Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography

by Roger Shattuck

In his “best achievement to date” (Harold Bloom), National Book Award- winner Roger Shattuck gives us a “deeply learned, highly intelligent, and beautifully written” (New York Times) study of human curiosity versus the taboo, from Adam and Eve to the Marquis de Sade to biotechnology research. Index.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Cultural, Literary Criticism

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

Reviews

[Christin · Rating 1 out of 5]

About a quarter of the way into the book Shattuck quotes Descartes:

"For it seemed to me that I would discover much more truth in the reasonings of men about what they know directly, men who will bear the consequences if they made a bad decision, than in the reasonings of a scholar in his study, who produces speculations without application and without consequence to him, except perhaps the vanity he finds in their remoteness from common sense..."

Shattuck that says it could be about Faust. I say it could be about Shattuck.

It's easy and fashionable to say that pornography corrupts, especially when you only briefly mention one or two studies from the seventies. But one or two serial killers read Sade and that ruins it for the rest of us? Shattuck makes the argument that since some people can't handle reading about violence on a psychological level it shouldn't be allowed. Yeah, and some people can't stop at one beer, but I don't see your book on prohibition.

I should have known this book was going to be trouble when he says things like "Milton quotes Raphael in Paradise Lost." It's not a quote if it's just made up dude. But Shattuck treats poetry and literature as sources. Because some novelists and poets wrote about bad things happening to curious people, curiosity is bad. He was thisclose to using the man in the yellow hat as a source.

My instinctual reaction to censorship is "NO NO NO" and I doubt anything is going to convince me otherwise, no matter how well argued, but I think this book was all over the place. Also, it made dumbass statements like "the term sadism was coined after the Marquis de Sade. Before that there had been no need of the term." ~facepalm~ Just because there was no need for the TERM, doesn't mean the practice didn't exist. Yeah, Caligula was a snuggler, NO. The de Sade maybe forced sadism into the mainstream (~hipster glasses~) but he didn't invent the practice.

So how about THIS for an argument? He says that what Sade wrote is the forbidden knowledge, the books itself, and that they should be hidden away, only to be shown to those well-adjusted folk after rigorous psychological tests. How about looking at the content, those bedroom activities that he wrote about that were mostly unknown? You can only be against violent sexuality (and, by extension, do something about it) if you know about it. And if you claim that you didn't know about it until de Sade, then who do you have to thank for making you aware of it? And you can leave those friendly fetish people alone with their books.

[Stephen · Rating 2 out of 5]

OK. I am not finished reading it, but here is may take.

The author starts out analyzing a couple of ancient forbidden knowledge myths: Prometheus and the Garden of Eden. The analysis is OK, but I go for Joseph Campbell's any day.

Next we proceed to a couple of modern myths: Frankenstein and Faust. Along the way, a tenuous link is made between the quest for scientific knowledge and sexual promiscuity. I don't know how it happens, but it happens in this section. I always viewed Frankenstein and Faust as cautionary tales against an excess of ambition, not necessarily about the quest for forbidden knowledge. I never viewed either tale as overtly sexual. I guess I missed something.

Then we proceed to The Princess de Clèves and Emily Dickinson. I guess the point here is chastity is good? I am not sure. The "Princess de Clèves" reeks of courtly love which is by its nature fake. Emily Dickinson was a slightly bookish and strange individual and not someone to model your life after. Who goes into years long seclusion because their boyfriend dumps them? More to the point: what do these two have anything to do with science or the quest for scientific knowledge? I cannot associate either "Princess de Clèves" or Emily Dickinson with scientific thought or research in anyway shape or form. I guess that what the author is trying to get at is that limiting sex and scientific research are both moral choices.

Now comes Robert Oppenheimer and the Human Genome Project. Again, the author is making tenuous associations between the morality of the Manhattan Project and the Human Genome Project. I don't get it. The Manhattan Project was pretty much directly responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whether or not you believe that using the bomb on two undefended cities with high civilian populations was morally justifiable or not, I can't see how the Human Genome Project really compares. Somewhere the practice of eugenics by the Himmler and the Nazi's is discussed in a ridiculous manner. I missed the point.

Next we have a critique of Melville's "Billy Bud" and "The Stranger" by Albert Camus. The point the author is attempting to make (there is always a point)is that empathy can be dangerous. If we try too hard to understand something, we could end sympathizing with it. In the cases sited above, an accidental (or not) murder takes place that is described first by the perpetrator and then in a court setting. Yes I agree with the author here, murder cannot be forgiven even if you understand or sympathize with the person who committed it. I guess he is making a case against relativism, There are absolute rights and wrongs.

Here comes the tour de force. A discussion on the works of the Marquis de Sade. I tend to agree with the author about de Sade. Sexual freedom is OK and all, but a line is crossed when de Sade talks about rape, torture, and murder. OK so de Sade should not be viewed as a literary great or moral philosopher, I get that, but then the author takes a step further and states that the availability of works like de Sade are the direct cause of mass murderers like Ted Bundy. Hold on there. So how would censorship actually improve anything? Bundy was sick and twisted. He would have did what he did even if the Marquis de Sade was completely banned and unavailable.

This book is well written and has some interesting sections so I can't really give it one star, but I have no idea how the author can justify some of his conclusions. This book is best when it sticks to the literary criticism, but goes off track a little when it tries to extend its views into a more general moral system. There are some real leaps in logic that make my brain squirm. After thinking about it over the weekend, I think the thing that bothers me most about this book is the use of literary examples as "cases" like case studies in a more scientific work. Almost all of the cases are fictional except Robert Oppenheimer, Emily Dickinson, Himmler, the Human Genome Project, and Ted Bundy (there are a couple more minor examples in there too). How do you prove something with fictional cases to back you up? I suppose the author backs this methodology up by stating that artistic accomplishments are more real and everlasting than other types of accomplishments. I don't buy it.

[Sharon · Rating 1 out of 5]

It took me a while to get through this due to periodically tossing it aside in exasperation- he’s basically an apologist for censorship. In the interest of full disclosure the title should be: “Forbidden Knowledge - that ‘I’ Think Should Stay That Way!” That’s always the thorny problem - WHO gets to decide. Well, The time of stodgy, priggish white men censoring based on what they personally disapprove of is over.

[Jamie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hmmm...while there was much I thought was intriguing about this book and its premise, at times it seemed a bit more histrionic about some of the worst results of man's quest for knowledge. Though I do have to agree about de Sade's work, it has no particular value to people in general and just celebrates the basest of human drives and revels in the torture and degradation of others in order to achieve sexual fulfillment.

I also have trouble believing that Eichmann set up the Lebensborn program and instituted its practices because he didn't realize the profound moral boundaries he was blundering across. I believe that is entirely too succinct an explanation and way too pat a device. On some level he had realize that to carry on these genetic experimantation was going to impact the human race at some level.

I hate that people now rely on the fact that evil is in essence, "stupid", and sometimes is just the result of someone not thinking through the results of their particular actions upon other people.I tend to believe that evil is more often a choice made to do what you want and damn the consequences for others.

A warning: The chapter dealing with pornography, most especially the chapter on de Sade, is extremely graphic in nature. There is even a warning at the beginning of the book telling of the inclusion of some materials from de Sade to let parents and educators know that this is a book that should be read by a mature audience.

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is, without a doubt, one of the best works I have ever read on epistemology. Shattuck offers a truly comprehensive view of the history of forbidden knowledge and the reasons it has been considered "forbidden."

[Joshua Buhs · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is not the book I expected it to be. And, to be fair, it is the book the author promised early on. Too bad it still sucked so hard.

When I picked it up, I thought of this book as belonging to the tradition of, say, Robert Danrton's Forbidden Bestsellers of Pre-Revolutionary France, a (wider that that) look at different forms of knowledge that have been ruled beyond the pale at various points in Western History. But that's not what this book is at all.

Mostly, it's a reconsideration that certain forms of knowledge should still be forbidden or restricted. Potentially, this is an interesting question. The American response is that no knowledge should be restricted at all--that genius should travel wherever its mind take it. I think it's often worth questioning these assumptions so ingrained into our culture--for the process, if nothing else, even if the answer ends up that the assumption is correct.

Shattuck, though, isn't really interested in taking the question head on. His primary interest seems to be showing off what a smart guy he is--and he's smart. He's read a lot of the Great Books canon and read them closely. But looking at the way various authors of canonical books in Western history thought knowledge should be restricted or not is well short of a thorough argument. It's not even a canvassing. It's showing off. Yes, he deduces certain rules and categories from his readings, but these seem relatively arbitrary, given that his examination is arbitrary rather than exhaustive.

And for all his references to Greek mythology and Milton, his real concern is the 19th century--that's clear in the introduction, when basically all his examples come from that century. Because his ultimate goal is to suggest a return to Victorian norms.

He wants an absolute rule against certain kinds of scientific investigation and conclusion as somehow immoral (which is just his word for being ungodly.) Literature could still survey the whole of human experience, but those more fraught bits should be restricted to only minds capable of approaching it correctly. That is to say, ole white male academics, like him.

For all that he wanted to trouble an easy assumption, he ends up not troubling himself at all. He ends up at the top of the pecking order--higher, in fact, than where he is now, as science is brought low and literature the fount of all wisdom.

The book belongs on a shelf with the works of Harvey Mansfield (and that shelf sunk to the bottom of the ocean.) This is the real forbidden knowledge.

It is not surprise, then, to see Harold Bloom praising it on the back cover (though Bloom himself is a more interesting thinker) or Saul Bellow or Denis Donoghue. The surprise is Martin Gardner praising the book.

I wonder what _that_ is about.

[Chris Loves to Read · Rating 3 out of 5]

a look at man's quest for knowledge and the taboos against it. He's more conservative than me in that I don't think there is such a thing as too much knowledge but I enjoyed reading it none the less.

[Jason · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a mess. Forbidden Knowledge: from Prometheus to Pornography, as written by Roger Shattuck, is a book by a literary scholar who knows a lot but doesn’t know what to do with what he has learned.

The question Shattuck poses is simple and clear: are there things that humans should not know? His answer from the start is a clear and succinct “Yes, absolutely.” But as the book progresses he chips away at his own conclusion and leaves the reader doubting the author’s convictions.

Shattuck starts off in the ancient world, analyzing texts from the Greek and Roman mythologies. Prometheus, who gets punished for eternity for stealing fire from the gods, is used as a framework for the rest of the book. Just as importantly, Prometheus’s sister Pandora, the one who opened the forbidden box unleashing evil into the world, is also just as prominent. The moral he derives from these stories is that Prometheus and Pandora deserved to be punished because they did what they were forbidden to do. The result is that we all have to suffer because of their transgressions. Shattuck does not thoroughly examine any alternative interpretations of these myths, which are considered by some to be archetypal heroes’ journeys. Prometheus, for example, sacrificed himself to bring useful knowledge to humanity, a step along the way of human progress. From the start of the book, Shattuck runs the risk of losing his audience. If he does not want to preach to his own choir, the tastkof the author then is to win over the resistance. His next move in the argument is not helpful.

It is not hard to see a connection between Prometheus and Pandora to the Bible. Prometheus is an obvious progenitor of Jesus Christ, among hundreds of others. Pandora easily predicts the transgression of Eve in the Garden of Eden. He draws the same overly simplistic conclusions from the Bible that he got from Greek mythology: stay in your place or you will get punished and bring immense harm to everybody else in the world. This amounts to little more than circular logic. Even worse, Shattuck’s religious bias comes out into the open, freely displaying that, to him, dogma, belief, and obedience are more important than rational inquiry or exploration of ideas. To be fair, Shattuck’s analysis is more literary than theological, therefore he gets off the hook for not merely being a Bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging conservative. Up to a point, he does put some thought into what he is writing. But another further problem creeps into the text here. Just what does the author mean by “forbidden knowledge”?

Regardless, Shattuck takes a quick flyover of the Middle Ages to bring, what he calls the Wife of Bath Syndrome into his argument, the meaning of this being that when you tell someone that an act is forbidden, that makes them want to do it even more. This is derived from Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. This makes an easy transition to John Milton.

Shattuck first takes issue with Milton for his poem Areopagitica, a piece that celebrates and vindicates free speech. Then he goes into a fairly detailed analysis of Paradise Lost. We all know the story of Adam and Eve, but Milton famously brought the characters of Satan and Eve into full three-dimensionality. This isn’t the part that Shattuck fixates on though. After taking Eve to task for eating the forbidden fruit, committing the sin of disobedience, he makes an exaggerated claim, based on a stanza from the epic poem, stating that people should learn but never more than they need to know. Shattuck keeps beating this same drum throughout the rest of the book without ever analyzing it, testing it, or examining its useful application in practice. In one paragraph he even goes so far as to say the Hegelian triadic method of analysis involving thesis-antithesis-synthesis should be dropped for a dyadic thesis-conclusion method of argumentation, meaning counter-arguments and analytical reasoning should be abandoned in favor of argument by authority and acceptance of unproven axioms. Authorities became authorities because they were right, therefore authorities can never be wrong so just do as you are told and don’t ask questions unless you already know the answer.

What follows is analyses of several classic literary texts. Goethe’s Faust, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and Emily Dickinson. Like in the author’s discourse on Milton, a thorough breakdown of themes and literary stylizations are given, followed by some references back to Prometheus, Pandora, and Eve. The passages on Emily Dickson are especially problematic because they don’t expressly address the theme of forbidden knowledge. Shattuck actually praises Dickinson for not marrying the man who loved her. She follows Milton’s dictum that you should never know more than what you need to know. Dickinson is a role model for Shattuck; he gives her a patronizing pat on the head while telling her she is the good little girl he believes she should be. His reasoning behind celebrating her virtue is that she wrote a poem that he liked. The discussion gets no more complicated than that. This begs the question, what does this have to do with forbidden knowledge? Is marriage forbidden knowledge? Is marriage even a form of knowledge?

The most exciting part of this train wreck is the chapter on Albert Camus’s The Stranger. While Shattuck has a slightly different take on the book than my own, he claims that Meursault is a man who lives without any self-knowledge or self-reflection while my interpretation was more in line with traditional existentialism which means he goes through life refusing to make choices, we both agree that The Stranger is the most misinterpreted book in literary history. A lot of readers fail to recognize that Meursault is an unreliable narrator who lies to the audience and to himself as well. Also a lot of readers fail to see that he is not being sentenced to death for not crying at his mother’s funeral, as so many seem to think based on the lawyer’s testimony, but he is sentenced to death for the cold blooded murder of an innocent man. You can only make the case that Meursault is a hero if you ignore the fact that he committed the crime. But Shattuck’s larger point is that Meursault does not awaken to himself until he is put in the prison cell where he begins to grow in self-awareness for the first time. You could make the case that Meursault has forbidden himself from self-knowledge. But doesn’t that go against Shattuck’s thesis? If Meursault had transgressed his own self-imposed limitations, in pursuance of forbidden knowledge, he probably would have avoided getting himself into the trouble he did. Shattuck, in the most effective argument he proposes in his book, shatters his own argument in the process.

At the end of this first section, two things stand out. One is clear, the other not so much. The clear point is that Forbidden Knowledge is a work of literary criticism more than an examination of ethics or epistemology as it is originally presented. The second, and less clear revelation, is that Shattuck’s definition of “knowledge” is fuzzily defined and broadly includes the other concepts of “actions” and “experiences”. Therefore, Faust is transgressing the law of forbidden knowledge through the act of selling his soul to the Devil and Viktor Frankenstein is doing the same with the act of creating a human life in his laboratory. Both stories are about forbidden acts, not about forbidden knowledge. Furthermore, Emily Dickinson is celebrated for remaining a virgin and Meursault is punished for murder. Although it is possible to have knowledge of marriage and murder, sometimes both in some tragic circumstances, the knowledge and the act are not the same thing. Knowing how to build a nuclear bomb is not the same as the act of building a nuclear bomb. Imagining yourself saving a baby from a burning building is not the same as the experience of saving a baby from a burning building. If so, then everybody who knows how to build a bomb would be a bomb-maker and everybody who imagined themselves rescuing a baby from a burning building would be a hero. By logical extension, most men on Earth would thereby be millionaires and porn stars and we know that isn’t the case. Reality doesn’t work that way.

So half way through, can this book get any worse? Yes it can.

The second section addresses an unusual pairing of subjects, namely science and the Marquis de Sade. In the scientific chapters, Shattuck specifically addresses genetics and the mapping of the human genome. His writing on this topic is histrionic, paranoid, and sadly misinformed. Shattuck worries that genetic engineering will lead to some kind of evolutionary disaster without taking into account that geneticists have already taken the moral implications of their science into consideration. They aren’t a bunch of back-alley kitchen chemists who fund their projects by manufacturing low-grade crystal meth in abandoned trailers in the woods of Tennessee. He calls for congressional oversight and watchdog panels even though we already have these things in place. His biggest fear is that gene editing will inevitably lead to the creation of a monster in the same way Dr. Frankenstein created his own creature. Never mind that scientists have already asked these kinds of questions before setting out on their endeavors. What is truly worrisome is that Shattuck falls back on classic literature to say that the human genome should not be mapped. It should be left alone because Pandora opened her box, Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, and Viktor Frankenstein created a monster that killed all his friends. We can use Shattuck’s own advice against him. He could have prevented himself from making this error in judgment by not trying to claim expertise in a scientific field that he doesn’t understand. This doesn’t mean he shouldn’t learn about science. It means he shouldn’t condemn it when he doesn’t know enough about it to make an effective judgment.

The final chapter on the Marquis de Sade is confused, muddled, and lacking in direction. Shattuck defines pornography as “works of art or literature whose sole purpose is sexual arousal”. He uses that as a starting point but then never sufficiently examines whether Sade wrote pornography or not. Considering that Sade’s oeuvre consisted of a mixture of sex, violence, and philosophy, it might not be so easy to pigeonhole him into the category of “pornography”. Sade’s lesser known works consisted of essays, novels, short stories, and plays that contain almost no sex at all in them. Furthermore, it is not obvious that Sade actually wrote with the intention of sexually arousing anybody. Most readers react to his writings with a combination of disgust, amusement, and boredom and unless you are a complete sicko, you probably won’t be sexually aroused by any of it. If Sade was a pornographer, he wasn’t a very good one. It is probably that Sade’s main intentions were to shock and offend rather than turn them into practitioners of his poorly articulated philosophy.

Shattick’s intentions in writing about Sade are not especially clear. Once again, he analyzes a lot of content without giving a definite purpose for it. He claims that reading Sade makes one take the risk of turning into a pervert or a sadist and that living in the kind of world Sade imagined would be a disaster for everybody even though such a fantasy world could not possibly exist. But do we really need to be told this? Do we really need to have someone explain to us why having sex with a mutilated baby corpse is wrong?

Shattuck’s two biggest worries are that some psychologically imbalanced people might try to imitate what Sade wrote, citing Ted Bundy and the Moors Murderers as examples since they were inspired by the Marquis. The other is that Sade might become part of the literary canon. His concern is based on the fascination that some obscure French modernist intellectuals, and Camille Paglia too, admire Sade for various reasons. It isn’t likely that Sade will ever sit comfortably in the ranks of Homer, Voltaire, and Dickens any time soon, especially not in this era of political correctness. American college students probably think a literary canon is a big gun that shoots books anyways. Most people of the internet generations don’t even have a long enough attention span to read a Sade novel.

Shattuck doesn’t think Sade should be censored, but he should be kept away from those who are potentially psychopathic, as if we can easily spot them as they grow into adulthood. Imagine the courts granting a restraining order on some twelve year old kid, preventing him from accessing 120 Days of Sodom because the judge fears it might turn him into a serial killer. By the same token, we should suppress operas by Wagner because they might inspire another Hitler. Charles Manson was inspired by Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People. Maybe we should restrict people’s access to that one too. Has Shattuck put any thought into what he is saying? And again, his critique of Sade is more about forbidden acts of sex and violence and less so about what the perpetrators of these acts actually know. Ultimately we are the ones who should be forbidden from knowing about Sade. Shattuck himself should never be forbidden from reading those books though, and why he is exempt from such restriction is never explained. I suspect it is because, like many conservatives, his moral grandstanding is a smokescreen to prevent people from thinking he actually enjoys pornography.

Forbidden Knowledge is a pointless mess. The arguments are not well-supported, terminologies are not well-defined, and logical conclusions are not drawn. It is primarily a work of literary criticism, even though a lot of the literary analysis has no direct connection to the position that the author argues for. He never addresses real issues of forbidden knowledge like the necessary secrecy of governments, corporations, the military, or espionage agencies. He also never addresses the need to keep personal data private, a necessity that is more endangered now that we have digital technology and people are willingly giving up private information to vampiric data mining companies for the sake of being popular on social media. I wouldn’t fault Shattuck for that, however, because he wrote this book before the internet became the dominant entity in our lives. Roger Shattuck has an incredible range of knowledge, but his range is too deep and not wide enough. He can’t see past his own nose. Maybe he would have done himself better by pursuing more of the forbidden knowledge he prevented himself from knowing.

Actually, considering how shallow and ignorant most Americans are these days, more people could benefit from the pursuit of knowledge rather than the pursuit of likes on the internet. There’s plenty of information out there to be known and a lot of this forbidden stuff is of trivial importance but at least it gets people interested in reading. Real knowledge consists of how to separate quality information from garbage and having what it takes to use it effectively once the reader has apprehended it. Leave censorship to cult leaders and authoritarians who exert control over people by restricting their access to information. Freedom comes from the pursuit of knowledge be it good, bad , or ugly so don’t hold yourself back just because some puritanical control freak doesn’t like whatever it is that interests you.

[Chris Craddock · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Sphinx, the Syrinx, and the Unicorn

There was a warning about chapter VII so I started reading chapter VII about a certain Marquis. Interesting material. The other parts were interesting, too. It covers a lot of writers and philosophers that I haven't read but would like to study. The part I just read was about Thomas Huxley, father of Aldous, who just coined the term "agnostic." Used the word "neologism" to describe new word creation.

I really enjoyed this book but I took my time. Opposite of speed reading. Milton turns out to be a fascinating character who lived in interesting times. I must know more about him. He was Cromwell's press secretary. After the Restoration his life was spared in the general amnesty. Met with Galileo. Was blind while he wrote Paradise Lost. I am interested in hearing more about Milton & historical events he lived through & was a part of. Puritan revolution, Cromwell, Restoration. The Rump Parliament (good name for a band or something, they could open for Fistful of Assholes). Must investigate further.

Next is a chapter on Faust & Frankenstein. Of Faust story, there were 2 versions by Goethe and also an earlier one by Marlowe. Goethe version too cumbersome for a play, but a tour de force of poetic style. Stunning achievement even if story has a lot of loose threads. Comparing Faust & Frankenstein, and also Don Juan & Don Quixote. All ambitious, grandiose men who were mocked by a servant. Mephistopheles, Sancho Panza, and Catalinón. Frankenstein had no mocking servant, but how about Igor (pronounced Eye-gore)? There is also a mocking servant character in Proust called Françoise. Furthermore, Socrates is a kind of mocking figure in Plato.

Faust is more of a Hamlet than a Prometheus or a Cain. He goes from action and experience to contemplation and pangs of conscience. Roger Shattuck also brings up Nietzsche at this point who has some pertinent things to say about action/experience versus conscience/consciousness. Prometheus made progress but a crime was involved. Cain was cursed, but then was protected against vengeance.

Next chapter talks about an obscure French novel where the heroine is in love with another man, tells her husband, but never acts on her love, even after her husband has died. She does it because by denying love it will increase not diminish, trapped in amber. The book is compared to Les Liaisons Dangereuses which is also a French epistolary novel. It's by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, but in that one Love is denied because of cynicism.

"And you read your Emily Dickinson,
And I my Robert Frost,
And we note our place with bookmarkers
That measure what we've lost.
Like a poem poorly written
We are verses out of rhythm,
Couplets out of rhyme,
In syncopated time
Lost in the dangling conversation
And the superficial sighs,
Are the borders of our lives."

~ Paul Simon, from "The Dangling Conversation"

Emily Dickinson was discussed, and it made me think of this song. She was also someone who denied the physical expression of love.

Crime & Punishment is also mentioned. Did I mention that the Syrinx myth was factored in? In classical mythology, Syrinx (Greek Συρινξ) was a nymph and a follower of Artemis, known for her chastity. Pursued by the amorous Greek god Pan, she ran to a river's edge and asked for assistance from the river nymphs. In answer, she was transformed into hollow water reeds that made a haunting sound when blown across."

The next chapter dealt with curiosity in various guises. It summed it all up with Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, the original title of a novella written by the Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson that was first published in 1886--and published that same year, Beyond Good & Evil by Nietzche.

Next chapter is about science and technology, especially DNA research and the atomic bomb, and how that knowledge is applied to the real world. Really funny scene at a conference on biohazards of recombinant DNA research. When the lawyers spoke the scientists were horrified that they could be liable. Their horror was equal to what the public would feel about one of their experiments escaping.

I was thinking about the Syrinx, the Sphinx, and Axe Cop. There was a character on Axe Cop that combined a Lion, a man, and a Cheetah. Axe Cop is written by a 6 Year-old & his brother. His child mind sometimes falls on cultural archetypes. The sphinx has a man's head on a lion's body. Science & Tech?

Really enjoying this book but taking my time. I read a little bit each day, then pause and reflect. Almost finished with a chapter on Science & Technology. Issues raised by mapping the genome project. If chronic disease is found should a fetus be aborted? Should humans interfere with this process, even to make people? What if people file wrongful life suits? Like, what if they question why they were allowed to be born defective? This part questions the HGP (Human Genome Project) and has a complex set of 10 reasons. There is talk of Gregor Mendal, but also an interesting Noble Prize winner who induced mutations in fruit flies with X-Rays. He was from Texas. 3 Ss instead of 3 Rs. Sex, Science, & Socialism. Proposed a genetic enhanced utopia. Brave New World. Also, Nazi experiments to achieve superior, pure blooded, men. This sparked a student rebellion.

Last part of book is a quote by Francis Bacon on the Sphinx and the Unicorn. It deserves further study, as does much of the literature discussed in this book.

In conclusion, this book was awesome and gave me lots of food for thought. Roger Shattuck is extremely well read and poses interesting questions. He ties the material together, places it in context, and clearly espouses his own opinions.

[Zuzu · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book gets one star from me only because whenever it criticized a publication, it ended up in my reading list. I am a believer in freedom and the distinction of arts and science. I do not believe that the line is too thin. I do believe that there are immensely crooked governments in the world. Some (mostly medical) limitations are fine, if they are proven by science.

In short, this book showed me the other camp, which I should know about if I'm going to have a strong case of my own. It also taught me some new books by Madame de La Fayette, Algernon Charles Swinburne, Georges Bataille and a couple more. I also turned back to reading Juliette and Justineby Marquis de Sade (which are works of fiction).

If the "young and the ill-advised" are to be affected negatively by literature, educate the families and teachers. How can we be expected to change the world so that it does not motivate Ted Bundy? I mean, come on, a serial rapist and killer blamed pornography and we should take him seriously? I don't think so.

[Doug · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's no way one can do justice to this book in a short review. It is a wide-ranging literary and philosophical argument that some knowledge, mostly for Shattuck the writings of the Marquis de Sade and scientific experimentation with the Human Genome Project, should be carefully controlled. Written in 1996, would he find the knowledge of HGP "dangerous" were he still alive today? At its core it is an ethical treatment of the literature and philosophy of experience vs. "the veil," i.e., that is the necessity of approaching knowledge judiciously. It is reasonably accessible though I have never read Goethe's Faust, any of the Marquis de Sade, or several of the other works Shattuck treats. I am familiar with Paradise Lost that he takes for his starting point and major thesis. What he doesn't treat are the advances in astrophysics from 15 years ago, but the book would perhaps be both quickly dated and impenetrable had he done so. As it is, it requires some concentrated thought despite the accessible language so uncommon among professors of comparative literature.

[Fleur · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating book, where the author, using literature, philosophy and science to explore the benefits and consequences of mankind's natural inclination to push the boundaries of knowledge in areas considered forbidden throughout the ages. The author's breadth of knowledge is so vast, that I was riveted. Some inquires are outdated as the internet age has has expanded since the release of this book and Shattuck's scientific suppositions toward the Human Genome Project came nowhere near to fruition. I did walk away from this book with an even longer reading list. It made me realize I should have paid more attention in college!

[Erin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I liked this book because it presented an interesting point of view on the subject, but it was a VERY conservative one. Also, I wondered about some of the author's interpretations of the works he cited.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this book. The author uses literature to question whether there are some things better left unknown. While I think the author is leaning towards the affirmative, he leaves the question open and allows the reader to shape his own views. A good read.

[Ck · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dense and deep, in a way which invigorates the mind. Discusses how Western civilization has allowed & disallowed certain forms of knowledge, a working answer to the question: "Is innocence worth ignorance?", particularly in regards to sexuality and immortality.

[M Alan Cox · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not a bad book, but I couldn't disagree with the stodgy and overly-traditionalist mindset more. It's quite telling that Shattuck much prefers Virgil's Ulysses to Homer's Odysseus.

[Comicfairy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Other reviews have likely said it better so I'll just say that I have this on my shelf and go back to read it fairly often. Always entertaining!

[Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent, but definitely not as enlightening as I was hoping for. I enjoyed the sections about Milton and I learned a few interesting tidbits, but overall, mildly disappointing.

[Merve · Rating 3 out of 5]

Üç yıldız değindiği konuların ilgi çekiciliği hatırına. Kitaptan haberdar olduğumdan duydugum coşku okurken azalarak yok oldu. Yasak bilginin yasak kalmasına dair savunucu tarafı öyle belirgin ki rahatsızlık verici. Faust, Frankenstein, Emily Dickinson şiirleri. Değindiği konular ilgi çekici yer yer bazı saptamalari ve bilgilendirmeleri hoşuma gitti yine de "mütevazı bir şekilde bilge olun"a varan fikrinden ciddi biçimde rahatsızlık duydum. İnsan kibirli olmalı demiyorum ama sanki yazar bilme sehvetinin gunahligina karşı sınır çekin demeye getiriyor. Bilginin sorumluluğu ogrendigin şeyin üzerine yüklediği anlam ve sorumluluğu kabul ediyorum ancak yine de Bilgi yasaklanmissa o sınırı geçmeye gerek yok minvaline varan fikri kabul edebildiğim bir şey değil. Sanki çit çekiyor her fikre düşünceye bilme eylemine. İhtilaflı bir yapıt ciddi tartışmaya giriyorsunuz yazarla kendi zihinsel alanınızda. Okumakta yine de.fayda var. Fikrine katilmasaniz bile bilgi edinmenin bilginin nasıl anlaşıldığına dair tarihsel yaklasimin ne olduğuna dair bazı şeyleri öğrenmek açısından. Çok mu fazla şey öğrenerek günaha giriyoruz nedir?(!) (:

[Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

Are there things we should not know?

This question is the start and heart of Mr. Shattuck's book. His style makes you feel like you're having a long winding talk with him in his study. There are times of great facetiousness: "Hegel concludes not with an argument but with a saying that is also a miniaturized story and an Irish bull 'To examine this so-called instrument [cognition, knowledge:] is the same thing as to know it. But to seek to know before we know is as absurd as the wise resolution of Scholasticus not to venture into the water until he had learned to swim.' Just do it; don't think too much about it before you try. To make that simple point, Hegel the philosopher becomes Hegel the narrator of an old wives tale." Things also get quite serious though also: "A lengthy article on the debate by Arthur Lubow in New Times, "Playing God wiht DNA," quoted Tocqueville, Max Weber, Brecht, and - most effectively - the prominent DNA researcher Erwin Chargaff. Chargaff had become a goad to his colleagues. "The idea that science can make a better world is hubris." Chargaff's words elicited an eloquent response in the New England Journal of Medicine. In his regular column, "Notes of a Biology Watcher," Lewis Thomas criticized hubis as a code word used by anti-intellectuals, insisted that the debate over DNA should be confined to prudential considerations, and concluded that true hubris lies in pretending "that the human mind can rise above its ignorance by simply asserting that there are things it has no need to know." This form of hubris "carries danger for us all."

One might worry at first that a book of this nature, a book intended to slow the tide of knowledge would sound like a sermon. But Mr. Shattuck analyzes more than he moralizes. He may favor slowing down experimental research or removing the Marquis de Sade from the great works of the Western canon, but he treats the subject fairly, getting at the issues from all sides.

Sometimes Mr. Shattuck seems to get confused and lose himself. He cites many books and authors, sometimes confounding the reader as to the point of the allusion. But the works he does study in depth (including Genesis, Paradise Lost, Faust and many others) he treats justly and in no way stretches the imagination in interpreting the works. By examining major works of the Western canon and showing their importance today, Mr. Shattuck makes the humanities proud.

[Bob · Rating 1 out of 5]

Shattuck is the lesser member of a trinity of reactionary Yalie literary critics fond of extensive quotations that gained some notoriety w/ popular publishers in the 90s. However, unlike Harold Bloom or Camille Paglia, Shattuck lacks dynamism or a well thought-out theoretical edifice, however misguided, so he attempts to substitute a reading of the 'western' canon that defines it in terms of his timidity & priggishness. Revisiting this book after 9 years, I couldn't bear to read his fretting about the human genome project or Sade, so I stuck to the first half of literary criticism & the appendixes.

An incomplete list of the book's asininities:
-He makes an absurd & unsubstantiated link between Freud's notions of taboo & the unheimlich
-He misogynistically describes Mary Shelley as a "Romantic groupie"
-He belabors Emily Dickinson's private life to contradict Paglia & support a simplistic moral reading of 2 of her poems.
-He spends several pages quoting his students' essay on Camus & chastising them for not sharing his banal & punitive moral reading of *L'Étranger*, which he transmutes into a most unimaginative political allegory.

I twitched w/ so much anger while reading this book that another café patron was concerned.

[Jonas · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting read. I like the way in which Shattuck tries to divide knowledge into six different categories and his categories feel generally applicable to knowledge, and applicably in various areas.

I did not know much about Sade before reading this, but the chapter about him – alongside the debate about whether or not to censor certain kinds of knowledge – is an enlightening and rewarding one. I was kind of longing for a comparison to American Psycho (which, I was glad to see, made a (too) short appearance in the end). Those kind of books are something else, and they might have something to teach humanity about the innermost, hidden depths that might exist within; but maybe that knowledge just is not fit for everyone to take part of. Even though I would like to think that everyone should learn as much as possible, maybe there is some things that is better left for a certain group of people (scholars or such, not any kind of "elite" ((even though that might be a tautology)). We never know what might get triggered by anything.

[Candy Wood]

Two boxed warnings caution readers that the chapter on the Marquis de Sade contains material not intended for “children and minors,” but the whole book makes clear that Shattuck advocates not banning or forbidding but accurate labeling. Instead of presenting Sade’s works as great literature, as modern editions have, he argues that we should regard them as “potential poison,” and the examples he quotes and describes amply support the argument. Before that, though, chapters on Prometheus, Paradise Lost, Faust, and Frankenstein explore the fascination of curiosity; ones on Emily Dickinson’s “abstinence” and on guilt and empathy in Melville and Camus provide other dimensions; and ones on the atomic bomb and the Human Genome Project suggest (as C. P. Snow did more than 50 years ago, though Shattuck does not mention him) that separating science and art is dangerous. They all add up to a book that is both challenging and readable.

[R.J. Gilmour · Rating 3 out of 5]

After finished Roger Shattuck's Forbidden Knowledge it was disappointing that the last part of his book descended into an attack on the writing of the Marquis de Sade. Most of Shattuck's book is a fascinating study of how particular forms of knowledge have been wrapped in narrative tales about their merit or danger. He spends a great deal of time discussing knowledge and it's mythological background. The last part of his book however spends a great deal of time making qualitative judgements about particular forms of knowledge, particularly that of de Sade and conversely Georges Bataille and Michel Foucault that I found difficult to digest. Shattuck's views and writing changes from previous sections of the book and descends into judgemental critiques of these authors and particular forms of knowledge. I found myself flipping past so many of the pages disappointed by his particular judgements about these authors.

[Burcu · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good and informative work on forbidden knowledge in literature, science and society. It covers an expansive field of ideas and thus quite enriching. However, there are two things I found somewhat problematic. Shattuck does not provide the boundaries of the definition of the kind(s) of knowledge he discusses clearly. A theoretical section on such a review would be helpful, especially in the connections between the literary works studied. Consequently, the second issue arises, that the chapters and ideas discussed are somewhat loosely connected to one another, resulting in a mildly scattered structure. Still, it's definitely worth reading.

[Jesse · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ok, no I haven't read the entire book. I ordered it in order to read the section on Sade. I found the argument contained therein to be rather repulsive. Sade's texts shouldn't be available to to everyone simple because of Ian Brady and Ted Bundy???? What kind of argument is that? It's always disappointing when you're looking for literary criticism and instead find disjointed moralizing based on the author's personal reservations.

[Kiroku Hageman · Rating 1 out of 5]

Me lo compré pensando ingenuamente que era otro tipo de estudio. Es interesante leer como una persona puede explicar distintas teorías, mitos y estudios concluyendo al final que todo es gracias a Dios. Sorprende la fuerza de la fe y como puede uno aún sabiendo de tanto seguir creyendo firmemente en ello.
Pero no he podido acabarlo, y eso que siempre siempre acabo lo que empiezo. Llega un momento que la constante critica a la curiosidad, conocimiento y sexualidad me han hecho desistir.

[Ron · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is indeed possible to know too much, or to pursue information as its own reward, even at the peril of the human race. Quite convincing and much more than merely moralistic. Just ask A.Q. Khan. He's got plenty of know-how he'd like to share (which he started by sharing with his native Pakistan, Iraq and North Korea.)

[Lukas Lovas · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting reading. Definitely enlightening on the topic of myths and legends, but not very compelling. I still disagree with the author who claims (more or less), that there are some pieces of knowledge, that shouldn't be known...that should be forbidden. I see his point, as there is always a great potential for harm, but the potential isn't enough to justify restricting knowledge.

[Molly · Rating 5 out of 5]

It took me a while to get through this book. Shattuck presents a thoughtful argument against moral relativism and attempts to solve difficult ethical problems. Still, his argument is relevant in today's society.