4 ms·

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

by aaplok 3y ago

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.

eternalban 3y ago
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'
- aaplok 3y ago
  > 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.
  - eternalban 3y ago
    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).
    - aaplok 3y ago
      I feel that you are shifting the goalpost and trying to drag me into a debate I am not interested in. Your question was simple: "OP was asking why de Sade is promoted so heavily. [...] OP's question is also my question. Why is this vile little man being promoted so much?" My answer to you was simply in response to that question. I don't claim that these people are right, I don't claim that their reading is the only possible reading. I try to explain under which possible reading Sade interests some people enough that they promote him. You are welcome to rebut my point, but to do it, it is not enough to give an alternative reading. This is a different debate, which you would need to take up with people who are interested in promoting Sade (of which I am not). > 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 Please give me the quote(s) where I do that. This is not the point I was trying to make, so if I mis-expressed my idea I would welcome an opportunity to correct myself.

by aaplok 3y ago

eternalban 3y ago

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'

aaplok 3y ago
> 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.
- eternalban 3y ago
  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).
  - aaplok 3y ago
    I feel that you are shifting the goalpost and trying to drag me into a debate I am not interested in. Your question was simple: "OP was asking why de Sade is promoted so heavily. [...] OP's question is also my question. Why is this vile little man being promoted so much?" My answer to you was simply in response to that question. I don't claim that these people are right, I don't claim that their reading is the only possible reading. I try to explain under which possible reading Sade interests some people enough that they promote him. You are welcome to rebut my point, but to do it, it is not enough to give an alternative reading. This is a different debate, which you would need to take up with people who are interested in promoting Sade (of which I am not). > 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 Please give me the quote(s) where I do that. This is not the point I was trying to make, so if I mis-expressed my idea I would welcome an opportunity to correct myself.