Huffpost Books
The Blog

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Claire Devarrieux Headshot

Public Enemies: The "Principal Whipping Boys" of France

Posted: Updated:

First surprise upon reading Public Enemies, the joint work of Michel
Houellebecq and Bernard-Henri Lévy: it's a good tandem.
This is not the poet and the ideologue, but the voices of two writers,
equal in strength. Obviously, of different genres: Houellebecq, as
gay as a cello, with his habitual tone, neat, precise, perhaps a bit
less ironic and paradoxical than usual. Bernard-Henri Lévy sounds
high and mighty, his speech cadenced and emphatic. These are the
drums of the tribune, the panache, even when he dares to share what is
confidential.



This correspondence reveals a vanity one would not have thought so
irreversible. They really perceive themselves, one and the other,
like public enemies. They are sure they are "the principle whipping
boys of our era in France" (Houellebecq). "Why so much hatred?" (BHL).
And refer, outright, to shades of Baudelaire or, without cracking a
smile, "the case of Sartre, loathed by his contemporaries".




Yet one cannot say our two accursed authors are lacking places where
they can express themselves, material means to work, and editorial
support.



Accursed, really? The author of Who Killed Daniel Pearl? and the one
who penned Elementary Particles? From time to time, they have a surge
of lucidity in this regard. BHL has the honesty to write, "We have
our areas of foolishness, of course--beginning with the temptation of
paranoia, lurking there for both of us, for example, in this
correspondence...." Houellebecq's bitterness goes deeper. "People say
what, now that you're famous and you're loaded, what are you
complaining about?" he writes. "[...] In general, you have to put a
bullet through your brain before anyone begins to understand you were
talking seriously."




It is true that Houellebecq has a mother. Through her, "[he]is
obviously the one they're trying to destroy," says the poor boy. He
has seen her "just a few times" in his life, "fifteen at the most".
Suddenly appearing in the papers, two years ago, thanks to a book,
Lucie Ceccaldi (that's her name) produced a torrent of appalling
declarations. She has joined the ranks of the "rotten mothers of
history and literature", writes BHL, horrified and sympathetic. He
himself was the cherished son of parents who were complicated but
loving. Especially the father, a rich industrialist who had known
poverty, unconditional supporter of his brilliant kid. He even
produced his film, Day and Night, as resounding a flop as The
Possibility of an Island
, directed by Houellebecq. One of the things
they have in common. Their childhood inequality remains, even in their
celebrity.




Houellebecq combines the will to please and to annoy; ultimately, he
says, he wants to be loved. He demonstrates a certain admiration for
the "fine success" of his father, who has become an emeritus mountain
guide. But his knowledge of contempt, of refusing to obey and of
rejection of indoctrination, comes from him. "Sometimes it seems to
me that, as a man, all I have done is to provide an aesthetic
translation of this attitude of withdrawal I observed, as a child, in
my father."




Nonetheless, the young Houellebecq tells how, travelling across France
in the jeep with his father, he was always afraid he might be
abandoned at the side of the road.




Without delving into psychology, one is obliged to recognize the
depressive tendencies of one and the splendid warrior's will of the
other. Bernard-Henri Lévy does not possess the mediocrity of the
vengeful; he listens to manifestations of hostility in order to
counter them, the better to forget them. It's a strategy. He likes
battlefields. With one contradiction: he does not see himself as a
victim. He is one of those who protects, who feels responsible for
his human brothers, to the point of acknowledging the taste for
adventure that draws him to noble causes. He must "enter Sarajevo
before everyone else". But he admits to the fear, bordering on
certainty, that one day he will be the prey of a fatal injustice.




Houellebecq is not possessed of this combative nature, nor of a joy in
winning. His attacks aim low--this or that journalist is "a silly
bitch", Telerama is a rag, Pierre Assouline is "a tapeworm".
Bernard-Henri Lévy, who prefers to ramble on about "the pack", does
not let this pass. "Careful when you use 'tapeworm,' dear Michel.
It's the word Celine used to refer to Sartre in l'Agité du bocal."
Regarding Céline, we can count on Houellebecq to take up his old habit
of provocation.



His "return" to a happy Jewishness without religion, the Bible,
Genesis, Lucretius, the Epicurians, Althusser, Foucault--BHL's lesson
in philosophy is bracing. He believes in free will and attempts to
lose his penchant for egotistical problems, "this double dread of
being nothing and of being only oneself". Houellebecq doesn't find
himself any more interesting than his dog. He is not a politically
committed intellectual. "Human rights, human dignity, the
foundations of politics, I let all that go, I have no theoretical
ammunition, nothing that may allow me to confirm such demands as
valid."



Not only does the duo work, alternating everyday considerations and
metaphysical ones, but it succeeds in producing a fascinating book,
and this will be the second surprise for the reader, whether friend or
enemy. It was up to Houellebecq, a tactician in disguise, to have
known how to lure his interlocutor on to the terrain of "confessions"
and of a vulnerability that is sometimes unconscious. Careful, doubt
is not his forté, self-criticism even less. Bernard-Henri Lévy has no
qualms about neutralizing his eventual detractors, with threats, if
necessary.




Can one escape the trap of fame? Michel Houellebecq, who cites
Philippe Sollers as an example, seems to wish to do so. It's good
news.