▲ 32 points
back
24 comments
Really? its about cultural appropriation, UNESCO treaties and Switzerland, and the securitisation of investment in documents and stamps with a dash of tax, ponzi more than the effect "Sade" has on any story. I don't think very many prior owners felt it was "cursed" -They just disputed the means of owning it, and who had better claim. Value wise, it certainly went up (until the Ponzi scheme value went bananas)
There's not a perversion in sight, except the financial. He wrote it on a roll like Kerouac. That was new to me (Kerouac had a typewriter. De Sade had a pot of glue. I hope it was glue. Maybe he made do with what was to hand...)
The same curse can be said to vest in almost any literary work which has gone missing in action. It's why "the Hitler Diaries" happened: the value to some of the goods as handled is inestimable. People still say the Mona Lisa returned after theft is a fake and some Mafia lord has the real one in a safe, to gloat over. Perhaps that's why "glass onion" had it?
"Possession" by A.S.Byatt is a fictionalisation of the problem. Beautifully written.
If you were a soi-disant author, man of letters, handy with a whip, and about to be consumed by the wreckage of your prison .. wouldn't you grab that roll of bog-paper you'd been writing on? Apparently not. Maybe he was saner than people think?
never understand why people are fascinated by this child rapist. just like the "dahmer fans".
here is an interesting french person. Sophie Germain. Write an article about her. spend money studying her. put a biography of her out. put her in your literary magazines. celebrate her. make movies about her. she never raped anyone. she helped found number theory which you use every time you pick up a phone or a computer.
Instead of putting down what others are creating, how about you submit a creation of your own that is more to your liking?
OP was asking why de Sade is promoted so heavily. From a philosophical point of view he is a non-entity, from an erotica point of view he is dime a dozen, but it is true that as far as how low can the beastly nature of man get, he has 'contributed' to literature.
OP's question is also my question. Why is this vile little man being promoted so much? After all, his entire existence and works are simply a declaration that humanity and nature are really just playthings for pleasure and settling scores with an abhored nature for a people like the Marquis. I can see how that sort of 'philosophy' would carry weight in some influential quarters.
Sade is transgressive, not against our society as much as against our inner souls. Reading him creates discomfort in a way that no other author attains. It's no wonder that Beckett likens him to Dante (as quoted in TFA), because ultimately it's hard to read Sade without feeling the fragility of morality.
Much of it so extreme that it is comical. What is both funny and transgressive is that he takes pretty much everything that we take morally granted and throws it back at us as just another intellectual construct. It is unsettling and I don't blame anyone for not liking him.
However, the fact remains that literary giants like Apollinaire, Breton, Beckett and more had a high opinion of him. Sade's influence was far from insignificant, and the dismissive tone of your comment comes across as somewhat presumptuous.
As you precisely note, there is transgression. However we disagree as to the object of the impotent rage of the marquis. Our inner souls only get involved by one of the venues offered by prurient, voyeuristic, or (precisely) satanic* impulses. Not all souls feel 'fragile' in the presence of the marquis, I assure you.
You named a few renowned intellects. (As I said before, 'the elite' of the modern age.) Must I fall prostate before their authority so as not to come across as "presumptuous"?
De Sade is important as a spiritual and intellectual weathervane. A sign of the age, this age, that rages on ..
* the 'accuser'
> we disagree
Which is fine. I am not trying to convince you, I am responding to your (and GGP's) question on why he is promoted.
> Must I fall prostate before their authority so as not to come across as "presumptuous"?
Of course not. On the other hand, denying that these people's literary opinion has value beyond some vile feelings about abhorring nature does come across as presumptuous.
Agreement was not my aim. [Of course we can agree to disagree.] I am pointing out that a different reading of the corpus is possible.
On the second point you have misunderstood as well. They are entitled to their opinion, and are representative of a selected subset of thinkers in their era. The main issue is how they position themselves in relationship to "nature" (as you put it) which is rejected. Presumptuous only enters the picture if one insists, as you do, that such a choice can only be validated by a cultural and intellectual establishment (which is also rather characteristic of that set).
A simple answer is that people are fascinated by the grotesque whereas wholesome stuff is just blah. 50 Shades of Grey is an perfectly mediocre novel, but will sell many tens of multiples of critically acclaimed books.
Sure, but this stuff is pushed from on high not down below. Sade is promoted and held up as something (not sure precisely what) important.
So the simple rebut is that the pseudo intellectual classes always poo poo what appeals to the common man. But they love this stuff, and, the common people do not like it. That’s really the only thing that is interesting about de Sade and his fan club: the curious inversion.
& p.s. my personal sense is that de Sade legitimizes oppression as natural pleasure and that’s what makes him the court philosopher of the modern elite.
It's a form of potlach. Same reason why the elite class promotes ugly architecture and "fashion" that nobody wears.
I know what you're talking about however in this case there appears to be genuine affection from those quarters. A kindered soul, as it were.
When I read "the modern elite" ... like who? Elon Musk? Joe Biden? NYT journalists?
I mean, this does exist: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/214636339474345984
And this: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc/c/...
Safe to say Elon has some affinity for De Sade.
> elon musk
that's funny in a sad way. no, the post-enlightenment post-rationalist elite, the 'modern age'.
Once at Borders, I was interested to see a small sign in the D area of fiction, informing customers that de Sade was shelved under S. I assumed that they didn't have a sign in the Vs for Goethe.
OP was asking why de Sade is promoted so heavily.
"Promoted" or "fascinated" are the wrong words. Sade is a classic and that's not because he was a nice guy. The same happens with many other famous authors. Fame is not a prize for being virtuous. It's what he wrote, not what he was.
If you want to censor his books, you're not punishing him, the man has been dead for a long time, he doesn't care. You're punishing all potential readers.
I said nothing about censorship. I read it and strongly suggest anyone who runs into the de Sade promotion parade to actually read his output. Pick any book. [Not just the naughty bits! Read the 'philosophical' interludes so as to not miss the wisdom of this 'fascinating' man.]
No. Not fascinated, heavily promoted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Sade_in_popular_cul...
Good question! I think there are two approaches to it, one of which is interesting:
1. Why do sportspeople/influencers/singers make millions while young mathematicians/physicists/writers/poets/sculptors/etc languish in obscurity, most of the time penniless. Why did Yitang Zhang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitang_Zhang) have to do accounting of a Subway franchise and deliver food? Why did Abel have to die of tuberculosis and poverty. Posed this way, the question is mundane and the answer is simple: Most people value certain things and are willing to pay for them and are not interested in and are unwilling for other things.
2. However, there are stories that would be compelling to a mass audience. You mention Germain, her story would be a great period drama (backdrop of Revolution, being a woman scholar in an antagonistic society, etc.) There are many other similar stories: Maria Gaetana Agnesi, Sofya Kovalevskaya. This would be a great Netflix series, one episode for each perhaps. If these stories are not spicy enough for modern streaming tastes, e.g. not enough sex or adventure (Germain never married, Agnesi was very religious, Kovalevskaya was married), one can use biographies of Ada Lovelace (gambling, mad&bad Lord Byron, insanity) or Émilie du Châtelet (lovers with Voltaire, 'nuff said). Or, if there's production budget, Hypatia.
So the questions is: why are these stories not told more often? Hard to tell. Probably because (1) producers worry that any mention of math or science will turn off potential viewers (2) screenwriters ar just not that familiar with this people. I think (2) is teh larger factor.
Isn't this the age of the long tail. By some accounts, no cultural worker has to languish in poverty or obscurity anymore.. More precisely, I think the division is starker.. nobody at all these days will pay for any cultural artifact requiring intellect (even intellectuals/the elite), whereas many will still pay for entertainment. I would probably watch or read works about those great feminine intellects, but you will never get me to pay for them. It might be interesting to find out why. Perhaps as a species, we are wired to feel that information needs to be free? Entertainment, being infofree, doesnt need to be. (An exception would be reference works which have a high probability of containing information not found anywhere else. Maybe we need zero knowledge proofs of cognitive utility for writers of novellas to their intended
readers-- lets call that ScriptZKP)
Or, if there's production budget, Hypatia.
There was:
Most famous people from that period are child rapists or worse (slavers, serial murderers, etc.). I don't care about Sade but this is not a great argument