What is the meaning of this supposed to be? Or is it just and insane fetishist's fanfiction?
It's a book for charlatans to discuss while they listen to Girlpool and do coke off of Lego Magazine ironically.
>>8189392
it's just 20th-century Sade
he's being as depraved as possible for depravity's sake
>>8189422
>he's being as depraved as possible for depravity's sake
t. someone who has barely read him
>>8189392
Barthes wrote a review that heavily influenced structural analysis of novels. I prefer it to De Sade and influence on new French extremity
>>8189392
Read his essays if you really want to know.
THE EYE IS A PHALLIC SYMBOL AND REPRESENTS A FEAR OF 'CASTRATION' I.E. THE USURPATION OF POWER
>>8191377
http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/freud1.pdf
>We know from psychoanalytic experience, however, that this fear of damaging or losing one’s eyes is a terrible fear of childhood. Many adults still retain their apprehensiveness in this respect, and no bodily injury is so much dreaded by them as an injury to the eye. We are accustomed to say, too, that we will treasure a thing as the apple of our eye. A study of dreams, phantasies and myths has taught us that a morbid anxiety connected with the eyes and with going blind is often enough a substitute for the dread of castration.
'Yes'.
>>8191385
>http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/freud1.pdf
>freud
no. at least the text itself backs up barthes opinions
>>8191395
They kill a priest and take out one of his eyes then use the vagina as a medium to fuck that eye.
Are you kidding me, mate?
>>8191422
it's phallic in a way, but certainly not in a strictly freudian sense
>So here we have two metaphorical series, or, if you like, in line with the definition of metaphor, two chains of significants, for within each chain it is quite clear that each term is never anything but the significant of the next term. Do all the significants in this “step-ladder” refer to a stable thing signified, one all the more secret for being buried beneath a whole architecture of masks? In short, is there a bottom to the metaphor and consequently a hierarchy of its terms? The question is one of depth psychology and this is not the place to go into it. But notice one thing: if the chain does have a beginning, if the metaphor does have a generative (and thus privileged) term on the basis of which the paradigm takes shape by degrees, we should at least recognize that Story of the Eye in no way nominates the sexual as the first term in the chain. There are no grounds for saying that the metaphor sets out from the genital to end up with such apparently asexual objects as egg, eye, or sun. The imaginary world unfolded here does not have as its “secret” a sexual fantasy. If it did, the first thing requiring explanation would be why the erotic theme is never directly phallic (what we have here is a “round phallicism”).
>>8191422
I always saw that scene with the eye shoved in the vagina and the subsequent stare inside as the abyss staring back, more so considering that Bataille was influenced by Nietzche.
>>8191442
The 'phallus' is a symbol of power, not a direct visual metaphor for the penis. Even Barthes doesn't go so far as to say the eye is NOT phallic, just not directly phallic--it doesn't imitate the shape of the thing it is abstracted from, it's 'roundly phallic'.
I agree that a 'strictly Freudian' interpretation is inappropriate, but Freud's conceptual economy is still very valuable in organizing our thinking around the symbolism in the story. Barthes seems to agree.
>>8191467
Yes! The nothing that undergirds our desires and striving. It is a bit of crude comic irony that the narrator cannot see this, cannot stare back with his own single thrusting eye-hole.
The sex-drive and the death-drive are parallel, or rather the sex-drive is really just 'sublimated' death-drive. We're always really just scrambling back toward our primordial womb.
PHALLUS POWER FREUD MARX BOURGEOISIE SURPLUS VALUE HURR
And you people like to complain about /pol/.
>>8191551
>discussing art
>NIGGERS N SPICS N JEWS GET OUT
pick one
