back
16 comments
he’s read the Koran and is no longer calling Islam “the stupidest” of all religions, as he did in 2001

It's hard to say whether he found new respect for Islam or just doesn't want to be hassled by the French authorities (they put him on trial for that remark).

It says a lot about the mentality of the French left that calling a religion "stupid" gets you a criminal charge...

"Touche pas a mon pote" has devolved into "say nothing about Islam, except that it's the religion of peace".

Hopefully this will change, and we'll be able to make meaningful criticisms.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to translate the following quote: "Sans la liberté de blâmer, il n'est pas d'éloge flatteur."

>It says a lot about the mentality of the French left that calling a religion "stupid" gets you a criminal charge...

Well, in the US if it hit a wrong nerve with someone you could lose your job -- even if you said it on your personal account. Heck, it has happened for far less offensive things.

And unless you name-check God every so often, whether Republican or Democrat, you ain't getting to be President. If God "talks to you" directly, even better.

In the UK you can be arrested for posting on Facebook that your beauty salon is 'no longer taking bookings from anyone from the Islamic faith'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320166/Police-arres...

Criticizing a religion and discriminating on the basis of religion are two vastly different things.
Well, discrimination according to religion is illegal in the UK, isn't it?
Also in most other western countries nowadays. In the U.S. it's been illegal since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Historically one of the more common cases of discriminating based on religion was the prevalence of businesses with "no Jews" policies, but that was eventually banned.
French authorities did not put him on trial, several islamic organisations and one human rights organisation did. And they lost, as it was requested by the prosecutor, who represents French authorities.
I 'm not sure he has changed much his views as the article seems to hint at. There are several comments about it in his latest book, and it's also provides the background story.

He even says so in this interview http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/06/michel-houelleb...

He seems like an incredibly fascinating and flawed man, and I love reading his novels (not to say that I agree with the views in them..), but I've never been quite sure where the real Houellebecq starts and the fictional persona begins. Maybe what you see is who he is, but I'm not sure.
Good question, given that he murdered himself in his last novel.
I haven't read the one that came out this year, but in previous novels I always got a sense that a lot of the writing did speak to his actual opinions, and felt like I could tell alot about him just from his fiction - but always also with the underlying question of not being sure where he was drawing from personal opinions and where he was being entirely fictional.
Knausgaard had similar observations of Houellebecq and Huysmans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/books/review/michel-houell...

The difference is that Huysmans' A Rebours is a relatively intellectual and sophisticated novel, while Houellebecq's is pedestrian garbage.
A shame this is being downvoted, it's concise but in my opinion on point. I enjoyed several of Houellebecq's novel as an undergraduate, but when I revisited them recently I was surprised how superficial their social critiques are. You can get a lot more from one good literary essay than from his novels, albeit minus the deliberate offensiveness (misogyny, racism, etc.) with which he proves himself "edgy."

A Rebours isn't a perfect novel, but the image of the jewel-encrusted tortoise is a better passage than anything Houellebecq has achieved.

Have you read "Submission" yet? I feel that his works have been on a consistent upward trend in terms of "literary merit", and this latest book is very well-made.