[Chapped3rdEye]

The Elementary Particles >> Whatever. Just FYI.

[Samseau]

Great interview Caligula. But what's interesting is that Houellebecq isn't anything close to a nihilist.

Quote:

What I do reproach them [my critics] for isn’t bad reviews. It is that they talk about things having nothing to do with my books—my mother or my tax exile—and that they caricature me so that I’ve become a symbol of so many unpleasant things—cynicism, nihilism, misogyny. People have stopped reading my books because they’ve already got their idea about me. To some degree of course, that’s true for everyone. After two or three novels, a writer can’t expect to be read. The critics have made up their minds.

[Basil Ransom]

(08-28-2012 01:34 PM)Chapped3rdEye Wrote:  

The Elementary Particles >> Whatever. Just FYI.

I felt the opposite, to each his own. Whatever seemed much more pertinent and on point. Swinging, sex resorts and broken families are a little further afield to me personally, than the atomization depicted in Whatever.

[Caligula]

(08-28-2012 02:14 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(08-28-2012 01:34 PM)Chapped3rdEye Wrote:  

The Elementary Particles >> Whatever. Just FYI.

I felt the opposite, to each his own. Whatever seemed much more pertinent and on point. Swinging, sex resorts and broken families are a little further afield to me personally, than the atomization depicted in Whatever.

Elementary Particles is a more engaging story, but as a reflection on society Whatever packs a harder punch. It's more stark, there are fewer tangents to distract from the powerful central message.

If you're looking for an easy way to introduce a friend to this kind of thinking, Whatever wins. Its purpose is clearer. The paragraph basilransom quotes about Veronique and the paragraph breaking down the emergence of a sexual marketplace wouldn't be out of place in a sociology journal. You can read it in one evening.

Because of its sympathetic approach I've found it a great way to start debates with friends who may not have considered this perspective much.

[Basil Ransom]

Also, as a parable to persuade someone of our views, Elementary Particles is less convincing because the characters and their milieu are so sordid and out there. You can imagine someone saying 'What do you expect of a bunch of swingers and hippies on a commune - there's nothing surprising about social breakdown in a context like that.' Which is entirely valid of course. The context of Whatever is relatable, to the point of being mundane. Maybe that makes it less fun to read as a novel (though I'd personally disagree), but I find it far more relevant.

Come to think of it, the dysfunction in Particles is so profound that it has a surreal, incredible quality to it. It's so far from what you personally know and experience, that you're tempted to dismiss it outright. We all still know people that are happily married, in stable families with healthy children. It's like if you were to write a book describing the state of the environment, in apocalyptic terms when natural beauty is still quite in evidence; you'd lose all credibility except among a few Greenpeace activists for depicting something contradictory to our daily observations. Maybe it'd make for colorful prose. But you'd be more convincing if you profile the decay just underneath the surface, that escapes our eyes but poses great danger nonetheless.

I believe I just wrote this in another thread - with Whatever, Houellebecq acquired quite a counter-culture following. These people proceeded to get very mad at him after they read Particles - they finally realized he was attributing these catastrophes to the sexual revolution, and they didn't like that very much. I don't understand how they thought otherwise, because that subtext is obvious.

Houellebecq is surprisingly even-handed with respect to the sexes. He doesn't single out women as we do. Still, I think women are due for more criticism; speaking aesthetically, that is because it's they who have veered further from their respective sexual (i.e. feminine) ideal than men have from theirs. A man is not less appealing to women for having had a fling or three, and having become a bit detached for it. The same can hardly be said for women. That's only one dimension, of course.

[polymath]

(01-17-2012 09:41 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

:

Quote:

[....]In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag.[....]

Besides the use of the word 'slag,' he doesn't single out women as a sex here.

Dude, great observation. Actually better than you thought.

That word, slag, is actually not a way to refer to women as a sex, although it sounds similar to slut.

Slag is a term for waste metal and metal byproducts, such as the waste from a blast furnace. For example, if you're turning iron ore into iron, all the bits of stone and unwanted minerals and impurities are called slag. These impurities are removed from the metal to make it more pure. The slag is then set aside for other uses, for example the manufacture of cement.

Slag is a collection of burnt-up impurities.

Thus, the passage totally desexualizes women as you describe. I think this is awesome because it's hard to do that when you're writing about sexuality.

[kbell]

(01-17-2012 10:56 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I hate to sound like a philosophy snob, but nihilism is just a philosophy for the masses. It's devoid of real thought and offers little in terms of critical thinking. It's about as deep as mainstream Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam, which is to say: not too deep.

The entire premise of nihilism is flawed: "no meaning". No meaning in what? In anything? How does the nihilist know?

The best philosophers always start from an epistemology, since what we know limits all of our beliefs.

Two good, easy examples of philosophers who used their epistemology to talk about human relationships were Plato and Aristotle. Although old, each have so much more to say on the subject of relationships than any author I've read from the last 100 years.

Aristotle in particular should be of interest to the men of this forum, since he found that the best quality of life lived came from having good friendships, and not from lovers.

I noticed you didn't mention Jewish philosophy. And not the type that is mainstream since the most visible Jews tend to be liberal. Maimonides comes to mind as well as Talmud. What do you think of them?

[Basil Ransom]

Bumping this thread because it perfectly mirrors Roosh's blog post about smartphones killing romance. Smartphones aren't the only factor, but another nail in the coffin. See the passage I quoted on the first page, as well as Caligula's.

To me, what Roosh and Houellebecq say is self evidently true. I'm wondering how someone would counter them, eg why are they wrong? How is romance surviving or even flourishing in the West? (Polyamory doesn't count )

[ColSpanker]

I've read both books and some others of his. Stick to ELEMENTARY PARTICLES and THE PLATFORM. I tried to make sense of THE POSSIBLITY OF AN ISLAND and gave up. Even downloaded the movie version, although I don't speak French. I think he may be played-out, although both of those books have had a profound influence on my thinking.

[Samseau]

(10-29-2012 10:48 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

Bumping this thread because it perfectly mirrors Roosh's blog post about smartphones killing romance. Smartphones aren't the only factor, but another nail in the coffin. See the passage I quoted on the first page, as well as Caligula's.

To me, what Roosh and Houellebecq say is self evidently true. I'm wondering how someone would counter them, eg why are they wrong? How is romance surviving or even flourishing in the West? (Polyamory doesn't count )

The thing is, Houellebecq said love in the west was dead long before the smartphone.

I think I agree with that. The smartphone makes things worse in every way, but love was probably already impossible before the smartphone.

[Basil Ransom]

(10-29-2012 01:57 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-29-2012 10:48 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

Bumping this thread because it perfectly mirrors Roosh's blog post about smartphones killing romance. Smartphones aren't the only factor, but another nail in the coffin. See the passage I quoted on the first page, as well as Caligula's.

To me, what Roosh and Houellebecq say is self evidently true. I'm wondering how someone would counter them, eg why are they wrong? How is romance surviving or even flourishing in the West? (Polyamory doesn't count )

The thing is, Houellebecq said love in the west was dead long before the smartphone.

I think I agree with that. The smartphone makes things worse in every way, but love was probably already impossible before the smartphone.

It's a progressive thing, influenced by your point of reference. If you grew up in an age where fornication (pre marital sex) was rare, you'd think any girls who engaged in it were whores. In our age, fornication is ubiquitous, so most have adjusted the criteria for whore status to be say, over 20 partners.

Roosh is noting that it has gotten categorically worse. Did women's capacity for love die with the advent of smartphones in 2006? Or was it texting (early 2000s), cell phones (late 1990s), pre-marital sex, contraception, no-fault divorce, economic enfranchisement (1960s), women working men's blue collar jobs (WWII) or female suffrage (late 1800s and on)? Whether one of these phenomena definitively killed it, it is hard to say. All likely contributed, and progressively reduced women's capacity for love.

And some perceptive observer currently in his infancy will make a similar observation, except with respect to some new, unforeseen technological 'advance.'

Perhaps the most useful definition of a whore is a woman who has lost the ability to love. I like it because it can't easily be written off as a 'double standard' or 'misogynistic.' And most women have in fact lost the ability to love, at least to love a man who would deign to marry her. Whenever older people ask me why I'm never in relationships, I will simply respond that young women have lost the capacity to love. That will perk their ears up...

[BurnFirst]

(08-29-2012 06:19 PM)polymath Wrote:  

(01-17-2012 09:41 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

:

Quote:

[....]In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag.[....]

Besides the use of the word 'slag,' he doesn't single out women as a sex here.

Dude, great observation. Actually better than you thought.

That word, slag, is actually not a way to refer to women as a sex, although it sounds similar to slut.

Slag is a term for waste metal and metal byproducts, such as the waste from a blast furnace. For example, if you're turning iron ore into iron, all the bits of stone and unwanted minerals and impurities are called slag. These impurities are removed from the metal to make it more pure. The slag is then set aside for other uses, for example the manufacture of cement.

Slag is a collection of burnt-up impurities.

Thus, the passage totally desexualizes women as you describe. I think this is awesome because it's hard to do that when you're writing about sexuality.

Slag is a slang term in the UK to refer to a slut.

[Donnington93]

This is a superb book. I am intrigued by Houellebecq's ambivalence in general; skeptical, if not disdainful of the post-modern world but also unwilling to revert to a time before secularism and sexual freedom, the absurdity and hypocrisy of modern culture in a world where there's nothing transcendent to anchor one's identity to, and of course, his viewing of women.

Some quotes I found particularly interesting below:

Quote:

You have had a life. There have been moments when you were having a life. Of course you don’t remember too much about it; but there are photographs to prove it. This was probably happening round about the time of your adolescence, or just after. How great your appetite for life was, then! Existence seemed so rich in new possibilities. You might become a pop singer, go off to Venezuela.

old people can talk about nothing else, they say. I’ve lived so little that I tend to imagine I’m not going to die; it seems improbable that human existence can be reduced to so little; one imagines, in spite of oneself, that sooner or later something is bound to happen. A big mistake. A life can just as well be both empty and short. The days slip by indifferently, leaving neither trace nor memory; and then all of a sudden they stop

The sun appears, blood red, terribly red above the dark green grass, above the mist-shrouded ponds. Small clusters of houses smoke far away in the valley. The sight is magnificent, a little scary.

Some of the youngsters are dressed in leather jackets with slogans borrowed from the more primitive kind of hard rock; you can read phrases on their backs like Kill them all! or Fuck and destroy!; but all commune in the certainty of passing an agreeable afternoon devoted primarily to consumerism, and thus to contributing to the consolidation of their being.

The arrival in Paris, as grim as ever. The leprous façades of the Pont Cardinet flats, behind which one invariably imagines retired folk agonizing alongside their cat Poucette which is eating up half their pension with its Friskies. Those weird metal structures that indecently mount each other to form a grid of overhead wires. And the inevitable advertising hoardings flashing by, gaudy and repellent. ‘A gay and changing spectacle on the walls.’ Bullshit. Pure fucking bullshit.

It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly.

The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as ‘the law of the market’. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation

Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. On the economic plane Raphaël Tisserand belongs in the victors’ camp; on the sexual plane in that of the vanquished. Certain people win on both levels; others lose on both. Businesses fight over certain young professionals; women fight over certain young men; men fight over certain young women; the trouble and strife are considerable.

All of a sudden it didn’t bother me not being modern. – Roland Barthes

A scarce, artificial and belated phenomenon, love can only blossom under certain mental conditions, rarely conjoined, and totally opposed to the freedom of morals which characterizes the modern era.

Véronique had known too many discothèques, too many lovers; such a way of life impoverishes a human being, inflicting sometimes serious and always irreversible damage.

a kind of innocence and as a capacity for illusion, as an aptitude for epitomizing the whole of the other sex in a single loved being rarely resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag. And so one leads, obviously, a slag’s life; in ageing one becomes less seductive, and on that account bitter. One is jealous of the young, and so one hates them. Condemned to remain unavowable, this hatred festers and becomes increasingly fervent; then it dies down and fades away, just as everything fades away. All that remains is resentment and disgust, sickness and the anticipation of death

You will never represent, Raphaël, a young girl’s erotic dream. You have to resign yourself to the inevitable; such things are not for you.

The day was warm but a little sad, as Sundays often are in Paris, especially when one doesn’t believe in God.

I inform him right away that I’m in a depression; he is stunned, then recovers. After this the conversation drones on pleasantly for half an hour, but I know that from now on it’s as if there’s an invisible wall between us. He will never again consider me as an equal, nor as a possible successor; in his eyes I no longer even really exist; I have forfeited all rights.

[Basil Ransom]

(10-29-2012 03:01 PM)Donnington93 Wrote:  

This is a superb book. I am intrigued by Houellebecq's ambivalence in general; skeptical, if not disdainful of the post-modern world but also unwilling to revert to a time before secularism and sexual freedom, the absurdity and hypocrisy of modern culture in a world where there's nothing transcendent to anchor one's identity to, and of course, his viewing of women.

I think the bolded portion is false.

My interpretation:

Houellebecq thinks religion is false, and untenable in light of modern science. But science, as well as technology and prosperity, have marginalized the appeal of traditional morals and ways of living, while making new ones attractive. On the one hand, you have an admirable way of life underpinned by false beliefs; on the other, you have one free of such superstition, but man's sense of roots, meaning, feeling is eroded. Nihilism is a natural outcome. And even in this modern age, superstitions remain, they've just taken on a different form. Maybe we don't believe in Noah's Ark, but we believe that men and women are the same, that homosexuals are identical to heterosexuals, that Islam and Christianity can coexist peacefully in the same arrondissement, et cetera.

It's as if Houellebecq thinks highly of the old ways of living, but sees their intellectual foundation as false, and the circumstances that made them possible absent. Government welfare programs, for instance, have reduced the need for children to care for their parents, weakening family bonds and empowering the individual.

I can't find it now, but I recall Houellebecq saying in an interview that his novels ape Flaubert's Madam Bovary, in that they aim to 'profile the tragedies caused by the loss of traditional values' or something to that effect. If you know where to find that, please post it.

[Donnington93]

(10-29-2012 08:42 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(10-29-2012 03:01 PM)Donnington93 Wrote:  

This is a superb book. I am intrigued by Houellebecq's ambivalence in general; skeptical, if not disdainful of the post-modern world but also unwilling to revert to a time before secularism and sexual freedom, the absurdity and hypocrisy of modern culture in a world where there's nothing transcendent to anchor one's identity to, and of course, his viewing of women.

I think the bolded portion is false.

My interpretation:

Houellebecq thinks religion is false, and untenable in light of modern science. But science, as well as technology and prosperity, have marginalized the appeal of traditional morals and ways of living, while making new ones attractive. On the one hand, you have an admirable way of life underpinned by false beliefs; on the other, you have one free of such superstition, but man's sense of roots, meaning, feeling is eroded. Nihilism is a natural outcome. And even in this modern age, superstitions remain, they've just taken on a different form. Maybe we don't believe in Noah's Ark, but we believe that men and women are the same, that homosexuals are identical to heterosexuals, that Islam and Christianity can coexist peacefully in the same arrondissement, et cetera.

It's as if Houellebecq thinks highly of the old ways of living, but sees their intellectual foundation as false, and the circumstances that made them possible absent. Government welfare programs, for instance, have reduced the need for children to care for their parents, weakening family bonds and empowering the individual.

I can't find it now, but I recall Houellebecq saying in an interview that his novels ape Flaubert's Madam Bovary, in that they aim to 'profile the tragedies caused by the loss of traditional values' or something to that effect. If you know where to find that, please post it.

Great post. I don't think we are too far off but mine was a more superficial, glib summation of that. Here's another comparison to Bovary.

[XII]

(10-29-2012 02:13 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(10-29-2012 01:57 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-29-2012 10:48 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

Bumping this thread because it perfectly mirrors Roosh's blog post about smartphones killing romance. Smartphones aren't the only factor, but another nail in the coffin. See the passage I quoted on the first page, as well as Caligula's.

To me, what Roosh and Houellebecq say is self evidently true. I'm wondering how someone would counter them, eg why are they wrong? How is romance surviving or even flourishing in the West? (Polyamory doesn't count )

The thing is, Houellebecq said love in the west was dead long before the smartphone.

I think I agree with that. The smartphone makes things worse in every way, but love was probably already impossible before the smartphone.

It's a progressive thing, influenced by your point of reference. If you grew up in an age where fornication (pre marital sex) was rare, you'd think any girls who engaged in it were whores. In our age, fornication is ubiquitous, so most have adjusted the criteria for whore status to be say, over 20 partners.

Roosh is noting that it has gotten categorically worse. Did women's capacity for love die with the advent of smartphones in 2006? Or was it texting (early 2000s), cell phones (late 1990s), pre-marital sex, contraception, no-fault divorce, economic enfranchisement (1960s), women working men's blue collar jobs (WWII) or female suffrage (late 1800s and on)? Whether one of these phenomena definitively killed it, it is hard to say. All likely contributed, and progressively reduced women's capacity for love.

And some perceptive observer currently in his infancy will make a similar observation, except with respect to some new, unforeseen technological 'advance.'

Perhaps the most useful definition of a whore is a woman who has lost the ability to love. I like it because it can't easily be written off as a 'double standard' or 'misogynistic.' And most women have in fact lost the ability to love, at least to love a man who would deign to marry her. Whenever older people ask me why I'm never in relationships, I will simply respond that young women have lost the capacity to love. That will perk their ears up...

There's a quote by a French nobleman whose name I've forgotten that goes: "Would anybody fall in love, if they had never heard the word?"

Today's woman cannot love like her grandmother. I agree with you that women have lost the ability to love, but women themselves would disagree; they think and feel they are still capable, and it isn't so much a lie. Each new generation of sluts simply lowers the hoop on what love means and entails.

[megatron]

great thread.

damn, I gotta read Whatever.

[BoiBoi]

Banged a girl last night and snatched her copy of the book...

[Basil Ransom]

My slightly revised alternative definition of a whore:

A woman who cannot love a man who would love her.

I revised it because I realized most women are still capable of love but only with certain men, men far above her station. So while they could love Brad Pitt in theory, it's irrelevant because they cannot love the men who would deign to love her.

[ColSpanker]

But we all want love on or own terms.

"Rosebud!"

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[amity]

really enjoyed that interview, the best i've read in a long time, i laughed a lot but was also fascinated by the points he made
am definitely inspired to go out and buy some of his books now

[cardguy]

I saw the movie adaptation for this book on TV about 8 years ago. I was really impressed. It was the first time I had seen the Sexual Market Place described in such a cold and realistic way. I think Houellebecq was ahead of his time in terms of 'red pill/blue pill' thinking. It was the first time I had come across such thinking before and the brutal honesty had a big effect on me. One that I didn't build on until discovering the 'manosphere' 2/3 years ago.

It is a really great film and well worth seeing. But I have regularly looked on the internet and have not yet being able to find a copy of the DVD for sale.

I would read the book, but I hate fiction. Sorry - that makes me weird I know. I read about 1/2 books a week. But my brain can only engage and be gripped by 'non-fiction' books.

Cardguy

PS Long time reader - first time poster.

[Donnington93]

(10-31-2012 01:32 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

My slightly revised alternative definition of a whore:

A woman who cannot love a man who would love her.

I revised it because I realized most women are still capable of love but only with certain men, men far above her station. So while they could love Brad Pitt in theory, it's irrelevant because they cannot love the men who would deign to love her.

This is relevant

Quote:

Nemesis heard the prayer and caused Narcissus to fall in love with himself: he was lead to a pool of water, and when he looked into it, he fell in love with what he saw. And what he saw wasn't real, so of course it couldn't love him back. But Narcissus sat patiently, forever, hoping that one day that beautiful person in the bottom of the pool was going to come out and love him.

You should take note of this first, easy lesson: if no one ever seems right for you, and then the one person who does seem right doesn't want you, then the problem isn't the person, the problem is you.

[iknowexactly]

(01-17-2012 01:03 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

I devoured Houellebecq's "Whatever" a couple weeks ago. Excellent. He wrote some of the very insights that I had myself realized. I'm specifically recalling how he wrote how women are essentially corrupted and robbed of any romantic potential after they start patronizing night life for just a year, and sleep with even a minimal number of men. I can get my Kindle and reprint it here later. I was stunned to see that a man who sees the world so clearly is so famous and successful.

I think Roissy is at least as talented in recognizing such realities, but Roissy unfortunately lacks the platform of a brilliant novelist.

I'm also sympathetic to Houellebecq on religion. If I've read him correctly, he thinks that the life it once offered is superior to our contemporary hollow existence, even though religion is false.

Thanks for the review, I'll try to read it.

In Benjamin Franklin's autobiography he alludes to something similar, he would have discussions with his friends about religion, and during the discussions he found he didn't find the arguments for God very convincing, but the atheists were more nasty than the religious people.

So he thought it might be better to be wrong than nasty ( my interpretation. )

His autobiography is an incredible document on humble self-improvement.

[iknowexactly]

(01-17-2012 08:42 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

[quote='basilransom' pid='144842' dateline='1326826593']
....Traditional social relationships are replaced by much weaker bonds. Relationships are increasingly ruled by markets (broadly defined). The freedom that affluence brings (to all classes) means female hypergamy gets a free rein. That's one reason not to get riled up about it; these developments are almost inevitable.

"The goal of capitalism is to reduce all human interaction to the cash nexus." - Leon Day d. 2011

I think when something is that pernicious, it's like a fucking acute meningitis infection attacking intimacy-- you have to consciously, in a focused way, confront and overcompensate at least for a time to prevent takeover and emotional death from its infection.

Of course, that type of romanticism isn't for the slut-a-day crowd. I admit you have to be nuts to give a shit. I prefer that form of insanity over the other form of death.