Scan barcode
jflux's review against another edition
1.0
ok, i only got 50 pages into this, and maybe it's not fair to judge a book only 50 pages in, but there's a dangerzone after i hit about 100 pages -- no matter how suck the book is, i usually can't stop reading it after that point. actually, i usually won't stop reading something after 20 pages, no matter what. but this ... i don't know, i hated the characters, i hated the author, i was intrigued by the story and what it might possibly turn into, but at the point where i stopped it was just running in nothing circles. guh.
oh, yeah, and pat benatar sang this story 30 years ago, and it was shorter and better.
oh, yeah, and pat benatar sang this story 30 years ago, and it was shorter and better.
minnajee's review against another edition
2.0
Kun on lukenut muut Houellebecqit, tää oli todella tylsä.
andymascola's review against another edition
3.0
A comedian in present day navigates sex and a career before quitting comedy and joining a cult. Alternating chapters tell the story of a cloned version of the comedian in the future. Just OK. Why do I read this guy’s books?
shelgraves's review against another edition
1.0
Read this to wallow in a nihilistic worldview in which no one can be sexy or happy past the age of 35 — no, make that 25.
Abhorrent. While there are some promising turns of phrase and glimmers of thoughtful ideas, the book quickly becomes mired in misogyny and gerontophobia — this, and an unredeemable protagonist, make for a rough slog.
Instead of circling round to an ironic point, developing a plot, or creating a character arc; the book spirals downward. It gets worse. The protagonist is not only misogynistic but misanthropic and filled with self-hatred as well.
As the book comes to its bitter end: "I hated mankind, it's true, I had hated it since the beginning, and as misfortune makes you nasty, I now hated it even more."
It has a dated vibe of apathy and ennui. There are parts reminiscent of Nabokov's Lolita — certainly the middle-aged man's obsession with nubile girls — but it doesn't have the wit and irony of Nabokov's strong protagonist, deluded and foul, Humbert Humbert is at least charming and likeable from his own point of view.
Daniel is just a jerk.
"I had never felt much sympathy for the poor, and now that my life was fucked I had less than ever; the superiority my cash gave me over them might even have amounted to a slight consolation...(except they are young)."
Annoyingly, the blurb on the back compares this book favorably with Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake, a work that thoughtfully explores and develops some ideas about the current and future state of humanity and then goes even further with those ideas and characters in The Year of the Flood.
Science fiction, even in its cautionary dystopic tales, envisions the future and, in doing so, finds its roots in hope, possibility, and humanity.
The Possibility of an Island sets up a structure of narration between a modern day protagonist and his clone of the future, but it doesn't do anything with this trope and its mentions of clones and "immortality" serve only as props on which to hang and prolong Daniel's immersive despair.
As Daniel says, "I told myself that this was perhaps the true nature of art, to show us dreamed of worlds, impossible worlds, and that it was a thing I had never come close to..."
Pairs well with: Cormac McCarthy's The Road (a skilled writer throws a science fiction trope into a depressing downward spiral)
Read instead: Oryx and Crake, The Year of the Flood, Lolita
Abhorrent. While there are some promising turns of phrase and glimmers of thoughtful ideas, the book quickly becomes mired in misogyny and gerontophobia — this, and an unredeemable protagonist, make for a rough slog.
Instead of circling round to an ironic point, developing a plot, or creating a character arc; the book spirals downward. It gets worse. The protagonist is not only misogynistic but misanthropic and filled with self-hatred as well.
As the book comes to its bitter end: "I hated mankind, it's true, I had hated it since the beginning, and as misfortune makes you nasty, I now hated it even more."
It has a dated vibe of apathy and ennui. There are parts reminiscent of Nabokov's Lolita — certainly the middle-aged man's obsession with nubile girls — but it doesn't have the wit and irony of Nabokov's strong protagonist, deluded and foul, Humbert Humbert is at least charming and likeable from his own point of view.
Daniel is just a jerk.
"I had never felt much sympathy for the poor, and now that my life was fucked I had less than ever; the superiority my cash gave me over them might even have amounted to a slight consolation...(except they are young)."
Annoyingly, the blurb on the back compares this book favorably with Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake, a work that thoughtfully explores and develops some ideas about the current and future state of humanity and then goes even further with those ideas and characters in The Year of the Flood.
Science fiction, even in its cautionary dystopic tales, envisions the future and, in doing so, finds its roots in hope, possibility, and humanity.
The Possibility of an Island sets up a structure of narration between a modern day protagonist and his clone of the future, but it doesn't do anything with this trope and its mentions of clones and "immortality" serve only as props on which to hang and prolong Daniel's immersive despair.
As Daniel says, "I told myself that this was perhaps the true nature of art, to show us dreamed of worlds, impossible worlds, and that it was a thing I had never come close to..."
Pairs well with: Cormac McCarthy's The Road (a skilled writer throws a science fiction trope into a depressing downward spiral)
Read instead: Oryx and Crake, The Year of the Flood, Lolita
velax1's review against another edition
2.0
Es ist nicht so, dass das Buch schlecht wäre. Wäre es mein erstes von Houellebecq hätte es sicherlich mehr Punkte verdient, wenn vielleicht auch nicht unter meinen absoluten Lieblinsgbüchern eingereiht worden, wie dies mit "Elementarteilchen" der Fall gewesen ist. So fehlt aber der neue Gedanke. Die Struktur ist etwas anders, die Analyse der Wirkweise von Sekten durchaus amüsant, die Figuren wie immer zwischen abstoßend und bemitleidenswert oszillierend - und doch habe ich das Gefühl, das alles schon mal gelesen zu haben und dies präziser und beißender.
cattymills's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
longanlon's review against another edition
2.0
Честно казано, нямах никакъв интерес към конкретната книга (а и прочетеното в нея не успя да предизвика у мен дори рудиментарен такъв), просто исках да се запозная с тъй модерния напоследък Мишел Уелбек и да видя какво толкова му харесват. Доста бързо си отговорих на този въпрос.
Не знам защо, но съществена част от днешната "култура" (де си, Буковски?) не само е свързана с, а направо в голямата си част представлява парадиране с пошлост, вулгарност и картинно описание на низки човешки страсти във всякакъв вид. Не, че обилното поръсване на един текст с "ебане", "кур" и "сперма" ме шокира по някакъв начин - просто се чудя какво му е "изкуството" и "културата" на това, доколкото то много повече ми прилича на детския възторг от неприличният език, който отминава след някоя и друга година.
Така или иначе, използвайки тоя омазан със сперма "похват", за да бъде възприет и признат от европейския културен елит като един от тях, Уелбек вече може спокойно да пише за очевидни за всеки обикновен човек но незнайно защо заклеймени като "противоречиви" процеси и идеи в обществото ни (радикалния ислямизъм, либерастията, провала на мултикултурния модел и т.н.), на които и книгите му дължат популярността си.
А книгата нямаше никакъв особен смисъл или действие, да не си помислите че е нужно да я четете.
Не знам защо, но съществена част от днешната "култура" (де си, Буковски?) не само е свързана с, а направо в голямата си част представлява парадиране с пошлост, вулгарност и картинно описание на низки човешки страсти във всякакъв вид. Не, че обилното поръсване на един текст с "ебане", "кур" и "сперма" ме шокира по някакъв начин - просто се чудя какво му е "изкуството" и "културата" на това, доколкото то много повече ми прилича на детския възторг от неприличният език, който отминава след някоя и друга година.
Така или иначе, използвайки тоя омазан със сперма "похват", за да бъде възприет и признат от европейския културен елит като един от тях, Уелбек вече може спокойно да пише за очевидни за всеки обикновен човек но незнайно защо заклеймени като "противоречиви" процеси и идеи в обществото ни (радикалния ислямизъм, либерастията, провала на мултикултурния модел и т.н.), на които и книгите му дължат популярността си.
А книгата нямаше никакъв особен смисъл или действие, да не си помислите че е нужно да я четете.
notyourmanicpixiedreamgirl's review against another edition
5.0
One of Houllebecq's most ambitious works, it is in line with the themes of his previous novels. Fragmentation of modern society, youth and sexuality in an aging society, and happiness in a world in which values are no longer what they once were. This novel is comprised of two parallel narratives, both centered around the character of Daniel. The first is the surrounding the life the original human Daniel while the other follows the life of one of his neo-human clones. There are connections between the parallel stories. The original Daniel gradually loses faith in humanity, love, sexual relations, while the cloned Daniel emerges from a completely isolated environment to realize his desire and possibility of human contact, both social and sexual.
Both story lines seem to portray Houellebecq's vision of the logical progression of contemporary society. Each clone lives a secluded existence designed to shield the neo-humans from pain and suffering which has been determined as an inherent component of human existence. Contact with others is purely through technology while the outside world has degenerated into savagery.
For Houellebecq, the world in which Daniel 1 lives in is a world where everything is taken too far. Where sex once sold it now is equitable to power and it't no longer men who have that power. Youth is everything in this world. Appearing young is so important that when one loses the ability to do that existence no longer seems to have purpose. Love is no longer really a part of their world. Science is extremely advanced to the point where people are no longer really necessary. In short, the world Houellebecq has created is beyond bleak.
Houellebcq takes existentialism to the modern generation. I found this book insightful and thought provoking. I love Houellebecq's ability to delve into issues that are on the precipice of existence in our society.
Both story lines seem to portray Houellebecq's vision of the logical progression of contemporary society. Each clone lives a secluded existence designed to shield the neo-humans from pain and suffering which has been determined as an inherent component of human existence. Contact with others is purely through technology while the outside world has degenerated into savagery.
For Houellebecq, the world in which Daniel 1 lives in is a world where everything is taken too far. Where sex once sold it now is equitable to power and it't no longer men who have that power. Youth is everything in this world. Appearing young is so important that when one loses the ability to do that existence no longer seems to have purpose. Love is no longer really a part of their world. Science is extremely advanced to the point where people are no longer really necessary. In short, the world Houellebecq has created is beyond bleak.
Houellebcq takes existentialism to the modern generation. I found this book insightful and thought provoking. I love Houellebecq's ability to delve into issues that are on the precipice of existence in our society.
ell_zetko's review against another edition
mysterious
medium-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
4.0