What do you think?
Rate this book
Must We Burn Sade?
The Marquis de Sade (1740-1814) has been labeled everything from a sadomasochistic pornographer (The 120 Days of Sodom) to the fiction writer responsible for the ideas that led to the Nazi death camps. Must We Burn Sade? peels away the negative legacy that has shrouded Sade for too long. Deepak Narang Sawhney points out that "Sade's legacy has been neglected, recreated, fictionalized, and venerated by medical guilds, literary hacks, religious detractors, and intellectual movements. In the past two centuries, Sade has come to represent many things for many people. . . . It is unclear whether we know Sade the writer or the apparatus which has been set up to either condemn or to sanctify his life and work."
By contrast, this intriguing collection of essays seeks to examine Sade for what he was—a writer of novels and letters, a creator of plays and stories, and an author of essays and political manifestos. The contributors examine the literary, theatrical, political, social, and philosophical aspects of Sade's work, acquitting him of the false accusations and trials that have plagued his name by revealing his influences and motivations, and by providing an understanding of society's fear of Sade. What is so alarming about Sade's books that civilized society has felt compelled to disassociate itself from his works? This volume forces us to rethink Sade. Included are essays by Kathy Acker, David Allison, Georges Bataille, Catherine Cusset, Lucienne Frappier-Mazur, Annie Le Brun, Alphonso Lingis, Stephen Pfohl, Deepak Narang Sawhney, Philippe Sollers, and Alistair Welchman.
By contrast, this intriguing collection of essays seeks to examine Sade for what he was—a writer of novels and letters, a creator of plays and stories, and an author of essays and political manifestos. The contributors examine the literary, theatrical, political, social, and philosophical aspects of Sade's work, acquitting him of the false accusations and trials that have plagued his name by revealing his influences and motivations, and by providing an understanding of society's fear of Sade. What is so alarming about Sade's books that civilized society has felt compelled to disassociate itself from his works? This volume forces us to rethink Sade. Included are essays by Kathy Acker, David Allison, Georges Bataille, Catherine Cusset, Lucienne Frappier-Mazur, Annie Le Brun, Alphonso Lingis, Stephen Pfohl, Deepak Narang Sawhney, Philippe Sollers, and Alistair Welchman.
- GenresPhilosophy
262 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1999
4 people are currently reading
54 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 7, 2018
As a previous reviewer has noted, this collection of essays is of mixed value. It implies, or should implie, a familiarity with the foundational theoretical studies of Sade (I am thinking here of those by Bataille, Blanchot, Klossowski, and de Beauvoir) - a prior understanding of these can help to elucidate thwse texts (many being based entirely off of them) or else even refuted by them (thus rendering some of these texts invalidated). In the end, it comes down to the purpose you have for looking to this collection. If you want a wider understanding of the interpretive value of Sade's works, then this collection is useful. That being said, for my own use I found some of the pieces to be less than useful, and a few I did not even read.
What follows is a short explication of the import of a handful of the collected pieces:
Sawhney's opening essay, "Unmasking Sade," does an adequate job of setting the stage for the rest of the work to be done by this collection: to tear apart the mythical mask surrounding Sade's works in attempts at engaging with what these works really imply and demand. He alights upon the import of the Sadean question - that of the human essence, its monstrosity, and the relation between the world of his works and our own trans-fictional world. Is the gap really so large?
Lingis' "Deadly Pleasures" is the most valuable work in the collection. He highlights the interrelationality of God, language, and sex, and their attendent norms which work to inhibit and constrain our differential passions. Expanding upon the work of Klossowski on Sade (Lingis being the English translator of his Sade, my Neighbor), Lingis expands upon the unspeakable black hole of the sodomite existence - the trangessive act and existence par excellence, which rends open the field for differential possibilities (unto the impossible itself); Sade, then, as a destructive creator behind the thinking of the unthinkable negativity which creates the space for alterity through the negation of divine Creation, and thus of its laws and authority.
Philippe Sollers publication of one of Sade's letters that had been withheld from general knowledge and publication up until 1989, is very informative as to Sade's understanding of the French Revolution. While an essentially revolutionary figure, whose essence was infinite revolt, Sade despised the Revolution. This letter details how the French ridded themselves of the God of Chirstianity only to replace it with the Supreme Being, the God of Reason, which, he thinks, is inifnitely worse. At least with Christianity there remained a hint of pagan spirit sublimated within it. With this new cult, however, all passion (which, for Sade, is the essential fundament of existence) is lost - the cold calculations of reason alone are all that remain. In this vein, Sade lays forth the essential intention of his work - to disclose to humanity its own monstrosity, that humanity is the passionate animal, the monstrous animal, and not the rational animal of the metaphysical tradition.
Welchman's piece, "Differential Practices," provides an interesting interpretation of Sade's writing as a disruptive discursive act which performs the interruption of the ordered functionings of the discursive formation, necessitating a reconfiguration and reformation of discourse to account for such works. Sade's writings function differentially to open up a transformation of discursive possibility - not only of what can be said, but of what can be done; what is right and wrong, how we can act and perform the figuraitve role of being.
Cussett's work speaks to the ficticity inherent in the libertine action - the necessity of their repositing God's existence so as to transgress it. This furious work of creation and destruction works to get nowhere, and yet it is an infinitely vibrating motion - the motion of an inifnite desire, a desire for the infinite. Fictively, through this infinitely repeatable game, the libertine becomes divine. But, by this very turn, they also commit themselves to nothingness, to disappearance, amd to failure.
In "Transgression and Its Itinerary," Allison lays out the (non-)concept of transgression, amd then itineraries its functioning in the works of Sade. This disclosure evinces the radicality of Sade's writings - not simply morally radical, but upending society, humanity, amd even nature itself. All absolutes and universals crumble under this transgressive force which is the negative essence of our very being as possibility - possibility itself being delimited through the motion of transgression. Ficticity is exposed in its primal functioning, the imagination laid bare as the source of all law, as the faculty for the infinite furtherance of desire.
Acker's piece falls short of the mark, in my eyes. She appears to get too wrapped up in binary (mis)conceptions. Sade does work to dissolve the "male gaze" of speculative knowledge, yes. Bit I disagree that he falls back into the labyrinthian problem. His work of (black) holes works to unwork this gaze, to lead the reader into the state of loss - this is the initial negation which opens onto the ppssibility of an-other affirmation; an affirmation of alterity, of difference (which I would hesitate to call "feminine", unless by this we meant that which does not exist within the order of knowledge - a word which signifies a break with the system of signification). Sade's writings rupture the male gaze, but also the feminie gaze - all gender is destroyed, for they are but fictions which overwrite the functioning flows of primordial desires, passions, and differential pulsions which are more originarily us - the destruction of the male implying a destruction of the female as well, not to mention God and the Self as well...
Bataille's piece is great for studying transgression, sacrality, and Bataille's work in general, but it has much less to do with Sade. Sade is here but an example - it is a "practical" application of Sade's works for a different understanding of morality - a sort of trans-valuation of all values.
Finally, I am divided as to Pfohl's piece. While his theoretical reading of Sade (which, for me, felt like a reiteration of Foucault through Klossowski) is insightful as to how Sade's works disclose the essentially violent workings of capitalist systems and economies, speaking to what these systems silently excrete, his mode of presentation is frustrating at best. A writer doesn't need to blatantly bash their readers over the head with their ideas - we needn't capitalize the word CAPITAL in all of its instances. Pfohl uses a number of such devices which, in my opinion, only work to weaken his endeavor by means of its gimmicky nature (the ideas should speak for themselves; such stylistic flourishes are but signs of one's background).
Suffice it to say that these short overviews do not do complete justice to these texts (I have not even covered all the works in this text). I seek only to provide a brief synopsis of sorts, so as to advise readers as to what they may be getting into or what they may find of theoretical interest within each piece. My apologies if this is of no aid to you, and if you disagree with one of my readings that I have laid out in the sketchiest fashion above then by all means message me and I would be happy to discuss the thought and the ideas.
What follows is a short explication of the import of a handful of the collected pieces:
Sawhney's opening essay, "Unmasking Sade," does an adequate job of setting the stage for the rest of the work to be done by this collection: to tear apart the mythical mask surrounding Sade's works in attempts at engaging with what these works really imply and demand. He alights upon the import of the Sadean question - that of the human essence, its monstrosity, and the relation between the world of his works and our own trans-fictional world. Is the gap really so large?
Lingis' "Deadly Pleasures" is the most valuable work in the collection. He highlights the interrelationality of God, language, and sex, and their attendent norms which work to inhibit and constrain our differential passions. Expanding upon the work of Klossowski on Sade (Lingis being the English translator of his Sade, my Neighbor), Lingis expands upon the unspeakable black hole of the sodomite existence - the trangessive act and existence par excellence, which rends open the field for differential possibilities (unto the impossible itself); Sade, then, as a destructive creator behind the thinking of the unthinkable negativity which creates the space for alterity through the negation of divine Creation, and thus of its laws and authority.
Philippe Sollers publication of one of Sade's letters that had been withheld from general knowledge and publication up until 1989, is very informative as to Sade's understanding of the French Revolution. While an essentially revolutionary figure, whose essence was infinite revolt, Sade despised the Revolution. This letter details how the French ridded themselves of the God of Chirstianity only to replace it with the Supreme Being, the God of Reason, which, he thinks, is inifnitely worse. At least with Christianity there remained a hint of pagan spirit sublimated within it. With this new cult, however, all passion (which, for Sade, is the essential fundament of existence) is lost - the cold calculations of reason alone are all that remain. In this vein, Sade lays forth the essential intention of his work - to disclose to humanity its own monstrosity, that humanity is the passionate animal, the monstrous animal, and not the rational animal of the metaphysical tradition.
Welchman's piece, "Differential Practices," provides an interesting interpretation of Sade's writing as a disruptive discursive act which performs the interruption of the ordered functionings of the discursive formation, necessitating a reconfiguration and reformation of discourse to account for such works. Sade's writings function differentially to open up a transformation of discursive possibility - not only of what can be said, but of what can be done; what is right and wrong, how we can act and perform the figuraitve role of being.
Cussett's work speaks to the ficticity inherent in the libertine action - the necessity of their repositing God's existence so as to transgress it. This furious work of creation and destruction works to get nowhere, and yet it is an infinitely vibrating motion - the motion of an inifnite desire, a desire for the infinite. Fictively, through this infinitely repeatable game, the libertine becomes divine. But, by this very turn, they also commit themselves to nothingness, to disappearance, amd to failure.
In "Transgression and Its Itinerary," Allison lays out the (non-)concept of transgression, amd then itineraries its functioning in the works of Sade. This disclosure evinces the radicality of Sade's writings - not simply morally radical, but upending society, humanity, amd even nature itself. All absolutes and universals crumble under this transgressive force which is the negative essence of our very being as possibility - possibility itself being delimited through the motion of transgression. Ficticity is exposed in its primal functioning, the imagination laid bare as the source of all law, as the faculty for the infinite furtherance of desire.
Acker's piece falls short of the mark, in my eyes. She appears to get too wrapped up in binary (mis)conceptions. Sade does work to dissolve the "male gaze" of speculative knowledge, yes. Bit I disagree that he falls back into the labyrinthian problem. His work of (black) holes works to unwork this gaze, to lead the reader into the state of loss - this is the initial negation which opens onto the ppssibility of an-other affirmation; an affirmation of alterity, of difference (which I would hesitate to call "feminine", unless by this we meant that which does not exist within the order of knowledge - a word which signifies a break with the system of signification). Sade's writings rupture the male gaze, but also the feminie gaze - all gender is destroyed, for they are but fictions which overwrite the functioning flows of primordial desires, passions, and differential pulsions which are more originarily us - the destruction of the male implying a destruction of the female as well, not to mention God and the Self as well...
Bataille's piece is great for studying transgression, sacrality, and Bataille's work in general, but it has much less to do with Sade. Sade is here but an example - it is a "practical" application of Sade's works for a different understanding of morality - a sort of trans-valuation of all values.
Finally, I am divided as to Pfohl's piece. While his theoretical reading of Sade (which, for me, felt like a reiteration of Foucault through Klossowski) is insightful as to how Sade's works disclose the essentially violent workings of capitalist systems and economies, speaking to what these systems silently excrete, his mode of presentation is frustrating at best. A writer doesn't need to blatantly bash their readers over the head with their ideas - we needn't capitalize the word CAPITAL in all of its instances. Pfohl uses a number of such devices which, in my opinion, only work to weaken his endeavor by means of its gimmicky nature (the ideas should speak for themselves; such stylistic flourishes are but signs of one's background).
Suffice it to say that these short overviews do not do complete justice to these texts (I have not even covered all the works in this text). I seek only to provide a brief synopsis of sorts, so as to advise readers as to what they may be getting into or what they may find of theoretical interest within each piece. My apologies if this is of no aid to you, and if you disagree with one of my readings that I have laid out in the sketchiest fashion above then by all means message me and I would be happy to discuss the thought and the ideas.
November 27, 2019
A silent crowd of four follows John like a priest walking in circles, and hits all his dead ends. Always something elsewhere more appealing than here. But by the time he gets there, elsewhere becomes just the same.
Read
September 5, 2007من کتابی با همین عنوان دارم ترجمه می کنم از سیمون دوبوآر در مورد مارکی دو ساد. مقاله ای از ساد را در مایند موتور چاپ کردم. و حالا قرار است این کتاب نه چندان مفصل را هم ترجمه کنم که به صورت الکترونیکی منشتر خواهد شد. البته کتاب سیمون دوبوآر نه این کتاب را.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews