[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 231 KB, 682x1024, Michel-Houellebecq-presente-L-enlevement-de-Michel-Houellebecq-a-Madrid-le-22-aout-2014_portrait_w858.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5967359 No.5967359[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I want to become my country's Houellebecq. What do?
>inb4 heroin

>> No.5967365

Read the portrait by gogol

>> No.5967394

>>5967359
become depressed and exaggerate the bleak view ofthe world. It is like trolling simultaneously on r9k, int, tv, b, and pol and bit of lit

>> No.5967413

>>5967394
So, I should just the same as always, but instead of this malaysian puppet board, in books. Sounds easy

>> No.5967419

>>5967359
Write mediocre prose and give your edginess some special flavour.

>> No.5967759

>>5967359
This is a "only the French" situation.

>> No.5968397

>>5967759
But if I move to France?

>> No.5968443

Which country?

There's already a British writer who imitates him and is often described as a British version of him

>> No.5968458

>>5967359
Why does he look like a miserable croon?

>> No.5968489

>>5968458

he has been cucked

>> No.5968506

>>5967359
Embark in a journey of self-destruction while reading some good books. And remember, no heroine until you have a constant and substantial source of money.

>> No.5968547

>>5968443
I"m British but I don't know who you are referring to nor do I want to know.

I think Houellebecq proved himself one of the finest of living authors, at least in his first three or four books. "Extension of the Domain of the Struggle" and "Elementary Particles" are deeply moving novels that gave literary expression to kinds and depths of wrtechedness that literature had never dared to explore before.

The reception of these great novels in the English-speaking world was something fucking shameful. Symptomatic of the incredible stupidity that ruled here was the shitty translation of "Extension" that was brought out under the incomprehensibly dumb and random title of "Whatever!" - like this tragic, harrowing book was some kind of vapid shopping-and-fucking novel about Valley Girls or something - with a collage of a cow coming out of a computer screen on the front cover.

A few years later the BBC brought out THIS piece of shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t97G3gRH_Rg

I don't think I have ever seen a so-called 'documentary' that oozes, from the first minute to the last, such unadulterated scorn and contempt for its subject. Just listen to the fucking VOICE that the guy puts on who is given the job of reading extracts from H.'s novels! He reads the passages as if he is holding torn-out pages from the books with his fingertips at arm's length because the BBC has just had them dragged through 15 miles of steaming vomit and dogshit.
Half the 'experts' they interview appear to be confusing Houellebecq with some other author altogether. One guy goes on about how boring it is that H.'s protagonists are always seducing thousands of beautiful women when the main topic of the two novels that made his name was quite plainly and undeniably the protagonists' absolute inability to get sex from anyone ever.

Britain has never been anything but insanely unfair to and wilfully ignorant of Houellebecq, so please spare me any British 'imitators'.

>> No.5968575

>>5968547
>are deeply moving novels that gave literary expression to kinds and depths of wrtechedness that literature had never dared to explore before.

Lurk more

>> No.5968588

>>5968547
Wow what gay and retarded post. You are literally stupid, and far too butthurt to ever be as chill as Houellebeq.

If you knew anything about him, which I do, having read every book of his and pertty much every interview and review, you'd know HE CHOSE to call it Whatever in English.

The BBC doc was shitty but it at least provided both sides of the debate, something rare in literature, and giving any oxgyen to potential nihilistis is something they should be credited for. Also it's not a documentary you absolute child, it's a feature piece created as part of the culture show, which explains the fact they skipped his long pauses between questions.

The fact you aren't even curious to find out which author I'm referencing shows what a fool you are. You remind me of myself when I was sixteen, and I mean that to be as patronizing as possible. You are an angry, frustrated and whiny pedant and I hope you leave this board.

>> No.5968607

>>5968547
>depths of wretchedness that literature never dared to explore before

please read more before sharing your ignorance. start with bataille if this is your serious opinion at the moment.

>> No.5968682
File: 204 KB, 500x334, heroin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5968682

>>5967359

>> No.5968716

>>5968607
You have absolutely no idea of what I have read or what I have not read, kid.

But maybe this will give you a hint as to just how outclassed you are:

Bataille's erotica did not explore sexual wretchedness at all - for the simple reason that it WAS erotica.

The scenarios that Bataille describes - ugly and horrifying as they may seem to those who do not share Bataille's particular sexual predilections - are scenarios he finds SEXUALLY ENJOYABLE AND SATISFYING. Bataille's protagonists are SEXUAL WINNERS. They suffer in sex only because they CHOOSE to suffer in it, and they do clearly have the choice (sex is not difficult for them to get).

In his first two novels - by far his best - Houellebecq does something utterly different. He describes the naked, ugly, shameful suffering of just NOT BEING ABLE TO GET SEX, of failing to be a 'beautiful animal'. His books are at the very opposite pole from Bataille's books, which, as I say, fall into the category of erotica (albeit very classy, intellectual erotica). There is absolutely nothing in them that could possibly sexually EXCITE. They describe a world in which, for many, sex has just FAILED.

Houellebecq is so utterly different from Bataille that one could well imagine that the 'beaux animaux" that H''s protagonist in "Atomised" gazes on with hate, envy and despair - the physically gorgeous post-68ers who made love while he sweated and masturbated and drank and drugged himself alone - were assiduous readers of Bataille.

In other words, you know nothing, edgy kid. I read more before I was 15 than you will read in your whole life.

>> No.5968731

>>5968716
>writing like a whiny brat
>calling others "kid"

I mean there are people on this board who obviously lack self-awareness but you are a true retard. It's painful to think how entry-level your mental disposition is. I hope you look back on this period of your existence with shame and embarrasment.

>> No.5968738

>>5968588
>HE CHOSE to call it Whatever in English.

I'm sure this is crap. Just by instinct, I am sure.

Houellebecq disowned the German movie of "Elementary Particles" for its obvious infidelity to his concept.

There is no way that he gave a seal of approval to the far more extreme infidelity of the title-change in question.

Cite your source or cut the bullshit.

>> No.5968754

>>5968731
I call people like you "kid" because I am a 55-year-old Ph D who has read Houellebecq in French, German and English, and has also read a large part of the vast body of literature that one needs to have read to fully appreciate him.

He is one of the living authors I most admire and it annoys me to see idiots making up crap about him like the purely invented claim that he himself chose to have the English edition of 'Extension du Domaine de la Lutte' entitled 'Whatever'.

>> No.5968782

>>5968754
I'm not the guy you were calling kid you insufferable faggot. If you really are 55 years old then my gott what a irredemable mongoloid you are. Please end your life as soon as possible. You stick out like a sore thumb on this board and not in a good way.

>> No.5968791

>>5968754
Is this a new copypasta?

>> No.5968792

>>5968754
Why do you keep repeating that you're 55 in different threads? Nobody gives a fuck. If you want everyone to know who you are, get a trip.

>> No.5968799

>>5968782
Congratulations on the succinct and objective way you go about answering the numerous substantial points I made there, kid:

u old lolol u a faggot u got downs sindrom lolol

Just stop talking shit about a writer (somewhat older than I am) whom you are not equipped to understand and I will be happy to leave you to play in your little sandpit in peace.

>> No.5968800

>>5968754
>I am a 55-year-old Ph D

Posting in a chatroom for Chinese cartoons

>> No.5968803

>>5968792
How does one get a trip code?

>> No.5968810

>>5968782
>irredemable
i hope you are redemed from all this anger you have in your heart my boy

>> No.5968813
File: 6 KB, 219x230, houellebeq_faggot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5968813

>>5968799
I will talk shit about whoever I want to, whether it's Houellebeq (who I admire, like I wrote earlier in the thread) or some lame-ass faggot who writes like a jumped up seventeen year old who just read his first Nietzsche and is convinced he is the Goobermensch

I found your myspace page btw

>> No.5968816

>>5968803
Haha get outta here grandad. Literally kill yourself

>> No.5968818

>>5968792
I keep repeating it because kids whom I would estimate to be between 14 and 17 years old keep jumping - or at least pretending to jump - to the utterly unfounded conclusion that, because I call them out on their bullshit, I must somehow be deficient in my reading and general education.
Obviously, my being in my mid-50s is no absolute guarantee that I have read so much more than them that it's not even funny - but it certainly puts probability on my side.

>> No.5968823

>>5968800
hes a troll dude

>> No.5968824

>>5968818
Daily reminder that reading more books =/= being more intelligent.

I needn't look any further than this thread to see the truth in that statement. Are your kids as edge as you grandpa?

>> No.5968832

>>5968824
No, they're not.
Are the other kids in your Remedial English class in high school as incapable as you are of actually conducting a rational argument and as pathetically dependent on tedious ad hominem slurs about age?

Or, put in simpler language: funny how none of you have anything to say about Houellebecq when you find yourself faced by someone who actually knows something about him, isn't it?

>> No.5968835

>>5967359
Viral marketing pls go

>> No.5968845

>>5968832
Yeah they are grandpa, are the other senile retards in your retirement home as incapable as you are of actually conducting a rational argument and as pathetically dependent on tedious ad hominem slurs about age?

So what's the end goal for this thread? You come here, post some angsty shit about a documentary and a couple of bad reviewers, and what? You want people to think you're epic or something? Or are you butthurt that you are an old faggot posting on one of the slowest boards on 4chan as a means of feeling good about your Tisserand-esque life?

Again, please consider suicide immediately.

>> No.5968850

>>5968818
>Obviously, my being in my mid-50s is no absolute guarantee that I have read so much more than them that it's not even funny - but it certainly puts probability on my side.

My mom's in her 50's and confessed to me she's never read a book before in her life. Your generation was actually the begin of the decline, so merely saying you're a 'Boomer doesn't really prove anything, as you rightfully acknowledge.

Saying you're 55 doesn't even put probability on your side, as you argue, since children today have access to a dizzying multitude of material you couldn't even get well into your 30's or 40's.

It's just more intelligent to leave this embarrassing fact out of your arguments. It ultimately means nothing (as you partially concede) and being 55 and on 4chan is disgraceful in general.

>> No.5968863

>>5968716
>Houelllebecq depics sexual wretchedness produced by lack of sex
>he does something literature "never dared to explore" before

Who the fuck cares about such statements? They go great in back covers, but they have no value to themselves.

I'm thinking you like Houellebecq so much because he struck a cord with you. You must have over-identified with Bruno since you are both betas.

And it's all cool. What's not cool is you saying sexual frustration is something new in literature, ffs.

>> No.5968880

>>5968850
>>5968863
Look kiddos you simply don't understand it seems. I am 55 years old. Do you know what that even means? While you are busy scratching your pimply faces and idolizing hack writers like Kerouac and Bret Easton Ellis, those of us who have acquired decades of wisdom are able to comprehend the works of writers like Houellebeq, who is by far the greatest writer of the last two centuries.

>> No.5968884

>>5968850
Well again, sorry kids, but, huff and puff as you may about my age and speculate as you may about my motives for making the posts I made in this thread, the decisive point here is that, since I made these posts, not a single one of you has been able to come back and argue intelligently against anything I said in them.

All I am hearing here for the last fifteen, twenty post is

lololol u old lololol y u here fagot u lonely lololl

If my views ABOUT THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD are so 'pathetic', please argue with them.

If not, as I say, fuck off back to the Bouncy Castle.

>> No.5968889

>>5968880
Grandpa plz

>> No.5968890

>>5968884
But you are old and you are a faggot, and judging by the amount of autism that in five decades of existence you have failed to overcome, you are likely very lonely as well.

>> No.5968898

>>5968889
Another example of brilliant counter-argumentation.

You're such a master troll......kid

>> No.5968903

>>5968890
And still they come....

And still they are unable to say anything at all about the writer they appeared to know so much about just half an hour ago.

>> No.5968913

>>5968716

Fascination with ugliness leads one to be to ugly.

You congratulating Houellebecq over his hatred of everything is testament to that.

The comparison with Battaille is apt because Battaille was fascinated with what was forbidden or taboo but he did it with charm and self-awareness of what he was writting.

With Houellebecq it's per-reflexive self-loathing, and it's not even done in a good way. If I wanted to read something of the sort I only have to but to read an actually with writer like Dostoyevsky with Notes from Underground.

>> No.5968914

>>5968903
Are you married grandpa?

>> No.5968918

>>5968803
Read the FAQ fagit. And trying to appeal to high education or age or whatever is useless here, nobody cares about anything except what you have to say and usually not even that.

>> No.5968958

>>5968918
Well, I think the latter applies here. Arguing with high-school kids is indeed a waste of time. You can't or don't want to stick to a point, so fine, play in your little sandpit. I have a living to earn.

>> No.5969009

I don't really know but I think this literature phd old guy was the clear winner in this internet argument.

>> No.5969079

>>5969009
>implying internet arguments have winners

>> No.5969130

>>5969079
Non-participants.

>> No.5969291

>>5969009
i can't imagine what type of 55 year old could write like that. And I am usually pretty good at this sort of thing. I call bullshit

>> No.5969320

>>5969291
Why exactly do you say that? What do you mean by "like that"? I didn't see anything about what he wrote that wasn't what you'd expect from an older, well-educated guy. I'm not sayng I agreed with him but I think it's you that's full of shit.

>> No.5969324

>>5968754
>I am a 55-year-old Ph D

Lel, reminds me of how course descriptions would list the instructor as Mr./Ms./Mrs. _____ for people with just MAs, Dr. ____ for people with PhDs who weren't real professors, and then Prof. ______ for professors. Listing you're 55 in this only makes people take you less seriously. No one cares that you slowly shat out a dissertation over 8 years and then went nowhere in life.

>> No.5969349

>>5969324
Shit, dude, that old guy really got to you, didn't he? Cry more, why don't you?

>> No.5969482

>>5969320
>In other words, you know nothing, edgy kid. I read more before I was 15 than you will read in your whole life.

Why would any 55 year old give a shit what a "kid" read or didn't read? That sounds like a young person that has self esteem issues.

Just one example

>> No.5969533

>>5968547
godspeed, you beautiful man

>> No.5969565

>>5969482
Yeah, you're right, my bad, that guy like literally just started boasting about how much he'd read completely out of the blue. It was totally random.

I mean it's not like he was replying to a post in which someone had just said to him

>please read more before sharing your ignorance

or anything, is it?

Now go and stick your lying hurt butt in some nice cool water, you puffed-up vain dishonest little prick.

>> No.5969580
File: 180 KB, 780x770, 1410031355435.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5969580

>>5968898

>> No.5969601

>>5968588
>at least provided both sides of the debate

Really, now? Falling for the balance fallacy?