Literary discussion?

[Mark Kohut]

Thanks for this. I haven't yet listened to the conversation BUT,
another either-or I don't believe.

Houllebecq is not a liberal critic of Islam but a reactionary critic
of liberalism...

the book seems to me CLEARLY both at once...

those who have read it...(I know there are at least two on this list,
please weigh in)

Can we imagine a good reader of Pynchon (and others) saying he was a
'liberal' critic of ...Nixon (in GR)...of the US, of the whole damn
world???

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 8:02 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/19/satire-lives
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/controversial-satire-michel-houellebecq
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> the jacket for SUBMISSION quotes Adam Gopnick ( New Yorker) calling
>> Houellebecq " not only a satire but a sincere ( in italics) satirist,
>> genuinely saddened by the absurdities of history And  madnesses of mankind"
>>
>> My question: how does a sincere satirist differ from an insincere one?
>> Only answer I can think of is that it is Effective, real, artistic
>> satire--contrasted with failed satire, not right, not deep, not original.
>> .....
>> Pynchon's satire is sincere, right? swift's, of course, right?  I thought
>> it was a virtual truism that the best satire springs from idealism (
>> sincere) showing up the real world's failings.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad-
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l