6 ms·

Joel Warner’s “The Curse of the Marquis de Sade”

32 points by samclemens 4y ago

ggm 4y ago
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?
fatneckbeard 4y ago
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.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Instead of putting down what others are creating, how about you submit a creation of your own that is more to your liking?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - eternalban 4y ago
    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.
    - distant_hat 4y ago
      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.
      - eternalban 4y ago
        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.
        cubefox 4y ago
        When I read "the modern elite" ... like who? Elon Musk? Joe Biden? NYT journalists?
- epups 4y ago
  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
- Jun8 4y ago
  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 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.
  - kalimanzaro 4y ago
    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)
  - 4y ago

32 points by samclemens 4y ago

ggm 4y ago

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?

fatneckbeard 4y ago

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.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
Instead of putting down what others are creating, how about you submit a creation of your own that is more to your liking?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- eternalban 4y ago
  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.
  - distant_hat 4y ago
    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.
    - eternalban 4y ago
      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.
      - cubefox 4y ago
        When I read "the modern elite" ... like who? Elon Musk? Joe Biden? NYT journalists?
epups 4y ago
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
Jun8 4y ago
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 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.
- kalimanzaro 4y ago
  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)
- 4y ago