I
dreamed I lived as an adult in a house with my parents. I went around unplugging
televisions, throwing them outside, raging at my lack of a computer,
cursing my father at every opportunity, loving a child, an animal.
Spent hours identifying this cactus that grew around Don Isidro's, the place we camped the first night of our trek.
Cumulopuntia boliviana, copana |
Spent hours identifying this cactus that grew around Don Isidro's, the place we camped the first night of our trek.
Michel Houllebecq [pic courtesy of The Enthusiast] |
from Michel Houellebecq’s Whatever, tr. Paul Hammond (1998):
Véronique was
“in analysis,” as they say; today I regret ever having met her.
Generally speaking, there’s nothing to be had from women in
analysis. A woman fallen into the hands of the psychoanalysts becomes
absolutely unfit for use, as I’ve discovered time and again. This
phenomenon should not be taken as a secondary effect of
psychoanalysis, but rather as its principal goal. Under the pretext
of reconstructing the ego psychoanalysts proceed, in reality, to a
scandalous destruction of the human being. Innocence, generosity,
purity . . . all such things are rapidly crushed by their uncouth
hands. Handsomely remunerated, pretentious and stupid, psychoanalysts
reduce to absolute zero any aptitude in their so-called patients for
love, be it mental or physical; in fact they behave as true enemies
of mankind. A ruthless school of egoism, psychoanalysis cynically
lays into decent, slightly fucked-up young women and transforms them
into vile scumbags of such delirious egocentrism as to warrant
nothing but well-earned contempt. On no account must any confidence
be placed in a woman who’s passed through the hands of the
psychoanalysts. Pettiness, egoism, arrogant stupidity, complete lack
of moral sense, a chronic inability to love: there you have an
exhaustive portrait of the ‘analysed’ woman.
Véronique, it
has to be said, corresponded blow by blow to this description. I
loved her — to the extent that it was within my power — which
represents a lot of love. This love was poured down the drain. I now
realize; I’d have done better to break both her arms. Like all
depressives she doubtless always had a tendency towards egoism and a
lack of feeling; but her psychoanalysis transformed her once and for
all into a total shit, lacking both guts and conscience — a
detritus wrapped in silver paper. I remember she had a white plastic
board on which she ordinarily wrote things like ‘petits pois’ or
‘dry cleaners.’ One evening, coming back from her session,
she’d noted down this phrase of Lacan’s: ‘the viler you are,
the better it will be.’ I’d smiled; in this I was wrong. At this
stage the phrase was still only a programme;
but she was going to put it into practice, point by point.
Am slowly coming back to life after the Jujuy trek. My challenge is to eat enough food to make up for the calories burned away. Early this morning I walked for an hour, slowly. Later, two naps, gentle rain.
I have little faith in the value of psychoanalysis, but the sweeping generalizations of this Michel H. are staggering. He strikes me as a quite unpleasant and ignorant man. But maybe that's just me.
ReplyDeleteNaps and gentle rain, that's the ticket.
Oh, went and read the Paris Review article. My ignorance of him is notable, but I still think he's a little prick, just like his mommy said.
ReplyDeleteI continue to surprise myself by not being able to resist his novels.
ReplyDelete