Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.27 AVERAGE
3.27 AVERAGE
Okay, so liest sich also ein sogenanntes "Kultbuch der Gegenmoderne". Das meinte dereinst jedenfalls Die Zeit. Hat das so eigentlich jemals jemand bestätigt?
Egal. Ausweitung der Kampfzone hat gewiss seine Qualitäten. Es ist nur so, dass es irgendwie wenig revolutionär anmutet, wenn man zwei Drittel des Buches den Betrachtungen eines schlicht ziemlich arroganten Arschlochs folgt, um dann im letzten Drittel festzustellen, dass er depressiv ist. Hatten wir das Motiv des Zerbrechens an der jeweils aktuellen Gesellschaft, oder gar dem jeweils vorherrschenden Zeitgeist, nicht schon zuvor mehrere Male?
Auch egal. In seiner Kompaktheit liest sich Houellebecq's Debüt-Roman ziemlich gut, ganz gleich, ob man sich mit dem Ich-Erzähler identifizieren kann oder nicht. Abseits Houellebecq's eher gespaltener Reputation, muss man ihm zweifelsfrei Talent attestieren. Nun gut, umsonst hat er's seitdem wohl auch kaum in viele renommierte Medienformate geschafft.
Ich will das augenscheinlich hinzugedichtete Unikum in Ausweitung der Kampfzone jedoch nicht sehen. Viel zu eindimensional, viel zu plakativ wird sich mit der vermeintlich natürlichen Funktionsweise einer menschlichen Beziehung auseinandergesetzt. Ständig denkt man während der Lektüre, Houellebecq hätte sein zweifelsfrei horrendes philosophisches Potential nicht ausgeschöpft. So bleibt die Beschreibung der titelgebenden Kampfzone ein lediglich polemisch aufgegriffener Ideenfetzen, der mehr Ausführlichkeit verdient hätte. Mehr Objektivität, mehr Differenzierung. Ja, das Leben ist nur Sex und Ökonomie. Es wird jedoch nicht klar, dass genau dieser Zivilisationszustand überwunden werden sollte.
Was bleibt, ist folglich lediglich ein "Kultbuch" für unreflektierte Zyniker. Für Leute die denken, sie hätten alle weltlichen wie spirituellen Zusammenhänge durchschaut, nur um darüber lachen zu können. Leute also, derer es Millionen da draußen gibt. Leute, die jede philosophische Idee, jede gesellschaftliche Entwicklung, die ihrer vermeintlich individuellen Perspektive nicht entspricht, ausselektieren und verneinen. Genau wie der Ich-Erzähler, der nicht reflektiert, sondern verurteilt.
Ich kann demnach durchaus verstehen, weshalb viele Kritiker diesen Roman in erster Linie autobiographisch lesen (wollen). Das spielt jedoch keine Rolle, denn Houellebecq's in Ausweitung der Kampfzone ausgesuchte Betrachtungsweise der Moderne ist durchaus ansprechend. Sie ist nur schlicht nicht überzeugend.
Egal. Ausweitung der Kampfzone hat gewiss seine Qualitäten. Es ist nur so, dass es irgendwie wenig revolutionär anmutet, wenn man zwei Drittel des Buches den Betrachtungen eines schlicht ziemlich arroganten Arschlochs folgt, um dann im letzten Drittel festzustellen, dass er depressiv ist. Hatten wir das Motiv des Zerbrechens an der jeweils aktuellen Gesellschaft, oder gar dem jeweils vorherrschenden Zeitgeist, nicht schon zuvor mehrere Male?
Auch egal. In seiner Kompaktheit liest sich Houellebecq's Debüt-Roman ziemlich gut, ganz gleich, ob man sich mit dem Ich-Erzähler identifizieren kann oder nicht. Abseits Houellebecq's eher gespaltener Reputation, muss man ihm zweifelsfrei Talent attestieren. Nun gut, umsonst hat er's seitdem wohl auch kaum in viele renommierte Medienformate geschafft.
Ich will das augenscheinlich hinzugedichtete Unikum in Ausweitung der Kampfzone jedoch nicht sehen. Viel zu eindimensional, viel zu plakativ wird sich mit der vermeintlich natürlichen Funktionsweise einer menschlichen Beziehung auseinandergesetzt. Ständig denkt man während der Lektüre, Houellebecq hätte sein zweifelsfrei horrendes philosophisches Potential nicht ausgeschöpft. So bleibt die Beschreibung der titelgebenden Kampfzone ein lediglich polemisch aufgegriffener Ideenfetzen, der mehr Ausführlichkeit verdient hätte. Mehr Objektivität, mehr Differenzierung. Ja, das Leben ist nur Sex und Ökonomie. Es wird jedoch nicht klar, dass genau dieser Zivilisationszustand überwunden werden sollte.
Was bleibt, ist folglich lediglich ein "Kultbuch" für unreflektierte Zyniker. Für Leute die denken, sie hätten alle weltlichen wie spirituellen Zusammenhänge durchschaut, nur um darüber lachen zu können. Leute also, derer es Millionen da draußen gibt. Leute, die jede philosophische Idee, jede gesellschaftliche Entwicklung, die ihrer vermeintlich individuellen Perspektive nicht entspricht, ausselektieren und verneinen. Genau wie der Ich-Erzähler, der nicht reflektiert, sondern verurteilt.
Ich kann demnach durchaus verstehen, weshalb viele Kritiker diesen Roman in erster Linie autobiographisch lesen (wollen). Das spielt jedoch keine Rolle, denn Houellebecq's in Ausweitung der Kampfzone ausgesuchte Betrachtungsweise der Moderne ist durchaus ansprechend. Sie ist nur schlicht nicht überzeugend.
prvi houellebecqov roman: tek se zagrijava. ono što ovdje daje da naslutimo, svom silinom će eksplodirati u kasnijim, puno žešćim djelima (npr. u "mogućnosti otoka" ili u "serotoninu"). ali ovdje imamo priliku vidjeti ga u temeljima onakvim kakav će ostati tijekom svog literarnog opusa: tjeskoban i depresivan, ciničan i prijeziran spram društva i svijeta, autodestruktivan - antiheroj par excellence.
"otprilike u to vrijeme, počeo sam se zanimati za svoje supatnike. bilo je malo mahnitih, uglavnom tjeskobni i depresivni; ne slučajno, pretpostavljam. ljudi koji zapadnu u takva stanja vrlo brzo odustanu od buntovničkog ponašanja. većina ih pod sedativima ostane u krevetu čitav dan; povremeno šetkaju gore-dolje hodnikom, popuše četiri ili pet cigareta jednu za drugom i vrate se u krevet. obroci su, međutim, bili skupni događaji; dežurna bi sestra rekla: "poslužite se.". ni jedna druga riječ ne bi bila izgovorena; svatko bi žvakao svoju hranu. katkad bi neki od uzvanika dobio napadaj drhtanja, ili stao stenjati; tada bi se vratio u svoju sobu, i to bi bilo sve. malo-pomalo, povjerovao sam da svi ti ljudi - bilo muškarci ili žene - nisu ni najmanje poremećeni; jednostavno im nedostaje ljubavi. njihove geste, njihovo držanje, njihova mimika, odavali su razornu žeđ za ljudskim dodirima i milovanjima; ali, naravno, to nije bilo moguće. stoga su stenjali, jaukali, noktima si parali kožu; za mojeg boravka, imali smo i jedan uspješan pokušaj kastracije."
"sve to što je moglo biti izvorom sudjelovanja, užitka, nevinog osjetilnog sklada, postalo je izvorom boli i nesreće."
"otprilike u to vrijeme, počeo sam se zanimati za svoje supatnike. bilo je malo mahnitih, uglavnom tjeskobni i depresivni; ne slučajno, pretpostavljam. ljudi koji zapadnu u takva stanja vrlo brzo odustanu od buntovničkog ponašanja. većina ih pod sedativima ostane u krevetu čitav dan; povremeno šetkaju gore-dolje hodnikom, popuše četiri ili pet cigareta jednu za drugom i vrate se u krevet. obroci su, međutim, bili skupni događaji; dežurna bi sestra rekla: "poslužite se.". ni jedna druga riječ ne bi bila izgovorena; svatko bi žvakao svoju hranu. katkad bi neki od uzvanika dobio napadaj drhtanja, ili stao stenjati; tada bi se vratio u svoju sobu, i to bi bilo sve. malo-pomalo, povjerovao sam da svi ti ljudi - bilo muškarci ili žene - nisu ni najmanje poremećeni; jednostavno im nedostaje ljubavi. njihove geste, njihovo držanje, njihova mimika, odavali su razornu žeđ za ljudskim dodirima i milovanjima; ali, naravno, to nije bilo moguće. stoga su stenjali, jaukali, noktima si parali kožu; za mojeg boravka, imali smo i jedan uspješan pokušaj kastracije."
"sve to što je moglo biti izvorom sudjelovanja, užitka, nevinog osjetilnog sklada, postalo je izvorom boli i nesreće."
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Sigue la tradición del ennui de clase media francesa tipo Camus o Perec en [b:Las cosas|629770|Las cosas|Georges Perec|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1300122134l/629770._SX50_.jpg|26231614], aunque con bastante más bilis. Si se le lee con humor, se pasa un buen rato, aunque no libre de algún escalofrío; si se lo toma en serio, se está en peligro de transformarse en un incel de cuidado. Es fácil ver por qué Houellebecq ha producido desde siempre tal polarización de opiniones.
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
(english bellow) C'est la première fois que je lis du Houellebecq et j'ai commencé ma lecture sur mes gardes à cause de tout ce qui se dit sur l'auteur.
Après avoir fini ce livre, je peux affirmer qu'à mes yeux le style d'écriture est d'un lyrisme absolument merveilleux. Il y'a la simplicité du langage que l'on trouve chez F. Rabelais ou F. Céline (un autre auteur controversé) qui utilisent les mots de leur époque mais savent les rendre classique à la manière dont la poésie rend les mots classiques nouveaux.
Je peux aussi dire que l'auteur semble avoir un incroyable talent pour décrire un homme moyen dépressif se rendant compte de sa propre médiocrité. Le héros, Michel, est suicidaire, toxique et va mal. Le livre ne laisse aucun doute là dessus. Ce ne sont pas des métaphore qui sous tendent le sens mais la description brut presque repoussante qui en devient fantasmagorique ? On retrouve ça dans la littérature Russe ou chez P. Roth dans Portnoy's Complaint par exemple.
Cependant, le livre est également raciste et sexiste sans aucun doute. Je trouve d'ailleurs que cela ajoute à la parfaite description du désespoir monstrueux de Michel. Il lui est tellement insupportable d'exister qu'il abhorre également l'existence des autres. On trésaille tout de même à la lecture d'un grand nombre de remarque et c'est pourquoi malgré le génie artistique et littéraire de l'auteur je ne conseillerais pas ce livre.
Il existe un grand nombre de livre tout aussi bien écrits qui méritent notre attention dont ceux cités plus haut. Et si vous tenez à découvrir cet auteur précisément, il a aussi écris des recueils de poèmes qui présentent la beauté stylistique et les thèmes de l'auteur en évitant le racisme flagrant de ses romans.
---
This is the first time I've read a Houellebecq Book and I started it very weary because of everything that is said about the author.
After finishing this book, I can say that in my eyes the writing style is immaculate. There is the simplicity of language found in F. Rabelais or F. Céline (another controversial author) who use the words of their time but know how to make them classic in the way that poetry makes classic words new.
I can also say that the author seems to have an incredible talent for describing an average depressed man who realizes his own mediocrity. The hero, Michel, is suicidal, toxic and is hurting. The book leaves no doubt about that. It's not metaphors that underlie meanings but the almost repulsive crude description that becomes phantasmagorical ? We find it in Russian literature or in P. Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint for example.
However, the book is also racist and sexist without a doubt. I think it adds to the perfect description of Michel’s monstruous despair. It is so unbearable for him that he exists that he also abhors the existence of others. We still cringe when reading many sentences and that is why despite the artistic and literary genius of the author I would not recommend this book.
There are a large number of equally well-written books that merit our attention more including those mentioned above. And if you want to discover this author precisely, he has also written collections of poems that present the stylistic beauty and themes of the author while avoiding the blatant racism of his novels.
Après avoir fini ce livre, je peux affirmer qu'à mes yeux le style d'écriture est d'un lyrisme absolument merveilleux. Il y'a la simplicité du langage que l'on trouve chez F. Rabelais ou F. Céline (un autre auteur controversé) qui utilisent les mots de leur époque mais savent les rendre classique à la manière dont la poésie rend les mots classiques nouveaux.
Je peux aussi dire que l'auteur semble avoir un incroyable talent pour décrire un homme moyen dépressif se rendant compte de sa propre médiocrité. Le héros, Michel, est suicidaire, toxique et va mal. Le livre ne laisse aucun doute là dessus. Ce ne sont pas des métaphore qui sous tendent le sens mais la description brut presque repoussante qui en devient fantasmagorique ? On retrouve ça dans la littérature Russe ou chez P. Roth dans Portnoy's Complaint par exemple.
Cependant, le livre est également raciste et sexiste sans aucun doute. Je trouve d'ailleurs que cela ajoute à la parfaite description du désespoir monstrueux de Michel. Il lui est tellement insupportable d'exister qu'il abhorre également l'existence des autres. On trésaille tout de même à la lecture d'un grand nombre de remarque et c'est pourquoi malgré le génie artistique et littéraire de l'auteur je ne conseillerais pas ce livre.
Il existe un grand nombre de livre tout aussi bien écrits qui méritent notre attention dont ceux cités plus haut. Et si vous tenez à découvrir cet auteur précisément, il a aussi écris des recueils de poèmes qui présentent la beauté stylistique et les thèmes de l'auteur en évitant le racisme flagrant de ses romans.
---
This is the first time I've read a Houellebecq Book and I started it very weary because of everything that is said about the author.
After finishing this book, I can say that in my eyes the writing style is immaculate. There is the simplicity of language found in F. Rabelais or F. Céline (another controversial author) who use the words of their time but know how to make them classic in the way that poetry makes classic words new.
I can also say that the author seems to have an incredible talent for describing an average depressed man who realizes his own mediocrity. The hero, Michel, is suicidal, toxic and is hurting. The book leaves no doubt about that. It's not metaphors that underlie meanings but the almost repulsive crude description that becomes phantasmagorical ? We find it in Russian literature or in P. Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint for example.
However, the book is also racist and sexist without a doubt. I think it adds to the perfect description of Michel’s monstruous despair. It is so unbearable for him that he exists that he also abhors the existence of others. We still cringe when reading many sentences and that is why despite the artistic and literary genius of the author I would not recommend this book.
There are a large number of equally well-written books that merit our attention more including those mentioned above. And if you want to discover this author precisely, he has also written collections of poems that present the stylistic beauty and themes of the author while avoiding the blatant racism of his novels.
Quite a prescient exploration into a phenomenon that would only be exacerbated in the decades after this book's publication. I hesitate to put a name to it, but the condition this novel is "about" is some combination of depression, loneliness, the alienation and meaninglessness of modern life, seen through the eyes of a sexless, friendless, deeply depressed computer programmer.
It should be immediately clear to the reader that the protagonist is wretched, pathetic, disturbed, and all around tough to stomach. He's portrayed honestly, which necessarily means unsympathetically, especially leading up to the strange anticlimax near the end. This is one of the strengths of the novel, even if it's difficult to put up with at times. When the narration veers a bit too far into manifesto, there's an equal chance that it turns out profound, incoherently abstract, or just boring. In any case, the writing never feels forced or unnatural. It's exactly as banal and dry, as bitter and desperate, as the character it seeks to convey.
The political commentary is what annoyed me the most about this book, though for the aforementioned reasons not enough to ruin it. The protagonist bitterly swipes at worker's movements, feminism, student protests, and any vaguely activist or revolutionary element in society, without fully committing to a proper critique. On the other hand, the status quo (neoliberal capitalism) is far from unscathed. All this is true to the flailing, impotent politics of these type of people in real life. But when it becomes the focus of the narration, it's unclear where the protagonist stops and where Houellebecq begins. At these points the novel diverges from a psychological case study to mediocre polemic.
If there is one theme that ties the book together, it's the protagonist's (and I'm pretty sure Houellebecq's) cynical views on sex and dating. This is spelled out extremely explicitly with an uncharacteristically lazy analogy (the advent of neoliberal capitalism is to wealth inequality as the sexual revolution is to...sex inequality?) that, personally, I find as appalling as it is flimsy. Obviously, this thesis subtly justifies a lot of misogyny throughout. So the fact that this is one of the parts of the book that I most felt like the author really believed was fairly irritating. If there is a plot to this book, most of what moves it forward is the protagonist's encounters with various women. If these vignettes feel real and human, it's despite the author's simplistic theory of human interaction.
I don't think I'll have the desire to experience this particular brand of misery for a long while. That said, I can't help but feel that this book is in many ways a precise depiction of something that really does exist in modern society. For that reason alone, it's worth reading, but only once.
It should be immediately clear to the reader that the protagonist is wretched, pathetic, disturbed, and all around tough to stomach. He's portrayed honestly, which necessarily means unsympathetically, especially leading up to the strange anticlimax near the end. This is one of the strengths of the novel, even if it's difficult to put up with at times. When the narration veers a bit too far into manifesto, there's an equal chance that it turns out profound, incoherently abstract, or just boring. In any case, the writing never feels forced or unnatural. It's exactly as banal and dry, as bitter and desperate, as the character it seeks to convey.
The political commentary is what annoyed me the most about this book, though for the aforementioned reasons not enough to ruin it. The protagonist bitterly swipes at worker's movements, feminism, student protests, and any vaguely activist or revolutionary element in society, without fully committing to a proper critique. On the other hand, the status quo (neoliberal capitalism) is far from unscathed. All this is true to the flailing, impotent politics of these type of people in real life. But when it becomes the focus of the narration, it's unclear where the protagonist stops and where Houellebecq begins. At these points the novel diverges from a psychological case study to mediocre polemic.
If there is one theme that ties the book together, it's the protagonist's (and I'm pretty sure Houellebecq's) cynical views on sex and dating. This is spelled out extremely explicitly with an uncharacteristically lazy analogy (the advent of neoliberal capitalism is to wealth inequality as the sexual revolution is to...sex inequality?) that, personally, I find as appalling as it is flimsy. Obviously, this thesis subtly justifies a lot of misogyny throughout. So the fact that this is one of the parts of the book that I most felt like the author really believed was fairly irritating. If there is a plot to this book, most of what moves it forward is the protagonist's encounters with various women. If these vignettes feel real and human, it's despite the author's simplistic theory of human interaction.
I don't think I'll have the desire to experience this particular brand of misery for a long while. That said, I can't help but feel that this book is in many ways a precise depiction of something that really does exist in modern society. For that reason alone, it's worth reading, but only once.
challenging
dark
informative
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No