Scan barcode
spukschloss's review against another edition
Who's we??????? Almost died getting to the end of coldness and cruelty. No moooore
lesleynr's review
2.0
I really loved (is that the right word?) Venus in Furs. I was captivated by it. I read it in one sitting and need to read it again.
Deleuze is one of those French guys I probably should have read in grad school, but didn't. He's going to explore whether sadism and masochism are actually two sides of the same condition/phenomenon/psychological predisposition... I bet they're not.
Deleuze is one of those French guys I probably should have read in grad school, but didn't. He's going to explore whether sadism and masochism are actually two sides of the same condition/phenomenon/psychological predisposition... I bet they're not.
whitneyborup's review
4.0
I'm rating the Deleuze and Masoch separately. One, because I want to read 100 books this year and I think counting these as two separate books is fair. And also because I liked the Deleuze so much more than the Masoch.
heliogabalous_vrz's review
5.0
one of deleuzes encounters with psychoanalysis and freud, not a huge fan compared to anything else I’ve read from deleuze
noahregained's review
3.0
interesting if only for living as an example of what sustained Deleuzian attention to psychoanalysis would look like— Logic of Sense fits this bill as well, but all writings afterwards consisting in the tearing up of said bill. Can’t help but feel like this wants to be a 20 page chapter of ATP, for there are some points that sustain themselves in the light of C&S’s attention, like that the s&m perversions both consist in a narrativization of egotism, or the interplay of legal form (law, contract) in those perversions. These are very C&S points! The perverted nightmare seems to consist in these limit points of the attempted rationalization on the body without organs, the construction of superegotic machines with the necessary force to destroy experience, or lock experience in affective loops even if the key affect is pain.
I picked this book up mostly because I saw there was a death instinct chapter, nevertheless one that begins with Deleuze himself praising the philosophical nature of Freud’s inquiry in Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Today I finally read that chapter and, well, predictably[!], I feel that I can fairly say that Deleuze makes the death instinct fall back on the pleasure instinct, at least insofar as the pleasure overwhelms the affective experience wherever the death instinct might guide experience. But if points like that are dry, or if I’m constructing said point where it isn’t definitive, it’s my fault for reading this book after Anti-Oedipus. I’m crazy
I picked this book up mostly because I saw there was a death instinct chapter, nevertheless one that begins with Deleuze himself praising the philosophical nature of Freud’s inquiry in Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Today I finally read that chapter and, well, predictably[!], I feel that I can fairly say that Deleuze makes the death instinct fall back on the pleasure instinct, at least insofar as the pleasure overwhelms the affective experience wherever the death instinct might guide experience. But if points like that are dry, or if I’m constructing said point where it isn’t definitive, it’s my fault for reading this book after Anti-Oedipus. I’m crazy
phloxyloxy's review against another edition
3.0
Read at least part of this for my critical theory/dead white men class at Macalester senior year and thought it would be interesting to take another look at.
Honestly, without the help of a prof, Deleuze's section was pretty over my head, even with the notes I'd already written in the margins. I do not have the prerequisite knowledge of philosophy and psychoanalysis to really understand most of what he's arguing here.
However, I highly enjoyed Sacher-Masoch's prose. I just wish I'd understood the analysis better.
Honestly, without the help of a prof, Deleuze's section was pretty over my head, even with the notes I'd already written in the margins. I do not have the prerequisite knowledge of philosophy and psychoanalysis to really understand most of what he's arguing here.
However, I highly enjoyed Sacher-Masoch's prose. I just wish I'd understood the analysis better.
More...