Scan barcode
Reviews
Manhood: A Journey from Childhood into the Fierce Order of Virility by Richard Howard, Michel Leiris
redservant's review against another edition
5.0
8.5/10 - I really expected to dislike this book given what I knew about Leiris’s misogynistic fantasies, but I actually found it very enjoyable primarily because it was totally exposing, and seemed honest in a way that was not self serving. The quote a number of other reviewers have noted - “I resembled a clown more than a tragic actor" ” - also stuck out to me and sums up the level of unflattering exposure Leiris abuses himself with. I found its frank discussion of sexuality and violent fantasy oddly comforting because I think most, perhaps almost all, people have some thoughts like this. It was a relief that he didn’t try to make that part of him appear acceptable and it seems like a useful way of shedding habitual shame, although I don’t think it was ultimately successful for Leiris, who wrote a number of other works going over similar personal issues.
Overall I think this books (largely sexual) content is best understood in the context of early 20th century French Catholicism and moral values, a time when masculinity and virility was supposedly in crisis and birth rates were falling. This work reminded me of the violence present in religious morality that would make a strong impression on any child. The surrealist group Leiris was part of rejected the patriotic and religious moral urgings to reproduce in favour of varied lifestyles, although their acceptance certainly had limits.
On the other hand, I can entirely understand why some readers would not enjoy this book, as it can be repetitive and its narrator/author is brutally honest in a way that can be uncomfortable or appear almost gratuitous. It is definitely an example of how surrealist art and literature prioritised the male perspective, especially in sexuality. But this is true of so much art and literature I find it hard to be mad at Leiris specifically even if he is an extreme example.
Overall I think this books (largely sexual) content is best understood in the context of early 20th century French Catholicism and moral values, a time when masculinity and virility was supposedly in crisis and birth rates were falling. This work reminded me of the violence present in religious morality that would make a strong impression on any child. The surrealist group Leiris was part of rejected the patriotic and religious moral urgings to reproduce in favour of varied lifestyles, although their acceptance certainly had limits.
On the other hand, I can entirely understand why some readers would not enjoy this book, as it can be repetitive and its narrator/author is brutally honest in a way that can be uncomfortable or appear almost gratuitous. It is definitely an example of how surrealist art and literature prioritised the male perspective, especially in sexuality. But this is true of so much art and literature I find it hard to be mad at Leiris specifically even if he is an extreme example.
brunobguerreiro's review against another edition
A pleasant read. Self-exposure, emotional analysis, memoirs and introspection about sexuality come together in a flowing and frankly charming way. Back when I had only read a few dozen pages I was feeling already quite taken by his writing. A small manifesto of the "own" and it just got better and better and better.
sggbutler's review against another edition
5.0
I really expected to dislike this book given what I knew about Leiris’s misogynistic fantasies, but I actually found it very enjoyable primarily because it was totally exposing, and seemed honest in a way that was not self serving. The quote a number of other reviewers have noted - “I resembled a clown more than a tragic actor" ” - also stuck out to me and sums up the level of unflattering exposure Leiris abuses himself with. I found its frank discussion of sexuality and violent fantasy oddly comforting because I think most, perhaps almost all, people have some thoughts like this. It was a relief that he didn’t try to make that part of him appear acceptable and it seems like a useful way of shedding habitual shame, although I don’t think it was ultimately successful for Leiris, who wrote a number of other works going over similar personal issues.
Overall I think this books (largely sexual) content is best understood in the context of early 20th century French Catholicism and moral values, a time when masculinity and virility was supposedly in crisis and birth rates were falling. This work reminded me of the violence present in religious morality that would make a strong impression on any child. The surrealist group Leiris was part of rejected the patriotic and religious moral urgings to reproduce in favour of varied lifestyles, although their acceptance certainly had limits.
On the other hand, I can entirely understand why some readers would not enjoy this book, as it can be repetitive and it’s narrator/author is brutally honest in a way that can be uncomfortable or appear almost gratuitous. It is definitely an example of how surrealist art and literature prioritised the male perspective, especially in sexuality. But this is true of so much art and literature I find it hard to be mad at Leiris specifically even if he is an extreme example.
Overall I think this books (largely sexual) content is best understood in the context of early 20th century French Catholicism and moral values, a time when masculinity and virility was supposedly in crisis and birth rates were falling. This work reminded me of the violence present in religious morality that would make a strong impression on any child. The surrealist group Leiris was part of rejected the patriotic and religious moral urgings to reproduce in favour of varied lifestyles, although their acceptance certainly had limits.
On the other hand, I can entirely understand why some readers would not enjoy this book, as it can be repetitive and it’s narrator/author is brutally honest in a way that can be uncomfortable or appear almost gratuitous. It is definitely an example of how surrealist art and literature prioritised the male perspective, especially in sexuality. But this is true of so much art and literature I find it hard to be mad at Leiris specifically even if he is an extreme example.
More...