Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.83 AVERAGE
3.83 AVERAGE
1.5 stars. Below is part of a correspondence I had with a group of friends when we were discussing the book:
Gotta be honest, really trying to get through this one, I keep putting it down. I think he fetishizes the church - and I dont mean that sexually, but in the actual traditional definition. It speaks so powerfully to him, and perhaps was such a large part of his life - and the community he was in, although he was of course seen as deviant and a pervert - that much of his theorem just isn't important to me.
The comment about how there is nothing worse than an ugly woman that [Redacted] and I were discussing was really funny when we were in our early 20s and probably (on my part) at bit more mysoginystic than now. I still find it funny, and I can see the "truth" of it for portions of the population, but I have moved away from it. And since I dont give two shits about the interplay between sex and the church/morality/avoidance of death (I'm not scared of death, so I dont see sex as a foil that GB does), to me it reads more (at this age and stage) like an essay on the church and death than it is a salacious exploration of sensuality. I dont give a shit about the church or death.
He does a lot of begging the question by stating something controversal or unproven as fact and just presenting it as the truth. He does make arguments and explanations of other statements, and maybe he was just writing in his environment. Literally the first para of the foreword (by him) lays down a bunch of basic facts...that I entirely disagree with. The paragraph would be true in a lot of nun porn, probably, or for a gay guy raised in the catholic church (to pick two random examples), but if you are pretty much OK with yourself and largely live outside the mores and institutions that repress thought and action (everyone on this email), his basic premise does not hold, see below:
"The human spirit is prey to the most astounding impulses. Man goes constantly in fear of himself. His erotic urges terrify him. The saint turns from the voluptuary in alarm; she does not know that his unacknowledgeable passions and her own are really one."
Gotta be honest, really trying to get through this one, I keep putting it down. I think he fetishizes the church - and I dont mean that sexually, but in the actual traditional definition. It speaks so powerfully to him, and perhaps was such a large part of his life - and the community he was in, although he was of course seen as deviant and a pervert - that much of his theorem just isn't important to me.
The comment about how there is nothing worse than an ugly woman that [Redacted] and I were discussing was really funny when we were in our early 20s and probably (on my part) at bit more mysoginystic than now. I still find it funny, and I can see the "truth" of it for portions of the population, but I have moved away from it. And since I dont give two shits about the interplay between sex and the church/morality/avoidance of death (I'm not scared of death, so I dont see sex as a foil that GB does), to me it reads more (at this age and stage) like an essay on the church and death than it is a salacious exploration of sensuality. I dont give a shit about the church or death.
He does a lot of begging the question by stating something controversal or unproven as fact and just presenting it as the truth. He does make arguments and explanations of other statements, and maybe he was just writing in his environment. Literally the first para of the foreword (by him) lays down a bunch of basic facts...that I entirely disagree with. The paragraph would be true in a lot of nun porn, probably, or for a gay guy raised in the catholic church (to pick two random examples), but if you are pretty much OK with yourself and largely live outside the mores and institutions that repress thought and action (everyone on this email), his basic premise does not hold, see below:
"The human spirit is prey to the most astounding impulses. Man goes constantly in fear of himself. His erotic urges terrify him. The saint turns from the voluptuary in alarm; she does not know that his unacknowledgeable passions and her own are really one."
I'm starting to believe that I just do not care for the big 20th century French philosophers.
I had a lot of thoughts while reading this, not all of them bad. There is no denying that this is the work of a brilliant mind, but while it does not lack in depth, it does in scope. Most of my criticism boils down to the criticism of this narrow-mindedness of which other reviewers here have already written at length and in more eloquent terms than I ever could.
In a way I wish Batiste would've been born 50 or even 100 years later so that we could read what a mind like his would've produced in a different world with a different educational background. Maybe he could've written something great that would actually stand the test of time. Most likely though, he would've just been as miserable and insufferable as he was now.
I had a lot of thoughts while reading this, not all of them bad. There is no denying that this is the work of a brilliant mind, but while it does not lack in depth, it does in scope. Most of my criticism boils down to the criticism of this narrow-mindedness of which other reviewers here have already written at length and in more eloquent terms than I ever could.
In a way I wish Batiste would've been born 50 or even 100 years later so that we could read what a mind like his would've produced in a different world with a different educational background. Maybe he could've written something great that would actually stand the test of time. Most likely though, he would've just been as miserable and insufferable as he was now.
Huge pervert and sexist but he does have a certain stylish flair.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
very of its time, many of the assumptions the thesis is built on have since been disproved and reconsidered. But an interesting read nonetheless.
challenging
medium-paced
Could’ve saved myself some time by reading the last chapter first. Okay, so: man (meaning: male humans, because androcentricm, bla) are discontinuous beings looking for some continuity - as in: before cell division; yes, really. This they think to find in eroticism, which is sexuality/mysticism/violence that transcends any prohibition – don’t we love a little de Sade! Btw women’s resistance to male sexual advances is a) not really conscious resistance, and b) a lie, because they obviously dress like they want it. It is fitting that in the discussion in the appendix, Bataille readily answers all questions except those that a) come from women or b) refer to women philosophers (hello de Beauvoir) who HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF THEORY ON THIS VERY TOPIC. Dear Lord.
This changed my life. I think this should be required reading for erotic horror writers, those of us who seek transgression in our fiction. This made me a better writer, a better lover, a better communicator and a more avid sadist, now that I understand where these inclinations toward transgression truly stem from in my soul.
informative
reflective
Although I don't wholly agree with many of Bataille's conclusions about eroticism and its role in our lives, I still found the book an enjoyable read.
bataille has some interesting ideas about the nature of eroticism- namely that erotic excitement derives from the intentional transgression of established taboos- but to be completely honest a lot of it is couched in so much philosophy speak that its mostly incomprehensible. it definitely doesnt help that this is a translation from french. that said, what i was able to parse was interesting if not exactly riveting.
challenging
dark
informative
medium-paced