Scan barcode
vanityclear's review against another edition
4.0
There are some knock-out drag-out genius statements in here. Angela Carter's pen is sharp, and she pulls no punches. She uses Sade's almost, not-quite there, approximation of liberation as a means to further her own argument for freeing ourselves from dominant traditions, dichotomies, and myths.
There's some brilliant analysis of voluntary sterility, which removes the woman (and her body) from the fertility-mother myth ("consolatory nonsense," Carter writes, in service of women "flattering themselves into submission"). This gem, for instance:
This is the crux of Carter's overarching thesis: Sade's pornography (an extension of his absolute atheism) reveals sexual reality and the social relations of that reality, however (un)intentionally. It strips away our myths and our illusions. Working with the naked truth of our relationships is the only ways to forge a new way forward, into a secularized world where the freedom of one group doesn't necessitate the unfreedom of others.
But Sade, while "unusual amongst both satirists and pornographers....because he is capable of believing, even if only intermittently, that it is possible to radically transform society," doesn't go far enough. He's held back by his own time, his own misogyny, his own fears about love and equality: "In his diabolic solitude, only the possibility of love could awake the libertine to perfect, immaculate terror. It is in this holy terror of love that we find, in both men and women themselves, the source of all opposition to the emancipation of women." Take this reading of a scene from Philosophy of the Boudoir in which a daughter rapes her mother:
Sade is, ultimately, a scaredy cat, unwilling and unable to touch emotion. Carter, however, isn't. And now I really wish she'd turned her pen to porn.
There's some brilliant analysis of voluntary sterility, which removes the woman (and her body) from the fertility-mother myth ("consolatory nonsense," Carter writes, in service of women "flattering themselves into submission"). This gem, for instance:
... a voluntary sterility, freely chosen, makes [the womb, the breasts, the ovaries] of as little and as great significance as any other part of the human body without which it is possible to survive.
The goddess is dead.
And, with the imaginary construct of the goddess, dies the notion of eternity, whose place on this earth was her womb. If the goddess is dead, there is nowhere for eternity to hide. The last resort of homecoming is denied us. We are confronted with morality, as if for the first time.
There is no way out of time. We must learn to live in this world, to take it with sufficient seriousness, because it is the only world that we will ever know.
This is the crux of Carter's overarching thesis: Sade's pornography (an extension of his absolute atheism) reveals sexual reality and the social relations of that reality, however (un)intentionally. It strips away our myths and our illusions. Working with the naked truth of our relationships is the only ways to forge a new way forward, into a secularized world where the freedom of one group doesn't necessitate the unfreedom of others.
But Sade, while "unusual amongst both satirists and pornographers....because he is capable of believing, even if only intermittently, that it is possible to radically transform society," doesn't go far enough. He's held back by his own time, his own misogyny, his own fears about love and equality: "In his diabolic solitude, only the possibility of love could awake the libertine to perfect, immaculate terror. It is in this holy terror of love that we find, in both men and women themselves, the source of all opposition to the emancipation of women." Take this reading of a scene from Philosophy of the Boudoir in which a daughter rapes her mother:
[Sade] makes her [mother] faint because he can only conceive of freedom as existing in opposition, freedom as defined by tyranny. So, on the very edge of an extraordinary discovery about the very nature of the relation between mothers and daughters, at the climax of his pioneering exploration of this most obscure of psychic areas, he gives in to the principle of safety. Instead of constructing a machine for liberation, he substitutes instead a masturbatory device. He is on the point of becoming a revolutionary pornographer; but he, finally, lacks the courage.
He reverts, now, to being a simple pornographer.
Sade is, ultimately, a scaredy cat, unwilling and unable to touch emotion. Carter, however, isn't. And now I really wish she'd turned her pen to porn.
wifescullys's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Body horror, Incest, Sexual assault, and Violence
jgkeely's review against another edition
5.0
This book's primary thesis is that the Marquis De Sade is the father of modern feminism. For the uninitiated, De Sade's works are infamous for their depictions of sexual humiliation and cruelty. We get the term 'sadism' from the sex practices he fearlessly explored.
Against all expectation, Carter supports this seemingly absurd thesis in a way that is lucid, reasonable, insightful, and even amusing. It seems there is a gift for women in Donatien's mad sensual rebellion, after all.
I have struggled for some time in trying to review this book, simply because it is still beyond me how anyone could be smart and talented enough to propose something so outlandish, and then to make it seem the most natural thing in the world.
Carter's observations on sexuality, gender, and pornography are as remarkable as Foucault's, with none of the meandering semiotics. Her ability to say precisely what she means, both evocatively and concisely never ceased to impress me.
She also suggests that many commonly accepted aspects of feminism are not only narrow-minded, but counterproductive. For instance: she presents how the popular 'mother goddess' figure is just another way to entrap women into the role of 'baby factory'--even making them proud of their one-dimensional existence. Of course, she says it better than I.
This book was roundly and vehemently criticized by high-ranking feminists when it was published. They could see no way that their plight could possibly be illuminated in the works of any man, let alone a man possessed of a perverse and dehumanizing sexuality.
They were uninterested in looking for a commonality with someone they were so clearly superior to. Contrarily, Carter shows that when we are able to connect ourselves to those we instinctively draw away from, we can move further from our narrow selves and closer to humanity.
How can a movement seek to move beyond mere gender definition and call itself 'feminism'? Would we call a movement to erase the delineation between rich and poor 'povertism'?
If the goal of feminism is to remove the discrepancies and prejudices between the sexes, why not name the philosophy after the goal instead of the conflict? 'Humanism' always sounded good to me.
Carter likewise desires to reach beyond barriers, refusing to accept a strict delineation between smut and philosophy. Her willingness to search for insight in the last place expected makes her first unique, and second, revolutionary. It is all too sad that modern sexual theory is still far behind the mark Carter set, it's current vanguard having neither the imagination nor the daring to match her, let alone excel beyond her.
Against all expectation, Carter supports this seemingly absurd thesis in a way that is lucid, reasonable, insightful, and even amusing. It seems there is a gift for women in Donatien's mad sensual rebellion, after all.
I have struggled for some time in trying to review this book, simply because it is still beyond me how anyone could be smart and talented enough to propose something so outlandish, and then to make it seem the most natural thing in the world.
Carter's observations on sexuality, gender, and pornography are as remarkable as Foucault's, with none of the meandering semiotics. Her ability to say precisely what she means, both evocatively and concisely never ceased to impress me.
She also suggests that many commonly accepted aspects of feminism are not only narrow-minded, but counterproductive. For instance: she presents how the popular 'mother goddess' figure is just another way to entrap women into the role of 'baby factory'--even making them proud of their one-dimensional existence. Of course, she says it better than I.
This book was roundly and vehemently criticized by high-ranking feminists when it was published. They could see no way that their plight could possibly be illuminated in the works of any man, let alone a man possessed of a perverse and dehumanizing sexuality.
They were uninterested in looking for a commonality with someone they were so clearly superior to. Contrarily, Carter shows that when we are able to connect ourselves to those we instinctively draw away from, we can move further from our narrow selves and closer to humanity.
How can a movement seek to move beyond mere gender definition and call itself 'feminism'? Would we call a movement to erase the delineation between rich and poor 'povertism'?
If the goal of feminism is to remove the discrepancies and prejudices between the sexes, why not name the philosophy after the goal instead of the conflict? 'Humanism' always sounded good to me.
Carter likewise desires to reach beyond barriers, refusing to accept a strict delineation between smut and philosophy. Her willingness to search for insight in the last place expected makes her first unique, and second, revolutionary. It is all too sad that modern sexual theory is still far behind the mark Carter set, it's current vanguard having neither the imagination nor the daring to match her, let alone excel beyond her.
libbysbookshelf's review against another edition
4.0
THE SADEIAN WOMAN by ANGELA CARTER
It’s impossible to give this a star rating so ignore the stars.
This is a piece of literary criticism on the pornographic novels of the Marquis de Sade, written in the eighteenth century. Sade has since “given” his name to the concept of sadism or the S in S&M, so you can imagine some of the things he was writing about.
In this essay, Carter gives the reader a synopsis of Sade’s novels and analyses them from the point of view of a feminist. In her words, the book is “neither a critical study nor a historical analysis of Sade; it is, rather, a late twentieth-century interpretation of some of the problems he raises about the culturally determined nature of women.” She claims that Sade was “unusual in his period for claiming rights of free sexuality for women, and in installing women as beings of power in his imaginary world.”
Carter has received criticism for her belief in a “moral pornographer”. Specifically Robert Clark refers to her feminism as “feminism in male chauvinist drag.”
Personally I like Carter’s brand of feminism as it is always delivered with tongue firmly in cheek, almost mocking of the patriarchy.
This book included a lot of graphic descriptions of some quite nasty torture and rape scenes and some consensual violent sex, which is interesting, though not always enjoyable, but the real treat in this is Carter’s strong voice. I am becoming so accustomed to it now that I can almost imagine her sitting next to me reading her work out loud.
#angelacarter #thesadeianwoman #marquisdesade #sade #book #bookrecommendations #bookreview #bookstagram #bookstagrammer #booklover #books #bookstack
It’s impossible to give this a star rating so ignore the stars.
This is a piece of literary criticism on the pornographic novels of the Marquis de Sade, written in the eighteenth century. Sade has since “given” his name to the concept of sadism or the S in S&M, so you can imagine some of the things he was writing about.
In this essay, Carter gives the reader a synopsis of Sade’s novels and analyses them from the point of view of a feminist. In her words, the book is “neither a critical study nor a historical analysis of Sade; it is, rather, a late twentieth-century interpretation of some of the problems he raises about the culturally determined nature of women.” She claims that Sade was “unusual in his period for claiming rights of free sexuality for women, and in installing women as beings of power in his imaginary world.”
Carter has received criticism for her belief in a “moral pornographer”. Specifically Robert Clark refers to her feminism as “feminism in male chauvinist drag.”
Personally I like Carter’s brand of feminism as it is always delivered with tongue firmly in cheek, almost mocking of the patriarchy.
This book included a lot of graphic descriptions of some quite nasty torture and rape scenes and some consensual violent sex, which is interesting, though not always enjoyable, but the real treat in this is Carter’s strong voice. I am becoming so accustomed to it now that I can almost imagine her sitting next to me reading her work out loud.
#angelacarter #thesadeianwoman #marquisdesade #sade #book #bookrecommendations #bookreview #bookstagram #bookstagrammer #booklover #books #bookstack
michaelrohmann's review against another edition
1.0
Not what I thought it was going to be. Still really glad that I read it though.
theanitaalvarez's review against another edition
4.0
I love Angela Carter's fiction and have been waiting to read this book ever since I read about it in Edmund Gordon's [b:The Invention of Angela Carter: A Biography|28501482|The Invention of Angela Carter A Biography|Edmund Gordon|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1466343851l/28501482._SY75_.jpg|48654559]. I haven't read Sade, and I don't really intend to, because all his books sound awful. But I wanted to understand how Carter read him, and it was really a very interesting perspective.
The first chapter, the introduction, discusses pornography as a art, because if we consider it an "art", we can being to question the ideology behind it and its aesthetics. And I think that this is probably the most relevant chapter today. This book came out in 1979, way before the internet has made porn widely available and became most men's sex education (there are studies about it!). So I think that her interrogation of porn's gender and power dynamics and the way in which they are part of a cycle of both reflecting and influencing society is even more important today than when it was first published. Angela Carter argues that there is a possibility of pornography being in the service of women. Now, I'm not sure I can agree with that, but that's beyond the scope of this review.
She sort of argues that Sade was the model for "model pornographer" since his pornographic writings appear to subvert the gender dynamics of 18th century France. Again, I haven't read these books and I don't want to. What Carter describes are stories that degrade women, but are in different in the way Sade puts their characters' attitude towards being degraded. While Justine resists it and is punished because of this, Juliette embraces being sexually abused. I hardly think that anything written by a rich aristocrat in 18th century France can truly be revolutionary in its treatment of women, but the idea that a woman is not actually defiled for having sex and enjoying it does sound like a surprising take for the time.
But the whole point that Angela Carter makes is that pornography has to be analysed to see how it reflects society and how women are treated. And it's definitely an interesting take, because popular discourse around certain porn stars kinda glorifies this idea of being "sexually liberated" but in a way that mostly benefits male. So, I appreciate what Carter did here, because it is a topic that needs to be examined way more deeply than it has, especially in academic circles.
The first chapter, the introduction, discusses pornography as a art, because if we consider it an "art", we can being to question the ideology behind it and its aesthetics. And I think that this is probably the most relevant chapter today. This book came out in 1979, way before the internet has made porn widely available and became most men's sex education (there are studies about it!). So I think that her interrogation of porn's gender and power dynamics and the way in which they are part of a cycle of both reflecting and influencing society is even more important today than when it was first published. Angela Carter argues that there is a possibility of pornography being in the service of women. Now, I'm not sure I can agree with that, but that's beyond the scope of this review.
She sort of argues that Sade was the model for "model pornographer" since his pornographic writings appear to subvert the gender dynamics of 18th century France. Again, I haven't read these books and I don't want to. What Carter describes are stories that degrade women, but are in different in the way Sade puts their characters' attitude towards being degraded. While Justine resists it and is punished because of this, Juliette embraces being sexually abused. I hardly think that anything written by a rich aristocrat in 18th century France can truly be revolutionary in its treatment of women, but the idea that a woman is not actually defiled for having sex and enjoying it does sound like a surprising take for the time.
But the whole point that Angela Carter makes is that pornography has to be analysed to see how it reflects society and how women are treated. And it's definitely an interesting take, because popular discourse around certain porn stars kinda glorifies this idea of being "sexually liberated" but in a way that mostly benefits male. So, I appreciate what Carter did here, because it is a topic that needs to be examined way more deeply than it has, especially in academic circles.
matthewn's review against another edition
challenging
medium-paced
2.5
A mixture of brilliant insight and unsupportable assertion. Sade sounds like a revolting person and I'm not sure why anyone would attempt to defend even a modicum of his work.
paperbookmarks's review against another edition
4.0
Read for Lit Film and Gender module.
I was recommended this book by one of my tutors and it was brilliant. The concept really gripped me, and I've decided to use it as the basis for my essay. Carter explores contemporary conceptions of women through the notion of the Sadeian woman, seen in the fictions of de Sade. I look forward to doing more research into this.
I was recommended this book by one of my tutors and it was brilliant. The concept really gripped me, and I've decided to use it as the basis for my essay. Carter explores contemporary conceptions of women through the notion of the Sadeian woman, seen in the fictions of de Sade. I look forward to doing more research into this.
geertje's review against another edition
4.0
During the 1970s and early 1980s, there was such a thing as the feminist sex wars, also known as the lesbian sex wars or simply the sex wars or porn wars. They were about diverse sexual issues, but one of them was about the feminist stance to pornography. One group felt that porn was inherently misogynistic and a tool in the oppression of women, and should therefore be banned (they got support from conservative and Christian groups in this). Another group argued that, no, porn could be a way for women to liberate themselves because women should be allowed to have and want sex and be sexual creatures. A lot of nuance was lost within this debate, with the anti-porn group refusing to acknowledge that women are often indeed sexual creatures who desire sex and can enjoy porn, and the pro-porn group unwilling to engage with the fact that a lot of porn is violent towards women (rape porn, for example). Ultimately, in the USA the anti-porn group won a lot of support and managed to restrict pornography, though in practice this mainly meant that LGBTQ porn was banned and its makers and distributors persecuted, rather than mainstream porn.
Marquis de Sade, who lived from 1740 till 1814, wrote some very extreme porn during his lifetime. It was found so shocking, in fact, that he spent a large part of his life locked away in mental institutions in order to keep the general public safe. Apart from sexual acts we find a lot less shocking today (oral sex, anal sex, sex between two men or two women, orgies, certain fetishes regarding faeces and urine, what have you, this man wrote it all), his work also brimmed with violence and pain (there is so much rape in them, guys, as well as mutilation, murder, cannibalism, necrophilia, you name it); it is with reason that the word 'sadism' ('to gain pleasure from hurting another') was named after the Marquis. Needless to say, the anti-porn crowd found in Marquis de Sade everything that was bad about porn, and the pro-porn crowd did not have that much to bring in against it.
But then Angela Carter enters the discussion with her book 'The Sadeian Woman', shocking friend and foe alike. Through analyses of his major pornographic works, she argues that Sade's work is actually proto-feminist since Sade was one of the first (if not THE first) to divorce women having sex completely from sex' reproductive function. Instead, sex is all about pleasure. That pleasure is always to the detriment of another, for such is the way Sade perceives the world, but it is pleasure nonetheless.
An interesting book that is well argued.
It also has ensured that I NEVER want to read anything by Marquis de Sade.
Marquis de Sade, who lived from 1740 till 1814, wrote some very extreme porn during his lifetime. It was found so shocking, in fact, that he spent a large part of his life locked away in mental institutions in order to keep the general public safe. Apart from sexual acts we find a lot less shocking today (oral sex, anal sex, sex between two men or two women, orgies, certain fetishes regarding faeces and urine, what have you, this man wrote it all), his work also brimmed with violence and pain (there is so much rape in them, guys, as well as mutilation, murder, cannibalism, necrophilia, you name it); it is with reason that the word 'sadism' ('to gain pleasure from hurting another') was named after the Marquis. Needless to say, the anti-porn crowd found in Marquis de Sade everything that was bad about porn, and the pro-porn crowd did not have that much to bring in against it.
But then Angela Carter enters the discussion with her book 'The Sadeian Woman', shocking friend and foe alike. Through analyses of his major pornographic works, she argues that Sade's work is actually proto-feminist since Sade was one of the first (if not THE first) to divorce women having sex completely from sex' reproductive function. Instead, sex is all about pleasure. That pleasure is always to the detriment of another, for such is the way Sade perceives the world, but it is pleasure nonetheless.
An interesting book that is well argued.
It also has ensured that I NEVER want to read anything by Marquis de Sade.
More...