4 ms·

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

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
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  > but seems to revel in clichés about France Obviously he does. It’s an article about Simenon. Have you ever read one of his books? Reading Maigret is basically walking from a French cliché to another one. > This is not what Simenon is doing. Nor is Gopnik pretending he is. He is merely using the phrase “presaged aspects of the nouveau roman”. Gopnik is being awfully nice to Simenon in his article. He is trying to elevate what is mostly a serial producer of crime novels even if a good one to a higher position. He does so somewhat convincingly actually. He compares him to Ernaux not for an obsession for details but for their mutual ability to only describe the surface of events - basically what you are reproaching to Ernaux.
- marci 4y ago
  I think I'm getting your point. I don't know if it's in an interview or in the book itself that she compares her experience to the like of a solo navigator (so I may be wrong, I had never heard of her before today), but since she wrote this book in 2000, she was able to see the evolution of things, and compared to a time with google, planned parenthood, and families and friend becoming more and more accepting, it must have felt like going into the unknown. She didn't have a crew, nor internet, she might have felt alone, surounded by a sea of people she didn't think would understand. > By some estimates [0] there were over 800,000 abortions a year in France The reason it's an estimate is because they were illegals, no official records, must have been derived from court cases, deaths. Many abortions were/are made alone with a coat hanger or knitting needle, by mixing medicine and/or poisons. I don't know if it was Ernaux' case, but that's the kind of things many, even desperate, will never think of doing, and yet many others will, and each of them must have felt/will feel alone.

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

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> but seems to revel in clichés about France Obviously he does. It’s an article about Simenon. Have you ever read one of his books? Reading Maigret is basically walking from a French cliché to another one. > This is not what Simenon is doing. Nor is Gopnik pretending he is. He is merely using the phrase “presaged aspects of the nouveau roman”. Gopnik is being awfully nice to Simenon in his article. He is trying to elevate what is mostly a serial producer of crime novels even if a good one to a higher position. He does so somewhat convincingly actually. He compares him to Ernaux not for an obsession for details but for their mutual ability to only describe the surface of events - basically what you are reproaching to Ernaux.
marci 4y ago
I think I'm getting your point. I don't know if it's in an interview or in the book itself that she compares her experience to the like of a solo navigator (so I may be wrong, I had never heard of her before today), but since she wrote this book in 2000, she was able to see the evolution of things, and compared to a time with google, planned parenthood, and families and friend becoming more and more accepting, it must have felt like going into the unknown. She didn't have a crew, nor internet, she might have felt alone, surounded by a sea of people she didn't think would understand. > By some estimates [0] there were over 800,000 abortions a year in France The reason it's an estimate is because they were illegals, no official records, must have been derived from court cases, deaths. Many abortions were/are made alone with a coat hanger or knitting needle, by mixing medicine and/or poisons. I don't know if it was Ernaux' case, but that's the kind of things many, even desperate, will never think of doing, and yet many others will, and each of them must have felt/will feel alone.