Writes Yea Forumserature for incels

>they ain't
monkey opinions don't matter

>writes Yea Forumserature for incels
He is being self-deprecating you humongous fucking retarded ape

Hey buddy, I think you got the wrong door - your containment board is two blocks down

Attached: 1537301938226.gif (300x225, 1.43M)

Why the sex negative homophobia?
>smoking
Not critique

It's not that those topics can't be interesting to write about, but when you try everything in your novel to illicit self loathing pitty from the reader by a cocktail of said topics like a cheap circus trick, you won't be fooling many with your "depth"
There is nothing wrong with what he's writing about, it's just the interpretation of his books being something other then - an edgier step up from YA, targeted towards late teens to late 20s crowd who've had limited sexual experience or feelings of inadequacy - is cheap and unsubstantiated

I’ll actually answer this, assuming the question is why does he have respectability, how did he retain it over the years

The gross sex stuff was/is seen as a critique of capitalism, “alienation”, all that shit. For him the sexual revolution = intrusion of capitalist logic into relationships, romance, sex itself. So while it is reactionary, it has the right enemy.

His star is so high now, dines with Macron, gets awards etc because he saw before anyone that just as economic liberalism creates winners and losers so will social liberalism

That's actually a really strange way to read him.
None of his protagonists is in any manner likeable: they're either assholes, self-pitying manchilds and/or at least mildly psychotic. I don't see how anyone can really identify himself with anyone of them.
He's writing about the societal production, but also the self-production of such sick individuals (how they become the hellish jail they are to themselves because of themselves and themselves alone). He doesn't try to make you identify with them at all and he doesn't try to induce any "self loathing pity" for sure. (At least if your mind is in a halfway healthy state.)

>just as economic liberalism creates winners and losers so will social liberalism
How?

If only there were an author whose works dealt with this issue.

I'm a brainlet, I've only read Atomised and some of this poems.

He is the only writer in history that wrote an actual incel character, but this was before "incel" was used as a commonplace word. Probably before chans even existed in the west.

Look up Raphael Tisserand. He's a 30 or 40 year old virgin (I don't remember anymore) that fails in every way in his love and sex life, culminating on a scene where he tries to talk to a woman and gets rejected, and she immediately turns around and dances with a black guy and goes to a beach to fuck with him in public. The main character of the book (not an incel, just a doomer) eggs Tisserand on to act on his incel urges and kill both the woman and the black guy, but upon arriving at the beach Tisserand masturbates to them fucking and then dies on the next scene. I can't remember if he kills himself or if he has a car accident, but he dies. Tell me that's not an incel character

Attached: Tisserand.jpg (600x400, 105K)

Sounds based. But no one is an incel before incel was an established term. That's revisionism.

"incel" is a pejorative to dismiss criticism of societal aspects one considers non-issues or favorable to themselves. Usually preceded by "have sex". This however reinforces arguments made by dissidents such as E. Michael Jones, who cite the deliberate proliferation of sexuality via consumer capitalism as a mechanism of reinforcing the social order, as it exists for better or worse. Comparative to Huxley's "Soma".

>Raphael Tisserand
incel before the popularity of term

>Yea Forums
>reading anything they discuss
pick one and only one.

"incel" as "involuntary celibate" has existed probably for 30 years.
"incel" as "Yea Forums alt right russian hacker CNN certified" has existed for 2 years.

jose saramago > Margaret Atwood > Michel houellebecq > Stephen King

>"incel" as "involuntary celibate" has existed probably for 30 years.
lmao it started in like the 90s in some faggot internet forums from canada or something. it gained popularity in the 2010s but it's still not an established term.

Saramago>Houllebecq>Atwood>King

Why do women hate incels? Its not like they have a lot of choice when it comes to personality or looks.

There's a big difference between "writing about incels" and "writing for incels".

>I can't remember if he kills himself or if he has a car accident, but he dies.
He has a car accident. Nevertheless, it's not clear if he really had a car accident, since the very next chapter starts with a quote (it's actually a pseudo-quotation, Houellebecq doesn't quote anyone there, but it's part of the paratext and it's in a textual position H. uses for quotes during "Whatever"); said quotation is:
>Oh, yeah, that was [meant] in a figurative sense! We are relieved...

Just because Houllebecq chimes with your personal situation doesn't make him better than atwood.

He's a former incel, not an incel himself. Also incels are far more interested in sex than normal people, so it makes sense that a former incel would have his hangups. Moreover there is the making up for lost time factor to consider, like a starving man finding himself locked in a grocery store overnight.

If I saw an "incel" irl would fuck "him" up. I'd drop a commercial espresso maker on his dumbass.
nigga.
fuck him and everything he stands for

people hate incels because they are shitty people, not because they are ugly. instead of looking inward and attempting to better themselves, or cope as best they can with their situation, they choose to take the easy way out and channel all of their sexual frustration and social stagnation into hatred, further pushing themselves away from the very people they wish accepted them. it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and usually manifests as sexism.

i don't think that being an involuntary celibate by definition makes you a bad person, but it's the way that people who identify as "incels" act that makes them shitty.

This is my favorite Houellebecq novel because of how remorselessly bleak it is. The man who wrote it had no sense of any future success whatsoever, it is pure undiluted pain.
>From time to time his bespectacled gaze drifts aimlessly over me. He gives the impression of being bewitched. I know how it is; it experienced the same thing two years ago, just after my separation from Veronique. You get the feeling you can roll about on the ground, slash your veins with a razorblade or masturbate in the metro and nobody will pay any attention, nobody will lift a finger. As if you were protected from the world by a transparent film, inviolable and perfect.

"incels" wasn't even a label 18 months ago.
You've always had sexually frustrated, socially-inept young males. Its a fact of life. Who will women escaping inadequate marriages rebound onto?

I don't identify with any of his characters. The man is also a lucid essayist and a competent poet.

>don't think that being an involuntary celibate by definition makes you a bad person, but it's the way that people who identify as "incels" act that makes them shitty.
How come they're two different groups when their both have zero sexual experience?

Identifying as an incel is of course gross and pathetic and I support their mockery. But it seems to me that you are attacking incels for the wrong reasons and deliberately ignoring the economic and social conditions that led to their existence in the first place. The incel is more than an ugly loser who blames other people for his problems. The incel is living proof of the failures of progressive liberalism and market democracies. He is a symbol of inequality, hedonistic social norms, and the myth of choice and freedom that is so central to the dysfunctional and paralyzed Western world.

This is explained very clearly in Houellebecq's work, which it would appear you haven't read.

The 90s were literally 30 years ago user. I know, I know. We are getting old. hug me.

>Identifying as an incel is of course gross and pathetic and I support their mockery.

It's not something you identify as. It's a category, not an ideological movement. Someone doesn't identify as a virgin, someone is a virgin if some conditions are met.
You are an incel if you want to be in a sexual relationship but can't get into one willingly for whatever reason. You don't want to be a celibate, you are being involuntarily celibate. That's all there is to it.
Everything else is dumb manufactured hysteria. Most transgenders, whiteknights, middle aged women, etc etc, are also incels by definition.

i consider incels to be people who identify as them, mostly on the internet. i wanted to make a distinction because just having no sexual experience doesn't make you a bad person.

What governmental system would you propose that would not produce incels? there have always been frustrated men who can't have what they want, and, unless you want to impose some kind of restriction on women's right to choose, i can't see this going away. to use liberalism as a boogeyman in this situation, to me, uses similar fallacious logic that causes the bitter incel to become a sexist. that is, to grossly overgeneralize and take confirmation bias as an opiate.

there is definitely an organized group of sad men, mostly organizing on the internet, that identify as incels and have a sort of kinship together. i think the term incel has evolved past its base definition at this point. there was/are entire websites dedicated to them.

>because just having no sexual experience doesn't make you a bad person.
Too bad you're only a very small minority.

well memed, my friend

A quotation from Whatever:

>"Sure. It's been hopeless for a long time, from the very beginning. You will never
represent, Raphaël, a young girl's erotic dream. You have to resign yourself to
the inevitable; such things are not for you. It's already too late, in any case. The
sexual failure you've known since your adolescence, Raphaël, the frustration that
has followed you since the age of thirteen, will leave their indelible mark. Even
supposing that you might have women in the future - which in all frankness I
doubt - this will not be enough; nothing will ever be enough. You will always be
an orphan to those adolescent loves you never knew. In you the wound is already
deep; it will get deeper and deeper. An atrocious, unremitting bitterness will end
up gripping your heart. For you there will be neither redemption nor deliverance.
That's how it is. Yet that doesn't mean, however, that all possibility of revenge is
closed to you. These women you desire so much, you too can possess them. You
can even possess what is most precious about them. What is it, Raphaël, that is
most precious about them?"

although his characters may not be incels by the common understanding, sexual frustration in a hedonistic society is a theme woven throughout his novels. In Atomised, Bruno, a suffering, sensitive man, finds sexual respite in the arms of a middle aged woman who offers him complete erotic fulfillment. In Platform, our protagonist, a bored civil servant, finds transcendence through the carnal pleasures of a younger woman. This offers a glimpse of redemption for the robot reader, a tantalising possibility of future validation of years of suffering, in the way that the author may have found sexual success as a result of fame and literary achievement, later in life.

>The 90s were literally 30 years ago user. I know, I know. We are getting old. hug me.
fuck, you're right. :(

Here, another quotation. I challenge anyone to read this and say it doesn't sound like something taken straight out of an incel's mouth. Was he possibly the first one to compare sex to a market economy?

"It's a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly
represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money;
and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of
these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained
economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces
phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others
five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens ofwomen;
others with none. It's what's known as `the law of the market'. In an economic
system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages
to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person
more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal sexual system
certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to
masturbation and solitude. Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of
the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism
is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages
and all classes of society. On the economic plane Raphael Tisserand belongs in
the victors' camp; on the sexual plane in that of the vanquished. Certain people
win on both levels; others lose on both. Businesses fight over certain young
professionals; women fight over certain young men; men fight over certain
young women; the trouble and strife are considerable."

Im not memeing. A lot of people think that if you're not sexually experienced then you're a subhuman.

Isn't that just horrible though. That he failed to conquer the system and just joined it? That instead of giving a glimmer of hope that one could be a good written or do something meaningful in spite of loneliness, he just literally turns into the next iteration of "holy fuck I'm glad I finally got laid jesus fuck I'm one of the normals now".

Just started atomised the other day, already 200 pages in. First time I've read him. So fucking good, I didn't know there were any living novelists this good.

Also his fame literally got him married to an asian, the ultimate fantasy of any incel.
I'm not sure whether to be impressed or disgusted by how much of a meme this man is.

Attached: houllebecq.jpg (685x385, 37K)

>Houellebecq graduated from the Institut national agronomique Paris-Grignon in 1980, married and had a son; then he divorced, became depressed and took up writing poetry.

I feel like this is an archetype I've seen over and over in literature, of men who talk about eternal loneliness and unreachable women when they themselves have led reasonably normal lives.

oh i thought you were making a jab at me lol
i think there is definitely a stigma associated with being a virgin past a certain age, but "subhuman" is a very strong word. also, i would wager most (sane) people agree with my above statement that having no sexual experience does not in itself make you a bad person.

being sexually frustrated is difficult especially when those feelings are paired with deep insecurity and anxiety. i think it is important to try and recognize when one is being irrationally hard on oneself and/or irrationally hard on other people.

>He's a former incel, not an incel himself.
He got married in 1980, 14 years before "Whatever" was published.

>The man who wrote it had no sense of any future success whatsoever
He was already a pretty successful writer and was able to make a living of it; he was also a trained programmer and could have always gone back to his old job; and he got married to his second wife two years before "Whatever" was published.

>the author may have found sexual success as a result of fame and literary achievement, later in life
See: above.

Honestly, why are you guys projecting so hard when it comes to Houellebecq? An author and the stuff he writes about is not the same. Especially with Houellebecq, you'll never know what his true opinions and points of view are; he's really good at hiding them and use the media to generate calculated scandals with fake opinions (are they fake? - we'll never know) whenever he needs to market a new novel.

This. The people who read his work as incel literature are the same people who read Notes in the same manner. Narrator/character possessing certain traits =/=(necessarily) manifesto of said traits. Staggering how limited the literary reaps are for many here.

Stoics arent made
we are born
STOICS rise UP !