Prix Goncourt
- Thread starter Stewart
- Start date
Guillaume Cingal
New member
Re: Goncourt 2010
The new shortlist (published yesterday) includes :
Olivier Adam Le coeur r?gulier L?Olivier
Thierry Beinstingel Retour aux mots sauvages Fayard
Virginie Despentes Apocalypse b?b? Grasset
Mathias Enard Parle-leur de batailles, de rois et d'?l?phants Actes Sud
Michel Houellebecq La carte et le territoire Flammarion
Maylis de Kerangal Naissance d?un pont Verticales
Chantal Thomas Le testament d'Olympe Seuil
Karine Tuil Six mois , six jours Grasset
I have only read 5 of those 8. The novels by Houellebecq and Despentes are disappointing, for various reasons. Maylis de Kerangal and Thierry Beinstingel are very bold, innovative writers that tackle social issues from a definitely "literary" perspective.
Enard : forget about him. Just one short biopic which tries to pass out as "po?me en prose".
The new shortlist (published yesterday) includes :
Olivier Adam Le coeur r?gulier L?Olivier
Thierry Beinstingel Retour aux mots sauvages Fayard
Virginie Despentes Apocalypse b?b? Grasset
Mathias Enard Parle-leur de batailles, de rois et d'?l?phants Actes Sud
Michel Houellebecq La carte et le territoire Flammarion
Maylis de Kerangal Naissance d?un pont Verticales
Chantal Thomas Le testament d'Olympe Seuil
Karine Tuil Six mois , six jours Grasset
I have only read 5 of those 8. The novels by Houellebecq and Despentes are disappointing, for various reasons. Maylis de Kerangal and Thierry Beinstingel are very bold, innovative writers that tackle social issues from a definitely "literary" perspective.
Enard : forget about him. Just one short biopic which tries to pass out as "po?me en prose".
Daniel del Real
Moderator
Re: Goncourt 2010
Nothomb is out of the short list. I can sleep again
Nothomb is out of the short list. I can sleep again
lionel
Reader
Re: Goncourt 2010
And Maylis de Kerangal's just won the prix Médicis. If she gets this -and to be honest I hope she does - it'll be quite an achievement. But I hope there aren't any comments here about her, er, appearance.
Then again, it would be interesting if Despentes got it, after the doubts about the writing ability of this previous sex industry worker.
But again, Houellebecq is such a fascinating writer, and it would annoy a great many people if he got there.
Not to mention Enard, who got up lots of noses with the previous one-sentence novel.
These are the best choices that could have been made before the final decision.
The Goncourt is, as usual, much more interesting than the Man Booker.
BLOG
And Maylis de Kerangal's just won the prix Médicis. If she gets this -and to be honest I hope she does - it'll be quite an achievement. But I hope there aren't any comments here about her, er, appearance.
Then again, it would be interesting if Despentes got it, after the doubts about the writing ability of this previous sex industry worker.
But again, Houellebecq is such a fascinating writer, and it would annoy a great many people if he got there.
Not to mention Enard, who got up lots of noses with the previous one-sentence novel.
These are the best choices that could have been made before the final decision.
The Goncourt is, as usual, much more interesting than the Man Booker.
BLOG
Corswandt
FAFO
Re: Goncourt 2010
Worry not, I'll make no such comments. I'll merely select some photos and start a poll with the usual options ("I'd hit it", "I wouldn't hit it", "Maybe, if I was really really drunk", etc.).
If you forget 2004 ever happened.
Worry not, I'll make no such comments. I'll merely select some photos and start a poll with the usual options ("I'd hit it", "I wouldn't hit it", "Maybe, if I was really really drunk", etc.).
If you forget 2004 ever happened.
lionel
Reader
Re: Goncourt 2010
No surprise then - after two misses, with Les particules élémentaires (1998) and La possibilité d’une île (2005) - Michel Houellebecq wins the prix Goncourt with La carte et le territoire: Maylis de Kerangal's Naissance d'un pont winning the prix Médicis meant it was highly unlikely that she'd get another biggie; the Académie Goncourt is far too strait-laced to unananimously choose Virginie Despentes's Apocalypse bébé, although let's note that it has just won the Renaudot; and hasn't Mathias Enard - whose Parle-leur de batailles, de rois et d'éléphants is generally considered by critics to lack the power of Zone - got a long way to go yet? All in all, it had to be Houellebecq.
BLOG
No surprise then - after two misses, with Les particules élémentaires (1998) and La possibilité d’une île (2005) - Michel Houellebecq wins the prix Goncourt with La carte et le territoire: Maylis de Kerangal's Naissance d'un pont winning the prix Médicis meant it was highly unlikely that she'd get another biggie; the Académie Goncourt is far too strait-laced to unananimously choose Virginie Despentes's Apocalypse bébé, although let's note that it has just won the Renaudot; and hasn't Mathias Enard - whose Parle-leur de batailles, de rois et d'éléphants is generally considered by critics to lack the power of Zone - got a long way to go yet? All in all, it had to be Houellebecq.
BLOG
Last edited:
lionel
Reader
Re: Goncourt 2010
So, the craziness of Amélie Nothomb might in part be due to magic mushrooms? She's not exactly saying of course, but:
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3dOt25E33U
BLOG
So, the craziness of Amélie Nothomb might in part be due to magic mushrooms? She's not exactly saying of course, but:
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3dOt25E33U
BLOG
Rumpelstilzchen
Former Member
Re: Goncourt 2010
"Puerile" is a very interesting word in connection with this book. Are you serious about that? Then how do you mean this? "Puerile" in the sense of pubertal? Just because there is a lot of (mostly unsatisfying) sex in the book? This would be a rather silly statement in my opinion.
Also your second thesis is quite suprising. I do not think you will find many people who would agree with the statement that this is not a serious book or that there are not many serious fiction writers in general. Can you give an example of a book that you would call serious?
"Puerile" is a very interesting word in connection with this book. Are you serious about that? Then how do you mean this? "Puerile" in the sense of pubertal? Just because there is a lot of (mostly unsatisfying) sex in the book? This would be a rather silly statement in my opinion.
Also your second thesis is quite suprising. I do not think you will find many people who would agree with the statement that this is not a serious book or that there are not many serious fiction writers in general. Can you give an example of a book that you would call serious?
Rumpelstilzchen
Former Member
Re: Goncourt 2010
or puerile in this sense:
"Its intention is so plainly to rile, to epater, that any objections one might raise feel like further ammunition to its entrenched misanthropy. One can only assume that France's literary scene must have been suffering a profound torpor if it responded with such outrage to this bilious, hysterical and oddly juvenile book."
taken from the review here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E5DC1738F93AA25752C1A9669C8B63
or puerile in this sense:
"Its intention is so plainly to rile, to epater, that any objections one might raise feel like further ammunition to its entrenched misanthropy. One can only assume that France's literary scene must have been suffering a profound torpor if it responded with such outrage to this bilious, hysterical and oddly juvenile book."
taken from the review here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E5DC1738F93AA25752C1A9669C8B63
Rumpelstilzchen
Former Member
Re: Goncourt 2010
ah, ok, just found a more detailed statement of yours in another thread:
http://www.worldliteratureforum.com...q-La-Carte-et-le-Territoire?p=72736#post72736
ah, ok, just found a more detailed statement of yours in another thread:
http://www.worldliteratureforum.com...q-La-Carte-et-le-Territoire?p=72736#post72736
lionel
Reader
Re: Goncourt 2010
Yes, I too fail to understand these two comments. Houellebecq's preoccupation is with, for want of a better translation, the 'extension of the domain of the struggle': the soixante-huitards (whom Houellebecq detests) have created an extension of the capital-rich, capital-poor society Marx viewed, and to the free market is added free love, where you have the sex-rich and the sex-poor. This is serious stuff, and there's nothing childish about it.
It's very enlightening, before launching into a reading of Houellebecq, to discover something of his biography, how his childhood and adolescence have obviously shaped his obsessions. It's very difficult to imagine what would have become of the man without the therapy of his written work.
BLOG
Yes, I too fail to understand these two comments. Houellebecq's preoccupation is with, for want of a better translation, the 'extension of the domain of the struggle': the soixante-huitards (whom Houellebecq detests) have created an extension of the capital-rich, capital-poor society Marx viewed, and to the free market is added free love, where you have the sex-rich and the sex-poor. This is serious stuff, and there's nothing childish about it.
It's very enlightening, before launching into a reading of Houellebecq, to discover something of his biography, how his childhood and adolescence have obviously shaped his obsessions. It's very difficult to imagine what would have become of the man without the therapy of his written work.
BLOG
Rumpelstilzchen
Former Member
Re: Goncourt 2010
Ok, so you are not criticizing the topics and problems addressed by the author for being childish, but his arguments or at least the way he is presenting them.
I can live with that and even have to agree with you on some level. There are definitely some parts where his writing is sloppy or lacking subtlety in some way or his arguments are downright wrong (also scientifically). Nevertheless I have to say that he also brings up some relevant issues about modern life and society or at least parts of it. Admittedly he not only concentrates on the parts and aspects of society he is taking as unhealthy, but he even narrows his view to extreme cases, though not totally unconvincing ones in my opinion. In addition to the aspect of sex mentioned above a few more headwords that come to my mind: individuality, isolation, emptiness, superficiality, impossibility of love, materialism, consumerism…
But generally, seeing this a bit more relaxed, I would not call this book childish or immature, it is just one possible, if somewhat flawed Ansatz for a Gedankenexperiment: "Look, I show you two human beings that are possible consequences of the machinery of current society in full detail and plain truth without hiding the dirty details. And sad but true, the only way out of this mess might be to enhance humankind in some way, because part of these problems might be inherent to human nature."
Oh, and yes, how many authors would not pale in direct comparison with such a monument of literature as Dostoevsky, especially looking at one of the most enduring parts of possibly his most important work, at least from a philosophical point of view.
Ok, so you are not criticizing the topics and problems addressed by the author for being childish, but his arguments or at least the way he is presenting them.
I can live with that and even have to agree with you on some level. There are definitely some parts where his writing is sloppy or lacking subtlety in some way or his arguments are downright wrong (also scientifically). Nevertheless I have to say that he also brings up some relevant issues about modern life and society or at least parts of it. Admittedly he not only concentrates on the parts and aspects of society he is taking as unhealthy, but he even narrows his view to extreme cases, though not totally unconvincing ones in my opinion. In addition to the aspect of sex mentioned above a few more headwords that come to my mind: individuality, isolation, emptiness, superficiality, impossibility of love, materialism, consumerism…
But generally, seeing this a bit more relaxed, I would not call this book childish or immature, it is just one possible, if somewhat flawed Ansatz for a Gedankenexperiment: "Look, I show you two human beings that are possible consequences of the machinery of current society in full detail and plain truth without hiding the dirty details. And sad but true, the only way out of this mess might be to enhance humankind in some way, because part of these problems might be inherent to human nature."
Oh, and yes, how many authors would not pale in direct comparison with such a monument of literature as Dostoevsky, especially looking at one of the most enduring parts of possibly his most important work, at least from a philosophical point of view.
Rumpelstilzchen
Former Member
Re: Goncourt 2010
And if you did not like this book I am not sure if you would like his other novels. "Whatever" is just an exercise for "Elementary particles". "Platform" has a rather silly premise and much less philosophical ballast. "The Possibility of an Island" is rather bad in every aspect in my opinion. I have not read "La Carte et le Territoire" yet, though.
And if you did not like this book I am not sure if you would like his other novels. "Whatever" is just an exercise for "Elementary particles". "Platform" has a rather silly premise and much less philosophical ballast. "The Possibility of an Island" is rather bad in every aspect in my opinion. I have not read "La Carte et le Territoire" yet, though.
Rumpelstilzchen
Former Member
Re: Goncourt 2010
A decade ago or so there was a movie examining this topic to some extent: "Gattaca". I rather liked it at that time, haven't seen it since...
A decade ago or so there was a movie examining this topic to some extent: "Gattaca". I rather liked it at that time, haven't seen it since...
nicoleesparza
New member
Re: Goncourt 2010
De gauche à droite : Françoise Chandernagor, Tahar Ben Jelloun, Patrick Rambaud, Michel Tournier, Edmonde Charles-Roux, Robert Sabatier, Jorge Semprun, Françoise Mallet-Joris, Bernard Pivot, Didier Decoin......
De gauche à droite : Françoise Chandernagor, Tahar Ben Jelloun, Patrick Rambaud, Michel Tournier, Edmonde Charles-Roux, Robert Sabatier, Jorge Semprun, Françoise Mallet-Joris, Bernard Pivot, Didier Decoin......