Amélie Nothomb is my syndrome and my cure and the month of August is the month of
Amélie Nothomb by excellence. Why? One could ask. The answer is simply
because Nothomb publishes a new book every year on this month. The
waiting period before the new book's release often brings back old
memories and new discussions, and this is how I was lucky to meet two
Nothombophiles just like me (Ok maybe not exactly like me, but still,
the point is that they love Nothomb's books :D).
The
funny thing was that both Boudi and Tonie's favorite book by Nothomb
was "Mercure". When I read this book the first time, it did not mark me
and I couldn't understand why people even like it, it didn't seem original to me. It wasn't until I
read a professional review of this book that I completely changed my
mind about it. This is literally how and when I learned to read between the lines
and the importance of paying attention to the literary, psychological
and social value of a book, not only its plot and style. The review is
written in French by a philosophy and letters PhD holder (Université
catholique de Louvain) with whom I have discussed this book. To me the
review is perfect in every sense of the term but you can check by
yourselves at this link:
"Il nous est ordonné d'être jeunes et belles et, dès qu’il s’agit de tomber amoureuses, il nous est conseillé de ne pas tenir compte de ce genre de détail"
Briefly,
the story is about a very pretty girl who is tricked into believing
that her face has been mutilated so badly that she doesn't even look
human anymore. Of course the old man that tricked her keeps her on an
island, isolated from the world. He looks after her but he also has sex
with her. The girl likes the old man as a father although he is almost as old as her grandfather. She hates however the sexual acts and maybe even more
because she likes his paternal side. The book is a modified version of
the Beauty and the beast or Esmeralda and quasimodo but with the hero
being much older than the girl. The themes in this book include among
others beauty, incest, age difference etc. One day the girl gets sick
and the old man brings a nurse to look after her. The nurse discovers
the truth and decides to save the girl. Nothing new? Nothing creative
here one could say right? Wrong! Amélie Nothomb ends the book in two
different ways:
Ending number 1: The nurse saves
the girl, the girl learns also that she is pretty and they both spend their lives cruising
happily ever after together as friends (or more, the author keeps it unclear).
Ending number 2:
The nurse saves the girl from the old man only to take his place. The girl still thinks she is mutilated and she is not freed, however she
seems to enjoy her captivity and life with her new aggressor: the beloved nurse.
Beloved yes, the girl did not like the old man but she likes the nurse, in fact the two clicked
ever since they met.
Automatically, the nurse's behavior in each ending makes her
1- A hero who is trying to do something good for the girl.
2- A selfish person who is trying to do something good for herself.
Amélie Nothomb wrote two endings because she couldn't choose one. I thought that she left it for the readers to choose the ending they preferred and I happen to have preferred the second one for the following reasons:
The
main reason why I liked it is because whenever someone gives me two
choices one that is realistic and one that is a bit exotic, I go for the
exotic one. As I always say, if I want to read about real stuff I'd pick up a
newspaper and not a book! However, even though I hate
realistic events, I found that the second ending is the most realistic
one, but not in a dull way. The second ending exposes the very true nature of human beings and that is: selfishness (For more insight on this matter refer to "the selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins).
Also, heroism in my opinion, does not exist and altruism is nothing more than an invention or an illusion. The only real emotion that is innate to mankind is selfishness. It seems crazy said like that but let's take some examples: in a couple, you would say that a person that always tries to make the other happy is a proof that altruism exists. But a person in a couple unconsciously is trying to make him/herself happy because when the other is happy, the happiness returns back to him/her. Newton's third law seems to agree with this explanation for it states that "for every action, an equal and opposite reaction will take place" meaning that you receive what you give! This sacred Newton, who knew he was that tough?! Another example and I will stop to avoid too much digression: parents, often mothers are seen as the most powerful examples of sacrifice and altruism for they do anything for their children. THEIR children! yes, their half selves, their own genes! We are selfish, end of story.
Another reason why I preferred the second ending is because it is the scenario of instinct overthrowing reason. Only something very powerful and overwhelming can lead to such case and the feeling after unleashing the instincts would be as powerful and overwhelming. In our lives, at least once, we all have given in to our instinct. If we remember that one time, and the powerful emotions that took over us when we unleashed our instincts, we should be able to better understand the power and beauty of the second ending.
Finally, I personally liked the second ending because it would have personally made me much more happier than the first, if I were to be the nurse. I mean who wouldn't want to have control, all the pleasure and no repercussions?
Now that being said, I think that we can prefer one conclusion or the other but at the end, Nothomb was right, both are necessary for the book. Nothing makes "Mercure" the great book that is is than having these two endings and giving us the freedom of choice. In both cases the girl is happy which is to say happiness can be achieved by different paths.
P.S. If you have read the book, don't hesitate to let me know which ending you prefer and why?
