Nicolas Idier

Political Rhetoric in Ruins: Mathieu Larnaudie and Nicolas Idier

This double review reads Mathieu Larnaudie's "Acharnement" (2012) and Nicolas Idier's "Matignon la nuit" (2024) as two complementary diagnoses of a political discourse that has lost touch with people and revolves only around itself. Both novels present highly reduced narratives: In Larnaudie's novel, a former speechwriter lives in seclusion in the provinces, writing speeches, rehearsing them, and discarding them, while real catastrophes appear only peripherally. In Idier's novel, an advisor is tasked with composing a speech in a single night at the seat of government but becomes increasingly lost in encounters, memories, and digressions. This is particularly evident in two images: the wooden platform on which Müller rehearses his speeches into the void, and the nocturnal crisis machine of Matignon, where language consists only of interchangeable "elements." The review also compares the writing styles of the two authors: Larnaudie's long, convoluted, and self-commenting prose appears as both an imitation and a critique of political rhetoric. Idier's fragmented and open style, on the other hand, seems like a sabotage of political discourse, opening up new possibilities. At the same time, the review connects this stylistic analysis with the characters, plot structures, and temporal organization of the novels: here, the endless repetition in Larnaudie's work; there, the condensed chronology of a single night in Idier's. Thus, form and political diagnosis mutually reinforce each other. The review's argument begins with an analysis of rhetorical mechanisms such as rhythm, punchline, and media staging, and then examines the position of the speaking characters: on the one hand, the dismissed speechwriter, on the other, the "sous-plume" within the government apparatus. The review also addresses the question of the audience, which is either entirely absent or appears only as a hyper-mediated mass. In the end, two hopeless options remain: either to continue writing despite the recognized meaninglessness (in Larnaudie's case) or to break out of the political discourse and look for another form of action (in Idier's case).

➙ To the article

Odysseus in Paris: An epic without a center, with James Joyce

The volume “Ulysse à Paris” (Seuil, 2024) continues the Homeric-Joycean tradition by radically pluralizing the epic structure of the wandering journey and relocating it to the socially, politically, and historically charged terrain of northern Paris. Published in collaboration with the journal Cockpit, this collective novel is not merely a loose anthology, but an aesthetically and theoretically coherent project that programmatically stages literary polyphony as a counter-model to epic unity. Instead of a sovereign hero, a network of heterogeneous voices unfolds, whose characters—from migrant subjects to feminist reformulations of mythical roles to flâneurs sensitized to the politics of memory—experience the odyssey as an event of displacement, precarity, and fragmented identity. The review explores how each contribution transforms specific Homeric episodes and Joycean techniques: be it through the emptying of the heroic (de Quatrebarbes), the ironic treatment of genealogical authority (Fiat), the politicization of mythical violence in the context of Holocaust remembrance (Comment), or the radical subjectivization of marginalized perspectives (Schavelzon, Noël). Tiphaine Samoyault emphasizes memory as a mode of a never-completed homecoming. Gabriela Vazquez condenses migration into an epistemic perspective that consistently conceives of the center from the periphery. The analysis traces the dense intertextual entanglement and reads formal techniques (polyphony, stream of consciousness, catalog technique) as carriers of historical and ideological meanings. It becomes clear that the central driving force of the volume is the deconstruction of homecoming: Ithaca no longer appears as an attainable place, but as an empty signature, replaced by provisional, often precarious forms of arrival that neither stabilize identity nor reconcile history. The review itself thus follows a twofold movement – ​​it reconstructs the genealogical depth of the project and at the same time insists on its diagnostic sharpness regarding the times – thereby revealing “Ulysse à Paris” as an epic that constantly questions its own possibility.

➙ To the article