This is great. I’m happy I didn’t read it before I wrote my essay since then I might not have written it, as you’ve captured the spirit of the book so beautifully. I hadn’t thought of Bruno this way in that the power dynamic seemed to preclude friendship but you make a good case; maybe that’s the point about friendship.
I don’t have it front of mind but I did want to go back and reread Map and Territory with Annihilation in mind, as that one also was somewhat more “redemptive”, in that case through art, in a way that defied some expectations about MH.
Thank you! It was interesting to see how we converged on some of the same points in our articles.
I read this one (and Serotonin) after a long break from Houellebecq, so I'm blanking a little bit on what happens in Map and Territory (it's the one where MH is a character in it?), but in general I do think there's more redemption in his books than is usually acknowledged.
IMO, which means nothing, you describe what I experienced as a reader. A kind of melancholy feeling built that the feckless nature of French political affairs, that he brilliantly satirized in the past, were trivial compared to primary relationships. I was slow to see it coming and surprised when it ended as it did. Wasn’t sure what to make of his brother’s suicide except that he was marginalized within his family and marriage? There few or no LOL moments unlike Submission. Not sure what to make of it but your take seems most accurate given those I have seen. Thanks
Thanks Rick, that's a very perceptive comment. Part of what prompted this piece was that none of the reviews I read seemed to capture what I felt the book was about. One sort of review said it was standard Houellebecq, which made me wonder if the reviewer had even read the book, and the other said it was totally different from his other books, which I didn't think was accurate either.
As for his brother, it seemed to me that in other Houellebecq books he might have been the protagonist, but here he was just a supporting character. His suicide did come a bit out of the blue, but I think it's believable--he's been humiliated by his wife, has finally found the courage to leave, and then fucks everything up (albeit thinking it's much worse than it actually is).
Thanks for the comment, Tarik. Clearly we diverge quite a bit in our assessment of Annihilation, but I'm also intrigued by a few things you're saying. You say Houellebecq's whole project is a cynical rejection of world and life--I can understand that view up until Annihilation, but the whole point of this book is that it stands in opposition to his previous work: Paul doesn't reject life at all, he embraces it as evidenced in the renewed relationship with Prudence. Yes, at the end he chooses not to medically prolong his life, but he does this because surgery would have destroyed his face (symbolically destroying his very identity) as well as his quality of life for the benefit of perhaps a few extra months of life. An acceptance of the inevitability of death is not a rejection of life. We also have to consider how the family saves Paul's father from a near certain death in a nursing home.
In terms of perpetuating resentments from the manosphere, I don't see it. I'd understand such a criticism leveled at Serotonin, but not here, which in general shows loving matrimonial relationships (Paul/Prudence, his father/Madeleine, Cécile/Hervé). In general I find people from the manosphere/red pill world to fundamentally misunderstand Houellebecq's work, which they see as an endorsement of their worldview rather than simply a descriptive account of certain parts of contemporary life.
I don't think Houellebecq's work is avant-garde at all, or that it's particularly well written. He's not a literary stylist, which is fine. Annihilation is a pretty standard work of literary realism.
Anyway, I do appreciate your comment, but the way you're describing Annihilation doesn't correspond to my reading of the book.
It sounds like we don't really disagree then, but perhaps just quibble over how we would phrase and characterize things. Your memory is correct about the plot of the novel.
This is great. I’m happy I didn’t read it before I wrote my essay since then I might not have written it, as you’ve captured the spirit of the book so beautifully. I hadn’t thought of Bruno this way in that the power dynamic seemed to preclude friendship but you make a good case; maybe that’s the point about friendship.
I don’t have it front of mind but I did want to go back and reread Map and Territory with Annihilation in mind, as that one also was somewhat more “redemptive”, in that case through art, in a way that defied some expectations about MH.
Thank you! It was interesting to see how we converged on some of the same points in our articles.
I read this one (and Serotonin) after a long break from Houellebecq, so I'm blanking a little bit on what happens in Map and Territory (it's the one where MH is a character in it?), but in general I do think there's more redemption in his books than is usually acknowledged.
IMO, which means nothing, you describe what I experienced as a reader. A kind of melancholy feeling built that the feckless nature of French political affairs, that he brilliantly satirized in the past, were trivial compared to primary relationships. I was slow to see it coming and surprised when it ended as it did. Wasn’t sure what to make of his brother’s suicide except that he was marginalized within his family and marriage? There few or no LOL moments unlike Submission. Not sure what to make of it but your take seems most accurate given those I have seen. Thanks
Thanks Rick, that's a very perceptive comment. Part of what prompted this piece was that none of the reviews I read seemed to capture what I felt the book was about. One sort of review said it was standard Houellebecq, which made me wonder if the reviewer had even read the book, and the other said it was totally different from his other books, which I didn't think was accurate either.
As for his brother, it seemed to me that in other Houellebecq books he might have been the protagonist, but here he was just a supporting character. His suicide did come a bit out of the blue, but I think it's believable--he's been humiliated by his wife, has finally found the courage to leave, and then fucks everything up (albeit thinking it's much worse than it actually is).
Great piece. Thanks for writing this.
thanks Blake!
Thanks for the comment, Tarik. Clearly we diverge quite a bit in our assessment of Annihilation, but I'm also intrigued by a few things you're saying. You say Houellebecq's whole project is a cynical rejection of world and life--I can understand that view up until Annihilation, but the whole point of this book is that it stands in opposition to his previous work: Paul doesn't reject life at all, he embraces it as evidenced in the renewed relationship with Prudence. Yes, at the end he chooses not to medically prolong his life, but he does this because surgery would have destroyed his face (symbolically destroying his very identity) as well as his quality of life for the benefit of perhaps a few extra months of life. An acceptance of the inevitability of death is not a rejection of life. We also have to consider how the family saves Paul's father from a near certain death in a nursing home.
In terms of perpetuating resentments from the manosphere, I don't see it. I'd understand such a criticism leveled at Serotonin, but not here, which in general shows loving matrimonial relationships (Paul/Prudence, his father/Madeleine, Cécile/Hervé). In general I find people from the manosphere/red pill world to fundamentally misunderstand Houellebecq's work, which they see as an endorsement of their worldview rather than simply a descriptive account of certain parts of contemporary life.
I don't think Houellebecq's work is avant-garde at all, or that it's particularly well written. He's not a literary stylist, which is fine. Annihilation is a pretty standard work of literary realism.
Anyway, I do appreciate your comment, but the way you're describing Annihilation doesn't correspond to my reading of the book.
It sounds like we don't really disagree then, but perhaps just quibble over how we would phrase and characterize things. Your memory is correct about the plot of the novel.