Scan barcode
A review by jackflagg
Things by Georges Perec
4.0
(Copied from my review of the double feature "Things & A Man Asleep")
Things is a universal story of the middle-class, the reasonably paid, the reasonably educated and reasonably well adjusted. At the surface, it seems to be only a story about materialism and consumerism, but look at it deeper and it's also an extension of (or a response to) the existentialist writings of philosophers such as Sartre or Camus. Materialism is only a symptom, not an ailment. Take someone who is poor and struggles with money: they will find it hard to aspire to greater things, to actively yearn for anything else but balance and stability. But give that same person a better job, a new setting, a decent living, and you'll see they quickly realise they're still not too happy, they're not content. Their situation could be better, maybe a bit more comfortable, a tad more fulfilling and so on. Sartre wrote about this in Perec's time - having the freedom to do anything is at the same time the biggest relief and the biggest burden one can have.
What do you do with all that freedom? You have the freedom to choose everything in your life - from the soap in your bathroom, to the way you spend your free time and up to the path your life will take. Will you pick lemon or lavender? Will you have a comfortable week-end or one filled with adventures? Will you pick a life in arts or a career in business? You're able to choose so much about your destiny that you come to an impasse. You realise choosing is hard. It's hard to pick only one lane, it's hard to find the courage to choose only one life to live to the fullest because of the possibility - no, the certainty - that you'll either go on that path and turn back, regretting you have ever started, or you'll go as far as you can and realise you're still not happy, you still want something else, something more.
Naturally, you realise that the ones who are rich will find it easier to navigate these different paths, so if you're not careful you might make it all about money, you might start to think only in materialistic terms, you'll dream of getting rich, you'll think that you might become happier by buying this or spending your cash on that... This never works. It's not about money, or at least it doesn't have to be.
Camus would say that this eternal struggle is enough to fill a man's heart, but of course this is easier said than applied. :)
Things is a universal story of the middle-class, the reasonably paid, the reasonably educated and reasonably well adjusted. At the surface, it seems to be only a story about materialism and consumerism, but look at it deeper and it's also an extension of (or a response to) the existentialist writings of philosophers such as Sartre or Camus. Materialism is only a symptom, not an ailment. Take someone who is poor and struggles with money: they will find it hard to aspire to greater things, to actively yearn for anything else but balance and stability. But give that same person a better job, a new setting, a decent living, and you'll see they quickly realise they're still not too happy, they're not content. Their situation could be better, maybe a bit more comfortable, a tad more fulfilling and so on. Sartre wrote about this in Perec's time - having the freedom to do anything is at the same time the biggest relief and the biggest burden one can have.
The paths they were following, the values they were gradually adopting, their outlook, their desires and their ambitions, it must be said, did indeed sometimes all feel desperately empty. They knew nothing that was not precarious or puzzling. Yet this was their life, it was the source of unsuspected experiences elating beyond intoxication, it was something hugely, intensely open.
What do you do with all that freedom? You have the freedom to choose everything in your life - from the soap in your bathroom, to the way you spend your free time and up to the path your life will take. Will you pick lemon or lavender? Will you have a comfortable week-end or one filled with adventures? Will you pick a life in arts or a career in business? You're able to choose so much about your destiny that you come to an impasse. You realise choosing is hard. It's hard to pick only one lane, it's hard to find the courage to choose only one life to live to the fullest because of the possibility - no, the certainty - that you'll either go on that path and turn back, regretting you have ever started, or you'll go as far as you can and realise you're still not happy, you still want something else, something more.
Impatience, thought Jérôme and Sylvie, is a twentieth-century virtue. At twenty, when they saw, or thought they saw, what life could be, the sum of bliss it held, the endless conquests it allowed, etc., they realised they would not have the strength to wait. Like anyone else, they could have made it; but all they wanted was to have it made. That is probably the sense in which they were what are commonly called intellectuals. For everything contradicted them, beginning with life itself. They wanted life's enjoyment, but all around them enjoyment was equated with ownership.
Naturally, you realise that the ones who are rich will find it easier to navigate these different paths, so if you're not careful you might make it all about money, you might start to think only in materialistic terms, you'll dream of getting rich, you'll think that you might become happier by buying this or spending your cash on that... This never works. It's not about money, or at least it doesn't have to be.
Camus would say that this eternal struggle is enough to fill a man's heart, but of course this is easier said than applied. :)
But between these too grand daydreams in which they wallowed with strange self-indulgence, and their total lack of any actual doing, no rational plan, matching the objective necessities to their financial means, arose to fill the gap. The vastness of their desires paralysed them.