Comments on: Story of the Eye by Georges Bataille

By: anitadalton

anitadalton — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:30:02 +0000

Gustavo, I am sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Your English usage is perfectly understandable so no worries.

As a person who reads a lot of extreme books and ideas, and a person who is objectively not insane, I don’t think only insane people read these books. I think that all kinds of fiction, even that which is normal, can fuel perverse fantasies. Pedophiles are known to look at catalog ads of children in swimsuits for sexual satisfaction. People who are aroused by stumps look at photographs of war casualties. All written material can serve to fuel sexual fantasies.

So there is a chance that this sort of material can fuel fantasies, but I don’t think it would create fantasies. This is some pretty specific material in this book and one would have to be more or less inclined to find such material sexual arousing before reading the book in order to find them appealing after reading this book. In fact, I think the vast majority of people who read this book will be vaguely disgusted or unsettled, not aroused.

As to whether or not it will pervert future fantasies, I don’t think we really have much to worry about. Sade has been around for centuries and has been very well-read and the vast majority of people are not sadistic, murderous libertines. Some minds that are already biased can be twisted by such content but it’s rare, I think.

By: Gustavo

Gustavo — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:33:23 +0000

Hello, I’m from Argentina. Maybe thats the reason of my next bad language…
Don’t you think only insane people read these books?
Thinking and thinking, I think (poor vocabulary) a mentally “normal” person is impossible to consume this type of garbage.
Another cuestion, this doesn’t have several trouble for the future, to his sexual normal fantasies? To this fantasies become in pervertions?

By: paynith

paynith — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 22:48:57 +0000

hey, thanks for the comment on DT & the link. i think /story of the eye/ can be hard to vibe with because, like you say, the characters are so flat… they’re just vessels for bataille, really. all we can really do as readers is stand back and watch. in retrospect, /story of the eye/ makes a lot more “sense” in the context of bataille’s writings on eroticism and transgression… yet i think what appeals to me most is the absurdist tone throughout the book. above all, i think it’s just a fun read. but bataille also has particular conceits in terms of imagery which interest me. i mean, he sets up this metonymic chain of signifiers around the repeated ritual of vaginally ingesting a globular object. my twisted mind has to respect that shit!

if you haven’t read his essay “the big toe,” it’s quite short and funny:
http://books.google.com/books?id=2Yj6s1sjelgC&lpg=PA20&vq=big%20toe&dq=%22big%20toe%20is%20the%20most%20human%22&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false

By: anitadalton

anitadalton — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:49:28 +0000

As horribly unintellectual as it may seem, I think sometimes it boils down to whether or not one gets the book. I suspect I did not get this book because for every comment I've received, I've also received about 10 e-mails explaining the reason why Story of the Eye has merit. The perversion simply did not speak to me. The characters were just too... foreign, compelled by forces I find inexplicable and so outre there is no way I could find the merit others see. For some reason, I could not step back and look at it as surrealist subversion. I just finished reading Necrophilia Variations by Supervert and for some reason, the grounded reality of that particular perversion and subversion worked for me. Gah! Yay for me! I get necrophilia but not the eggs, oh god, the eggs! Interestingly, I have a greater fondness now for Bataille. I've read off and on and plan soon to finish The Trial of Gilles de Rais and Bataille has an amazing sympathy for the devil, an understanding of what it really means to be a monster to the monster himself as well as the victims. Interesting book. Hey, thanks for the comment! I appreciate it.

By: paynith

paynith — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:32:44 +0000

Hi, stumbled here suddenly. Just another vote on the yes-this-book-has-merit side; I was also exposed to it at a young age (somewhere between 14 and 16 or so)… I think that’s a key factor here. Older now, I’m undertaking a more formal study of transgressive lit, but Story of the Eye will always have a warm place in my heart, for nonintellectual reasons. The eggs, the eggs!

By: anitadalton

anitadalton — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 04:18:40 +0000

Misha, thanks for your two cents. Odd books… Man, they really hit people so differently. Increasingly I think there is no real high-minded literary reasons why anything is good or bad, aside from the obvious of just being crappily written. All there can really be is reaction. At least I reacted. I’d rather read a book that makes me yuck out than one that leaves me feeling “meh” inside.

I am haunted, HAUNTED, by the scene where a recovering Simone and the narrator are playing with eggs in the toilet. I suspect it would require years of psychotherapy to understand exactly why this book made me respond as I did.

Thanks again for sharing! It never stops thrilling me to see there are other odd book lovers out there!

By: Misha

Misha — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:46:00 +0000

This book was recommended to me by a friend who likes it a lot and was exposed to it at a young age. I remember thinking, “Where was this book when I was 15?” as I was reading it, too.

Among the not-so-odd books I enjoy are a few FTL scifi types. I immediately marked a paragraph in chapter 8 of “Eye” knowing even before I finished the story that this would be my favorite passage. It’s the paragraph from when he is on the ground looking up at the stars and describes the milky way.

I dig the book. I have no high-minded literary reason with which to disagree with your assessment or anything. Just wanted to toss in a vote for the positive on this one. ;)