/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15260231]

Just finished this. While I quite enjoyed the prose and the theme of the 1960s counterculture becoming assimilated into the establishment which it originally sought to destroy, and thus creating an even more totalitarian system of control in the form of consumer culture and biopolitics, I felt the conclusion and the ultimate purpose of this novel was fundamentally technocratic and hopelessly idealistic.

(1/2)
At the end of the novel, it is revealed that the era of "materialism", defined as the period between the decline of Medieval Christianity and the main character's discovery of how to recreate asexual reproduction in humans, could only have its fundamental contradictions resolved by dissolving "space" between humans and destroying the concept of the individual. That is, the main character discovers how to make humans immortal and fundamentally "the same" on a genetic level, thus creating a society wherein competition and excessive egotism are made obsolete and undesirable. The idea is that the pre-materialist era, for all of its downsides, at least had a sort of primitive collectivist superstructure. However, this could ultimately only be preserved through religion, which ultimately meant rendering the majority of humans, including most philosophers, artists, and poets, incapable of "reason" and thus of seeking truth.

The materialist era was capable of dispensing with religion in favor of reason and science. However, this led to developments which the early capitalist economists such as Smith, Ricardo, and Marx outlined, namely that as people moved into the cities and sold their labor, while at the same time science and reason destroyed the influence of religion, they became aware of themselves as individuals. When the idea of an afterlife was made obsolete, people became more aware of aging and death than ever before, and the ego as we know it emerged; IE a sense of self-actualization rooted in selfish pursuits. Despite its best efforts, which peaked in May 1968, the Left failed to render a new collectivism within the materialist era, and their sentiments were neutered of their radical potential by capital and used to create a materialist "renaissance" even more intense than the first (Houllebecq describes this era at length, usually through the lens of the "Sexual Revolution")

The end of the novel thus seeks to unify these two antagonistic impulses (religious collectivism and rational individualism) by proposing a society founded on a rational and empirical principle that is administered by the Western powers and soon spreads throughout the world. Obviously, we are not yet at the point where such gene manipulation is possible (though we aren't far off) so the end of the book is meant as a sort of Kantian suggestion IE this might not be something which is "real" or that we can know but it is the logical conclusion and the ideal scenario, so live your life as if you were arguing for it and you will find peace,

[Anonymous No.15260237]

>>15260231
So it's Evangelion, except for non-weebs and not meant to make neets hate themselves?

[Anonymous No.15260281]

>>15260231

Many left-liberals have taken to calling Houllebecq a fascist, but it is apparent from this novel at least that he is really a good old Utopian Socialist, albeit with a Neo-Kantian update. He does not believe that mass movements can impose positive change upon society; these only emerge from the benevolent activity of a select few noble members of the educated classes and the petit-bourgeosie. Much like the original utopians, Houllebecq is arguing that we can lead by example, that in the form of fiction and through the use of deductive reasoning we can demonstrate to the masses that "individualism" as an ideal is ultimately not only irrational but suicidal.

While he may be correct about the futility of organized labor or other class conscious mass movements to actually change society (as opposed to simply reinforcing the mode of production by auctioning itself off to its managers as a new cultural hegemony which will perpetuate the system much more efficiently than a "conservative" variety) I don't think he offers a truly worthwhile alternative, much less one that is realistic.

First of all, if we accept that the novel is basically an updated version of the Categorical Imperative, we end up at the same set of problems that the original CI faced, IE how can it be proven that there is some transcendent morality which we can never truly know but which, through reason, we can use as a baseline for our daily life? That is, if this can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it opens the space for a more cynical interpretation; that such a transcendental morality only exists insofar as it is decided by whoever is controlling a particular society and that the particular manifestations of it within that society are not truly moral but merely a way to regiment the masses for the perpetuation of whatever the State's interest is.

Secondly, Houllebecq seems to imply in the epilogue that the leaders of the global economy would simply accept the inevitability of this next step in human evolution and then go about administering it. Does he not realize that he has refuted this position himself by describing how the "sexual revolution", despite claiming to be a new form of collectivism, only became a more brutal means of sustaining capitalist individualism? I don't see why the technocrats who make up our global ruling class would decide that just because the system implied by the main character's research is rational to implement it in a way which destroyed current power relations. If anything they would merely re-tool it to more effectively manage the masses, not to liberate them

Third, and I know this is a bit of a meme but I can't help but think it, the idea itself is a cope. According to Houllebecq, we don't need to build societies wherein loss, pain, and disappointment that result from the endeavors of the self in an atheistic society are made acceptable, we merely need to fuse into one barley differentiated mass

[Anonymous No.15260288]

>>15260237
Yes but the difference is that Anno, in the End of Evangelion, finally admits that it is a cope, whereas Houllebecq truly seems to think he has solved an existential problem

[Anonymous No.15260313]

This book would have been way better if it ended with Annabelle's death

[Anonymous No.15260335]

>>15260313
This book would have been better with the protagonist jacking off to a coma patient

[Anonymous No.15260340]

>>15260335
It really is funny how similar it is to Eva. Pretty funny that the "greatest European novelist" our time is literally more of a pussy than an otaku who only made monster movies after his big philosophical extravaganza

[Anonymous No.15261001]

bump

[Anonymous No.15261012]

>>15260231
>prose
Pseud alert.

[Anonymous No.15261025]

>>15261012
Is that not the word I should have used?

[Anonymous No.15261042]

>>15260231
can someone elaborate on the similarities between evanjilion and the book? I've yet to read any hollaback

[Anonymous No.15261048]

>>15261042
How about instead you go read the book then watch the show, both are relatively short

[Anonymous No.15261056]

>>15260237
>except for non-weebs and not meant to make neets hate themselves?
Someone explain this to me, I always hear about it.

[Anonymous No.15261063]

>>15260340
>It really is funny how similar it is to Eva.
Explain to me why and don't run away.

[Anonymous No.15261064]

>>15261048
okay

[Anonymous No.15261309]

>>15260288
this

[Anonymous No.15261327]

>>15261063
basically both stories focus on losers who can't deal with there being suffering in the world, so to fight there is that idea of superhumans in Atomized and the project to unify all of mankind in NGE. Only in Atomized it is presented as a step forward and in NGE the project is denied by main character, because he realizes that the suffering is inherent to life itself. Basically, japanese cuckboy is more based and life-affirming

[Anonymous No.15261543]

>>15261327
>japanese cuckboy is more based and life-affirming
Lmao why are the french such fucking losers? They literally are less courageous than Japanese anime characters lol

[Anonymous No.15261549]

>>15261327
I don't think he's prescritive, he's descriptive. I don't think he really wants the whole humanity to turn into an unitarian blob. I think it's something more akin to -"Fuck this gay Earth", you deserve it you sonnofabitches. See, these are the logical consequencies of your unchecked rationalism.

[Anonymous No.15261553]

>>15261549
Houllebecq voted for Macron lmao

[Anonymous No.15261559]

>>15261549
Have you read the novel you stupid faggot? The epilogue is 100 percent unambiguous about the end of death and the fusion of all humans into one global race being a good thing

[Anonymous No.15261572]

>>15261559
>The epilogue is 100 percent unambiguous about the end of death and the fusion of all humans into one global race being a good thing
Prove it

[Anonymous No.15261576]

>>15261553
Not quite aware of french politics. What does it mean?

[Anonymous No.15261594]

>>15261572
>Having broken the filial chain that linked us to humanity, we live on. Men consider us to be happy; it is certainly true that we have succeeded in overcoming the forces of egotism, cruelty and anger which they could not. We live very different lives. Science and art are still a part of our society; but without the stimulus of personal vanity, the pursuit of Truth and Beauty has taken on a less urgent aspect. To humans of the old species, our world seems a paradise. We have even been known to refer to ourselves—with a certain humor—by the name they so long dreamed of: gods. History exists; it is elemental, it dominates, its rule is inexorable. Yet outside the strict confines of history, the ultimate ambition of this book is to salute the brave and unfortunate species which created us. This vile, unhappy race, barely different from the apes, which nevertheless carried within it such noble aspirations. Tortured, contradictory, individualistic, quarrelsome and infinitely selfish, it was sometimes capable of extraordinary explosions of violence, but never quite abandoned its belief in love. This species which, for the first time in history, was able to envision the possibility of its succession and, some years later, proved capable of bringing it about. As the last members of this race are extinguished, we think it just to render this last tribute to humanity, an homage which itself will one day disappear, buried beneath the sands of time. It is necessary that this tribute be made, if only once. This book is dedicated to mankind.

This is literally the culmination of every tragic event described in the novel which was the result of vanity and ego. It's unironically "we are all one race" shit. You're a stupid faggot who has only read the wikipedia article for Houllebecq and decided he was some neoreactionary instead of just another milquetoast liberal cuz he said some edgy shit about Muslims like 90 percent of Europeans do

[Anonymous No.15261600]

>>15261576
Macron is literally the French equivalent of Bill Clinton or Al Gore or Obama or Biden

[Anonymous No.15261671]

>>15261594
>You're a stupid faggot who has only read the wikipedia article for Houllebecq
No man, I actually read the book but it's been some months. And I was too busy thinking about how the sixties fucked up our society to pay attention to the sci-fi part. Also, isn't that curious since he spends the majority of the work shitting on hippies? How can you reconcile this fact with your interpretation?

[Anonymous No.15261688]

>>15261671
Once again you stupid faggot, he literally says in the epilogue that the New Age movement, which was derivative of the hippies, wasn't entirely wrong it just didn't know how to express what it was looking for. It is literally flat out stated that the idea of a "paradigm shift" was correct

The entire chapter where Bruno goes to the sex commune and talks about implementing a "sexual social democracy" foreshadows the ending by about 100 pages. It isn't my fucking interpretation the novel comes right out and says that the way to reconcile the chaos caused by rationalism is literally for scientists to create an end to death.

[Anonymous No.15261735]

>>15260231
transhumanism is still materialism.

[Anonymous No.15262147]

>>15261688
>"sexual social democracy"
So... marriage? Isn't that his idea of
"sexual social democracy"?
But I don't remember this passage so I can't talk accurately.


>the way to reconcile the chaos caused by rationalism is literally for scientists to create an end to death.
So to him, science is gonna save us from the problems created by science?
Does he really believe this?
Also, this discussion seems like that one about if "Brave New World" is an utopia or not.

[Anonymous No.15262351]

>>15261594
>>15261688
Not him but you seem mad as hell that someone doesn't want to accept your surface-level interpretation. Do you really think that irony is beneath Houellebecq's literary vocabulary?

I personally see it as a fatal submission to the immortal, sexless object, almost in a Baudrillardian sense. It is impossible to know whether or not he fully endorses it because one is only capable of fashioning an (ironic) critique of it through the materials supplied by the object itself, the same way Baudrillard appropriates banal platitudes that wouldn't sound amiss in a marketing brainstorm.

[Anonymous No.15262465]

>Implying asexual evolution in humans wouldn't literally solve all of the world problems.

[Anonymous No.15262906]

>>15262465
it would only solve the problem of incels

[Anonymous No.15263842]

Bumperino

[Anonymous No.15264161]

>>15261559
>>15261594
>>15261688
He never mentions the "fusion of all humans into one race" or whatever. You should chill with the poltard nonsense and labeling.
He basically just says that humanity is inherently flawed and that things can only change if it evolves into something completely new. It's meant to elicit compassion for the state we're in, it's a less depressing ending.
I don't even like the book, though. It's too much r9k porn.

[Anonymous No.15264644]

>>15261594
bro this is clearly ironic. Actual libs and most ordinary people would find the death of humanity to be a nightmare scenario

[Anonymous No.15264716]

>>15261327
>>15261559
>>15261594
There is literally nothing wrong with a global hotdog skinned race. It would unironically end a good 90% of the world's problems, you're just a reactionary faggot.

[Anonymous No.15265669]

>>15264161
>>15264644
>>15264716
>I-it's ironic

Why did Houellebecq vote for Macron?

[Anonymous No.15265712]

>>15265669
It could be many reasons, really.
Why do you think it matters so much?

[Anonymous No.15265869]

>>15265712
>Dude he didn't vote for the globalist candidate because he actually believes in globalism Houellebecq was just pretending to be retarded

It's pathetic that you retards have decided to idolize someone who is basically the French Chuck Pahlaniuk because "haha he triggered the libs epic style". Peanut brained approach to political philosophy, America is truly the worst nation

[Anonymous No.15265900]

>>15265869
Your post is like a parody of a dumb polredditor.
In case you're serious, leave pol/reddit/twitter for a while, get some fresh air and read some proper books.