Houellebecq himself frequently mentions that, in his view, novels don’t change the world. This is certainly true now as barely anyone reads novels. Check out this exchange from an interview when “Submission” (2015) came out:
Houellebecq: But essays are what change the world.
Bourmeau: Not novels?
Houellebecq: Of course not. Though I suspect this book by Zemmour is really too long. I think Marx’s Capital is too long. It’s actually the Communist Manifesto that got read and changed the world. Rousseau changed the world, he sometimes knew how to go straight to the point. It’s simple, if you want to change the world, you have to say, Here’s how the world is and here’s what must be done. You can’t lose yourself in novelistic considerations. That’s ineffectual.
I agree with a lot of what you've said here, especially when it comes to the role of the artist as a conduit for his influences. It reminds me a lot of how T.S viewed artists in his essay, Tradition and Individual Talent. Have you read it?
For me, of great interest is the artist's awareness of his place in the narratives of history, and the ability to understand why the presence of the past is so significant to him. And, following Elliot's advice, the artist must self-sacrifice to these influences of the past, thus the artist becomes merely a medium for the art he wishes to indulge. I'm going further than Elliot here, but I may or may not unironically believe the artist may become possessed by a muse if he's humble enough.
Regardless if you agree with Elliot or not, I think we can agree that the focus on individual talent and expression from the modern Uni art scene is one of the cringiest things out there. Both in theory and ever more so in practice. Cause 'in practice' you're only ever allowed to be expressive and original as long as your ideas align with the morality of progressive aesthetics.
To me, art is fundamentally an exercise in empathy: Good fiction makes you enter the imagination of another human, you don't have to like him or agree with him, but you learn to be next to him and to understand him.
However, social media complicates this. I've had the misfortune of reading Delicious Taco's social media before touching any of his fiction. And yeah, based on his online personality, I can't say I'd like to read any of his work (Then again, the stuff you've shared here looks promising!) I think this is a modern problem. Because of the internet, it's harder to separate the art from the artist, even if it's the right thing to do. Never before have authors been so exposed to the judging eyes of the audience. The days when readers had to carefully analyze your work to get an image of who you are or wait till the biography comes out, are gone.
The aspiring artist can choose to remain anonymous online, but current publishing trends compel you to have an active and viral social media presence to have more chances of being published.
Haven't read it, but thanks for the recommendation!
>"To me, art is fundamentally an exercise in empathy"
As much as this has become a canard, I completely agree. For me, empathy = "inhabiting the psychological states of another person." That's uniquely possible in text, where the interiority of the stream-of-consciousness can be uniquely captured. It's much harder to do that via voice-over in a filmic medium.
>"The aspiring artist can choose to remain anonymous online, but current publishing trends compel you to have an active and viral social media presence to have more chances of being published."
Completely agree. A lot of book marketing has necessarily become parasocial marketing. I frankly have no idea how publishers actually market books. I don't think they know either.
I feel like alot of rw'ers have a predilection towards being tasteful, which makes them just not be real. Less interesting. Just gotta do you, not what you think the "rules" are.
Houellebecq himself frequently mentions that, in his view, novels don’t change the world. This is certainly true now as barely anyone reads novels. Check out this exchange from an interview when “Submission” (2015) came out:
Houellebecq: But essays are what change the world.
Bourmeau: Not novels?
Houellebecq: Of course not. Though I suspect this book by Zemmour is really too long. I think Marx’s Capital is too long. It’s actually the Communist Manifesto that got read and changed the world. Rousseau changed the world, he sometimes knew how to go straight to the point. It’s simple, if you want to change the world, you have to say, Here’s how the world is and here’s what must be done. You can’t lose yourself in novelistic considerations. That’s ineffectual.
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/01/02/scare-tactics-michel-houellebecq-on-his-new-book/
That's a great quote and a great find. Thanks for sharing!
Great read.
I agree with a lot of what you've said here, especially when it comes to the role of the artist as a conduit for his influences. It reminds me a lot of how T.S viewed artists in his essay, Tradition and Individual Talent. Have you read it?
For me, of great interest is the artist's awareness of his place in the narratives of history, and the ability to understand why the presence of the past is so significant to him. And, following Elliot's advice, the artist must self-sacrifice to these influences of the past, thus the artist becomes merely a medium for the art he wishes to indulge. I'm going further than Elliot here, but I may or may not unironically believe the artist may become possessed by a muse if he's humble enough.
Regardless if you agree with Elliot or not, I think we can agree that the focus on individual talent and expression from the modern Uni art scene is one of the cringiest things out there. Both in theory and ever more so in practice. Cause 'in practice' you're only ever allowed to be expressive and original as long as your ideas align with the morality of progressive aesthetics.
To me, art is fundamentally an exercise in empathy: Good fiction makes you enter the imagination of another human, you don't have to like him or agree with him, but you learn to be next to him and to understand him.
However, social media complicates this. I've had the misfortune of reading Delicious Taco's social media before touching any of his fiction. And yeah, based on his online personality, I can't say I'd like to read any of his work (Then again, the stuff you've shared here looks promising!) I think this is a modern problem. Because of the internet, it's harder to separate the art from the artist, even if it's the right thing to do. Never before have authors been so exposed to the judging eyes of the audience. The days when readers had to carefully analyze your work to get an image of who you are or wait till the biography comes out, are gone.
The aspiring artist can choose to remain anonymous online, but current publishing trends compel you to have an active and viral social media presence to have more chances of being published.
>"Tradition and Individual Talent"
Haven't read it, but thanks for the recommendation!
>"To me, art is fundamentally an exercise in empathy"
As much as this has become a canard, I completely agree. For me, empathy = "inhabiting the psychological states of another person." That's uniquely possible in text, where the interiority of the stream-of-consciousness can be uniquely captured. It's much harder to do that via voice-over in a filmic medium.
>"The aspiring artist can choose to remain anonymous online, but current publishing trends compel you to have an active and viral social media presence to have more chances of being published."
Completely agree. A lot of book marketing has necessarily become parasocial marketing. I frankly have no idea how publishers actually market books. I don't think they know either.
I feel like alot of rw'ers have a predilection towards being tasteful, which makes them just not be real. Less interesting. Just gotta do you, not what you think the "rules" are.
Ideological conformity - no matter the direction - is inherently stultifying.