Comments on: In Which We Overthink A Few Words

By: Mischievious European

Mischievious European — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:54:23 +0000

What I find interesting (and trashy) in the LA-Weekly article is that the story is energized all along in a fairly subtle way by a problem that progressively builds up, and must be solved in the readers mind : ” How does this scrawny little Frenchie who writes in his novels one erotic scene after the other ever get laid ? ” And Nehring, out of nowhere, and probably unwittingly right at the end provides the surprise answer.

Nehring, whom I met at the event, is a stunning tall bonde wiht tons of wits and intelligence to boot. I since looked for her previous articles on the net, and they are a pleasure to read: so much erudition and thought packed in a few words.

What she was doing, or thought she was doing at 3am at Houellebecq’s hotel door is for each one of us to guess, but whatever our answer, it is titillating guess to form in our minds.

Nehring wrote a letter to the editor of LA Weekly. She explains she already wrote her article about Houellebecq and therefore cannot be accused of unfair competition. But then she leads us to the conclusion that her presence was purely extracurricular, thus giving also credence to the conclusion the article wanted us to reach.

Totally trashy, Mr. Bernhard (or is it Burn-Hard ?), but Houelle Done.

By: Mischievous

Mischievous — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:29:57 +0000

Nehring wrote a letter to the editor of LA Weekly, in which she expresses being shocked at the idea, expressed in the paper that she was monopolizing Houellebecq for an article of her own !! She says she already wrote her article. Then what was she monopolizing him for ? I believe the whole scene had been carefully rehearsed and all had agreed to make a final gift of Nehring to the Author, so that after his burlesque show at the Hammer he would enjoy more concrete pleasures of the flesh, and return to French land in awe of Californian hopitality. Houelle Done indeed.

By: Booksquare

Booksquare — Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:22:51 +0000

Actually, I’m not so interested in the author’s personal like or dislike of Nehring — what fascinated me was the use of language to build character in the story. As you can see from what I wrote, I looked at the piece more as a fiction story (despite knowing it was non-fiction). The author’s use of language to describe the players was well done, even if I take issue with the fact that he succumbed to the easy way out by using traditional shorthand to describe women (looks, clothing) — Sylvia Christophe was also relegated to an interesting secondary role by virtue of her description. Sam Lipsyte, by being jovial, feels less like a competitor. Houllebecq continues to occupy exalted grounds despite the evidence throughout the story that he doesn’t quite meet the author’s image of him.

And as for the author’s final comments, I figured he knew he’d been had (though one does wonder what he thought Nehring was doing there in the first place, if not writing her own piece). For all I know, he and Nehring are close friends and this is an inside joke. Or they’re lifelong enemies, which makes one wonder why he surrended the field.

By: Bring Some Reality

Bring Some Reality — Thu, 07 Jul 2005 03:34:04 +0000

Cheers to TC for the observation.

Booksquare – Perhaps you’ve overlooked the strongest reason for the author’s distaste towards Nehring.

At the finale of the piece, he implies that he catches Nehring and Houellebecq progressing towards intimacy:

“The doorway tÃªte-Ã -tÃªte was still in progress, and it was now 3:15 a.m…Only later did we realize that Nehring was writing her own piece, and the final scene was all hers.”

And this after Nehring fails to diclose that she is writing her own profile of Houellebecq. And after she conveniently leaves her car at the museum.

Instead of scouring the piece in order to take offense, let us recognize that sometimes people properly earn the belittling treatment accorded them.

By: TC

TC — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:20:35 +0000

Did it occur to you people that the writer interacted with these people for a whole evening and perhaps formed an unfavorable impression of Nehring, or maybe he knew her already and hated her, so he purposely described her in a manner which would be unflattering and offensive to one who’s ego may be wrapped up in considering themselves to be the intellectual sort? I think this seems more likely than the type of unconscious misogyny that you people probably imagine you see everywhere. That or he was jealous that she got to fuck Houellebecq

By: sporadic reader

sporadic reader — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:55:43 +0000

can i get an AMEN.

By: The Happy Booker

The Happy Booker — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:44:04 +0000

That’s the blonde blogger bombshell!
Wendi, the brunette in spandex gym shorts with legs that just won’t quit….

By: Booksquare

Booksquare — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:22:44 +0000

You’re right, Brenda. What I took as a statement of the obvious was really was a clue. I will try to do better next time.

Wendi — hmm, a third career. I think I could slip it in between dinner and anime. Excellent idea. Though I now insist on being known as the blonde blogger ….

By: The Happy Booker

The Happy Booker — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:19:21 +0000

I’ve sent this link out to over a dozen friends today! Leggy essayist, indeed. You should teach a class in this– Wendi

By: Brenda Coulter

Brenda Coulter — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:00:59 +0000

Booksquare, dearie, you’re slipping. How could it have surprised you to read about Ms. Christophe’s “dashing” attire when the first paragraph of that article informed us that the White Lotus is a Hollywood restaurant “known for its deafening noise and nubile Asian clientele”?

As for the story being nonfiction, I’d say the writer sounds an awful lot like someone who’s found himself a job to cover the rent while he works on his novel.