I wasn't really sure how to approach this book - whether to take it as a work of autofiction or fiction. However, in the end, it doesn't really matter. My summations on the characters and events are much the same whether it's based in truth or imagination.
What we have here is a rather pathetic, cringing, entitled man who considers himself to be a philosopher provocateur; full of bile and spleen and hatred. This character is a man who loves aphorisms because they are "distinctly suited to provocation...you can experience the glee of being hated...the venting of aggression was necessary to prevent one from imploding with fury, a constant danger if one were inclined to view the world as ugly, dangerous and swarming with horrible morons."
Rob Doyle considers himself to be at war with the world and all its liberal niceties, believing himself to be a glorious creative genius; a life-despising mash-up of his heroes, Gaspar Noe, Emil Cioran, Georges Bataille, Jean Baudrillard, Terrence McKenna, Michel Houllebecq, Tino Sehgal, Antonin Artaud and Thomas Pynchon. His mission: to be insufferable.
"I had set myself a sort of Oulipian constraint whereby, on my nightly Twitter forays, I would be as aggressive, offensive and hateful as possible...coating my slander and vituperation with just enough charm or panache that people would stick around for more...Could I resist this ocean of bollocks without perishing in convulsions of hatred?"
Rob Doyle regales us with his endless tales of drug taking, with a mixture of flagellation and self-congratulation. He charts the way through his myriad, fleeting obsessions (with writers, with films, with drugs) before falling back into a bitter nihilism that blocks any personal insight or growth, if such an attempt were to be taken.
“Here I am, years older and none the wiser.”
The structure, I suppose, is a twisted version of Nietzschean eternal return; the stories loop round again and again, the very same trajectory each time, the same death by overdose in various parts of the world, the same lessons not learnt, the same personality persevering and failing.
“I swam in the sea and had the ecstatic drunken insight that everything is transient, everything is eternal, both statements are true. Also: that living your truth means loving even your suffering, and not masochistically.”
You can expect lots of this pseudo-philosophical waffling, along with those interminable descriptions of all the exciting drugs he has taken and the vile acts he allowed himself to commit whilst under the influence. (the most memorable being a scene in the Berlin club, Berghain, where he pisses in a man's face, relishing the abject gratitude of his victim, and his own cruel sense of power). There is endless misogyny - “the hatred I felt for my mother, who had done nothing to deserve it except create me, was extreme and pathological...I look back on my youth as a campaign of revenge against women - a war of attrition with unforgivable crimes committed.”
Doyle is preoccupied with the examining the Void, the emptiness at the heart of his life, and the origins of his unfeeling character. But he searches only in the same places: seeking transcendence through half-hearted forays into religion or, more successfully, through drugs. He muses on the Void of the Buddhist Heart Sutra (The world is the same as the Void. The Void is the same as the world”, and the Noe movie Enter the Void, which seems to have been the blueprint for the entire novel. If you love self-important, sexist, bullying men getting fucked up and being unbearable, then this book is for you.
‘Imagine this. Even if the most extreme pessimism accords with how things are, and existence is a nightmare, and consciousness is a chamber of hell, and Western civilisation is awaiting its coup de grace, and we’re all adrift in the Unbreathable, or the Irreparable, or the Incurable, or all these things he writes about; what if, in spite of all this, the very articulation of this pessimism was so exquisite, so profound, that it redeemed our moments here in the nightmare? What if the writing itself, the beauty of it, not only pointed towards but provided reason enough to stick around a while longer?”
I can't help but feel that Doyle feels that the sentiment above applies to his writing. I have to disagree with him.