Scan barcode
arthurian's review against another edition
2.0
i don't know why but going in, i expected more congruence in bataille's approach to the authors he decided to put under the microscope for his discussion of evil. each chapter assumes a different, not a bad thing on its own, approach to the authors, rarely works themselves, and most of them read as if bataille is just piling up evidence to support his viewpoint and read them, not their work, according to jungian psychology, marxism criticism, or sometimes just sartre's existing criticism of them.
i was expecting a more literary form of criticism regarding the complicity of literature in, at times, promoting or condoning the type of evil that has a concrete impact on individuals or groups in society (thinking more along the lines of propaganda pieces really). bataille, on the other hand, inspects what can be considered evil as opposed to the Good, and mostly according to a principles of post-industrial productivity in a select few authors' personal lives and works, mostly at the expense of the works. it could've been a fascinating work, i just wish there was more attention to supporting some of his arguments he takes as granted, either because a. he says so, b. another renowned philosopher has said so before, and a stricter focus on literature as the written work and not just the bibliographic details of the authors' personal lives.
i was expecting a more literary form of criticism regarding the complicity of literature in, at times, promoting or condoning the type of evil that has a concrete impact on individuals or groups in society (thinking more along the lines of propaganda pieces really). bataille, on the other hand, inspects what can be considered evil as opposed to the Good, and mostly according to a principles of post-industrial productivity in a select few authors' personal lives and works, mostly at the expense of the works. it could've been a fascinating work, i just wish there was more attention to supporting some of his arguments he takes as granted, either because a. he says so, b. another renowned philosopher has said so before, and a stricter focus on literature as the written work and not just the bibliographic details of the authors' personal lives.
mattshervheim's review against another edition
challenging
dark
medium-paced
3.5
A provocative, challenging little book. Bataille’s definition of evil is unique and obliquely technical – he considers “evil” as an irrational excess against the will to survive. As such, he exempts from that definition acts of self-interested immorality (theft, for example) for being consistent with sensible self-preservation, but saints and martyrs in their excessive holiness are (sometimes) included.
In Emily Brontë, William Blake, Sade, Kafka, Proust, and others, he traces the ways their writings epitomize (or fail to epitomize) the excess of evil, going beyond pleasure and rational justification to what he calls the “impossible act”.
This is fundamentally a collection of literary criticism, and as such, I best understood and appreciated the essays on the authors I was already familiar with, while essays on others (notgoingtonamenamesbutGenet) left me basically cold. The first essay, on Wuthering Heights and Emily Bronte’s poetry, seemed the most straightforward articulation of Bataille’s concepts, with Heathcliff a clear archetype of the figure of excess Bataille calls “evil”.
Bataille is an insightful critic (his psychological portrait of Kafka especially shines) and this collection is a decent introduction to his thinking, particularly the concept of “excess” which he develops further in The Accursed Share. It’s a somewhat niche read, but worthwhile.
(A final thought: it is *so* much easier to understand Bataille when he’s not writing with Jean-Paul Sartre in mind.)
In Emily Brontë, William Blake, Sade, Kafka, Proust, and others, he traces the ways their writings epitomize (or fail to epitomize) the excess of evil, going beyond pleasure and rational justification to what he calls the “impossible act”.
This is fundamentally a collection of literary criticism, and as such, I best understood and appreciated the essays on the authors I was already familiar with, while essays on others (notgoingtonamenamesbutGenet) left me basically cold. The first essay, on Wuthering Heights and Emily Bronte’s poetry, seemed the most straightforward articulation of Bataille’s concepts, with Heathcliff a clear archetype of the figure of excess Bataille calls “evil”.
Bataille is an insightful critic (his psychological portrait of Kafka especially shines) and this collection is a decent introduction to his thinking, particularly the concept of “excess” which he develops further in The Accursed Share. It’s a somewhat niche read, but worthwhile.
(A final thought: it is *so* much easier to understand Bataille when he’s not writing with Jean-Paul Sartre in mind.)
dayface's review against another edition
3.0
Favourite sections include -
Bronte meditations on her seclusion and how it supported her writing.
Study of Baudelaire, particularly Les Fleurs du Mals, and how it reflects a non-harmonious understanding of evil in the culture it was bred. But also, how we must come to terms with ourselves in order to love ourselves. That includes understanding our 'evils.'
The surprising essay on William Blake and his mythology - always pertinent to me; and once more, synchronicity strikes.
And, speaking of, it concludes with a discussion on Kafka (and he opened this collection mentioning him, too).
Really competent and interesting collection of essays that, if you permit them, can provide a better understanding of one's ego. Nonetheless, definitely shows its age in a number of passages concerning psychoanalysis and is openly mystical in moments. Really good, though.
Bronte meditations on her seclusion and how it supported her writing.
Study of Baudelaire, particularly Les Fleurs du Mals, and how it reflects a non-harmonious understanding of evil in the culture it was bred. But also, how we must come to terms with ourselves in order to love ourselves. That includes understanding our 'evils.'
The surprising essay on William Blake and his mythology - always pertinent to me; and once more, synchronicity strikes.
And, speaking of, it concludes with a discussion on Kafka (and he opened this collection mentioning him, too).
Really competent and interesting collection of essays that, if you permit them, can provide a better understanding of one's ego. Nonetheless, definitely shows its age in a number of passages concerning psychoanalysis and is openly mystical in moments. Really good, though.
cielllo's review against another edition
5.0
how should i worship you, bataille xx
(ideas for shrine designs are welcome!)
(ideas for shrine designs are welcome!)
vdarcangelo's review against another edition
5.0
Favorite Quotes:
"Literature is not innocent. It is guilty and should admit itself so."
"I believe that man is necessarily put up against himself and that he cannot recognise himself and love himself to the end unless he is condemned."
"It is to this purpose that we put the arts: they manage, on the stage, to arouse in us the highest possible degree of anxiety… evoke these derangements, these lacerations, this decline which our entire activity endeavours to avoid."
"Laughter teaches us that when we flee wisely from the elements of death, we merely want to preserve life. When we enter the regions that wisdom tells us to avoid, on the other hand, we really live it."
"But the ritual of witchcraft is the ritual of an oppressed people. The religion of a conquered nation has often become the magic of societies formed as a result of the conquest."
"Humanity pursues two goals--one, the negative, is to preserve life (or to avoid death), and the other, the positive, to increase the intensity of life."
"Even if it wanted to, poetry could not construct: it destroys; it is only true when in revolt."
"That which destroys a being, also releases him: besides, release is always the ruin of a being who has set limitations on his propriety."
"There is a turmoil, a sense of drowning, in sensuality which is similar to the stench of corpses."
"Evil is never surer of being evil than when it is punished."
"To produce a work of literature is to turn one's back on servility as on every conceivable form of diminution."
"Literature is not innocent. It is guilty and should admit itself so."
"I believe that man is necessarily put up against himself and that he cannot recognise himself and love himself to the end unless he is condemned."
"It is to this purpose that we put the arts: they manage, on the stage, to arouse in us the highest possible degree of anxiety… evoke these derangements, these lacerations, this decline which our entire activity endeavours to avoid."
"Laughter teaches us that when we flee wisely from the elements of death, we merely want to preserve life. When we enter the regions that wisdom tells us to avoid, on the other hand, we really live it."
"But the ritual of witchcraft is the ritual of an oppressed people. The religion of a conquered nation has often become the magic of societies formed as a result of the conquest."
"Humanity pursues two goals--one, the negative, is to preserve life (or to avoid death), and the other, the positive, to increase the intensity of life."
"Even if it wanted to, poetry could not construct: it destroys; it is only true when in revolt."
"That which destroys a being, also releases him: besides, release is always the ruin of a being who has set limitations on his propriety."
"There is a turmoil, a sense of drowning, in sensuality which is similar to the stench of corpses."
"Evil is never surer of being evil than when it is punished."
"To produce a work of literature is to turn one's back on servility as on every conceivable form of diminution."
shethecat's review
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
"Turmoil is fundamental to my entire study; it is the very essence of my book."
An underrated quote. Bataille's writing (or should I say, his thesis) is so complex that I'm left amazed and humbled (and yes, fine, also confused). His mind operates on a very unique plane; some of his thoughts hit at some instinctive root in me and some of them fly right over my head. This definitely calls for a future reread. Regardless, it's clear this is not at all intended as a literary analysis and more of an expression of philosophical thought, so I think all the other reviews saying that this novel failed as a literary analysis completely missed the point. It's more that each author was an aide in Bataille's exploration of the concept of "evil" in literature, and not just that, but also many things - childhood, divinity, passion, love, life, death, humanity, truth, lies, and arguably, the nature of what it means to be a writer. And yes, morality too, though not the traditional definition of the world. No one can say Bataille is boring.
Of all the authors discussed, I've only read Emily Brontë and Marcel Proust's work, so until I read the other writers featured, I could only really gain insight from the chapters written on these two authors. Nonetheless, I enjoyed reading Bataille's views on how evil (in his mind, and in the context of a philosophical approach to literature) is defined as an act performed for no reason other than its own sake, rather than to achieve something else. An easy example is a murder performed for the sake of it rather than for money (I'm looking at you, Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment); the former is what Bataille would consider evil and the latter, not.
Even before reading this book, I was thinking a lot about the act of writing, because I'm that sort of dreadful person who feels perpetually guilty about everything and anything, so reading this now was very well-timed. A fact: to write literature is to create. Is it a justified use of time and publishing effort to create merely for pure enjoyment, or should there be a higher purpose? In other words, should we always write for a reason? I don't know if I'm off on a tangent and if he would be cross at me for that, but regardless, I do think he answered my questions himself in his preface: "Literature is either the essential or nothing." Literature should strike at the essence of us or it's worth nothing. And to do so requires necessitates humanity; it necessitates evil (or shall I say, freedom) even while we instinctively strive for good. So literature is inherently guilty, and it should be honest about it, which is where integrity and loyalty comes in.
To end with my favourite quote from the book, because I am, have always and will always be dreadfully in love with deathly love:
"For though Emily Brontë, despite her beauty, appears to have had no experience of love, she had an anguished knowledge of passion. She had the sort of knowledge which links love not only with clarity, but also with violence and death – because death seems to be the truth of love, just as love is the truth of death."
An underrated quote. Bataille's writing (or should I say, his thesis) is so complex that I'm left amazed and humbled (and yes, fine, also confused). His mind operates on a very unique plane; some of his thoughts hit at some instinctive root in me and some of them fly right over my head. This definitely calls for a future reread. Regardless, it's clear this is not at all intended as a literary analysis and more of an expression of philosophical thought, so I think all the other reviews saying that this novel failed as a literary analysis completely missed the point. It's more that each author was an aide in Bataille's exploration of the concept of "evil" in literature, and not just that, but also many things - childhood, divinity, passion, love, life, death, humanity, truth, lies, and arguably, the nature of what it means to be a writer. And yes, morality too, though not the traditional definition of the world. No one can say Bataille is boring.
Of all the authors discussed, I've only read Emily Brontë and Marcel Proust's work, so until I read the other writers featured, I could only really gain insight from the chapters written on these two authors. Nonetheless, I enjoyed reading Bataille's views on how evil (in his mind, and in the context of a philosophical approach to literature) is defined as an act performed for no reason other than its own sake, rather than to achieve something else. An easy example is a murder performed for the sake of it rather than for money (I'm looking at you, Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment); the former is what Bataille would consider evil and the latter, not.
Even before reading this book, I was thinking a lot about the act of writing, because I'm that sort of dreadful person who feels perpetually guilty about everything and anything, so reading this now was very well-timed. A fact: to write literature is to create. Is it a justified use of time and publishing effort to create merely for pure enjoyment, or should there be a higher purpose? In other words, should we always write for a reason? I don't know if I'm off on a tangent and if he would be cross at me for that, but regardless, I do think he answered my questions himself in his preface: "Literature is either the essential or nothing." Literature should strike at the essence of us or it's worth nothing. And to do so requires necessitates humanity; it necessitates evil (or shall I say, freedom) even while we instinctively strive for good. So literature is inherently guilty, and it should be honest about it, which is where integrity and loyalty comes in.
To end with my favourite quote from the book, because I am, have always and will always be dreadfully in love with deathly love:
"For though Emily Brontë, despite her beauty, appears to have had no experience of love, she had an anguished knowledge of passion. She had the sort of knowledge which links love not only with clarity, but also with violence and death – because death seems to be the truth of love, just as love is the truth of death."