Mercure - Amélie Nothomb First vs Second Ending

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: 

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com.lb%2Fbooks%3Fid%3D2n3x-irBUMkC%26pg%3DPA235%26lpg%3DPA235%26dq%3Dnausicaa%2Bdewez%2Bmercure%26source%3Dbl%26ots%3DCbV7ZJsfuH%26sig%3DCUdYqmxmsKv1e2s6x8sIryii40Y%26hl%3Dfr%26sa%3DX%26ei%3DlgyxUdH1PMmWtQaQ0oDABA%26ved%3D0CEkQ6AEwBQ%23v%3Donepage%26q%3Dnausicaa%2520dewez%2520mercure%26f%3Dfalse&h=NAQGaWbY8

"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?

The Words by Jean-Paul Sartre

This 200 pages book hides inside a 10 000 pages literary text. How is this possible one could ask? I have no freaking idea! This is why Sartre is Sartre I guess. Erratum, that sentence should have stated this is why Sartre the Great is Sartre the Great as I have decided to "literary" refer to him from now on. Reviewing "the words" could lead to the writing of a 100 PhD dissertations and a lot more essays. I have been struggling to write something about it for long and finally decided to take that leap of faith to see where my thoughts (nothing more) would take me so here it goes.

 

 «J'ai commencé ma vie comme je la finirai sans doute : au milieu des livres. Dans le bureau de mon grand-père, il y en avait partout ; défense était de les faire épousseter sauf une fois l'an, avant la rentrée d'octobre. Je ne savais pas encore lire que, déjà, je les révérais, ces pierres levées : droites ou penchées, serrées comme des briques sur les rayons de la bibliothèque ou noblement espacées en allées de menhirs, je sentais que la prospérité de notre famille en dépendait...»

"The words" is an autobiography written by Sartre the Great and we (him and I) have never been properly introduced before. It wasn't until a dear friend kindly offered me this book that I got the chance to discover Sartre the man and Sartre the writer. I have separated the two because I have clear distinct feelings for each. I do believe the man had a lot to do with Sartre becoming the Great author/philosopher he is and the aim of the autobiography itself was to show how one lead to another. Written at the age of 59, Sartre retraces back the first 10 years of his life, claiming that he knew back then that he wanted to become an author because of the influence of his grandfather and everything he read as well as his first attempts of writing. The influence of the family and the grandfather is present in the whole book which is divided in two parts entitled "reading" and "writing", respectively. From the organization one can tell that this book is logical and well structured and clearly shows the importance of family more than anything else in Sartre's decision because of its presence in both parts of the book. However, I found this autobiography to be too well organized and clear for my taste which made it hard for me to believe that it was genuine and honest as autobiographies should aim to be. Besides, I believe that Sartre was lying on two major issues one of which is more clear and evident than the other.

First, it is quasi impossible for someone to remember all the books read during childhood or at least as much books as those mentioned in this autobiography. I mean seriously, the other day I tried to remember the books I read the past month alone and I just couldn't remember anything! It was only after I consulted Goodreads that I was able to answer this question. So claiming that one recalls the book read 40 years ago is total bogus to me. No doubt about it!!!

Second, I am pretty sure that no one has an idea about what he/she wants to become when they get older. Let's assume some do, I am sure the idea would not be as clear and extremist (oh yes we'll get back to this) as that presented by Sartre. A child is a vessel for a thousand and one ideas a day while here Sartre presents himself as a one idea/goal/aim child. He also awkwardly views literature as a religion, his grandfather as a Priest (sometimes also God) and himself, the miracle child that has to write because literature needs him, because the world needs him. Said by a child, this might sound kind of cute, but you just feel that  this arrogance cannot be that of a child but rather that of a successful intelligent yet obnoxious and shallow kind of a MAN.This further hints that the story we are reading is a fake one.

I am not evaluating the literary value of this book or Sartre the Great. It is absurd as I mentioned before. All the successes and intelligence in the world do not however justify the arrogance and pretentiousness of a man. Sartre the man, was full of that! He tries to dissimulate it in the child in him but I think he failed to convince me at least. Writing an autobiography by itself tends to stem in many cases from arrogance. The art of autobiography can also stem from other needs such as trauma or historical recording of events etc. In fact, it is for these reasons that some of my favorite literary books are autobiographies. However, Sartre was 59 when he decided to write about the reasons that made him become an author. Put into context, this book is the fruit of an arrogant big shot who feels the need to let people know how he became the successful man he is. To this aim he invents or reformulates his childhood story because one can just feel him lying as mentioned before. He fails however to overcome his arrogance at many instances starting from the moment when he starts detailing his genealogy. Seriously, what's wrong with men and family trees!!! Nothing justifies his choice of elaborating on his family tree at the very first pages of this book except extreme arrogance. The other major arrogant point was him believing he had to write to save humanity. Can someone be any more delusional than that? Please!

I am not sure if Sartre was self aware of the image he was giving of himself. But I believe that probably he was and he found nothing wrong in being arrogant. One cannot judge a literary masterpiece based on the character of its writer I agree, but I still believe that modesty in addition to the intellectual capacity makes the most captivating writers ever and probably the smartest (those who brag on the opposite fall in the annoying category).

In conclusion, reading this book made me discover two Sartres, Sartre the man and Sartre the Great. One I loved and one I hate. Sartre the Great will never become one of my favorite authors because of the man I discovered behind. I cannot dare to deny Sartre the Great of his rightful literary and intellectual value. Then again some books' influence on you just cannot be detached from their authors' influence. But one thing is sure, I will not forget the Sartres.