Live In Toronto: Pas Chic Chic

Right. I was just tipped-off to a concert happening this Thursday (April 10) @ The Drake Hotel. It’s a band called Pas Chic Chic. What excites me, other than listening to clips of their songs on Facebook, is that it’s a collaboration of members from Montreal’s Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Fly Pan Am, Et Sans, Silver Mt. Zion, and Cobra Noir.

In other words, I’m going.

I’m not going to go into a whole “fan” thing, but…well…I’m prepared to be a big fan of this band. Just saying.

By the clips I listened to, I’m hoping for a revival of the sound that Fly Pan Am abruptly left us with before breaking up (on their seminal album N’Ecoutez Pas) – a sort of sonic, 60’s psychedelic, prog synth, rock-out sorta thing.

More info here

Share

Book Review: The Elementary Particles, by Michel Houellebecq

I honestly don’t know much about Michel Houellebecq. I typically don’t take a lot of interest in the lives of authors (or musicians, artists, etc.). The only reason I came across his name – and thus this book – was browsing the shelves of a local independent bookstore, killing time. I saw his name, which I thought was odd/familiar, and glancing through the several tomes on the shelf I realised that I’d found a rather curious writer: controversial, philosophical, with a tinge of “speculative fiction” about him.

So, with his name in my head, I did some research later and decided to start with an earlier (1998) but well-considered novel, The Elementary Particles, tempted though I was by another book of his, on H.P. Lovecraft no less.

Not one for believing the publicity machine, yet knowing next to nothing about the man as a writer, the blurb on the back cover of Particles compares him to Huxley, Beckett, and Camus. If I may take the liberty of rearranging this, having read the book, I would say – if anything – it’s Huxley via Camus. However, to make direct comparisons, though tempting, would be an insult to all involved. Houellebecq is Houellebecq – he’s not channelling anyone in his prose. Hark: a unique voice.

The Elementary Particles is a study of the moral murk of modern society, a result, Houellebecq’s omniscient narrative posits, of a world that has moved well-past the relevance and supremacy of religion, and in the middle of a phase of rational/scientific investigation. Without the guidance of a supreme set of rules, society embraced a virulent individuality and in doing so eventually begot a generation of spiritual and sexual materialists, beginning in the late 50’s. It is the aftermath of this wave which Particles concerns itself.

Meet Michel and Bruno. Michel is an accomplished molecular biologist. Bruno is a civil servant. They are half-brothers, mutually and separately abandoned by their common mother, a libertine and prototype of everything wrong with the “me” generation. Despite his success, Michel is emotionally dead, and at the beginning of the book decides to step away from his position at a prestigious university research department. He remains in his apartment, contemplating his life and inability to feel anything. Bruno on the other hand, is a self-destructive hedonist with no aims or aspirations, aside from pleasuring himself in any way he sees fit.

I know what you’re saying: Matt, where can I find this book! It sounds riveting!

Okay. Sarcasm aside, it may seem repellent to some on the surface. I found it repellent at first. And yet, the more I read, the more I wanted to keep reading. Not because it was misanthropic, but because of its philosophical undertow. Houellebecq is making a statement – it’s unapologetic, citric, and compelling. Whereas it may seem he paints society with a thick brush, underneath it all – in the structure of the book, and certainly in its eye-raising epilogue – there are layers of fascinating subtlety and important questions which rise in well-crafted crescendos.

To be honest with you, I’ve been thinking a lot about The Elementary Particles. After I completed it, I wanted to dislike it. I wanted to find faults – and there are faults. There are moments where Houellebecq’s prose is extremely dry and clinical (nay acetic), and while it can be justified by certain plot elements, these unnecessarily antithetical flourishes simply didn’t make it easier to care about the characters, or the point of the book for that matter. That said, if anything, I have a greater regard for it now than when I read it almost a month ago – it is a book with the power to haunt.

What was particularly difficult for me was that I began reading this book right after Eugene Zamiatin’s We. In other words, from a dystopian anti-collective polemic to a dystopian anti-individualist polemic. My head hurts, but I’ve decided it’s a good hurt.

The Elementary Particles, by Michel Houellebecq (ISBN: 978-0375727016) is available at an independent bookstore near you, or online at various retailers. Note: this review is based upon the English translation by Frank Wynne.

Share

“The actor searches vainly for the sound of a vanished tradition, and critic and audience follow suit. We have lost all sense of ritual and ceremony — whether it be connected with Christmas, birthdays or funerals — but the words remain with us and old impulses stir in the marrow. We feel we should have rituals, we should do something about getting them and we blame the artists for not finding them for us. So the artist sometimes attempts to find new rituals with only his imagination as his source: he imitates the outer form of ceremonies, pagan or baroque, unfortunately adding his own trapping — the result is rarely convincing. And after the years and years of weaker and waterier imitations we now find ourselves rejecting the very notion of a holy stage. It is not the fault of the holy that it has become a middle-class weapon to keep the children good.”


– Peter (Stephen Paul) Brook, theatre/film director
Share

Time Flies When You’re Questioning Your Existence

I suppose I’m a victim of my diet.

After finishing Michel Houellebecq’s The Elementary Particles (review forthcoming) on the tails of Eugene Zamiatin’s We, having watched eight episodes of the television series Dexter, combined with a soul-gnawing worklife, I find myself walking around feeling detached from…well, pretty much everything and everyone.

Houellebecq’s novel, while having its flaws, reminded me of some of my own “society has gone fundamentally mad” musings (albeit in a much better package). The TV show, about a serial killer who manages to fit into society, has prodded yet more questions (and I must make mention of Michael C. Hall’s fantastic portrayal of the lead character). I will admit this: I allow my diet to affect me. I want to be affected, particularly when the opposite is the case with work. The film I’m currently attached to (symbiotically) is an ambitious, loud, genre-bending goth musical which seems to spiral into chaos every twenty minutes of the day. And I’m effectively in charge of it, which means that I can’t become creatively/emotionally attached, unless of course I was a masochist, which just takes too much commitment.

Soul on. Soul off. Soul on. Soul off.

The good news is that my wife and I just booked a week’s vacation in May. And after the vacation, I will have a few weeks off before the start of the next film, so I hope to have a splendidly idle period to complete my second novel (or at least a solid second draft thereof). If anyone can suggest any semi-profound “beach books”, I would appreciate it.

Share

On Hypocrisy

hy-po-cris-y
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

There are two measurable forms of hypocrisy. It is important that we separate them as the word – the accusation – is so stinging that we often forget that there are significant degrees. These two persuasions can be summed as Man and SuperMan.

1. Man: you have opinions and state them from time to time. These can be zealous statements or inoffensive observations. Not exactly Jesus at the Mount stuff. A friend comes up to you one day – could be an old acquaintance for all you know – and, pointing out an incongruity between something you once said and something you’ve done, calls you a hypocrite.

2. SuperMan: your role, or at least the one you’ve staked for yourself, is one of “paragon of society”. You mean what you say, you say what you mean, and you’ve claimed your tract of ideological real estate on your beliefs. And then one day the New York Times prints an article about how you spent thousands of dollars on prostitutes and in doing so, you are exposed as – you guessed it – a hypocrite.

The question is: are these two accusations of hypocrisy equally condemnable? I say: no.

Most of us who’ve read a few books, shared deep conversations with friends, and watched a couple of debates, have developed opinions. Although the zealotry of said beliefs is certainly a factor, the individual generally has every right to voice them. The thing is this: beliefs, for the most part, should not be static. We should always be investigating our beliefs and allowing them to be challenged – in being challenged, our beliefs are honed and shaped into finer (though sometimes less easily-communicable) instruments. As a result, something you may have thought/said last year – though your overall position may not have turned 180-degrees – has probably changed (whether that means “hardened”, “softened” or some other adjective, it doesn’t matter). So, when that certain someone approaches you and accuses you of being a hypocrite, is it true? Not strictly, no. Again, as long as you aren’t preaching, as long as you aren’t being duplicitous and are simply guilty of being human (although this defence can be specious at times), then no, you aren’t being a hypocrite as far as the definition above implies. Which isn’t to say that you still won’t piss people off or that we can behave with impunity. We should all have to answer for our beliefs – it helps us to justify them or find fault.

This is my problem with the whole “flip-flop” accusation used in political debate over the last half-decade. Look: I don’t want a politician who’s views never change, and if they do (as in “grow” or “adapt to reality”) and have the temerity to voice an evolved opinion which differs, why should they then be castigated (or perhaps the question should be: why does the castigation stick)? Of course, there are some politicians who are out-and-out liars and conniving, half-reptile bastards who will use babies to shield themselves from bullets. But most politicians aren’t like that and it irks me whenever I hear the term “flip-flop” when it’s someone trying to adapt to a complex issue. When that accusation is levied it is implied that they are hypocrites when in fact they aren’t.

Share

(I’m still here)

It’s the 10th of March and we are within 17.8 centimetres of breaking a Toronto record for the most snowfall, set in the winter of ’38-39 @ 207.4 cm. You know prospects are bleak when people start betting whether we will overcome the record, as opposed to the typical Toronto attitude, which is “It’s March! It’s almost Spring! Why do I have to shovel?”.

The symptoms of winter hold on to us; they take us hostage without ransom notes, without reason. We wake up, wondering which of the three sweaters we have been rotating for the past four months we shall wear, staring contemptuously at our winter coats, at our cold salt-stained boots.

Spring, I reason, is a triumph of the mind over the body and the heart – both of which are savaged by winters like this. You have to believe that some Spring day, no matter how far off from now, the temperature will rise to 10 degrees and not drop. You have to believe that there will be a day where you can remove your coat while standing outside and not feel the stopwatch of our animal frailty ticking toward frostbite. Soon, the snow will permanently melt from the sidewalks like an ancient curse lifted.

We must believe.

Share