely choose to buy foreign prooducts.
The acquisition of goods at lower prices does not necessarily result in the best for you & your family, when you look at the bigger picture and not just the single trade taking place.
What is this “bigger picture” exactly? Why do you have the right to decide what is best for my family?
Very well, oppose them both, but refrain from confusing them.
And well the left should freak out, because he has identified the problem. I do agree, however, that he makes it sound too much as if women came up with this on their own. They didn’t. “Feminism,” in the bad sense, and sexual promiscuity (“free love”) were all the products of Marxism. The destruction of the family and the integration of women as just another cog in the worker machine, as well as removal of the sense of responsibility for and concern about others (children, parents), were all goals of Soviet and other Communist societies. The enforced separation from history, the past, and national identity in favor of a new identification with a global proletariat and a history that begins only with the installation of Marxism is also a result of this.
It was the triumph of Communism in 1968 that is responsible for all of these problems. The generation of ‘68 accepted all of the goals and theories of Communism although not necessarily using the word “Communism” or “Marxism,” and we are now seeing the full effects of their triumph.
As for Islam, it is at base nothing more than an Arab superiority cult, and what it imposes on the conquered peoples are the Arab cultural traditions of Mohammed’s time - and the Arabs were not known for a very developed or attractive culture, but simply for being aggressive and ruthless nomadic marauders who could impose their will through violence. Hence all of their cultural traditions were aimed at subjection of the will to the project of extending Arab domination.
Nothing has changed and it is truly an ugly culture expressed in an ugly cult. But the reason that Houellebecq sees this as possibly attractive is simply that it offers an alternative - not a good one, to be sure, but a sort of nationalist alternative to Marxism.
You make a good point. Your response jogged the memory of some old homework of mine. Just now my lazy intuition is whispering Hobbes.
Today, ‘68 is but a hazy period of abandon for Americans, a passage of adolescent innocence, and hardly ever understood as a sinister revolutionary movement that led to Obergefell v. Hodges.
There are a lot of threads in this maze, but I’m going to reserve “triumph” for something else. ; )
True. I actually don’t know much about Baudet and I didn’t even realize that there was a grass-roots rebellion going on in the Netherlands. Got to find out more, I guess!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.