| Original Message |
Drew Burke (Login AndrewBurke)
Posted Apr 18, 2007 11:02 AM
I find this novel hard to put down. There is something very sinister about it, yet I know that the intentions were good. After reading the interview with Beigbeder, it helped me understand the role of placing a father and children in the restaurant doomed by inevitability; the story of humanity inside something too grandiose to understand. In the beginning of this novel, and throughout, I found it ironic that Beigbeder felt compelled to describe his love for America, almost a disclaimer for how this novel could be interpreted. The writer’s narrative mixed with the father’s gave much more of Beigbeder’s opinion than could be expressed purely by a fictional novel of the restaurant. The description of how America views the rest of the world, and vice versa is right on. Although I do feel America may be slipping into a more and more censored realm that will prevent it from creating this art and dissent that is necessary for future progress.
A question I have:
As you describe Virilio’s exhibit on page 124, “Isn’t it too early to make art of such misery? Of course, art is not obligatory and no one is obliged to visit an exhibition or read a book.” Can art ever be obligatory? If you are obliged to view art or expression of ideals, is it less or more effective?
|
|
|