MLR, I02.2, 2007 533 work with theworld of consumerism and media spectacle itdepicts. For such critics, Houellebecq's work lacks the literaryquality which alone can resist the logic of the market; itwas forprecisely these reasons that, days after the end of theEdinburgh conference, La Possibilite d'une ilewas passed over for the 2005 Prix Goncourt. The twentycontributors to this volume had better be in the business of denunciation, it would seem, ifthey want toavoid contamination by this least aesthetic ofprovocateurs. Yet most of the essays here seem happy to take this risk. Which isnot to relegate the collection tomere boosterism: far from it.Very few remain uncritical, in fact; almost allmaintain a lucid approach throughout, and are sceptical where necessary. But none of these contributors appears content to dismiss Houellebecq as somuch media hokum. On the contrary, dirtying theirhands, they readHouellebecq closely, attentive in particular to his manipulation of voice and tone, and his talent forde lineating a cultural situation bymeans of the organization of its definingmaterials, whether inherited from thenineteenth century or announcing the twenty-first. Thus, while Andrew Hussey reads Houellebecq alongside the complex valencies of popu larmusic, the rigorous essays of Sandrine Rabosseau, Floriane Place-Verghnes, and Sandrine Schianno-Bennis demonstrate his use of nineteenth-century models; the tenacious discussions ofBruno Viard and Ruth Cruickshank illuminate the ideologi cal discourses and positions which make up the texture of his work; and through painstaking analysis ofHouellebecq's poetry,David Evans reveals a degree of intri cacy most have so farmissed. Other readings deftly deploy narratological, poetolo gical, and philosophical frameworks; the name Houellebecq here sits among such as Merleau-Ponty, Charles Taylor, and Northrop Frye. The author isnot redeemed by these associations: rather,theymap exactly thenodal cultural position he occupies by virtue of his ability to triangulate themultiple vectors of our bewildering moment. The collection begins with a tour-de-force introduction fromBowd, who uncom promisingly dismantles thedelusions ofHouellebecq's detractors, clearing the space for this collection with some magnificently cutting dismissals. Bowd also recalls Houellebecq's presence at the conference, earnestly taking notes in the front row, and engaging ingenerous discussion with the contributors. Itwas clear from this, as from the emotional speech he gave at the conference dinner, that this academic atten tion touched Houellebecq deeply. This response, and the quality of this collection, have uncomfortable implications for the thoroughly mediatized anti-Houellebecq circus. Things, itwould appear, aremore serious than theyhad thought. QUEENS' COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE MARTIN CROWLEY Le Reliquat scintillant: pour une renaissance de la critique littraire. By OLIVIER LA RIZZA. Saint-Genouph: Nizet. 2005. i65 PP. Ei8. ISBN 978-2-7078-1287-2. Olivier Larizza's book falls into twomajor parts. The firstone, headed 'Diagnostic', isbasically critical. The author isopposed towhat he sees as the present acceptance of the 'Nouvelle critique' originating in the I95os and ig60s as a new orthodoxy, and especially of itsdominance in theeducational system and with such bodies as theSHS and CNRS. His criticism isdirected essentially at the claim of scientific status associ atedwith such authors asGenette, Todorov, orGreimas, although he himself accepts to some degree thevalue of 'scientificite'.Larizza reproaches the structuralistmethod with creating a jargonwhich puts criticalwriting out of the reach of theaverage reader. He considers any scientificmethod tobe at least limited because itcannot cope with the problem of literaryvalue, because itcannot found an interpretation-which he regards as the very essence of criticism-because science is necessarily concerned with what isgeneral and common and notwhat isunique or individual. He points out 534 Reviews that science by itsnature makes progress, whereas there can be no proof that literary criticism is now superior to criticism of the past, and he argues that some writing in semiotics is in fact amere tautologous display of itsown axioms. Against all this he sets the shining remainder-the element of vital transcendence in a literarywork which resists all explanation. These arguments are put forward in a lively and coherent manner, and carry a good deal of conviction. One may wonder whether the views criticized are really as much of an orthodoxy as the author claims, in view of the quite large number of distinguished critics he isable to cite inhis support. One may...
Read full abstract
Mar 1, 2019
Dina Ezz El-Din 
Open Access
