Bel-Ami
.I Quand la caissiere lui eut rendu la monnaie de sa piece de cent sous, Georges Duroy sortit du restaurant. Comme il portait beau, par nature et par pose d'ancien sous-officier, il cambra sa taille, frisa sa moustache d'un geste militaire et familier, et jeta sur les dineurs attardes un regard rapide et circulaire, un de ces regards de joli garcon qui s'etendent comme des coups d'epervier. Les femmes avaient leve la tete vers lui, trois petites ouvrieres, une maitresse de musique entre deux ages, mal peignee, negligee, coiffee d'un chapeau toujours poussiereux et vetue d'une robe toujours de travers, et deux bourgeoises avec leurs maris, habituees de cette gargote a prix fixe. Lorsqu'il fut sur le trottoir, il demeura un instant immobile se demandant ce qu'il allait faire. On etait au 28 juin, et il lui restait juste en poche trois francs quarante pour finir le mois. Cela representait deux diners sans dejeuners, ou deux dejeuners sans diners, au choix. Il reflechit que les repas du matin etant de vingt-deux sous, au lieu de trente que coutaient ceux du soir, il lui resterait, en se contentant des dejeuners, un franc vingt centimes de boni, ce qui representait encore deux collations au pain et au saucisson, plus deux bocks sur le boulevard. C'etait la sa grande depense et son grand plaisir des nuits, et il se mit a descendre la rue Notre-Dame de Lorette.
Stats for nerds
1recommend
4mentions
4people
2020–2026years
25% recommend75% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- Novels, in particular long ones with extensive casts of well developed characters, have really shaped and enabled my empathy. They do this partly through allowing you to occupy multiple and usually quite different POVs, and by elaborating on the reasons which are often adopted by people. Characters are often 'types', but it's the exposure to novel types that is what allows you to come away from a novel with a new outlook on a particular occupation, position, personality, politics, or relationship.
The disdain for novels by some people (Sam Bankman-Fried as a particularly egregious example) is really rather pathetic. Fiction, and more broadly storytelling, plays a vital role in shaping who we are, how we present ourselves to others, and how one can learn to do those things as well, in the midst of a community. Besides, their are more great books than one can read in a lifetime. It's a resource that can't be spent.
Some excellent examples:
Middlemarch, by George Eliot
Brothers Karamazov, or Crime and Punishment, by Dostoyevsky
Madame Bovary by Flaubert, or Bel-Ami by Maupassant
The Book of Jacob by Olga Tokarczuk
Death of the Heart by Elizabeth Bowen
The Corrections by Franzen
Recognitions by Gaddis
Foster by Claire Keegan (short but incredible)
(That's a personal list, and by no means exhaustive, just some recommendations.)
- I've read thousands of books. There are good novels everywhere, and no country has the exclusivity of any theme.
> One is the depiction of desolation and human loneliness before the American continent was developed into a prosperous land.
Of course, classical European literature didn't focus on the American wilderness. Though the most famous book on this theme is probably Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. And I enjoyed T.E. Lawrence' Seven Pillars of Wisdom which most people know through the film; the Arabian desert was a good place for loneliness in the wilderness.
> Another is the pursuit of the American Dream, where people achieve success through relentless struggle.
Like wise, the American Dream is an American myth, which is rarely the focus outside of the USA. But searching success through relentless struggle is a frequent theme. For instance, Stendhal's Le rouge et le noir or Maupassant's Bel-ami. These are from two of the most famous classical French authors, but there are many novels about hard-working people that reach success.
> The third is what this novel expresses: what happens after success? Money and career cannot solve all problems; people need more to fill an entire life.
As you like Russian literature, I suppose you've read Goncharov's Oblomov and Chekov's theater, especially Uncle Vania. That theme is central in one of the most famous French novel, Flaubert's Madame Bovary. The excellent Italian writer Alberto Moravia also has many novels about this, the most famous being Il disprezzo and my favourite being Gli indifferenti. I also like D'Annunzio's Il piacere much more than The Great Gatsby. I would argue that variations of this theme are universal, with old writings like the Bibles's Qohelet and even more Sumer's Gilgamesh.
- You can go further back from Chomsky. I'm currently reading Guy de Maupassant's Bel Ami, which gives a grim portrait of journalists in 19th France as lazily serving the interests of those in power[1].
The thing about the situation is historically journalists have always served interests and ideologies. American journalism has a long and storied history but the idea of purely objective journalism is itself a particular kind of rhetoric and particular kind of spin that was a fine product of early 20th America. In reality, 90% of journalism is "spin" and 90% of journalism has always been spin - or interpretation or perspective or context or whatever spin you want to give spin. That journalist serve their sources, their ideologies, the interests of the owners of the journal and so-forth isn't bad unless you think everyone with power is evil (which is plausible but if you believe this, then you would be supporting some ideology outside the mainstream, which also has it's spin).
It's fairly well documented that Julian Assange worked quite actively to make the release of the Clinton emails serve Donald Trump (coordinating with the Trump and other no-nos) - not even that there was lying involved but here he went from citizen journalist to propagandist. But I don't think becoming a propagandist makes someone worse than the cause they serve. In the case of Trump, I happen think made that made him viciously evil but that's happenstance relative to the question of journalism.
Forget about the current election. Suppose you had your ideal candidate running against a definite evil, someone who pursue policies that would hurt or kill your friends and family, in a close race. If some piece of pure dirt, a politically contentless but deeply embarrassing true fact about this honestly good candidate surfaced, would consider those who pushed this fact relentlessly to be paragons of virtue?
There are some articles, a few, where pure truth can prevail- the Snowden revelations were a happy example. But many of even the revelations of journalism rest as much on power politics as they do on truth. Watergate wouldn't have mattered if there wasn't a sufficient consensus in Washington, among powerful people, that Nixon had gone too far. Equivalent scandals can evoke yawns without powerful backers, etc.
Now, go to the current election and you have a candidate of the corrupt permanent government against something like psychopathic candidate of a particular dubious right wing power complex; hardly inviting as a choice. How much are journalists "sacrificing their ethics" to push an arguably less evil? I assume quite a bit but how much should be concerned? I leave that question to you.
- Of the books listed, I think I'd probably be most interested in reading Maupassant's Bel Ami, followed closely by Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin.
