Michel Houellebecq is an author with the capacity to alter, if not enhance, the way I see the world.
When, in his previous novel The Map and the Territory he had the character named Michel Houellebecq brutally murdered, I took that to imply that he was burying the author Michel Houellebecq too. The publication of his latest novel Submission, last month, was therefore a very welcome surprise.
The novel has had its dose of pre-publication controversy, owing to its theme: a France that elects a muslim president in the year 2022. It appears all the more sensitive in the light of the recent assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, which ironically coincided with the book’s release in France.
A perfect storm
I found Submission to be a typical Houellebecq novel: exposing and exploring the instabilities of our civilisation, and using these observations to make a scenario that at first sight seems far-fetched (almost) credible. The author masters the art of creating a perfect storm out of several minor depressions, building up so seamlessly that the reader is bound to get sucked in.
The result of this perfect storm is, of course, the eventual inauguration of an extremely capable muslim politician as the president of France. But the new president is not at the centre of the story: we only become aware of the political changes through the observations of the novel’s narrator: an academic named François.
A turn to religion
With François we are in familiar Houellebecq-territory: an unpretentious lonesome Parisian man of a certain age with a modest appetite for socialising – more spectator than actor. François’ career is built around the work of 19th-century author Huysmans, whose quest for happiness eventually saw him becoming a devout catholic.
François’ observations of Huysmans are craftily intertwined with the changes to the world around him, allowing Houellebecq to portray France’s new regime not as a turn to islam, but much more as a turn to religion, complete with the re-valuation of the family as its cornerstone.
Europe’s suicide
Throughout the story François has a number of chance encounters with colourful characters, all of them male and capable of long monologues, who in turn contribute to an intricate analysis of modern-day Europe, thereby setting the scene for the extraordinary revolution that takes place while François eats his ready meals and undertakes his haphazard trips.
One of these characters brings up a parallel with the demise of the Roman Empire, quoting philosopher Arnold J. Toynbee who said that societies usually die of suicide, not assassination. The suggestion is that 21st-century Europe is worn and weak, and void of ideas as well as leadership, making it fragile enough to submit itself to an alternative ideology – that of islam.
Submission of woman to man
Submission wouldn’t be a Houellebecq novel if there wasn’t a constant lingering of François’ sexual desires, and many of his reflections on the changing society outside his apartment seem to centre on how they might affect his access to pleasure. While he quietly deplores the disappearance of the miniskirt from Paris’ streets, he develops a fascination for polygamy.
While on the surface the novel may emphasise the submission of man to religion, the implied submission of woman to man is as important a strand, and a more troublesome one to swallow. Houellebecq chose to circumnavigate any female perspectives in Submission, perhaps because that was convenient for his plot, but hopefully also to make a point to his audience – that even a moderate islamic rule would greatly affect gender equality. The same Houellebecq, after all, gave us the unforgettable motto “DEMAIN SERA FEMININ” in one of the early chapters of Atomised.
In all, Houellebecq once again fascinated me with his big observations, his diagnosis of present-day Europe, and his well-underpinned speculations on the next crossroads that our society may stumble upon. Recent events continue to vindicate his remarks on the volatility of the European electorate and the inadequacy of mainstream parties. However, his perfect storm is too engineered and will no doubt be tempered by the reality that women make up half of the electorate as well as an increasing proportion of the leadership.
What drives Frank and Claire Underwood?
This Friday, 27 February, marks the release of the third season of the Netflix drama series House of Cards, in which Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright star as a power hungry couple willing to make all kinds of sacrifices on order to tighten their grip on Washington DC’s political landscape.
I have only recently watched, binge style, the first and second season of the series, that see Spacey’s character Frank Underwood progress from an influential politician to a very influential politician, to a very very influential politician. His path to greater power is, to put it mildly, not without collateral damage: the ever growing pile of crimes, lies and scandals are a constant threat to his position, requiring him and his entourage to keep everything in check, by whatever means necessary.
To the viewer all of this is highly attractive. While Underwood keeps pushing the limit, committing acts that we are unlikely to sympathise with or forgive, he retains our loyalty by addressing us directly, putting us in a position of complicity. We too become obsessed with power, Frank Underwood’s struggle for power, and despite everything we want him to succeed.
While the machiavellian scenes in the Capitol and the White House are utterly entertaining, to me the real power of House of Cards lies in the dynamic between Frank and his wife Claire, played by Robin Wright. My favourite scenes are those where the two of them sit in the window of their Washington town house, late at night, smoking or not smoking, and take stock of where their project is at.
Claire Underwood is her husband’s equal, and beyond a doubt the only person in the world that he respects as such; indeed, she may be the only person with lasting power over him. Their marriage is indestructible, because it has become amalgamated with their project. It allows for infidelity on the physical side; fidelity to the project seems to matter a great deal more. The understanding that Claire and Frank have on this is beautifully portrayed, conversations between them often condensed into a few ambiguous phrases accompanied by meaningful regards.
The question that seasons one and two left unanswered, I feel, is the big why? Twenty-six episodes in and I still haven’t caught a glimpse of the Underwoods’ political substance. Where they do take a stance it always seems to be on the grounds of pragmatic opportunism, granting them the easiest path to greater power. While Claire’s efforts for clean water and the persecution of sexual offenders may appear sincere, each time she proved quite ready to let go of her principles if that would give her the upper hand. Frank, meanwhile, only seems to engage in responding to urgent political problems, making him the master plumber of Washington DC.
There have been a few hints with regard to the why-question. Frank Underwood told us why he holds power over money, implying that money doesn’t last, while power “is the old stone building that stands for centuries”. Is that to say that greatness, being remembered as a historical figure, is what drives Frank? What is that worth if not associated with actual accomplishments? Alternatively, could he have become obsessed with power just ‘because he can’?
In another episode, during one of their window scenes of course, Claire wonders what it all is for and the couple seem to contemplate, ever so briefly, whether their quest for power needs deeper justification, with an implicit suggestion that they might consider having a child. Claire’s question, as well as her flirt with procreation, are swiftly brushed aside, like any other obstacle the Underwoods encountered on the way.
I sincerely hope that the third season will at least begin to answer this question by giving us greater insight in Frank and Claire’s pasts, which will no doubt contain some clues as to the origins of their hunger. Similarly, it should be revealing to see how they will deploy the power they currently hold – apart from keeping at bay the enemies they made on the way.
Leave a comment
Posted in Blog, Commentary, Democracy, TV
Tagged Claire Underwood, democracy, fiction, Frank Underwood, House of Cards, Netflix, politics, power, season 3, TV