| Original Message |
Audrey Ruskowski (no login)
Posted Mar 10, 2008 1:37 PM
In part 3 of the novel, Michel learns of a study via e-mail that proposes that sexual reproduction is reason behind evolution. It is stated that "As soon as the genome had been completely decoded (which would be in a matter of months), humanity would be in a position to control its own evolution, and when that happened sexuality would be seen for what it really was: a useless, dangerous and regressive function" (p.220). It seems that during the majority of the novel Houellebecq is demonstrating the vulgarity of sexuality. Bruno seems to use sex as a means for self-abuse and gratification. Michel's work delves into the uselessness of sex and reproduction, looking at cloning as a means to generate life.
Both Bruno and Michel seem to represent different aspects of today's society and how sexuality is viewed. Sexuality is both idolized and shunned. We see billboards, commercials, and magazine covers that are loaded with sex and suggestibility. At the same time, scientific advancements are creating life outside of the womb. Biologically we are supposed to want to reproduce, therefore being triggered by overtly sexual ads and media stimuli; scientifically we are searching for alternatives to sex for means of reproduction. How do we adjust to these mixed signals, and where is the middle ground? Is the middle ground love, as could be suggested? Do we use sex as an expression of love in order to cope with the possibility that our reason for living (to spawn more life) is becoming archaic? And is that gratifying enough to pacify us? Gratification does not seem possible in the novel. Bruno has found love in Christiane, but must seek out "swingers" and the like in order to be satisfied in his relationship. Perhaps there is no middle ground and we must all find unsatisfactory means to fill the potential void. |
|
|