Just read your review in Compact - love it. Reading Houellbeq (I just now forgot how to spell his name - middle age strikes again) as a Catholic is the only way to read Houellbeq. If you read him & don't immediately covert to Catholicism, what are you even thinking? Lol
It's either the author's view or the narrator's view... The reflections on Girard aren't attributed to the character, even by implication. I guess my overall sense is that it was kind of a humorous thing for MH to do.
Right, when an author filters a theory through a character who has a reason for disbelieving it, the theory can come out not as it is but as the character sees it (through the lens of distorted desire, thus proving Girard’s deeper point even as the character openly execrates what he says!).
The most interesting thing about Girard (to me as a neophyte) is whether or not his theories have found empirical substantiation in social psychology. Now social psychology is ridden with methodological errors and is generally conducted to a poor standard, but Girard's theories have always struck me as *social psychology theories*, i.e. essentially empirical. Therefore, it's always piqued my curiosity since mimesis/the sacrificial figure hypotheses seem to have plenty of anecdotal data to back them up.
Just read your review in Compact - love it. Reading Houellbeq (I just now forgot how to spell his name - middle age strikes again) as a Catholic is the only way to read Houellbeq. If you read him & don't immediately covert to Catholicism, what are you even thinking? Lol
Haha! Thank you for reading it. In The Map and the Territory the MH character really does convert to Catholicism...
Is it more a literary device than the author’s view? The character doesn’t understand Girard, but isn’t that the whole point?
It's either the author's view or the narrator's view... The reflections on Girard aren't attributed to the character, even by implication. I guess my overall sense is that it was kind of a humorous thing for MH to do.
Ah. Sorry I had read it as the character talking. I haven’t read the book. I enjoyed your article and have just discovered Girard.
Thank you! If you read the book let me know what you think...
Right, when an author filters a theory through a character who has a reason for disbelieving it, the theory can come out not as it is but as the character sees it (through the lens of distorted desire, thus proving Girard’s deeper point even as the character openly execrates what he says!).
Yes! That’s how I read it.
I just got to this part in the book. My jaw nearly dropped.
The most interesting thing about Girard (to me as a neophyte) is whether or not his theories have found empirical substantiation in social psychology. Now social psychology is ridden with methodological errors and is generally conducted to a poor standard, but Girard's theories have always struck me as *social psychology theories*, i.e. essentially empirical. Therefore, it's always piqued my curiosity since mimesis/the sacrificial figure hypotheses seem to have plenty of anecdotal data to back them up.
If you like Houellebecq, you might also enjoy my Houellebecqian literary take on the contemporary American incel, reviewed in the Mars Review of Books: https://marsreview.org/p/where-have-all-the-rude-boys-gone
Here's one book that deals a little with the scientific/social scientific evidence for Girard's theories: https://www.amazon.com/Mimesis-Science-Empirical-Research-Imitation/dp/1611860237
Thanks for calling my attention to your novel and Barkan's review, which I just read. Lots of food for thought there.
Thank you for your consideration and thanks for the suggestion! I’ll check it out.