Jump to content

Talk:Michel Houellebecq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not at all a balanced or fair article

[edit]

The article spends twice as much time discussing his supposed political transgressions than it does discussing his literature. And this despite the fact that the aforementioned transgressions are not themselves innocent of political machinations. Weasel words are also used. Needs editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanrobert86 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just thoroughly read and corrected the article : what is said above has some truth, but I have seen much worse on Wikipedia. I tried to elaborate on his themes and style, but I do agree that it's still not enough to convey his specific appeal as a writer.--Abolibibelot (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of "Extension du domaine de la lutte"

[edit]

I think it would be more idiomatically accurate to translate Extension du domaine de la lutte as "Broadening the field of struggle" than as "Extension of the domain of the struggle".

--mrr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrrhum (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Le domain = the domain. Le champ = the field.Lestrade (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
Good = bon. Morning = matin. And yet "good morning" is not "bon matin" in French. Words don't translate literally most of the time, especially in expressions, even the ones made up by writers. The word "field" can be and is often translated as "domaine" in French, especially figuratively. For instance "he's an expert in his field" would be "c'est un expert dans son domaine" in French, NOT "c'est un expert dans son champ", unless we're talking about a farmer. Onaryc (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did apply the suggestion from 2006... which was definitely relevant.--Abolibibelot (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar vein, "enfant terrible" is not a terrible chid. I suggest to remove the (misleading) translation and replace it with a wikilink to Enfant terrible.Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

small changes in the first lines

[edit]

I got rid of Demonpion mention in the first lines (doesn't seem so important), put it in a reference. I also clarified date status addind "(birth certificate)". Seems clearer this way. --Chaica 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial"

[edit]

It would be nice to see a better explanation of why is this writer considered controversial. What are the controversies, who raised them, and where? Daniel Leal Werneck (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the 'controversy' relates to the fact that the author has been accused of racism, islamophobia and misogyny (there is a decent BBC clip on YouTube about some of these issues). Around the time Atomised/Elementary Particles was translated into English I remember reading that he received, at various times, the admiration of both the extreme left and extreme right in France - but he had ultimately no interest in either, and they turned on him. I think he could be described as the new Celine. 99.240.139.189 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atomised/Elementary Particles contains passages in which the characters express negative comments regarding Muslims, Negroes, women, and other protected groups. This is forbidden in contemporary literature.Lestrade (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
What do you mean "forbidden"? Phil Nolte (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a sub-heading of controversy - to encompass the reasons and incidents as to why he is a "controversial author" as opposed to the "authors".Harvardhall (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still a mess. The 'Views of politics and relgion' section is really just a 'Scandalous views on ...' section and the 'Controversy' section is similar. Both of these sections should be removed (as per WP style guides) and replaced with a more even handed, less sensational description of his work. Ashmoo (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current residence

[edit]

it says in the first paragraph, he currently lives in Spain but this is unsourced and there is no indication of when "currently" means. Phil Nolte (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the FR wikipedia, he lives in Spain. --Edcolins (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to his personal twitter, he's now returned to live in France https://twitter.com/mhouellebecq/status/187720002311438336 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.193.170 (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'm not very comfortable making this assertion, but it seems that the first couple sentences of the intro are taken straight from this site: http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/32878.Michel_Houellebecq I added a citation for them, but I'm guessing that's not the complete solution. I'm just a little unsure of how to rewrite those lines to be non-copyvio-y and I'd rather not just gut an intro by removing them altogether. Jztinfinity (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined it and the very similar material seems to have come from two edits by User:Sayerslle. see 1. It's of a concern and i think it's best that Sayerslle be informed of it. It is possible that that website copied wikipedia. On Garcia Marquez, I noted alot of website had had a listed book of his as being "friendship is beautiful" until it was deleted from the wikipedia page and then the other website's removed their information. Phil Nolte (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - the sentences I added to the lead were taken from a page length profile that appeared in 'the independent on sunday' 21 August 2005 - I liked the mention of Baudelaire as I am an admirer of Baudelaire and I added the reference - the website which i've never seen either took the quote from the independent or from the wikipedia article. I hope the sentences remain as they are a pretty fair summary of how he is regarded by admirers and detractors arent they and they drop a few good names. Sayerslle (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm very happy at that. sorted. I've also just added the link to the independent on sunday arrticle. Thanks very much. Phil Nolte (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the editing history shows the introduction was created through serial edits over the years -- the Goodreads website was copied from this Wikipedia version in September 2009. As for the sentence lifted from the Times newspaper -- thanks for adding the reference attribution. That is necessary. However, directly copying from the source also requires quotation marks, otherwise it is plagiarism. I've added the quote marks and slightly altered the text to avoid the copyright violation. I'll clear the report at WP:CP. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]

The article states that "His works, particularly 'Atomised' were poorly received by French literary intelligentsia". I'd like to point out that this is just plainly wrong: there's always been a lot of debates about Houellebecq, but there were always at least half of the critics regarding him as one of the best french writers. And this has only been improving over the last few years: his latest novel won the Prix Goncourt which is the most important litterary prize in France, and this win was highly anticipated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.172.72 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Map and the Territory book review

[edit]

Michel Houellebecq’s Version of the American Thriller by JUDITH SHULEVITZ New York Times Review of Books January 13, 2012 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jew?

[edit]

I've heard he is a jew. Or at least he has jewish ancestry?

You (unsigned user writing an undated comment) have heard bullshit. It is not uncommon in this day and age. It sticks to the shoes as well as the ears, and it stinks, but it's not so hard to clean once you've noticed it, or once someone told you about it if your nose can't smell the smell. Besides, what worthwhile information would it provide on the artist in question if it was established that one of the great-great-aunts of his late grandmother was half jewish by alliance ? Am I partly jewish if yesterday I ate an orange containing atoms which used to be part of Abraham's left nostril ? Will I become partly stupid if I eat an egg containing atoms which used to be part of your brain ? --Abolibibelot (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

many wikipdia articles list whether a person has jewish ancestry. why u mad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.14.45 (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonym

[edit]

Any information why did Michel Thomas choose to call himself... Houellebecq?

I mean, there 26 letters in the alphabet, so that makes about a sextillion possible names permutations - why "Houellebecq"??--74.57.167.219 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is explained in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year

[edit]

It seems from my Googling that he was born in '56 but usually gives out his birth year as '58. I'm not sure you can identify with a birth year the way you can with a name, religion etc. - surely we should be consistent and say '56, and just explain in a footnote or something why some sources say '58? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say, nowadays, if people are “allowed” to change their sex, there should be absolutely no more reason to prevent them from changing their age as well. Ironically, in Atomised (published way before that discrepancy was revealed), one character repeatedly changes his age, so as to be more credible as an aspiring rock star (he then goes on to become a serial-killer, probably modeled after Charles Manson, who also tried to be a musician).--Abolibibelot (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a series of edits, and in particular added a quotation from the author himself about his alledged "lying" about his age / birth year and the "reveal" that he was supposedly born in 1956. In fact he is not sure himself, but claims that he was always told by his mother that she had faked his birth certificate so that he could go to school earlier. Only a Carbon-14 dating could provide a definitive answer at this point...
"I was born in 1956 or in 1958, I don't know. More likely in 1958. My mother always told me that she had faked the birth certificate so that I could go to school at age four instead of six — I guess that there was no pre-school at the time. She had convinced herself that I was intellectually precocious [un surdoué] — because at age three, so was I told, I had learned to read by myself, using cubes, and one evening coming home she had found me, utterly surprised, casually reading the newspaper. That she may have had the power to do so, there is no doubt: the birth certificates were handwritten and roughly made, and she really was among the dignitaries in La Réunion, she had influent acquaintances [...]."
--Abolibibelot (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michel Houellebecq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michel Houellebecq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"edulcorated"?

[edit]

That word seems to be extremely rare or obscure in the meaning which is apparently intended. It would be better not to use that word at all... AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry, that was probably me — "édulcoré" is a relatively common word in french in that context / meaning, so that was an unintentional gallicism. The most common translations seem to be "watered down" or "sugar-coated", I'm not sure which one best conveys the intended meaning, with the right register. I'm going to correct this right away.--Abolibibelot (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"tone down" means "reduce the offensiveness", while "water down" means "reduce the effectiveness, the force of something". i.e. you tone down a TV show to make it suitable to family audience, while you water down a political program to make it acceptable to your opponents. Azerty82 (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Houellebecq and Catholicism

[edit]

In the link below Houellebecq describes his views on Catholicism and Europe's need for the Catholic faith. I believe it should be examined and the corresponding chapter edited since it signals a considerable shift in his views on religion and monotheistic religion. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/05/restoration Edward Learnton (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michel_Houellebecq&oldid=1252198951"