What do you think?
Rate this book
Diary of a Seducer
Diary of a Seducer records Johannes's discovery of a girl with the Shakespearean name Cordelia, whom he sets out to control. Intricately, meticulously, cunningly, the seduction proceeds. No detail is too small to escape Johannes. "She sits on the sofa by the tea table and I sit on a chair at her side. This position has an intimate quality and at the same time a detaching dignity." Less erotic than an intellectual depiction of seduction, Diary of a Seducer shows the casuist Kierkegaard in what he characterized as the aesthetic mode. A new introduction by Michael Dirda puts this influential novella into high relief.
168 pages, Paperback
First published February 20, 1843
665 people are currently reading
10670 people want to read
About the author
Søren Kierkegaard
1,125 books6,392 followersSøren Aabye Kierkegaard was a prolific 19th century Danish philosopher and theologian. Kierkegaard strongly criticised both the Hegelianism of his time and what he saw as the empty formalities of the Church of Denmark. Much of his work deals with religious themes such as faith in God, the institution of the Christian Church, Christian ethics and theology, and the emotions and feelings of individuals when faced with life choices. His early work was written under various pseudonyms who present their own distinctive viewpoints in a complex dialogue.
Kierkegaard left the task of discovering the meaning of his works to the reader, because "the task must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted". Scholars have interpreted Kierkegaard variously as an existentialist, neo-orthodoxist, postmodernist, humanist, and individualist.
Crossing the boundaries of philosophy, theology, psychology, and literature, he is an influential figure in contemporary thought.
Kierkegaard left the task of discovering the meaning of his works to the reader, because "the task must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted". Scholars have interpreted Kierkegaard variously as an existentialist, neo-orthodoxist, postmodernist, humanist, and individualist.
Crossing the boundaries of philosophy, theology, psychology, and literature, he is an influential figure in contemporary thought.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 628 reviews
February 15, 2023
This book is a shit.
Seducer Johannes meets beautiful innocent Cordelia and decides to dedicate all his efforts to conquer her, but never physically, just emotionally. He is only interested in the game, not the bed. Paying attention to every single little detail, slowly, cunningly, he intents to seduce her to control what she thinks, and, ultimately, what she feels.
This is one of my most HATED books of all time, so much that it was one of the first ones that I got rid of. Johannes is an unscrupulous emotional abuser, selfish, manipulative, misogynist, and I could go on; on the other hand, Cordelia a helpless victim. I don't mind spoiling it, just so you know exactly what you are getting into in case you ever decide to go for it.
-----------------------------------------------
PERSONAL NOTE :
[1843] [232p] [Classics] [HIGHLY Not Recommendable]
[For the love of God DON'T!]
-----------------------------------------------
Este libro es una mierda.
Seductor Johannes conoce a la hermosa e inocente Cordelia y decide dedicar todos sus esfuerzos para conquistarla, pero nunca físicamente, sólo emocionalmente. A él sólo le interesa el juego, no el sexo. Prestando atención a cada minúsculo detalle, lentamente, astutamente, intentará seducirla para controlar lo que piensa, y, en última instancia, lo que siente.
Este es uno de los libros que más ODIE en mi vida, tanto que fue uno de los primeros de los que me deshice. Johannes es un inescrupuloso abusador emocional, egoísta, manipulador, misógino, y podría seguir; por el otro lado, Cordelia es una indefensa víctima. No me importa spoilearlo, sólo para que sepan exactamente en lo que se van a meter si alguna vez deciden ir por el libro.
-----------------------------------------------
NOTA PERSONAL :
[1843] [232p] [Clásicos] [ALTAMENTE No Recomendable]
[Por el amor de Dios NO!]
-----------------------------------------------
Seducer Johannes meets beautiful innocent Cordelia and decides to dedicate all his efforts to conquer her, but never physically, just emotionally. He is only interested in the game, not the bed. Paying attention to every single little detail, slowly, cunningly, he intents to seduce her to control what she thinks, and, ultimately, what she feels.
This is one of my most HATED books of all time, so much that it was one of the first ones that I got rid of. Johannes is an unscrupulous emotional abuser, selfish, manipulative, misogynist, and I could go on; on the other hand, Cordelia a helpless victim. I don't mind spoiling it, just so you know exactly what you are getting into in case you ever decide to go for it.
-----------------------------------------------
PERSONAL NOTE :
[1843] [232p] [Classics] [HIGHLY Not Recommendable]
[For the love of God DON'T!]
-----------------------------------------------
Este libro es una mierda.
Seductor Johannes conoce a la hermosa e inocente Cordelia y decide dedicar todos sus esfuerzos para conquistarla, pero nunca físicamente, sólo emocionalmente. A él sólo le interesa el juego, no el sexo. Prestando atención a cada minúsculo detalle, lentamente, astutamente, intentará seducirla para controlar lo que piensa, y, en última instancia, lo que siente.
Este es uno de los libros que más ODIE en mi vida, tanto que fue uno de los primeros de los que me deshice. Johannes es un inescrupuloso abusador emocional, egoísta, manipulador, misógino, y podría seguir; por el otro lado, Cordelia es una indefensa víctima. No me importa spoilearlo, sólo para que sepan exactamente en lo que se van a meter si alguna vez deciden ir por el libro.
-----------------------------------------------
NOTA PERSONAL :
[1843] [232p] [Clásicos] [ALTAMENTE No Recomendable]
[Por el amor de Dios NO!]
-----------------------------------------------
September 25, 2025
Søren Kierkegaard: „Ciudat lucru, dar ideea de seducător lipseşte cu desăvîrşire în elenism“.
Lucrarea este o re-scriere explicită a mitului donjuanesc. Cine este, totuşi, Don Juan (Johan, în volumul lui Kierkegaard)? Nimeni altul decît individul aflat în stadiul estetic al existenţei: individul care ignoră eticul şi religiosul (ca stadii ulterioare posibile).
El este un egotist stendhalian. Seduce cu o viclenie pur intelectuală, dar nu-şi finalizează operaţia sistematică de cucerire a celuilalt prin posesia prăzii. Aşa face şi Johan al lui Kierkegaard: o seduce pe Cordelia, o minte minuțios, metodic, trezeşte în ea iubirea, dar fuge înainte ca victima să-i cedeze complet. Prin urmare, estetul iubeşte actul seducerii în sine, operaţia seducţiei, dar nu este deloc interesat de finalitatea ei. Seducătorul nu are un scop serios.
În fine, estetul trăieşte într-o lume de suprafeţe, fiind el însuşi doar suprafaţă, într-o lume de aparenţe, fiind el însuşi doar aparenţă. Estetul poate fi comparat cu o oglindă. De altfel, metafora aparţine lui Kierkegaard:
Interesant este că acest fragment a fost scris de Seducător...
Lucrarea este o re-scriere explicită a mitului donjuanesc. Cine este, totuşi, Don Juan (Johan, în volumul lui Kierkegaard)? Nimeni altul decît individul aflat în stadiul estetic al existenţei: individul care ignoră eticul şi religiosul (ca stadii ulterioare posibile).
El este un egotist stendhalian. Seduce cu o viclenie pur intelectuală, dar nu-şi finalizează operaţia sistematică de cucerire a celuilalt prin posesia prăzii. Aşa face şi Johan al lui Kierkegaard: o seduce pe Cordelia, o minte minuțios, metodic, trezeşte în ea iubirea, dar fuge înainte ca victima să-i cedeze complet. Prin urmare, estetul iubeşte actul seducerii în sine, operaţia seducţiei, dar nu este deloc interesat de finalitatea ei. Seducătorul nu are un scop serios.
În fine, estetul trăieşte într-o lume de suprafeţe, fiind el însuşi doar suprafaţă, într-o lume de aparenţe, fiind el însuşi doar aparenţă. Estetul poate fi comparat cu o oglindă. De altfel, metafora aparţine lui Kierkegaard:
„Şi această nefericită oglindă care are acum imaginea ei [a Cordeliei], dar n-o are şi pe ea, care nu-i poate păstra chipul în ascunzătorile ei tainice, smulgînd-o vederii lumii întregi, căci nu ştie altceva decît s-o arate altora cum mi-o arată mie acum! Ce supliciu pentru un bărbat dacă ar fi în locul oglinzii! Şi cu toate acestea, nu sînt oare destui bărbaţi care au întru totul trăsăturile oglinzii? Care nu posedă nimic decît în momentul în care arată altora, care nu sesizează decît aparenţa lucrurilor, iar nu substanţa lor”.
Interesant este că acest fragment a fost scris de Seducător...
June 19, 2022
Si, como en algún momento afirmó el autor, se debe seducir a los hombres para poder salvarlos, conmigo fracasó de lleno, vamos, que el libro me aburrió en su mayor parte, aunque tampoco estaba yo muy necesitado de salvación si de lo que me tenía que proteger era del planteamiento de vida de este impresentable Don Juan.
José María Valverde explica en el prólogo a mi edición que para romper una relación que el autor mantenía, y aminorar en lo posible el dolor que iba a causar, “trató de fingirse libertino y desalmado” y que la personalidad que aquí dibujó del Don Juan protagonista tiene mucho que ver con esa pretensión. Posibilidades románticas aparte, es harto evidente que el autor amañó el partido de mala manera para que en la lucha con la estética, que el protagonista aquí representa, la ética saliera claramente victoriosa, aunque esta ni siquiera aparezca en el combate… o quizás sí.
“Bajo el cielo de la estética todo es hermoso, alado, lleno de gracia; donde entre, en cambio, la ética, el mundo se torna yermo, feo e indeciblemente aburrido.”Ese mundo estético que tan ferozmente ataca el filósofo es el de la satisfacción inmediata de los deseos para cuyo disfrute el resto de mortales no son más que meros instrumentos (“Yo no tengo ningún amigo“). Su mal es que nunca obtiene lo que ansía. El placer desaparece en el mismo momento en el que obtiene lo que deseaba dejando al conquistador en un estado de abatimiento del que solo podrá salir con un nuevo objeto de deseo.
“Cordelia sigue ocupando aún mi corazón. Pero dentro de poco este período habrá pasado; mi alma debe rejuvenecer constantemente… ¡Qué poder renovador no tiene una jovencita! Ni el fresco de la brisa de la mañana, ni el silbido del viento, ni la frescura del mar, ni el perfume del vino o su suavidad, ¡nada en el mundo tiene tanto poder renovador!”El Don Juan de Kierkegaard es un ser egoísta, ególatra, machista, misógino y manipulador. Su vida se reduce a la búsqueda del placer que obtiene del desarrollo lento y concienzudo de una conquista en la que es esencial encontrar la resistencia propia de un ser puro e inocente (“…yo no me preocupo nunca de escribir mi nombre donde muchos otros han escrito el suyo”), el cual deberá entregarse a él en todo su ser de una forma libre y absoluta.
“Los verdaderos placeres del amor sólo se gozan cuando se ha logrado llevar a una muchacha hasta esa situación en que no conozca otra tarea para su libertad que la de entregarse, poniendo toda su felicidad en ello y casi suplicándonos, como un mendigo una limosna, que aceptemos su don íntegro y, sin embargo, libre.”El relato mantuvo mi interés en los inicios de la seducción de la inocente y hermosa Cordelia mientras me divirtió lo esperpéntico del personaje de Don Juan, pero a medida que todo se convirtió en mera repetición y autocomplacencia insufrible en las entradas de su diario, completadas por una serie interminable, no sé si con fines paródicos, de cartas de amor merengoso, el libro se me fue cayendo de las manos y no fue pequeño el esfuerzo para que tal caída no se produjera.
“Cuando una muchacha se ha entregado por completo, se queda débil y desguarnecida, lo ha perdido todo. Pues si la inocencia en el hombre es algo negativo, en la mujer, por el contrario, es el contenido de su misma esencia.”Si hacemos caso de lo afirmado por José María Valverde acerca de su propósito al escribir el relato, quizá su publicación fuera verdaderamente el salto que para sí buscaba el autor desde el hombre estético al hombre ético… “yermo, feo e indeciblemente aburrido.”
June 15, 2023
"The Diary of a Seducer" is a work by Søren Kierkegaard that has been widely discussed and analyzed by literature and philosophy. However, it also has important implications for psychology, especially as it relates to the nature of human desires and passions, as well as the understanding of personality and personal development.
In the work, Kierkegaard presents the life of a seducer, a man who constantly seeks sexual pleasure and the conquest of women. Through the character's diary, he delves into his psyche and explores the motivations and impulses that lead him to act that way. In addition, the work also questions issues such as morality, religion and ethics.
One of the most important aspects in which Kierkegaard's work contributes to psychology is in his analysis of the nature of human desires and passions. Kierkegaard presents the protagonist as someone who is dominated by his desires and who constantly seeks their satisfaction in the conquest of women. However, the author does not judge the character, but tries to understand the reasons behind his behavior and explore the complexities of human nature.
This is especially relevant in psychology today, since the study of emotions and impulses is one of the fundamental topics in the field. Kierkegaard's work provides valuable insight into how desires and passions can shape personality and behavior, and how these impulses can be controlled or expressed in healthy ways.
Another aspect in which "El Diario de un Seductor" contributes to psychology is in its analysis of personality and personal development. The protagonist is presented as a complex and contradictory man who constantly struggles with his own self and his impulses. In this sense, Kierkegaard suggests that personality is not something fixed and stable, but that it is constantly evolving and changing.
This is particularly relevant in developmental psychology, which focuses on how individuals change over time and how these changes are influenced by internal and external factors. Kierkegaard presents the seducer as an example of how social experiences and interactions can influence a person's personality and behavior.
In addition, the work can also be analyzed from the point of view of social psychology. Kierkegaard shows how social relationships can shape an individual's personality and behavior. The protagonist constantly seeks the approval and recognition of others, which indicates that his behavior is influenced by the expectations and norms of the society in which he finds himself.
In this sense, Kierkegaard's work can be understood as a critique of society and its expectations of human behavior. The author suggests that the desire to be liked by others and to fit in with society can be a powerful force in shaping a person's personality and behavior.
Finally, "The Diary of a Seducer" also contributes to psychology in its analysis of human relations. Kierkegaard presents the protagonist as a man who constantly seeks contact with women, but at the same time is unable to establish meaningful relationships with them. This suggests that the work is a critique of superficial relationships and the superficiality of society in general.
From this perspective, Kierkegaard's work can be understood as a reflection on the importance of meaningful human relationships for people's emotional and psychological well-being. The protagonist feels empty and disoriented in a world where human relationships are superficial and mercantile, suggesting that authenticity and true emotional connection are necessary for psychological development and well-being.
In conclusion, Kierkegaard's "Diary of a Seducer" is a complex and suggestive work that contributes to psychology on multiple levels. From his analysis of human desires and passions to his criticism of the superficiality of human relationships, the work provides a unique insight into human nature and personal development. His relevance to psychology today lies in his ability to explore fundamental issues in the field, such as personality, human development, social psychology, and human relationships.
In the work, Kierkegaard presents the life of a seducer, a man who constantly seeks sexual pleasure and the conquest of women. Through the character's diary, he delves into his psyche and explores the motivations and impulses that lead him to act that way. In addition, the work also questions issues such as morality, religion and ethics.
One of the most important aspects in which Kierkegaard's work contributes to psychology is in his analysis of the nature of human desires and passions. Kierkegaard presents the protagonist as someone who is dominated by his desires and who constantly seeks their satisfaction in the conquest of women. However, the author does not judge the character, but tries to understand the reasons behind his behavior and explore the complexities of human nature.
This is especially relevant in psychology today, since the study of emotions and impulses is one of the fundamental topics in the field. Kierkegaard's work provides valuable insight into how desires and passions can shape personality and behavior, and how these impulses can be controlled or expressed in healthy ways.
Another aspect in which "El Diario de un Seductor" contributes to psychology is in its analysis of personality and personal development. The protagonist is presented as a complex and contradictory man who constantly struggles with his own self and his impulses. In this sense, Kierkegaard suggests that personality is not something fixed and stable, but that it is constantly evolving and changing.
This is particularly relevant in developmental psychology, which focuses on how individuals change over time and how these changes are influenced by internal and external factors. Kierkegaard presents the seducer as an example of how social experiences and interactions can influence a person's personality and behavior.
In addition, the work can also be analyzed from the point of view of social psychology. Kierkegaard shows how social relationships can shape an individual's personality and behavior. The protagonist constantly seeks the approval and recognition of others, which indicates that his behavior is influenced by the expectations and norms of the society in which he finds himself.
In this sense, Kierkegaard's work can be understood as a critique of society and its expectations of human behavior. The author suggests that the desire to be liked by others and to fit in with society can be a powerful force in shaping a person's personality and behavior.
Finally, "The Diary of a Seducer" also contributes to psychology in its analysis of human relations. Kierkegaard presents the protagonist as a man who constantly seeks contact with women, but at the same time is unable to establish meaningful relationships with them. This suggests that the work is a critique of superficial relationships and the superficiality of society in general.
From this perspective, Kierkegaard's work can be understood as a reflection on the importance of meaningful human relationships for people's emotional and psychological well-being. The protagonist feels empty and disoriented in a world where human relationships are superficial and mercantile, suggesting that authenticity and true emotional connection are necessary for psychological development and well-being.
In conclusion, Kierkegaard's "Diary of a Seducer" is a complex and suggestive work that contributes to psychology on multiple levels. From his analysis of human desires and passions to his criticism of the superficiality of human relationships, the work provides a unique insight into human nature and personal development. His relevance to psychology today lies in his ability to explore fundamental issues in the field, such as personality, human development, social psychology, and human relationships.
February 13, 2015
A Wound Masked As a Boast
OK, was thrown into an inverted Faust here, but with Faust helping Mephistopheles in his conquests! What then? Should the morality change in any way?
Mephistopheles is a seducer, the poor devil. The eternal seducer, but the one who bores of his victims at the cusp. Or is that just what he tells himself? (yeah, the "wills evil, does good" bit.)
"In the vast literature of love, The Seducer's Diary is an intricate curiosity--a feverishly intellectual attempt to reconstruct an erotic failure as a pedagogic success, a wound masked as a boast."
~ John Updike
July 6, 2008
I read Kierkegaard's THE SEDUCER'S DIARY in one sitting. This short work is obviously easy to read because Kierkegaard's style, although a bit antiquated, is very enticing. But this work is also difficult to read without outrage. Quel type tordu, ce Kierkegaard!
What I find especially interesting is that this short piece is essential to his work since eventually Regine (the fictional Cordelia)became his muse. . . . Which is to say that he (the fictional Johannes)was afraid of life since he could not live with the real woman and preferred living with the idea of her in his mind. Pretty sad and unhealthy, but so very common. . . . Even if Kierkegaard discovered through his experience with Regine the secret of indirect communication and claimed that THE SEDUCER'S DIARY was written for her sake and "to repel her."
Although I enjoyed this short work and recommend it, I think I'm going to go back to my French exitentialists because they are not lost or entirely buried in their intellect. To me they have kept a certain humanism, which I believe might be the result of their living through WWII, an experience that forced them to make a choice, and what they chose was to be politically engaged. To me this is essential and healthy since locking oneself in one's intellect implies that one refuses to live. . . .
What I find especially interesting is that this short piece is essential to his work since eventually Regine (the fictional Cordelia)became his muse. . . . Which is to say that he (the fictional Johannes)was afraid of life since he could not live with the real woman and preferred living with the idea of her in his mind. Pretty sad and unhealthy, but so very common. . . . Even if Kierkegaard discovered through his experience with Regine the secret of indirect communication and claimed that THE SEDUCER'S DIARY was written for her sake and "to repel her."
Although I enjoyed this short work and recommend it, I think I'm going to go back to my French exitentialists because they are not lost or entirely buried in their intellect. To me they have kept a certain humanism, which I believe might be the result of their living through WWII, an experience that forced them to make a choice, and what they chose was to be politically engaged. To me this is essential and healthy since locking oneself in one's intellect implies that one refuses to live. . . .
November 12, 2024
What a scumbaggg 4.75
February 16, 2017
Kierkegaard's The Seducer's Diary describes a man (Johannes)'s calculated scheme to seduce a young girl (Cordelia) into falling in love with him. Described by Updike as "a wound disguised as a boast" this novel/essay/diary is elegiac in its cold lack of apology. It is a book of opposites, of painful ironies.
I feel ashamed to say that I have been a seducer. It has felt normal to me, and I wondered (and still wonder) if it is not singularly a paradigm of romantic normalcy - is love a myth? Is everything wonderful in love simply the gestures of seduction, the play, the production? I am still not sure, myself. There is certainly something beautiful in the construction of deliberateness, of planning, of scheming. Seduction is methodical, thought-out, deliberate. Is all that is deliberate cold? There is an aesthetic wonder to a plan brought to completion: all things complete, coherent, symmetrical, have a specific kind of beauty, in the way that perfect randomness, unadulterated chaos, has beauty. Beauty and truth are comprised of perfect opposites: only consistent in their perfection, their wholeness. If fruition is beautiful, is not all seduction beautiful when it is realized in full? Does something need to be good to be beautiful? There are no ethics in art.
Every person around us is a riddle to us, a riddle with no discoverable answer. We can only guess at the solution, and this mystery drives us to madness when we feel that we are in love, or in lust. What is bewitching to us if not mystery? All beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but what about beauty, about the kind of beauty which enchants us into believing we are in love, is subjective? Why do I fall in love with a stranger on the train, and no with a model on a billboard? What deviance of taste dictates my infatuation with one person over another, of perhaps the same physical beauty (in an objective sense)? What can it be besides a specific strain of mystery? We cannot love what we know, only what we do not know, or only what we imagine we know, what we remember, what we have imagined. Our loves are not the people who touch, feel, see in life, but one million imagined things which we attach to that person, one million relics of our nostalgic past loves, acquaintences, beauties seen or dreamed, one millions constructions of our hopes, desires, imaginations: the irrefutable but intangible potentialities of the future, of the imagination. Giacomo Leopardi wrote in Zibaldone di pensieri:
Is Johannes a narcissist? Does he only love himself? That is a question sure to arise in any reader of this diary (and what is a greater sign of narcissism, anyway, than a diary?). It is important to remember the psychological significance of narcissism: it is not self-love, but rather self-loathing. Narcissism is a defense mechanism, it is an excessive mask over and insufficient ego. Narcissism is all surface: it is a love for the mask that is presented to the world. It is compensation for what is lacking inside. Why keep a diary of your feats of seduction, if you are interested only in the mortal and ephemeral conquest of the moment? Virginity, infatuation, are mortal: they die and are transformed. The diary is a memento mori, not a trophy. Words can only firm up one story of history: it is not true nor honest simply because it is written, but writing, recording, forces history to fit our preconceived notions of linearity, of cause and effect, of black and white: of motive and result. If Johannes wants only the fleeting thrill of seduction, the crystalized moment of victory, then his story is a triumph; but as a love story?
Why is Johannes drawn to the villainy of seducer, and not the romance of a lover? Commensurate with his narcissism is an inability to feel deserving of love, of a healthy relationship, a romantic kinship or oneness with another. He can conceive the object of his affection in only a cold and distant way because he is subconsciously afraid of exposing himself to the enterprise of failure. Battles are easily won and forgotten, wars are never fought. It is easier to be the villain than to assume the role of the loser. Better to inspire hate than pity. These are the burdens of Johannes, the terrible fate that he suffers. The Seducer's Diary is neither boast nor apology, it is a wound implicit in the character of Johannes, of Kierkegaard. It is a settling mist which occudes the possibility of endurance, happiness, transcendental beauty, and champions the ephemeral glory of art.
I feel ashamed to say that I have been a seducer. It has felt normal to me, and I wondered (and still wonder) if it is not singularly a paradigm of romantic normalcy - is love a myth? Is everything wonderful in love simply the gestures of seduction, the play, the production? I am still not sure, myself. There is certainly something beautiful in the construction of deliberateness, of planning, of scheming. Seduction is methodical, thought-out, deliberate. Is all that is deliberate cold? There is an aesthetic wonder to a plan brought to completion: all things complete, coherent, symmetrical, have a specific kind of beauty, in the way that perfect randomness, unadulterated chaos, has beauty. Beauty and truth are comprised of perfect opposites: only consistent in their perfection, their wholeness. If fruition is beautiful, is not all seduction beautiful when it is realized in full? Does something need to be good to be beautiful? There are no ethics in art.
She was a riddle, who mysteriously possessed her own solution, a secret, and what are all diplomats' secrets compared with this, an enigma, and what in all the world is so beautiful as the word that solves it?
Every person around us is a riddle to us, a riddle with no discoverable answer. We can only guess at the solution, and this mystery drives us to madness when we feel that we are in love, or in lust. What is bewitching to us if not mystery? All beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but what about beauty, about the kind of beauty which enchants us into believing we are in love, is subjective? Why do I fall in love with a stranger on the train, and no with a model on a billboard? What deviance of taste dictates my infatuation with one person over another, of perhaps the same physical beauty (in an objective sense)? What can it be besides a specific strain of mystery? We cannot love what we know, only what we do not know, or only what we imagine we know, what we remember, what we have imagined. Our loves are not the people who touch, feel, see in life, but one million imagined things which we attach to that person, one million relics of our nostalgic past loves, acquaintences, beauties seen or dreamed, one millions constructions of our hopes, desires, imaginations: the irrefutable but intangible potentialities of the future, of the imagination. Giacomo Leopardi wrote in Zibaldone di pensieri:
The past in memory, like the future in our imagination, is more beautiful than the present. Why? Because only the present has a true shape in our mind, it’s the only image of truth, and all truth is ugly.The art of seduction is a simultaneous art of alternating strokes of hope and reminiscence, never of present. It is the alternation between presence and absence: when the object is present, it is all hope, it is all future: the seducer does not see him/her as she is, but as a future conquest, a white flag capitulating to his will. When the object is absent, it is an act of nostalgia which keeps the seducer orbiting him/her in lust: aspects which sparked the initial attraction, archiving of the various and divergent evidence of the object's mystery, sorted and resorted in his/her dossier.
Is Johannes a narcissist? Does he only love himself? That is a question sure to arise in any reader of this diary (and what is a greater sign of narcissism, anyway, than a diary?). It is important to remember the psychological significance of narcissism: it is not self-love, but rather self-loathing. Narcissism is a defense mechanism, it is an excessive mask over and insufficient ego. Narcissism is all surface: it is a love for the mask that is presented to the world. It is compensation for what is lacking inside. Why keep a diary of your feats of seduction, if you are interested only in the mortal and ephemeral conquest of the moment? Virginity, infatuation, are mortal: they die and are transformed. The diary is a memento mori, not a trophy. Words can only firm up one story of history: it is not true nor honest simply because it is written, but writing, recording, forces history to fit our preconceived notions of linearity, of cause and effect, of black and white: of motive and result. If Johannes wants only the fleeting thrill of seduction, the crystalized moment of victory, then his story is a triumph; but as a love story?
Why is Johannes drawn to the villainy of seducer, and not the romance of a lover? Commensurate with his narcissism is an inability to feel deserving of love, of a healthy relationship, a romantic kinship or oneness with another. He can conceive the object of his affection in only a cold and distant way because he is subconsciously afraid of exposing himself to the enterprise of failure. Battles are easily won and forgotten, wars are never fought. It is easier to be the villain than to assume the role of the loser. Better to inspire hate than pity. These are the burdens of Johannes, the terrible fate that he suffers. The Seducer's Diary is neither boast nor apology, it is a wound implicit in the character of Johannes, of Kierkegaard. It is a settling mist which occudes the possibility of endurance, happiness, transcendental beauty, and champions the ephemeral glory of art.
May 3, 2018
Καταρχάς πρόκειται για μυθιστόρημα που δεν εντάσσεται στο φιλοσοφικό corpus του Κίρκεγκωρ, αν και όπως είναι λογικό διαπνέεται από τη φιλοσοφική του σκέψη.
Στο "Ημερολόγιο ενός διαφθορέα" βρισκόμαστε βαθιά μέσα στην επικράτεια της Αισθητικής, όπως αυτή αντιπαρατίθεται στην Ηθική. Ο Αισθητικός (ουδόλως όμως αισθησιακός) χαρακτήρας του Διαφθορέα είναι μοναχικός, απόλυτα ατομικιστής, βιώνοντας μια "ραφιναρισμένη ευζωία". Οι ποιότητες αυτές τον φέρνουν σταθερά σε αντιπαράθεση με τον Ηθικό χαρακτήρα που ζει κοινωνικά, έχοντας καθήκοντα και υποχρεώσεις απέναντι στην κοινωνία.
Συνεπώς, ο Διαφθορέας του έργου, όπως και το έργο της διαφθοράς της νεαρής κοπέλας, είναι μια πράξη της διάνοιας, ένα πνευματικό παιχνίδι κυνικό και μακιαβελικό, όπως στρατηγικά καταστρώνεται και φέρεται εις πέρας από τον Αισθητικό ήρωα.
Στόχος του εκμαυλιστή η διαφθορά του πνεύματος και όχι του σώματος, το απόλυτο βίωμα της στιγμής όπου το αντικείμενο του πόθου του "παύει να είναι και ξεκινάει να υπάρχει".
Όσο ενδιαφέροντα και προκλητικά ως διανοητικό παιχνίδι είναι τα προαναφερθέντα, αντιμετώπισα ομολογουμένως δυσκολία στο να μεθέξω, προκειμένου να απολαύσω το κείμενο. Αυτό οφείλεται κυρίως στην υπεροχή του φιλοσοφικού σε σχέση με το αμιγώς λογοτεχνικό, και συγκεκριμένα στο γεγονός πως οι ήρωες καταγράφονται πρωτίστως ως φορείς ιδεών του συγγραφέα. Κατά την άποψή μου αυτό αφαιρεί την πλαστικότητα και την πολυχρωμία τους. Από τη άλλη πλευρά, ακριβώς αυτή είναι και η πρόθεση του Φιλοσόφου-συγγραφέα…
Στο "Ημερολόγιο ενός διαφθορέα" βρισκόμαστε βαθιά μέσα στην επικράτεια της Αισθητικής, όπως αυτή αντιπαρατίθεται στην Ηθική. Ο Αισθητικός (ουδόλως όμως αισθησιακός) χαρακτήρας του Διαφθορέα είναι μοναχικός, απόλυτα ατομικιστής, βιώνοντας μια "ραφιναρισμένη ευζωία". Οι ποιότητες αυτές τον φέρνουν σταθερά σε αντιπαράθεση με τον Ηθικό χαρακτήρα που ζει κοινωνικά, έχοντας καθήκοντα και υποχρεώσεις απέναντι στην κοινωνία.
Συνεπώς, ο Διαφθορέας του έργου, όπως και το έργο της διαφθοράς της νεαρής κοπέλας, είναι μια πράξη της διάνοιας, ένα πνευματικό παιχνίδι κυνικό και μακιαβελικό, όπως στρατηγικά καταστρώνεται και φέρεται εις πέρας από τον Αισθητικό ήρωα.
Στόχος του εκμαυλιστή η διαφθορά του πνεύματος και όχι του σώματος, το απόλυτο βίωμα της στιγμής όπου το αντικείμενο του πόθου του "παύει να είναι και ξεκινάει να υπάρχει".
Όσο ενδιαφέροντα και προκλητικά ως διανοητικό παιχνίδι είναι τα προαναφερθέντα, αντιμετώπισα ομολογουμένως δυσκολία στο να μεθέξω, προκειμένου να απολαύσω το κείμενο. Αυτό οφείλεται κυρίως στην υπεροχή του φιλοσοφικού σε σχέση με το αμιγώς λογοτεχνικό, και συγκεκριμένα στο γεγονός πως οι ήρωες καταγράφονται πρωτίστως ως φορείς ιδεών του συγγραφέα. Κατά την άποψή μου αυτό αφαιρεί την πλαστικότητα και την πολυχρωμία τους. Από τη άλλη πλευρά, ακριβώς αυτή είναι και η πρόθεση του Φιλοσόφου-συγγραφέα…
June 14, 2015
In the vast literature of love, The Seducer's Diary is an intricate curiosity--a feverishly intellectual attempt to reconstruct an erotic failure as a pedagogic success, a wound masked as a boast. – John Updike in his introduction to The Seducer's Diary
Regine Olsen occupies a central role in Kierkegaard's thought and writings, and indeed a unique position in the history of all of Western philosophy. It can be argued that no other single woman has been so instrumental in a major philosopher's development as Regine was to Kierkegaard. In some ways, it is difficult to understand Kierkegaard fully without at least a cursory knowledge of his failed relationship to Regine. – Wikipedia entry on Regine Olsen
Updike's introduction wasn't included in the Penguin Great Loves edition I read, but I can't imagine a better summing-up of this novella's contents. You need a bit of context to understand The Seducer's Diary: Kierkegaard wrote it shortly after breaking off his engagement to Regine Olsen, having given up the relationship to pursue what he saw as his spiritual calling, and it's universally regarded as his attempt to re-contextualise this event for the heartbroken Olsen, portraying what happened between them as a calculated seduction on his part. One might question whether this would really make things easier for the rejected party (!) but, by all accounts, the object was to push her away, make her believe she was a pawn in a game so that she would be less inclined to pursue a reconciliation and more inclined to 'move on'. To this end, Kierkegaard casts himself as the manipulative narrator, Johannes, while the Regine character is named Cordelia.
Johannes is essentially a professional seducer who pursues women only to the point that they are ready to give everything to him; then he abandons them, seeing them as tainted, and moves on to his next target. His pursuit of Cordelia is a meticulously planned game of cat-and-mouse in which he seeks to exploit every aspect of her character, claiming his love for her is pure - in fact, the purest - while his behaviour remains consistently heartless and self-serving. Johannes is so Machiavellian that he almost seems to have comical, pantomime-villain qualities - you can just imagine him twirling his moustache - and without any knowledge of the real-life events that led to Kierkegaard writing this story, he'd just seem like a singularly awful protagonist. With that knowledge, though, the whole thing becomes tragically ironic, and the narrator's frequent references to past conquests go from comically obnoxious to desperately sad (especially since Kierkegaard is believed to have remained celibate for the rest of his life).
I already knew that The Seducer's Diary was part of a much larger work - Either/Or - but I assumed, since it's been published on its own numerous times, that it would make sense in isolation. And it does, but at the same time I think it's obvious it is a component of something bigger, particularly at the end when it seems to come to rather an abrupt halt. It's certainly possible to read it on its own and enjoy/appreciate it, but I think it would perhaps feel more fulfilling in the original context.
Regine Olsen occupies a central role in Kierkegaard's thought and writings, and indeed a unique position in the history of all of Western philosophy. It can be argued that no other single woman has been so instrumental in a major philosopher's development as Regine was to Kierkegaard. In some ways, it is difficult to understand Kierkegaard fully without at least a cursory knowledge of his failed relationship to Regine. – Wikipedia entry on Regine Olsen
Updike's introduction wasn't included in the Penguin Great Loves edition I read, but I can't imagine a better summing-up of this novella's contents. You need a bit of context to understand The Seducer's Diary: Kierkegaard wrote it shortly after breaking off his engagement to Regine Olsen, having given up the relationship to pursue what he saw as his spiritual calling, and it's universally regarded as his attempt to re-contextualise this event for the heartbroken Olsen, portraying what happened between them as a calculated seduction on his part. One might question whether this would really make things easier for the rejected party (!) but, by all accounts, the object was to push her away, make her believe she was a pawn in a game so that she would be less inclined to pursue a reconciliation and more inclined to 'move on'. To this end, Kierkegaard casts himself as the manipulative narrator, Johannes, while the Regine character is named Cordelia.
Johannes is essentially a professional seducer who pursues women only to the point that they are ready to give everything to him; then he abandons them, seeing them as tainted, and moves on to his next target. His pursuit of Cordelia is a meticulously planned game of cat-and-mouse in which he seeks to exploit every aspect of her character, claiming his love for her is pure - in fact, the purest - while his behaviour remains consistently heartless and self-serving. Johannes is so Machiavellian that he almost seems to have comical, pantomime-villain qualities - you can just imagine him twirling his moustache - and without any knowledge of the real-life events that led to Kierkegaard writing this story, he'd just seem like a singularly awful protagonist. With that knowledge, though, the whole thing becomes tragically ironic, and the narrator's frequent references to past conquests go from comically obnoxious to desperately sad (especially since Kierkegaard is believed to have remained celibate for the rest of his life).
I already knew that The Seducer's Diary was part of a much larger work - Either/Or - but I assumed, since it's been published on its own numerous times, that it would make sense in isolation. And it does, but at the same time I think it's obvious it is a component of something bigger, particularly at the end when it seems to come to rather an abrupt halt. It's certainly possible to read it on its own and enjoy/appreciate it, but I think it would perhaps feel more fulfilling in the original context.
April 14, 2016
من پاییز و زمستان سال قبل رو با این کتاب سر کردم، و حدود نصفش رو ترجمه کردم و قصدم این بود که به صورت رایگان روی اینترنت منتشرش کنم. امسال توسط یکی از دوستان گودریدز متوجه شدم که کسی این کتاب رو (که بخشی از کتاب بلند کیرکگور به نام "یا این یا آن" هستش) ترجمه کرده و قراره امسال منتشر بشه. این شد که کار ترجمه نصفه کاره رها شد.
از کتاب
یک دختر مثل یک پسر رشد نمی کند؛ یک پسر بی درنگ پس از تولّد شروع به رشد می کند و مدّت ها طول می کشد تا رشدش کامل شود. اما یک دختر مدّت ها طول می کشد تا متولّد شود، ولی وقتی متولّد می شود، به صورت رشد یافته متولّد می شود.
فقط «ونوس»، الهه ی زیبایی، نبود که در نهایت کمال و زیبایی خود، ناگهان از دل دریا زاده شد؛ هر دختری این گونه است، البته اگر رشد داده شدن های اجباری، زنانگی اش را از بین نبرده باشند، اگر دیگران این قدر احمق نبوده باشند که زود از این رؤیاى زيبا بیدارش کنند، رؤیایی که ثروت نامتناهی هر دختر است.
از کتاب
یک دختر مثل یک پسر رشد نمی کند؛ یک پسر بی درنگ پس از تولّد شروع به رشد می کند و مدّت ها طول می کشد تا رشدش کامل شود. اما یک دختر مدّت ها طول می کشد تا متولّد شود، ولی وقتی متولّد می شود، به صورت رشد یافته متولّد می شود.
فقط «ونوس»، الهه ی زیبایی، نبود که در نهایت کمال و زیبایی خود، ناگهان از دل دریا زاده شد؛ هر دختری این گونه است، البته اگر رشد داده شدن های اجباری، زنانگی اش را از بین نبرده باشند، اگر دیگران این قدر احمق نبوده باشند که زود از این رؤیاى زيبا بیدارش کنند، رؤیایی که ثروت نامتناهی هر دختر است.
November 28, 2019
This book not only provides insight into Kierkegaard's early thinking and writing but also gives the reader a view of Danish society in the mid 19th century. It was first published in 1843. I enjoyed it even if I did find it a bit difficult going at times. The Danish language, in spelling and vocabulary, was quite different 176 years ago!
November 17, 2020
Un libro que si bien se puede leer como una novela, es un poco más recomendable entender un poco del pensamiento de Kierkegaard para entenderla al 100%, ya que a pesar de que trae pensamientos filosóficos muy buenos y escritos poéticos muy hermosos, principalmente la segunda mitad resulta un poco más pesada ya que se abandona un poco la historia para dejarse llevar por sus teorías filosóficas.
Y sobre la historia, efectivamente aquí encontramos el diario de Johannes donde nos describe cómo va a ser su proceso de manipulación para enamorar a una mujer y posteriormente las decisiones que tomara con respecto a esa relación.
Y sobre la historia, efectivamente aquí encontramos el diario de Johannes donde nos describe cómo va a ser su proceso de manipulación para enamorar a una mujer y posteriormente las decisiones que tomara con respecto a esa relación.
August 12, 2020
Que bestialidad de libro y la manera de escribir de Kierkegaard. Me la he pasado después investigando sobre su compromiso roto, que historia de vida la del autor.
September 18, 2010
I was reminded of this book when I got to the big seduction scene in Cohen's Belle du Seigneur. Solal spends about 30 pages describing in great detail to Ariane all the psychological tricks he uses when he goes about performing a seduction, complaining that women are dumb enough to fall for it, and indeed require this kind of treatment. He is ostensibly doing it to repulse her, but in fact his explanation is very seductive, and indeed works brilliantly. I get the impression that Kierkegaard was doing pretty much the same thing with Regine, the girl he was keen on, though in real life the effect seems to have been the opposite; they broke up, and never got back together again. Maybe he was doing her a favor, since the couple in Cohen's novel don't exactly have a happy life together. It's not clear to me whether Cohen is explicitly referring to Kierkegaard, but I think that there are too many parallels for it to be a coincidence.
David Lodge's novel Therapy, on the other hand, makes numerous explicit references to the Kierkegard/Regine relationship. Basically, Lodge thinks that Kierkegaard was a complete asshole, and should just have had more sense. It's interesting to see what different takes Cohen and Lodge have on this affair.
__________________________________________
In Kjærstad's Wergeland trilogy, a veritable goldmine when it comes to Scandinavian trivia, there is speculation that Kierkegaard broke up with Regine because he discovered that he had syphilis. I don't think we should take this too seriously, however - the character presenting the argument was pretty drunk at the time.
David Lodge's novel Therapy, on the other hand, makes numerous explicit references to the Kierkegard/Regine relationship. Basically, Lodge thinks that Kierkegaard was a complete asshole, and should just have had more sense. It's interesting to see what different takes Cohen and Lodge have on this affair.
__________________________________________
In Kjærstad's Wergeland trilogy, a veritable goldmine when it comes to Scandinavian trivia, there is speculation that Kierkegaard broke up with Regine because he discovered that he had syphilis. I don't think we should take this too seriously, however - the character presenting the argument was pretty drunk at the time.
February 11, 2013
Reason for reading:
Soren Kierkegaard is regarded as one of the first, if not the very first, existentialist philosophers. The Seducer’s Diary is one part of a greater work Either / Or. It is also one of the 20 books in the Penguin Great Loves collection. Given its reputation I was sure I couldn’t go wrong.
About the book:
This is a book made up of diary entries and letters. Johannes, the writer, boasts of his skills in the art of seducing women. He talks of his abilities to keep a distance while all the time luring them in. with emotional manipulation. His diary covers his pursuit of the innocent young Cordelia, even to the point of engagement. He betrays his friend Edvard, who is genuinely in love with her, for the sake of his own sport. But just as Cordelia is ready to give herself completely she begins to understand what has happened.
Quote, unquote:
My letters do not fail of their purpose. They are developing her mentally, if not erotically. For that I have to use notes. The more prominent the erotic becomes, the shorter the notes will be, but all the more certain to grasp the erotic point. Nevertheless in order not to make her sentimental or soft, irony stiffens her feelings again, but also gives her appetite for the nourishment most dear to her. The notes give distant and vague hints of the highest. The moment this presentiment begins to dawn in her soul, the relationship fractures. Through my resistance, the presentiment takes shape in her soul as though it was her own thought, her own heart’s inclination. It’s just what I want.
What was good:
At least it was short. And the format was, in theory, a good one.
What wasn't good:
Just because a book is ‘important’ doesn’t mean it is a great read and for me this was certainly true with The Seducer’s Diary. This is a book that I only finished because I was reading it as one of the 52 and didn’t want to give up. None of the characters were the slightest bit appealing. I love Denmark, but this work made the country seem dull. Unless someone comes up with a very convincing argument to the contrary, that is the first and last piece of Kierkegaard's work I shall be reading.
Soren Kierkegaard is regarded as one of the first, if not the very first, existentialist philosophers. The Seducer’s Diary is one part of a greater work Either / Or. It is also one of the 20 books in the Penguin Great Loves collection. Given its reputation I was sure I couldn’t go wrong.
About the book:
This is a book made up of diary entries and letters. Johannes, the writer, boasts of his skills in the art of seducing women. He talks of his abilities to keep a distance while all the time luring them in. with emotional manipulation. His diary covers his pursuit of the innocent young Cordelia, even to the point of engagement. He betrays his friend Edvard, who is genuinely in love with her, for the sake of his own sport. But just as Cordelia is ready to give herself completely she begins to understand what has happened.
Quote, unquote:
My letters do not fail of their purpose. They are developing her mentally, if not erotically. For that I have to use notes. The more prominent the erotic becomes, the shorter the notes will be, but all the more certain to grasp the erotic point. Nevertheless in order not to make her sentimental or soft, irony stiffens her feelings again, but also gives her appetite for the nourishment most dear to her. The notes give distant and vague hints of the highest. The moment this presentiment begins to dawn in her soul, the relationship fractures. Through my resistance, the presentiment takes shape in her soul as though it was her own thought, her own heart’s inclination. It’s just what I want.
What was good:
At least it was short. And the format was, in theory, a good one.
What wasn't good:
Just because a book is ‘important’ doesn’t mean it is a great read and for me this was certainly true with The Seducer’s Diary. This is a book that I only finished because I was reading it as one of the 52 and didn’t want to give up. None of the characters were the slightest bit appealing. I love Denmark, but this work made the country seem dull. Unless someone comes up with a very convincing argument to the contrary, that is the first and last piece of Kierkegaard's work I shall be reading.
February 22, 2021
Au début de ma lecture, j'ai cru, à tort, que j'allais lire un miroir du chef-d'oeuvre de Choderlos de Laclos, Les liaisons dangereuses. Pour le dire autrement, j'ai pensé que ce séducteur serait un jouisseur, au sens charnel, un libertin poussé par ses désirs, cruel non par volonté mais par individualisme. Que nenni !
J'y ai retrouvé un élément similaire cependant, cette exaltation du lecteur de suivre un personnage qui sait, qui joue de ce savoir, de cette analyse supérieure de la psychologie d'autrui, dans un monde où on est sans y réfléchir outre mesure. Un homme qui jouit de vaincre une femme au jeu où elle est sensée être une maîtresse incontestée, à savoir la séduction.
Cette intrigue pourrait être un roman. Kierkegaard l'a d'ailleurs écrit sous la forme d'une fiction. Cependant je ne suis pas surprise que Folio le classe dans leur collection Folio Essais. Cette trame narrative ne vient que servir - et dans un style brillant, incisif - un propos sur les rapports de séduction entre les hommes et les femmes. Et je crois que c'est là que réside la force de Kierkegaard, de ne pas avoir écrit un banal essai peuplé d'aphorismes douteux, mais d'avoir embrassé la fiction comme l'unique moyen de toucher les cœurs, et par là même d'atteindre la complexité de la pensée. Et à mon sens, dans le dernier tiers, en se fourvoyant quelque peu en dehors de la cohérence narrative, il s'est alors perdu, s'éloignant de mes émotions et donc de mon intérêt.
Et pourtant, comment ne pas conseiller cet ouvrage d'un autre siècle (1843), dont la thématique reste pourtant intemporelle ? A mon sens, on ne peut s'enorgueillir d'avoir une réflexion profonde, si on ne s'intéresse pas aux rapports conscients et inconscients entre les hommes et les femmes, et plus particulièrement à leur essence.
J'y ai retrouvé un élément similaire cependant, cette exaltation du lecteur de suivre un personnage qui sait, qui joue de ce savoir, de cette analyse supérieure de la psychologie d'autrui, dans un monde où on est sans y réfléchir outre mesure. Un homme qui jouit de vaincre une femme au jeu où elle est sensée être une maîtresse incontestée, à savoir la séduction.
Cette intrigue pourrait être un roman. Kierkegaard l'a d'ailleurs écrit sous la forme d'une fiction. Cependant je ne suis pas surprise que Folio le classe dans leur collection Folio Essais. Cette trame narrative ne vient que servir - et dans un style brillant, incisif - un propos sur les rapports de séduction entre les hommes et les femmes. Et je crois que c'est là que réside la force de Kierkegaard, de ne pas avoir écrit un banal essai peuplé d'aphorismes douteux, mais d'avoir embrassé la fiction comme l'unique moyen de toucher les cœurs, et par là même d'atteindre la complexité de la pensée. Et à mon sens, dans le dernier tiers, en se fourvoyant quelque peu en dehors de la cohérence narrative, il s'est alors perdu, s'éloignant de mes émotions et donc de mon intérêt.
Et pourtant, comment ne pas conseiller cet ouvrage d'un autre siècle (1843), dont la thématique reste pourtant intemporelle ? A mon sens, on ne peut s'enorgueillir d'avoir une réflexion profonde, si on ne s'intéresse pas aux rapports conscients et inconscients entre les hommes et les femmes, et plus particulièrement à leur essence.
September 20, 2015
The seducer is Johannes. He sees the girl, and he is determined to make her his. He writes a diary in which his plan is outlined to make her fall for him. He stalks her. He learns her name is Cordelia. He makes her acquaintance. He becomes engaged to her. The final stage: He drives her to break off the engagement. Hunting is his game. The killed game does not interest him. He already has another girl in mind. He's an arsehole.
How much of the seducer Johannes is in Kierkegaard? Wikipedia says this about him, Kierkegaard, and Regine Olsen, the fiancee:
Furthermore the Johannes character is so far away from the author Kierkegaard that it makes it hard for me to believe the story is autobiographical at all. Johannes wrote a diary. It was found by A., an anonymous character. A. claims he read the diary, made some hasty notes, and this story is the fair copy of these notes. So A. basically admits he's not very reliable. The story was first published as a part of Either/Or, Kirkegaard's major work and this book was written under the pen name Victor Eremita (Latin for "victorious hermit"). Or, to put it the other way: Kierkegaard lets an alter ego write a book in which an anonymous and fictional character reproduces a diary he found of another fictional character Johannes.
Very autobiographical this is not to me, but very readable.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
How much of the seducer Johannes is in Kierkegaard? Wikipedia says this about him, Kierkegaard, and Regine Olsen, the fiancee:
An important aspect of Kierkegaard's life – generally considered to have had a major influence on his work – was his broken engagement to Regine Olsen (1822–1904). Kierkegaard and Olsen met on 8 May 1837 [she was 14, he was 24] and were instantly attracted to each other, but sometime around 11 August 1838 he had second thoughts. [...] On 8 September 1840, Kierkegaard formally proposed to Olsen. He soon felt disillusioned about his prospects. He broke off the engagement on 11 August 1841, though it is generally believed that the two were deeply in love. In his journals, Kierkegaard mentions his belief that his "melancholy" made him unsuitable for marriage, but his precise motive for ending the engagement remains unclear.Does this description match the seducer's diary? The basic facts and time frame match. But the inner thoughts of Kierkegaard and his motives cannot possible be compared to the diary in my opinion. Maybe Kierkegaard wanted to justify his actions and invented the story to make him look bad. Maybe he wanted Regine to take it more easy. Maybe he wrote in anger after he learned about Regine's marriage to another man. Maybe he discovered he was gay, and couldn't reconcile this fact with his deep religious beliefs. Maybe he was an arsehole. We cannot possible know.
Furthermore the Johannes character is so far away from the author Kierkegaard that it makes it hard for me to believe the story is autobiographical at all. Johannes wrote a diary. It was found by A., an anonymous character. A. claims he read the diary, made some hasty notes, and this story is the fair copy of these notes. So A. basically admits he's not very reliable. The story was first published as a part of Either/Or, Kirkegaard's major work and this book was written under the pen name Victor Eremita (Latin for "victorious hermit"). Or, to put it the other way: Kierkegaard lets an alter ego write a book in which an anonymous and fictional character reproduces a diary he found of another fictional character Johannes.
Very autobiographical this is not to me, but very readable.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
October 30, 2021
Nếu đọc cuốn này cách đây chục năm, có lẽ sẽ thấy hâm mộ khả năng mị tình, dẫn dụ của tác giả; nhưng giờ đây, với sự khai sáng và kinh nghiệm cá nhân, câu chuyện trong cuốn sách trở nên hoàn toàn thân thuộc: Coi tình yêu chỉ như một khía cạnh của nghệ thuật. Yêu thông thường có lẽ là nhạt nhẽo quá, nên phải tìm ra nhiều trò mị tình: nâng tầm người tình, biến nạn nhân thành hung thủ và ngược lại, biến có thành không và ngược lại,...
Nhưng thật ra, anh Johannes cũng chẳng có gì ghê gớm lắm. Những điều mà tôi - một kẻ có kinh nghiệm - chờ đợi anh ta thì anh ta không làm được. Ví dụ, anh ta chọn một con mồi quá dễ. Không ai ưa mạo hiểm lại chọn nhảy qua cái hào nông cả. Cái kết của anh ta cũng quá tầm thường: im bặt bỏ đi. Chẳng đâu xa, tôi có thể lấy một ví dụ thành công hơn nhiều là ông Trịnh Công Sơn nhà mình. Ông ta đóng vai nạn nhân rất tốt trong khi thực tế, Dao Ánh chỉ là một công cụ nghệ thuật. Nói chung, nghệ thuật mị tình là 1 chuyện, cái chính là anh phải hoành tráng, như trong trường hợp này là người có đầu óc nổi bật lắm fan girl.
Điểm chê khác của cuốn sách là thiếu tính thuyết phục, mang tính lý tưởng hơn là thực tế. Anh Johannes này ảo tưởng sức mạnh, nói ghê lắm nhưng hành động thì lại không được như vậy. Tôi đọc tiểu sử ông Kierkegaard thì thấy sách là bản lý tưởng hóa chính mối tình của ông này. Trong sách, ông này kiểu Don Juan sành điệu lắm nhưng thực tế thì: hoặc ông ta quá kính Chúa, hoặc ông ta bất lực, hoặc ông ta là gay.
Kierkegaard đã mở đầu sách rất hay. Tôi đã kỳ vọng vào điều ông ấy gợi mở đó là một trường hợp chơi dao bị đứt tay. Tôi đã kỳ vọng anh chàng này sẽ có phần 2, gặp một đối thủ xứng tầm, hay bị tình yêu quật. Nhưng cuối cùng thì vậy đó haiz. Lý thuyết về tha nhân đọc nghe cũng rất chán nản.
Anw, vẫn chấm cho 4* vì văn chương trúc trắc, có tính giải trí trí tuệ tốt. Thật chán khi phải đọc kiểu văn chương không có tính thách đố. Ngoài ra, sách chỉ là 1 chương trong cuốn lớn khác. Thật tệ khi tách 1 chương ra khỏi tổng thể. Bạn nào đọc nhiều Kierkegaard cho hỏi có bản nâng cấp của cuốn này không?
Nhưng thật ra, anh Johannes cũng chẳng có gì ghê gớm lắm. Những điều mà tôi - một kẻ có kinh nghiệm - chờ đợi anh ta thì anh ta không làm được. Ví dụ, anh ta chọn một con mồi quá dễ. Không ai ưa mạo hiểm lại chọn nhảy qua cái hào nông cả. Cái kết của anh ta cũng quá tầm thường: im bặt bỏ đi. Chẳng đâu xa, tôi có thể lấy một ví dụ thành công hơn nhiều là ông Trịnh Công Sơn nhà mình. Ông ta đóng vai nạn nhân rất tốt trong khi thực tế, Dao Ánh chỉ là một công cụ nghệ thuật. Nói chung, nghệ thuật mị tình là 1 chuyện, cái chính là anh phải hoành tráng, như trong trường hợp này là người có đầu óc nổi bật lắm fan girl.
Điểm chê khác của cuốn sách là thiếu tính thuyết phục, mang tính lý tưởng hơn là thực tế. Anh Johannes này ảo tưởng sức mạnh, nói ghê lắm nhưng hành động thì lại không được như vậy. Tôi đọc tiểu sử ông Kierkegaard thì thấy sách là bản lý tưởng hóa chính mối tình của ông này. Trong sách, ông này kiểu Don Juan sành điệu lắm nhưng thực tế thì: hoặc ông ta quá kính Chúa, hoặc ông ta bất lực, hoặc ông ta là gay.
Kierkegaard đã mở đầu sách rất hay. Tôi đã kỳ vọng vào điều ông ấy gợi mở đó là một trường hợp chơi dao bị đứt tay. Tôi đã kỳ vọng anh chàng này sẽ có phần 2, gặp một đối thủ xứng tầm, hay bị tình yêu quật. Nhưng cuối cùng thì vậy đó haiz. Lý thuyết về tha nhân đọc nghe cũng rất chán nản.
Anw, vẫn chấm cho 4* vì văn chương trúc trắc, có tính giải trí trí tuệ tốt. Thật chán khi phải đọc kiểu văn chương không có tính thách đố. Ngoài ra, sách chỉ là 1 chương trong cuốn lớn khác. Thật tệ khi tách 1 chương ra khỏi tổng thể. Bạn nào đọc nhiều Kierkegaard cho hỏi có bản nâng cấp của cuốn này không?
October 19, 2022
I picked this up in a little hole-in-the-wall shop three months ago, purely for aesthetic reasons—the gorgeous, letterpressed cover. And I guess the lesson was, sometimes you can tell the book by it after all.
May 18, 2021
Soeren Kierkegaard beschreibt in seinem Buch das taktierende Vorgehen beim Umwerben einer Liebe. Sein Ziel ist demnach nicht die Liebe selbst, sondern der Weg und die Lust des Jagens. Der Weg ist sein Ziel! Mit Geschick und Raffinesse plant er akribisch sein Vorgehen. Aber ab dem Zeitpunkt des Erreichens wird dieser Weg und damit das Ziel uninteressant.
Ich bin kein Freund von taktilen Spielen und schon gar nicht in der Liebe. Wenn man in der Liebe nach einem ausgereiften Plan agieren muss, so ist die Liebe für mich nicht mehr natürlich gegeben und kann sich auch nicht mehr natürlich entwickeln. Das ist aber für mich eine grundlegende Voraussetzung für eine bedingungslose Liebe.
Gewiss haben wir alle in den Anfängen unserer Erfahrungen mit der Liebe zum ein oder anderen Spielchen gegriffen, um das Objekt der Begierde auf uns aufmerksam zu machen und sogar in unsere Richtung zu lenken.
Umso schöner ist es, wenn man in der Liebe dann doch erfahren und erleben darf, dass bei der wahren Liebe keine Spielchen gebraucht werden und der Weg dorthin noch viel intensiver sein kann als der Weg des Jagens.
Dennoch hat der Autor hier wesentliches auf den Punkt gebracht.
Ich bin kein Freund von taktilen Spielen und schon gar nicht in der Liebe. Wenn man in der Liebe nach einem ausgereiften Plan agieren muss, so ist die Liebe für mich nicht mehr natürlich gegeben und kann sich auch nicht mehr natürlich entwickeln. Das ist aber für mich eine grundlegende Voraussetzung für eine bedingungslose Liebe.
Gewiss haben wir alle in den Anfängen unserer Erfahrungen mit der Liebe zum ein oder anderen Spielchen gegriffen, um das Objekt der Begierde auf uns aufmerksam zu machen und sogar in unsere Richtung zu lenken.
Umso schöner ist es, wenn man in der Liebe dann doch erfahren und erleben darf, dass bei der wahren Liebe keine Spielchen gebraucht werden und der Weg dorthin noch viel intensiver sein kann als der Weg des Jagens.
Dennoch hat der Autor hier wesentliches auf den Punkt gebracht.
December 23, 2011
This was deadly boring and seems rather naive as a part of a philosophical work.
As for the main character seducing girls had been an esthetically tempting exercise and his only occupation throughout the book. But the author (showing us all the imaginable aspects of the character's challenge) is merely endlessly polishing up his graphomania and recuperating from the guilt trips we can barely share or understand.
It's a shame this book is much less than it could be, even considering the ages passed. Though from time to time, it still gives you ideas to think about (re-evaluating your moral principles), but only in the way of an anthropological discourse of how much the man had changed throughout the centuries. Definitely in some spheres the man is still in battle with the same demons, regardless to all the technological progress and the years passed.
As for the main character seducing girls had been an esthetically tempting exercise and his only occupation throughout the book. But the author (showing us all the imaginable aspects of the character's challenge) is merely endlessly polishing up his graphomania and recuperating from the guilt trips we can barely share or understand.
It's a shame this book is much less than it could be, even considering the ages passed. Though from time to time, it still gives you ideas to think about (re-evaluating your moral principles), but only in the way of an anthropological discourse of how much the man had changed throughout the centuries. Definitely in some spheres the man is still in battle with the same demons, regardless to all the technological progress and the years passed.
Read
February 17, 2023Mul jäi paar lk lugemata, sest need olid välja rebitud..
May 11, 2019
"Dnevnik zavodnika" je komad većeg dela "Ili/Ili" i sada mi je krivo što nisam odmah uzeo sve to da isčitam, no veliki broj strana me je preplašio :D
Uz "Dnevnik zavodnik", na kraju su priloženi i momenti iz ličnog dnevnika Sorena Kjerkegora koji prikazuju suprotnosti između njega i lika zavodnika opisanog u prvom delu knjige. Potom i pogovor koji je napisao prevodilac u kojem dalje pokušava da pomiri te na prvi pogled nepomirljive suprotnosti. Tako da na kraju ipak ova knjiga može donekle stajati na svojim nogama.
Uz "Dnevnik zavodnik", na kraju su priloženi i momenti iz ličnog dnevnika Sorena Kjerkegora koji prikazuju suprotnosti između njega i lika zavodnika opisanog u prvom delu knjige. Potom i pogovor koji je napisao prevodilac u kojem dalje pokušava da pomiri te na prvi pogled nepomirljive suprotnosti. Tako da na kraju ipak ova knjiga može donekle stajati na svojim nogama.
October 29, 2019
A painstakingly detailed portrayal of a seducer outlined by himself, this book is redolent of The Underground Notes by Dostoevsky and The Fall by Albert Camus.
Записки из подполья
La Chute
-------------------------------------
Étude particulièrement fouillée du profil d'un séducteur que je rapproche des Carnets du Sous-Sol de Fyodor Dostoïevski et de la Chute d'Albert Camus !
Lu dans la traduction française.
Записки из подполья
La Chute
-------------------------------------
Étude particulièrement fouillée du profil d'un séducteur que je rapproche des Carnets du Sous-Sol de Fyodor Dostoïevski et de la Chute d'Albert Camus !
Lu dans la traduction française.
January 9, 2020
Ce i place dragostei ? Infinitul
De ce se teme dragostea? De limite
De ce se teme dragostea? De limite
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 23, 2023
İlk başlarda çok içine çekmese de okudukça hoşuma giden bir kurgu bu. Soğuk İskandinav ülkesi Danimarka'dan böyle ihtiraslı bir aşk hikayesi beklemiyor insan. https://egecita.com/bastan-cikaricini...
February 11, 2021
Tremendo derroche de misoginia, pero muy interesante para entender los arquetipos donjuanescos. Además soy un poco adicta a Kierkegaard ahora mismo, eso debo reconocerlo.
May 24, 2018
È incredibile la maniera in cui Kierkegaard impregna le pagine di spunti poetici attraverso una scrittura che è, essa stessa, poetica. Il diario è l'incarnazione della vita estetica, messa in scena dalla figura di Giovanni, abile manipolatore che tesse un gioco erotico che interseca vittime - tra le quali primeggia Cordelia - prima folgorandole con la sua arte, e poi abbandonandole alla loro disperazione.
Giovanni può essere riassunto così, attraverso le parole di Cordelia: "Talvolta egli era così spirituale che io come donna mi sentivo annichilita, talaltra così impetuoso e appassionato e seducente che io quasi tremavo innanzi a lui. Talvolta sembrava che gli fossi sconosciuta, talaltra tutto s'abbandonava a me; se mai poi lo cingevo con le mie braccia, allora improvvisamente tutto svaniva e io non abbracciavo che nuvole. Conoscevo questa espressione già prima di conoscere lui ma egli m'insegnò a comprenderla, e ogni volta che l'adopero sempre penso a lui che, credo, riesce a conoscere ogni mio pensiero. (...) Non una sola mia parola era priva d'effetto per lui, e pure non saprei dire se alle mie parole non ne mancò, perché mi era impossibile sapere quale effetto avrebbero sortito."
Una figura - vista alla luce della modernità - chiaramente problematica, ma ciononostante affascinante. Una lettura consigliatissima che, come qualcuno mi ha suggerito, 'fa bene all Coscienza'.
Giovanni può essere riassunto così, attraverso le parole di Cordelia: "Talvolta egli era così spirituale che io come donna mi sentivo annichilita, talaltra così impetuoso e appassionato e seducente che io quasi tremavo innanzi a lui. Talvolta sembrava che gli fossi sconosciuta, talaltra tutto s'abbandonava a me; se mai poi lo cingevo con le mie braccia, allora improvvisamente tutto svaniva e io non abbracciavo che nuvole. Conoscevo questa espressione già prima di conoscere lui ma egli m'insegnò a comprenderla, e ogni volta che l'adopero sempre penso a lui che, credo, riesce a conoscere ogni mio pensiero. (...) Non una sola mia parola era priva d'effetto per lui, e pure non saprei dire se alle mie parole non ne mancò, perché mi era impossibile sapere quale effetto avrebbero sortito."
Una figura - vista alla luce della modernità - chiaramente problematica, ma ciononostante affascinante. Una lettura consigliatissima che, come qualcuno mi ha suggerito, 'fa bene all Coscienza'.
September 7, 2012
I rarely get so excited to read a book. How could it not be brilliant? It's a philosopher I thoroughly enjoy (Fear and Trembling, for example, is brilliant), writing about a subject that's always intriguing (young love gone wrong), with an approach that is sure to be complicated and thoughtful (trying to make himself look like the bad guy). Honestly, I've been fascinated by Kierkegaard and Olsen's relationship since I first heard a summary of their lives.
So I can't begin to describe the disappointment I felt in reading this. It takes dozens of pages for any advancement of plot to take place (for instance, it takes 50 pages just for the main character to learn her name is Cordelia). The style is dense (which encourages you to read slower) but then the content is mostly whiny drivel; small unimportant details are expanded into multiple paragraphs of rhetorical questions and the metaphors center around cliche images and language. In the last 40 pages there are a few rare moments of philosophical musing, but mostly it feels like the journal entries of an unusually intelligent pre-teen.
I am glad so many other reviewers seemed to enjoy this book. As for me, I just don't see the appeal.
So I can't begin to describe the disappointment I felt in reading this. It takes dozens of pages for any advancement of plot to take place (for instance, it takes 50 pages just for the main character to learn her name is Cordelia). The style is dense (which encourages you to read slower) but then the content is mostly whiny drivel; small unimportant details are expanded into multiple paragraphs of rhetorical questions and the metaphors center around cliche images and language. In the last 40 pages there are a few rare moments of philosophical musing, but mostly it feels like the journal entries of an unusually intelligent pre-teen.
I am glad so many other reviewers seemed to enjoy this book. As for me, I just don't see the appeal.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 628 reviews