3 ms·

> [Ernaux is] the very first Nobel laureate who is primarily a memoirist in our contemporary sense, meaning someone who writes of life directly, as we experienc

by bambax 4y ago

> [Ernaux is] the very first Nobel laureate who is primarily a memoirist in our contemporary sense, meaning someone who writes of life directly, as we experience it. A memoir implies some kind of mediation, transformation and interpretation. Writing life "directly as we experience it" is not a memoir but a journal. Ernaux is a journalist who only ever reports on herself and who finds everything that happens to her, extraordinary. That includes shopping in supermarkets, having affairs, getting an abortion, riding the subway, and did I mention shopping. It's extraordinary alright that she won the Nobel. But before that, not so much.

pavlov 4y ago
I know you were intending for the opposite, but you make her work sound interesting and unique. I’d love to read a work by someone who can find shopping in supermarkets extraordinary and can convey that feeling to the reader.
- bambax 4y ago
  Well, you can certainly try! I think most of her books are available in English, and they're short (and getting shorter). I read a couple (in French) some time ago because she was already well known in France and I was curious. She thinks her life is fascinating, as she examines it in excruciating detail, but that doesn't make it interesting for anyone else. At least not for me. Another curious feature is that she revisits the same meager events in several books. I'm guessing it's because she lacks new material, but her fans must feel at home when they read the same story over and over again. TFA compares her to Simenon, which is outrageous; Simenon was one of the most inventive and creative novelist of his time (as well as prolific). When Dylan won the Nobel many people were unhappy, because they thought he wasn't a writer proper. But there is infinitely more adventure and storytelling, and understanding of the human plight in any of his songs than in the books of Ernaux that I have read. I'm listening now to "Motorpsycho Nightmare"... It's so good!
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    The take on Simenon is hardly outrageous. You would know if you had read the very long article the author wrote about Simenon two weeks ago for the publication of a new Simenon translation. Gopnik has a very interesting take on Simenon in which he mentions Ernaux. But judging from your comments here, I don’t fancy you a New Yorker reader. I think strangely the best way to understand what Ernaux is doing (which you obviously haven’t if that wasn’t clear enough) is to read Leiris introduction to L’age d’homme. She is mostly aiming for the same goal he is. She actually used a quote from him at the beginning of L’Evenement and I guess she didn’t restate what Leiris did because well he has already done so.
    - bambax 4y ago
      I just read Gopnik's article about Simenon; it's a fine article because Gopnik is a fantastic writer, but seems to revel in clichés about France, the French, and their "Gallic shrud". At every turn of phrase one fears a mime with a béret, a baguette and a Gitane will suddenly materialize with a witty one-liner about the meaning of life. (It also starts with a typo: it's "Palais Royal", not "Palais Royale"). It states that Simenon was a precursor to the nouveau roman, "of Robbe-Grillet’s faith in describing only the surface of events", and that Ernaux is a successor to this. There are two problems with this theory. One, the nouveau roman doesn't just describes the "surface of events", but every little object in minute detail. It wants to be neutral, to deliver a scene as free of prejudice as possible, so that the reader may form her own opinion. It can spend pages describing a door handle that no one in the room will ever touch. This is not what Simenon is doing. And second, this is not what Ernaux is doing either. Her style is flat and without flourishes, but she doesn't shy away from moral judgement and self-aggrandizement. In "L'Événement" (published in 2000), she compares her abortion to the experience of "solo navigators", of "going somewhere where others will never think of going". At the time abortion was illegal and dangerous, but that didn't make it rare. By some estimates [0] there were over 800,000 abortions a year in France in the 1960s. So many, many women did in fact go there, risking their reputation, their freedom and their life; something her self-centeredness prevents her from seeing or even inquiring about. [0] Anne-Marie Dourlen-Rollier, La vérité sur l'avortement, Paris 1963
- marci 4y ago
  It had the same effect on me. Made me want to read the article, and now that I read just a tiny bit about her, I'm even more curious. GP mentionned so nonchalantly that she wrote about having an abotion that I would have never thought that she was born in 1940, had an abortion when it was still illegal and culturally taboo (early 60s). Talking about the plight of humanity, the amounts of humans who will be able to relate to this experience is growing.

by bambax 4y ago

pavlov 4y ago

I know you were intending for the opposite, but you make her work sound interesting and unique. I’d love to read a work by someone who can find shopping in supermarkets extraordinary and can convey that feeling to the reader.

bambax 4y ago
Well, you can certainly try! I think most of her books are available in English, and they're short (and getting shorter). I read a couple (in French) some time ago because she was already well known in France and I was curious. She thinks her life is fascinating, as she examines it in excruciating detail, but that doesn't make it interesting for anyone else. At least not for me. Another curious feature is that she revisits the same meager events in several books. I'm guessing it's because she lacks new material, but her fans must feel at home when they read the same story over and over again. TFA compares her to Simenon, which is outrageous; Simenon was one of the most inventive and creative novelist of his time (as well as prolific). When Dylan won the Nobel many people were unhappy, because they thought he wasn't a writer proper. But there is infinitely more adventure and storytelling, and understanding of the human plight in any of his songs than in the books of Ernaux that I have read. I'm listening now to "Motorpsycho Nightmare"... It's so good!
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  The take on Simenon is hardly outrageous. You would know if you had read the very long article the author wrote about Simenon two weeks ago for the publication of a new Simenon translation. Gopnik has a very interesting take on Simenon in which he mentions Ernaux. But judging from your comments here, I don’t fancy you a New Yorker reader. I think strangely the best way to understand what Ernaux is doing (which you obviously haven’t if that wasn’t clear enough) is to read Leiris introduction to L’age d’homme. She is mostly aiming for the same goal he is. She actually used a quote from him at the beginning of L’Evenement and I guess she didn’t restate what Leiris did because well he has already done so.
  - bambax 4y ago
    I just read Gopnik's article about Simenon; it's a fine article because Gopnik is a fantastic writer, but seems to revel in clichés about France, the French, and their "Gallic shrud". At every turn of phrase one fears a mime with a béret, a baguette and a Gitane will suddenly materialize with a witty one-liner about the meaning of life. (It also starts with a typo: it's "Palais Royal", not "Palais Royale"). It states that Simenon was a precursor to the nouveau roman, "of Robbe-Grillet’s faith in describing only the surface of events", and that Ernaux is a successor to this. There are two problems with this theory. One, the nouveau roman doesn't just describes the "surface of events", but every little object in minute detail. It wants to be neutral, to deliver a scene as free of prejudice as possible, so that the reader may form her own opinion. It can spend pages describing a door handle that no one in the room will ever touch. This is not what Simenon is doing. And second, this is not what Ernaux is doing either. Her style is flat and without flourishes, but she doesn't shy away from moral judgement and self-aggrandizement. In "L'Événement" (published in 2000), she compares her abortion to the experience of "solo navigators", of "going somewhere where others will never think of going". At the time abortion was illegal and dangerous, but that didn't make it rare. By some estimates [0] there were over 800,000 abortions a year in France in the 1960s. So many, many women did in fact go there, risking their reputation, their freedom and their life; something her self-centeredness prevents her from seeing or even inquiring about. [0] Anne-Marie Dourlen-Rollier, La vérité sur l'avortement, Paris 1963
marci 4y ago
It had the same effect on me. Made me want to read the article, and now that I read just a tiny bit about her, I'm even more curious. GP mentionned so nonchalantly that she wrote about having an abotion that I would have never thought that she was born in 1940, had an abortion when it was still illegal and culturally taboo (early 60s). Talking about the plight of humanity, the amounts of humans who will be able to relate to this experience is growing.