Public Enemies

November 15, 2010
Two of France's most polarizing writers give free rein to their intellectual preoccupations, caprices—and egos—as they spar, in a fiery exchange of letters, over Judaism, morality, political commitment, postcommunist Russia, and their own celebrity. Philosopher Lévy (Barbarism with a Human Face) and novelist Houellebecq (The Elementary Particles) draw on an array of sources for their discussions, such as Celine, Comte, Spinoza, and Hugo, but repeatedly throughout the book it is the correspondents themselves who emerge as the preferred subject matter. Both discuss at length their apparent vilification at the hands of the media and this self-absorption threatens to capsize more interesting discussions about writing and the relationship between art and life. (Still their mutual ribbing delights; Houellebecq to Lévy: "A philosopher without an original idea but with excellent contacts, you are, in addition, the creator behind the most preposterous film in the history of cinema.") Nonetheless, there is an undeniable pleasure in being privy to this conversation between these two outsize personalities.

September 15, 2010

A dialogue between two acclaimed French writers, originally published in France.

Liberal activist and philosopher Lévy (Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism, 2009, etc.) and libertarian social satirist Houellebecq (The Possibility of an Island, 2006, etc.) collaborated for six months in 2008 to produce this book, written as an exchange of letters. Despite their eminence in the French intellectual scene, both have been attacked by the French press (and have attacked each other)—Lévy for hypocritical egotism and Houellebecq for racism. As the correspondence unfolds, the reader comes to see them in a different light—as social critics who are trying to grapple with the important issues of the day in different ways. Unfortunately, many of the topical illusions and literary and philosophical references in the book will be missed by readers unfamiliar with the specifics of French culture. While both Lévy and Houellebecq support Israeli policy toward Palestine, their stance is quite different. Houellebecq, a self-proclaimed nonbeliever, sees no value in ethnic identity; Lévy describes himself as a happy Jew, writing that "[t]here are Jews who suffer; I'm a Jew who fights." He accuses Houellebecq of not caring enough about the destiny of the human race: "Africa's forgotten wars, the massacres in Sarajevo, the Pakistani madrassas where jihad is taught, Algeria in the grip of mass terrorism." How is it, he asks reflectively, that "one of us [Houellebecq] could act as if nothing was more important than to on listening to 'Ticket to Ride' in the company of gorgeous blondes, while the other gets up on his high horse." Houellebecq counters by explaining why he puts personal freedom ahead of civic duty: "I believe that people who want to get too mixed up in the lives of their fellow men, to redesign or regenerate humanity excessively, are either dangerous lunatics or crooks, or both."

The arguments are often engaging, but the narrative could have used more editing for an American audience—will appeal mostly to academics and dedicated readers of philosophy.

(COPYRIGHT (2010) KIRKUS REVIEWS/NIELSEN BUSINESS MEDIA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.)

December 1, 2010

These two intellectually sharp and psychologically inquiring contemporary Frenchmen provide the series of letters they exchanged during their purposely revealing correspondence of the winter and spring of 2008. Levy (Who Killed Daniel Pearl?), a philosopher and filmmaker who was raised in the aftermath of World War II and developed an abiding alienation from both Judaism and Christianity, and Houellebecq (The Possibility of an Island), a fiction writer with best seller status in France and whose youth also caused him to consider and reconsider the differences between faith and religion, allow their discourse here to range from personal stories of their childhoods through their fears of the void, distrust of chaos, and the difficulties with political commitment. The resources they call upon to illustrate and buttress their arguments range through modern Western philosophy, from Kant to Comte, and French literature from the canon (Malraux, Flaubert) to more recent popular writers. VERDICT While a heady brew, this epistolary dialog is accessible, engaging, and as refreshing as listening to a pair of keen-witted and observant artist-thinkers on stage. For all educated lay readers after a stimulating read.--Francisca Goldsmith, Infopeople Project, Berkeley, CA

Copyright 2010 Library Journal, LLC Used with permission.

September 15, 2010

A dialogue between two acclaimed French writers, originally published in France.

Liberal activist and philosopher L�vy (Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism, 2009, etc.) and libertarian social satirist Houellebecq (The Possibility of an Island, 2006, etc.) collaborated for six months in 2008 to produce this book, written as an exchange of letters. Despite their eminence in the French intellectual scene, both have been attacked by the French press (and have attacked each other)--L�vy for hypocritical egotism and Houellebecq for racism. As the correspondence unfolds, the reader comes to see them in a different light--as social critics who are trying to grapple with the important issues of the day in different ways. Unfortunately, many of the topical illusions and literary and philosophical references in the book will be missed by readers unfamiliar with the specifics of French culture. While both L�vy and Houellebecq support Israeli policy toward Palestine, their stance is quite different. Houellebecq, a self-proclaimed nonbeliever, sees no value in ethnic identity; L�vy describes himself as a happy Jew, writing that "[t]here are Jews who suffer; I'm a Jew who fights." He accuses Houellebecq of not caring enough about the destiny of the human race: "Africa's forgotten wars, the massacres in Sarajevo, the Pakistani madrassas where jihad is taught, Algeria in the grip of mass terrorism." How is it, he asks reflectively, that "one of us [Houellebecq] could act as if nothing was more important than to on listening to 'Ticket to Ride' in the company of gorgeous blondes, while the other gets up on his high horse." Houellebecq counters by explaining why he puts personal freedom ahead of civic duty: "I believe that people who want to get too mixed up in the lives of their fellow men, to redesign or regenerate humanity excessively, are either dangerous lunatics or crooks, or both."

The arguments are often engaging, but the narrative could have used more editing for an American audience--will appeal mostly to academics and dedicated readers of philosophy.

(COPYRIGHT (2010) KIRKUS REVIEWS/NIELSEN BUSINESS MEDIA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.)