Difference between revisions of "Are We Allowed To Enjoy Daphnée du Maurier?"
m (moved Are We Allowed To Enjoy Daphnée du Maurier? to Are We Allowed To Enjoy Daphnée du Maurier?: Text replace - "é" to "é") |
(The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles).) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BSZ}} | {{BSZ}} | ||
− | A year or so ago, while waiting in line to pay at a London Waterstone bookstore, I | + | A year or so ago, while waiting in line to pay at a [[London]] Waterstone bookstore, I |
− | overheard a young man asking one of the staff: 'I just finished <i>Mrs de Winter</i>. Is it true | + | overheard a young man asking one of the staff: 'I just finished <i>Mrs de Winter</i>. Is it [[true]] |
− | that this is the sequel to another book?' This was for me a depressing encounter with the | + | that this is the sequel to [[another]] book?' This was for me a depressing [[encounter]] with the |
− | illiteracy of the younger generation-how can anyone not know about <i>Rebecca</i>?<br><br> | + | illiteracy of the younger generation-how can anyone not [[know]] [[about]] <i>Rebecca</i>?<br><br> |
Or is this oblivion perhaps deserved? There is something radically untimely about | Or is this oblivion perhaps deserved? There is something radically untimely about | ||
− | Daphne du Maurier: her prose seems marked by a melodramatic excess that often comes | + | Daphne du Maurier: her prose seems marked by a melodramatic [[excess]] that often comes |
− | dangerously close to the ridiculous-after reading one of her books, it is difficult to avoid | + | dangerously close to the ridiculous-after [[reading]] one of her books, it is difficult to avoid |
− | the vague sentiment that it is no longer possible to write like that today. <a name="1"></a><a href="#1x">1</a> She tells stories without truly being a writer; in what, then, resides the secret of the undisputed | + | the vague sentiment that it is no longer possible to write like that today. <a [[name]]="1"></a><a href="#1x">1</a> She tells stories without truly [[being]] a writer; in what, then, resides the [[secret]] of the undisputed |
− | tremendous power of fascination exerted by her stories? What if these two features are | + | tremendous [[power]] of [[fascination]] exerted by her stories? What if these two features are |
− | somehow connected? What if her lack of style, her pathetic directness, is the formal | + | somehow connected? What if her [[lack]] of style, her pathetic directness, is the [[formal]] |
− | effect of the fact that du Maurier's narratives directly, all too directly, stage the fantasies | + | effect of the fact that du Maurier's narratives directly, all too directly, [[stage]] the [[fantasies]] |
− | that sustain our lives? The notion of fantasy has to be taken here in all its fundamental | + | that sustain our lives? The [[notion]] of [[fantasy]] has to be taken here in all its fundamental |
− | ambiguity: far from being opposed to reality, fantasy is that which provides the basic | + | ambiguity: far from being opposed to [[reality]], fantasy is that which provides the basic |
− | coordinates of what we experience as 'reality' (as Lacan puts it, 'everything we are | + | coordinates of what we [[experience]] as 'reality' (as [[Lacan]] puts it, 'everything we are |
− | allowed to approach by way of reality remains rooted in fantasy' <a name="2"></a><a href="#2x">2</a>) - however, in order to fulfil this function, it has to remain hidden, it must exert its efficiency in the background: | + | allowed to approach by way of reality remains rooted in fantasy' <a name="2"></a><a href="#2x">2</a>) - however, in [[order]] to fulfil this function, it has to remain hidden, it must exert its efficiency in the background: |
− | 'If what [neurotics] long for the most intensely in their phantasies is presented them in | + | 'If what [neurotics] long for the most intensely in their phantasies is presented [[them]] in |
reality, they none the less flee from it'. <a name="3"></a><a href="#3x">3</a> And it is this properly shameless, often | reality, they none the less flee from it'. <a name="3"></a><a href="#3x">3</a> And it is this properly shameless, often | ||
− | embarrassing, direct staging of fantasies that makes du Maurier's writing so | + | embarrassing, direct staging of fantasies that makes du Maurier's [[writing]] so |
− | compelling-especially when compared with aseptic 'politically correct' feminism. <a name="4"></a><a href="#4x">4</a><br><br> | + | compelling-especially when compared with aseptic 'politically correct' [[feminism]]. <a name="4"></a><a href="#4x">4</a><br><br> |
− | According to the Jewish tradition, Lilith is the woman a man makes love to while he | + | According to the [[Jewish]] [[tradition]], Lilith is the [[woman]] a man makes [[love]] to while he |
− | masturbates alone in his bed during the night - far from standing for the feminine identity | + | masturbates alone in his bed during the night - far from standing for the [[feminine]] [[identity]] |
− | liberated from the patriarchal hold, her status is purely phallic: she is what Lacan calls <i>La | + | liberated from the patriarchal hold, her status is purely [[phallic]]: she is what Lacan calls <i>La |
− | femme</i>, the Woman, the fantasmatic supplement of the male masturbatory phallic | + | [[femme]]</i>, the Woman, the [[fantasmatic]] [[supplement]] of the [[male]] masturbatory phallic |
− | <i>jouissance</i>. Significantly, while there is only one man (Adam), femininity is from the | + | <i>[[jouissance]]</i>. Significantly, while there is only one man (Adam), [[femininity]] is from the |
− | very beginning split between Eve and Lilith, between the 'ordinary' hysterical feminine | + | very beginning [[split]] between Eve and Lilith, between the 'ordinary' [[hysterical]] feminine |
− | subject and the fantasmatic spectre of Woman: when a man is having sex with a 'real' | + | [[subject]] and the fantasmatic [[spectre]] of Woman: when a man is having sex with a '[[real]]' |
woman, he is using her as a masturbatory prop to support his fantasizing about the non- | woman, he is using her as a masturbatory prop to support his fantasizing about the non- | ||
existent Woman... And in <i>Rebecca</i>, her most famous novel, du Maurier adds another | existent Woman... And in <i>Rebecca</i>, her most famous novel, du Maurier adds another | ||
− | twist to the Lilith myth: the fantasy of Woman is (re)appropriated by a woman - what if | + | twist to the Lilith [[myth]]: the fantasy of Woman is (re)appropriated by a woman - what if |
− | Lilith is not so much a male fantasy as the fantasy of a woman, the model of her | + | Lilith is not so much a male fantasy as the fantasy of a woman, the [[model]] of her |
fantasmatic competitor?<br><br> | fantasmatic competitor?<br><br> | ||
So where does du Maurier belong? Properly speaking, she is flanked, on one side, by | So where does du Maurier belong? Properly speaking, she is flanked, on one side, by | ||
− | Romanticism, with its notion of radical Evil ('pleasure in pain'), and, on the other side, | + | Romanticism, with its notion of radical [[Evil]] ('[[pleasure]] in [[pain]]'), and, on the [[other]] side, |
− | by Freud, and the direct impact of psychoanalysis on arts - why? It is interesting to note | + | by [[Freud]], and the direct impact of [[psychoanalysis]] on [[arts]] - why? It is interesting to note |
− | that Lacan identified the beginning of the movement of ideas that finally gave birth to | + | that Lacan [[identified]] the beginning of the movement of [[ideas]] that finally gave [[birth]] to |
− | psychoanalysis as being that of Kantian ethics (particularly his <i>Critique of Practical | + | psychoanalysis as being that of Kantian [[ethics]] (particularly his <i>Critique of [[Practical]] |
− | Reason</i>) and the Romantic notion of 'pleasure in pain'. <a name="5"></a><a href="#5x">5</a> It is this epoch that provides the only proper ground for what is deceitfully called 'applied psychoanalysis'. Prior to this | + | [[Reason]]</i>) and the Romantic notion of 'pleasure in pain'. <a name="5"></a><a href="#5x">5</a> It is this epoch that provides the only proper ground for what is deceitfully called 'applied psychoanalysis'. Prior to this |
− | moment, the universe was one in which the Unconscious was not yet operative, in which | + | [[moment]], the [[universe]] was one in which the [[Unconscious]] was not yet operative, in which |
the 'subject' was identified with the Light of Reason as opposed to the impersonal Night | the 'subject' was identified with the Light of Reason as opposed to the impersonal Night | ||
− | of drives, and not, in the very kernel of its being, this Night itself; afterwards, the very | + | of [[drives]], and not, in the very kernel of its being, this Night itself; afterwards, the very |
− | impact of psychoanalysis transformed artistic literary practice (Eugene O'Neill's plays, | + | impact of psychoanalysis transformed artistic [[literary]] [[practice]] (Eugene O'Neill's plays, |
− | for example, already presuppose psychoanalysis, whereas Henry James, Katherine | + | for example, already presuppose psychoanalysis, whereas Henry [[James]], Katherine |
− | Mansfield and even Kafka do not). It is also within this horizon that du Maurier moves- | + | Mansfield and even [[Kafka]] do not). It is also within this horizon that du Maurier moves- |
− | this space of the heroic innocence of the Unconscious in which irresistible passions freely | + | this [[space]] of the heroic innocence of the Unconscious in which irresistible passions freely |
roam around.<br><br> | roam around.<br><br> | ||
There is one term that encapsulates everything that renders this space-and du Maurier's | There is one term that encapsulates everything that renders this space-and du Maurier's | ||
− | writing itself-so problematic for contemporary feminism: feminine masochism. What du | + | writing itself-so problematic for contemporary feminism: feminine [[masochism]]. What du |
− | Maurier stages again and again in a shamelessly direct way is the different figure of | + | Maurier [[stages]] again and again in a shamelessly direct way is the different [[figure]] of |
− | 'feminine masochism', of a woman enjoying her own ruin, finding a tortured satisfaction | + | 'feminine masochism', of a woman enjoying her own ruin, finding a tortured [[satisfaction]] |
− | in her subjection and humiliation, etc. So how are we to redeem this feature? | + | in her subjection and [[humiliation]], etc. So how are we to redeem this feature? |
− | The ultimate point of irreconciliable difference between psychoanalysis and feminism is | + | The ultimate point of irreconciliable [[difference]] between psychoanalysis and feminism is |
− | that of rape (and/or the masochist fantasies that sustain it). For standard feminism, at | + | that of rape (and/or the [[masochist]] fantasies that sustain it). For standard feminism, at |
− | least, it is an a priori axiom that rape is a violence imposed from without: even if a | + | least, it is an a priori axiom that rape is a [[violence]] imposed from without: even if a |
− | woman fantasizes about being raped, this only bears witness to the deplorable fact that | + | woman fantasizes about being raped, this only bears [[witness]] to the deplorable fact that |
− | she has internalized the male attitude. The reaction is here one of pure panic: the moment | + | she has internalized the male attitude. The reaction is here one of pure [[panic]]: the moment |
one mentions that a woman may fantasize about being raped or at least brutally | one mentions that a woman may fantasize about being raped or at least brutally | ||
− | mishandled, one hears the objections: 'This is like saying that Jews fantasize about being | + | mishandled, one hears the objections: 'This is like saying that [[Jews]] fantasize about being |
gassed in the camps, or African-Americans fantasize about being lynched!' From this | gassed in the camps, or African-Americans fantasize about being lynched!' From this | ||
− | perspective, the split hysterical position (that of complaining about being sexually | + | perspective, the split hysterical [[position]] (that of complaining about being sexually |
− | misused and exploited, while simultaneously desiring it and provoking a man to seduce | + | misused and exploited, while simultaneously [[desiring]] it and provoking a man to [[seduce]] |
− | her) is secondary, while for Freud, it is primary, constitutive of subjectivity. | + | her) is secondary, while for Freud, it is primary, constitutive of [[subjectivity]]. |
− | Consequently, the problem with rape for Freud is that it has such a traumatic impact not | + | Consequently, the problem with rape for Freud is that it has such a [[traumatic]] impact not |
− | simply because it is a case of such brutal external violence, but because it also touches on | + | simply because it is a [[case]] of such brutal [[external]] violence, but because it also touches on |
− | something disavowed in the victim herself. So when Freud writes, 'If what [neurotics] | + | something disavowed in the [[victim]] herself. So when Freud writes, 'If what [neurotics] |
long for the most intensely in their phantasies is presented them in reality, they none the | long for the most intensely in their phantasies is presented them in reality, they none the | ||
− | less flee from it', his point is not merely that this aversion occurs because of censorship, | + | less flee from it', his point is not merely that this aversion occurs because of [[censorship]], |
but, rather, that the core of our fantasy is unbearable to us. (Of course, this insight in no | but, rather, that the core of our fantasy is unbearable to us. (Of course, this insight in no | ||
way justifies rape along the infamous lines 'she just got what she fantasized about...' - if | way justifies rape along the infamous lines 'she just got what she fantasized about...' - if | ||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
What this means is that, paradoxically, the staging of what appears to be a masochist | What this means is that, paradoxically, the staging of what appears to be a masochist | ||
− | scenario is the first act of liberation: by means of it, the servant's masochistic libidinal | + | scenario is the first act of liberation: by means of it, the servant's masochistic [[libidinal]] |
− | attachment to his master is brought into the light of day, and the servant thus achieves a | + | attachment to his [[master]] is brought into the light of day, and the servant thus achieves a |
− | minimal distance towards it. In his essay on Sacher-Masoch, <a name="6"></a><a href="#6x">6</a> Gilles Deleuze elaborated this aspect in detail: far from bringing any satisfaction to the sadistic witness, the | + | minimal distance towards it. In his essay on Sacher-Masoch, <a name="6"></a><a href="#6x">6</a> Gilles [[Deleuze]] elaborated this aspect in detail: far from bringing any satisfaction to the [[sadistic]] witness, the |
− | masochist's self-torture frustrates the sadist, depriving him of his power over the | + | masochist's [[self]]-[[torture]] [[frustrates]] the [[sadist]], depriving him of his power over the |
− | masochist. Sadism involves a relationship of domination, while masochism is necessarily | + | masochist. [[Sadism]] involves a [[relationship]] of domination, while masochism is necessarily |
− | the first step towards liberation. <a name="7"></a><a href="#7x">7</a> When we are subjected to a power mechanism, this subjection is always and by definition sustained by some libidinal investment: the | + | the first step towards liberation. <a name="7"></a><a href="#7x">7</a> When we are subjected to a power [[mechanism]], this subjection is always and by definition sustained by some libidinal investment: the |
− | subjection itself generates a surplus-enjoyment of its own. This subjection is embodied in | + | subjection itself generates a [[surplus]]-[[enjoyment]] of its own. This subjection is embodied in |
− | a network of 'material' bodily practices, and, for this reason, we cannot get rid of our | + | a network of '[[material]]' [[bodily]] practices, and, for this reason, we cannot get rid of our |
− | subjection through a merely intellectual reflection-our liberation has to be staged in | + | subjection through a merely [[intellectual]] [[reflection]]-our liberation has to be staged in |
some kind of bodily performance, and, furthermore, this performance has to be of an | some kind of bodily performance, and, furthermore, this performance has to be of an | ||
− | apparently 'masochistic' nature, it has to stage the painful process of hitting back at | + | apparently 'masochistic' [[nature]], it has to stage the painful [[process]] of hitting back at |
− | oneself. Did Sylvia Plath not adopt the same strategy in her famous poem 'Daddy'?</font></p> | + | oneself. Did [[Sylvia]] Plath not adopt the same strategy in her famous [[poem]] 'Daddy'?</font></p> |
<font size="3"> | <font size="3"> | ||
</font><blockquote> | </font><blockquote> | ||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
against herself so as to show that she can equal her oppressors with her self- | against herself so as to show that she can equal her oppressors with her self- | ||
inflicted oppression. And this is the strategy of the concentration camps. When | inflicted oppression. And this is the strategy of the concentration camps. When | ||
− | suffering is there whatever you do, by inflicting it upon yourself you achieve your | + | [[suffering]] is there whatever you do, by inflicting it upon yourself you achieve your |
identity, you set yourself free. <a name="8"></a><a href="#8x">8</a></font></p><font size="3"> | identity, you set yourself free. <a name="8"></a><a href="#8x">8</a></font></p><font size="3"> | ||
</font></blockquote> | </font></blockquote> | ||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
</font><p align="justify"> | </font><p align="justify"> | ||
− | <font size="3">This also resolves the problem of Plath's reference to the holocaust, i.e., the reproach of | + | <font size="3">This also resolves the problem of Plath's reference to the [[holocaust]], i.e., the reproach of |
− | some of her critics that her implicit equation of her oppression by her father to what the | + | some of her critics that her implicit equation of her oppression by her [[father]] to what the |
− | Nazis did to the Jews is an inadmissible exaggeration: what matters is not the (obviously | + | [[Nazis]] did to the Jews is an inadmissible exaggeration: what matters is not the (obviously |
incomparable) magnitude of the crime, but the fact that Plath felt compelled to adopt the | incomparable) magnitude of the crime, but the fact that Plath felt compelled to adopt the | ||
− | strategy of turning violence against herself as the only means of psychic liberation. For | + | strategy of turning violence against herself as the only means of [[psychic]] liberation. For |
this reason, it is also far too simplistic to dismiss her thoroughly ambiguous hysterical | this reason, it is also far too simplistic to dismiss her thoroughly ambiguous hysterical | ||
− | attitude towards her father (horror at his oppressive presence and, simultaneously, her | + | attitude towards her father ([[horror]] at his oppressive [[presence]] and, simultaneously, her |
obvious libidinal fascination by him - 'Every woman adores a Fascist, the boot in the | obvious libidinal fascination by him - 'Every woman adores a Fascist, the boot in the | ||
− | face...' <a name="9"></a><a href="#9x">9</a>): this hysterical knot of the libidinal investment of one's own victimization can never be undone. That is to say, one cannot oppose the 'redemptive' awareness of being | + | face...' <a name="9"></a><a href="#9x">9</a>): this hysterical [[knot]] of the libidinal investment of one's own [[victimization]] can never be undone. That is to say, one cannot oppose the 'redemptive' [[awareness]] of being |
oppressed to the 'pathological' enjoyment the hysterical subject gains from this very | oppressed to the 'pathological' enjoyment the hysterical subject gains from this very | ||
− | oppression, interpreting their conjunction as the result of the 'liberation from patriarchal | + | oppression, [[interpreting]] their conjunction as the result of the 'liberation from patriarchal |
− | domination as an unfinished project' (to paraphrase Habermas), i.e., as the index of a split | + | domination as an unfinished [[project]]' (to paraphrase [[Habermas]]), i.e., as the [[index]] of a split |
− | between the 'good' feminist awareness of subjection and the persisting patriarchal | + | between the '[[good]]' [[feminist]] awareness of subjection and the persisting patriarchal |
− | libidinal economy which chains the hysteric to patriarchy, making her subordination into | + | libidinal [[economy]] which chains the [[hysteric]] to [[patriarchy]], making her subordination into |
a <i>servitude volontaire</i>. If this were the case, then the solution would be simple: one would | a <i>servitude volontaire</i>. If this were the case, then the solution would be simple: one would | ||
− | enact what, apropos of Proudhon, Marx characterized as the exemplary petty bourgeois | + | enact what, apropos of Proudhon, [[Marx]] characterized as the exemplary petty bourgeois |
procedure of distinguishing in every phenomenon a 'good' and a 'bad' aspect, and then | procedure of distinguishing in every phenomenon a 'good' and a 'bad' aspect, and then | ||
affirming the good and getting rid of the bad-in our case, struggling to keep the 'good' | affirming the good and getting rid of the bad-in our case, struggling to keep the 'good' | ||
aspect (awareness of oppression) and discard the 'bad' one (finding pleasure in | aspect (awareness of oppression) and discard the 'bad' one (finding pleasure in | ||
− | oppression). The reason this 'untying of the knot' doesn't work is that the only true | + | oppression). The reason this 'untying of the knot' doesn't [[work]] is that the only true |
− | awareness of our subjection is the awareness of the obscene excessive pleasure (surplus- | + | awareness of our subjection is the awareness of the [[obscene]] excessive pleasure (surplus- |
enjoyment) we gain from it-which is why the first gesture of liberation is not to get rid | enjoyment) we gain from it-which is why the first gesture of liberation is not to get rid | ||
− | of this excessive pleasure, but actively to assume it. If, following Franz Fanon, we define | + | of this excessive pleasure, but actively to assume it. If, following Franz [[Fanon]], we define |
− | political violence not as opposed to work, but, precisely, as the ultimate political version | + | [[political]] violence not as opposed to work, but, precisely, as the ultimate political version |
− | of the 'work of the negative', of the educational self-formation, then violence should | + | of the 'work of the [[negative]]', of the educational self-[[formation]], then violence should |
primarily be conceived as self-violence, as a violent re-formation of the very substance of | primarily be conceived as self-violence, as a violent re-formation of the very substance of | ||
subject's being.<br><br> | subject's being.<br><br> | ||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
Consequently, the first thing to do in every case of masochism is to look for the | Consequently, the first thing to do in every case of masochism is to look for the | ||
'collateral damage' that generates the accidental side-profit. In one of the anti-Soviet | 'collateral damage' that generates the accidental side-profit. In one of the anti-Soviet | ||
− | jokes popular after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, a fairy-queen | + | [[jokes]] popular after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in [[1968]], a fairy-queen |
− | approaches a Czech and tells him that she is ready to grant him three wishes; the Czech | + | approaches a Czech and tells him that she is ready to grant him [[three]] wishes; the Czech |
− | immediately offers his first wish: 'The Chinese army should occupy my country for a | + | immediately offers his first [[wish]]: 'The Chinese [[army]] should occupy my country for a |
month and then withdraw!' After the fairy-queen asks him for the other two wishes, he | month and then withdraw!' After the fairy-queen asks him for the other two wishes, he | ||
says: 'The same again! The Chinese should occupy us again and again!' When the | says: 'The same again! The Chinese should occupy us again and again!' When the | ||
− | bewildered queen asks him why he chose such a strange wish, the Czech answers with a | + | bewildered queen asks him why he [[chose]] such a strange wish, the Czech answers with a |
− | malicious grin: 'Because each time the Chinese were to occupy us, they would have to | + | malicious grin: 'Because each [[time]] the Chinese were to occupy us, they would have to |
− | pass through the Soviet Union on their way here and back!' The same holds often for | + | [[pass]] through the [[Soviet Union]] on their way here and back!' The same holds often for |
'feminine masochism', and especially for du Maurier's stories whose heroines enjoying | 'feminine masochism', and especially for du Maurier's stories whose heroines enjoying | ||
− | their painful passions: they follow the logic of displacement, i.e., to interpret them | + | their painful passions: they follow the [[logic]] of [[displacement]], i.e., to [[interpret]] them |
− | properly, one should focus attention on the third (male) subject who is targeted when a | + | properly, one should focus attention on the [[third]] (male) subject who is targeted when a |
woman is repeatedly 'occupied by the Chinese army'.<br><br> | woman is repeatedly 'occupied by the Chinese army'.<br><br> | ||
Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
narratives, and, perhaps, nowhere is this clearer than in six of her short stories: 'The | narratives, and, perhaps, nowhere is this clearer than in six of her short stories: 'The | ||
Birds', 'Monte Verità', 'The Apple Tree', 'The Little Photographer', 'Kiss Me Again, | Birds', 'Monte Verità', 'The Apple Tree', 'The Little Photographer', 'Kiss Me Again, | ||
− | Stranger' and 'The Old Man'. <a name="10"></a><a href="#10x">10</a> They are to be read in the same way that Claude Lévi- Strauss interpreted myths: instead of directly searching for a hidden meaning within each | + | Stranger' and 'The Old Man'. <a name="10"></a><a href="#10x">10</a> They are to be read in the same way that Claude Lévi- [[Strauss]] [[interpreted]] [[myths]]: instead of directly searching for a hidden [[meaning]] within each |
of them, they should be interpreted through each other, read side by side-the moment | of them, they should be interpreted through each other, read side by side-the moment | ||
− | one does it, one perceives that they form a precise structure. The central four stories | + | one does it, one perceives that they [[form]] a precise [[structure]]. The central four stories |
− | present four versions of why sexual relationship fails. In 'Monte Verità', a beautiful | + | [[present]] four versions of why [[sexual]] relationship fails. In 'Monte Verità', a beautiful |
− | young Anna abandons her husband and potential lover for the 'Truth Mountain', a remote | + | young Anna abandons her husband and potential lover for the '[[Truth]] Mountain', a remote |
− | resort in the Swiss Alps, the seat of an initiatic group who lead there a secluded life of | + | resort in the Swiss Alps, the seat of an initiatic group who lead there a secluded [[life]] of |
immortality, a life of eternal ecstatic satisfaction exempted from the traumas of our | immortality, a life of eternal ecstatic satisfaction exempted from the traumas of our | ||
− | 'world of men and women'-in short, she chooses what Lacan called the Other | + | '[[world]] of men and [[women]]'-in short, she chooses what Lacan called the Other |
<i>Jouissance</i> over ordinary phallic <i>jouissance</i>. In 'The Apple Tree', an older husband | <i>Jouissance</i> over ordinary phallic <i>jouissance</i>. In 'The Apple Tree', an older husband | ||
whose neglected wife died a while ago suddenly notices how a malformed apple tree | whose neglected wife died a while ago suddenly notices how a malformed apple tree | ||
− | close to his house bears an uncanny resemblance to her; the tree starts to haunt him and | + | close to his house bears an [[uncanny]] resemblance to her; the tree starts to haunt him and |
he dies, entangled in its fallen wings in a winter storm. In 'The Little Photographer', a | he dies, entangled in its fallen wings in a winter storm. In 'The Little Photographer', a | ||
− | lone, bored beautiful wife who married into rich nobility becomes involved in a weird | + | lone, bored beautiful wife who [[married]] into rich nobility becomes involved in a weird |
and humiliating love affair with a poor crippled local photographer while on holiday at a | and humiliating love affair with a poor crippled local photographer while on holiday at a | ||
seaside resort. In 'Kiss Me Again, Stranger', a young mechanic spends a long evening | seaside resort. In 'Kiss Me Again, Stranger', a young mechanic spends a long evening | ||
− | with a mysterious girl who is the following day revealed to be the serial murderer of | + | with a mysterious [[girl]] who is the following day revealed to be the serial murderer of |
− | several RAF pilots. In all four stories, the intrusion of an unexpected dimension disturbs | + | several RAF pilots. In all four stories, the intrusion of an unexpected [[dimension]] disturbs |
− | the 'normal' run of things and ruins the prospect of a satisfied, calm life of a couple: the | + | the 'normal' run of things and ruins the prospect of a [[satisfied]], calm life of a couple: the |
− | fantasmatic Other Place of non-phallic <i>jouissance</i>; the return of the dead wife in the guise | + | fantasmatic Other [[Place]] of non-phallic <i>jouissance</i>; the [[return]] of the [[dead]] wife in the guise |
− | of the tree as a conversion-symptom that haunts the husband; the strange lure of the low- | + | of the tree as a conversion-[[symptom]] that haunts the husband; the strange [[lure]] of the low- |
− | class, doggishly faithful, repulsive lover; the unexpected lethal dimension of an ordinary | + | [[class]], doggishly faithful, repulsive lover; the unexpected lethal dimension of an ordinary |
girl. The first and the last stories are, in clear contrast, the ones with a 'happy' couple. | girl. The first and the last stories are, in clear contrast, the ones with a 'happy' couple. | ||
− | 'The Birds' (on which, of course, Hitchcock's film is based) tells the story of a | + | '[[The Birds]]' (on which, of course, [[Hitchcock]]'s [[film]] is based) tells the story of a |
− | countryside family of tenants on the Cornwall coast who had to deal with attacking birds. | + | countryside [[family]] of tenants on the Cornwall coast who had to deal with attacking birds. |
− | In 'The Old Man', the observer witnesses how a strange couple living in a cottage near | + | In 'The Old Man', the [[observer]] witnesses how a strange couple [[living]] in a cottage near |
− | the sea maintains their secluded happiness by killing their intrusive son whose presence | + | the sea maintains their secluded [[happiness]] by killing their intrusive son whose presence |
started to disturb their idyll. The two 'happy' families are thus more than weird: the one | started to disturb their idyll. The two 'happy' families are thus more than weird: the one | ||
lives under siege by the attacking birds; the other has to secure its happiness by killing | lives under siege by the attacking birds; the other has to secure its happiness by killing | ||
Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
Especially instructive here is 'The Birds', especially if we compare du Maurier's original | Especially instructive here is 'The Birds', especially if we compare du Maurier's original | ||
− | story with Hitchcock's film: while both share the same fantasmatic cataclysmic event, | + | story with Hitchcock's film: while both share the same fantasmatic cataclysmic [[event]], |
this event is in each case included in a different context that confers upon it an entirely | this event is in each case included in a different context that confers upon it an entirely | ||
different meaning. In order to unravel Hitchcock's <i>The Birds</i>, one should first imagine | different meaning. In order to unravel Hitchcock's <i>The Birds</i>, one should first imagine | ||
the film without the birds, simply depicting the proverbial middle-class family in the | the film without the birds, simply depicting the proverbial middle-class family in the | ||
− | midst of an Oedipal crisis-the attacks of the birds can only be accounted for as an outlet | + | midst of an [[Oedipal]] crisis-the attacks of the birds can only be accounted for as an outlet |
of the tension underlying this Oedipal constellation, i.e., they clearly materialize the | of the tension underlying this Oedipal constellation, i.e., they clearly materialize the | ||
− | destructive outburst of the maternal superego, one mother's jealousy toward the young | + | destructive [[outburst]] of the [[maternal]] [[superego]], one [[mother]]'s [[jealousy]] toward the young |
woman who tries to snatch her son from her. The same procedure should also be applied | woman who tries to snatch her son from her. The same procedure should also be applied | ||
− | to du Maurier's 'The Birds': her 'Birds without birds' would have been a sketch of hard | + | to du Maurier's 'The Birds': her 'Birds without birds' would have been a [[sketch]] of hard |
− | English peasant life, of tough characters who are aware that, ultimately, they can only | + | [[English]] peasant life, of tough characters who are aware that, ultimately, they can only |
− | rely on themselves, and are able to keep their mind and provide for their survival even in | + | rely on themselves, and are able to keep their [[mind]] and provide for their survival even in |
the most disturbing circumstances. The attacking birds here are thus to bring out the best | the most disturbing circumstances. The attacking birds here are thus to bring out the best | ||
− | of the tough character of the 'ordinary' English peasant-against what? Hints scattered | + | of the tough [[character]] of the 'ordinary' English peasant-against what? Hints scattered |
− | throughout the story make it clear that the true target of the story is the post-World War II | + | throughout the story make it clear that the true target of the story is the post-[[World War II]] |
− | Labour Welfare State: the state fails to react properly to the threat of the birds and, | + | Labour [[Welfare]] [[State]]: the state fails to react properly to the [[threat]] of the birds and, |
towards the end of the story, simply ceases to function.<br><br> | towards the end of the story, simply ceases to function.<br><br> | ||
Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
nonetheless not fully satisfied, haunted by visions of and longing for a different, more | nonetheless not fully satisfied, haunted by visions of and longing for a different, more | ||
emancipated, life. 'The Apple Tree' would have been a depressing story about an old | emancipated, life. 'The Apple Tree' would have been a depressing story about an old | ||
− | couple whose superficially calm life conceals silent despair and cruel ignorance. 'The | + | couple whose superficially calm life conceals silent despair and cruel [[ignorance]]. 'The |
Little Photographer' would have been a vignette on a beautiful girl who married for | Little Photographer' would have been a vignette on a beautiful girl who married for | ||
− | money but is now condemned to lead a suffocating, aseptic existence of empty family | + | [[money]] but is now condemned to lead a suffocating, aseptic [[existence]] of empty family |
− | rituals, cut off from the bustle of real life. 'Kiss Me Again, Stranger' would have been a | + | [[rituals]], cut off from the bustle of real life. 'Kiss Me Again, Stranger' would have been a |
− | story of the everyday emotional misery of a young mechanic unable to find a stable love | + | story of the everyday emotional misery of a young mechanic unable to find a [[stable]] love |
relationship. Finally, 'The Old Man' would have been a portrait of utter immobility: a | relationship. Finally, 'The Old Man' would have been a portrait of utter immobility: a | ||
− | couple isolated from society, living in a state of psychotic seclusion... The intrusive | + | couple isolated from [[society]], living in a state of [[psychotic]] seclusion... The intrusive |
Event (birds attacking, the twisted apple tree, the strangely attractive crippled | Event (birds attacking, the twisted apple tree, the strangely attractive crippled | ||
− | photographer, etc.) is then nothing but a fantasized escape from this misery, a figure that | + | photographer, etc.) is then [[nothing]] but a fantasized escape from this misery, a figure that |
renders all the more palpable the misery of its everyday background - can one imagine a | renders all the more palpable the misery of its everyday background - can one imagine a | ||
more devastating picture of the choices life is offering us today?<br><br> | more devastating picture of the choices life is offering us today?<br><br> | ||
Line 218: | Line 218: | ||
whose clarity is obfuscated by scratches as more 'realistic' than the most faithful Dolby- | whose clarity is obfuscated by scratches as more 'realistic' than the most faithful Dolby- | ||
stereo or THX recording - as if the very imperfection of the rendering is a proof that the | stereo or THX recording - as if the very imperfection of the rendering is a proof that the | ||
− | 'real voice' was there, while, in the second case, the very perfection derealizes what we | + | 'real [[voice]]' was there, while, in the second case, the very perfection derealizes what we |
hear, turning it into an experience of a perfect fake. And, perhaps, this is how one should | hear, turning it into an experience of a perfect fake. And, perhaps, this is how one should | ||
− | read du Maurier's texts: their very scratches - what makes them old-fashioned, often | + | read du Maurier's [[texts]]: their very scratches - what makes them old-fashioned, often |
ridiculous-are also what keeps them alive.<br><br> | ridiculous-are also what keeps them alive.<br><br> | ||
Line 227: | Line 227: | ||
<a name="1x"></a><a href="#1">1</a> However, does the same not hold for many a great classic? Is it still possible | <a name="1x"></a><a href="#1">1</a> However, does the same not hold for many a great classic? Is it still possible | ||
today to listen to the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony with the | today to listen to the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony with the | ||
− | naïve recognition of the persistent knocking of fate, or is this movement forever | + | naïve [[recognition]] of the persistent knocking of fate, or is this movement forever |
lost on account of its later 'commodification'?<br><br> | lost on account of its later 'commodification'?<br><br> | ||
− | <a name="2x"></a><a href="#2">2</a> Jacques Lacan, <i>The Seminar of Jacques Lacan XX: On Feminine Sexuality, the | + | <a name="2x"></a><a href="#2">2</a> [[Jacques Lacan]], <i>The [[Seminar]] of [[Jacques lacan|Jacques Lacan]] XX: On Feminine [[Sexuality]], the |
− | Limits of Love and Knowledge, 1972-73 (Encore)</i>, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller, | + | Limits of Love and [[Knowledge]], 1972-73 ([[Encore]])</i>, ed. Jacques-[[Alain]] [[Miller]], |
− | trans. Bruce Fink (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998), 95.<br><br> | + | trans. [[Bruce Fink]] (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998), 95.<br><br> |
− | <a name="3x"></a><a href="#3">3</a> Sigmund Freud, 'Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria ("Dora")', in | + | <a name="3x"></a><a href="#3">3</a> [[Sigmund Freud]], 'Fragment of an [[Analysis]] of a Case of [[Hysteria]] ("[[Dora]]")', in |
− | <i>The Penguin Freud Library, 8: Case Histories I</i>, ed. and trans. James Strachey | + | <i>The Penguin Freud [[Library]], 8: [[Case Histories]] I</i>, ed. and trans. James Strachey |
(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977), 151.<br><br> | (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977), 151.<br><br> | ||
− | <a name="4x"></a><a href="#4">4</a> Another more contemporary work that, although worthless in strict artistic terms, | + | <a name="4x"></a><a href="#4">4</a> Another more contemporary work that, although worthless in strict artistic [[terms]], |
provides a similar powerful staging of fantasies would be Colleen McCullough's <i>Thornbirds</i>.<br><br> | provides a similar powerful staging of fantasies would be Colleen McCullough's <i>Thornbirds</i>.<br><br> | ||
− | <a name="5x"></a><a href="#5">5</a> See Jacques Lacan, <i>The Seminar of Jacques Lacan VII: The Ethics of | + | <a name="5x"></a><a href="#5">5</a> See Jacques Lacan, <i>[[The Seminar]] of Jacques Lacan VII: The Ethics of |
− | Psychoanalysis, 1959-60</i>, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller, trans. Dennis Porter | + | Psychoanalysis, 1959-60</i>, ed. [[Jacques-Alain Miller]], trans. Dennis Porter |
(London: Routledge, 1992), 24-25.<br><br> | (London: Routledge, 1992), 24-25.<br><br> | ||
− | <a name="6x"></a><a href="#6">6</a> See Gilles Deleuze, 'Coldness and Cruelty', in <i>Masochism</i> (New York: Zone | + | <a name="6x"></a><a href="#6">6</a> See [[Gilles Deleuze]], 'Coldness and [[Cruelty]]', in <i>Masochism</i> (New York: Zone |
Books 1989), especially 123-34.<br><br> | Books 1989), especially 123-34.<br><br> | ||
− | <a name="7x"></a><a href="#7">7</a> Zizek develops this notion of 'liberating violence' at some length with particular | + | <a name="7x"></a><a href="#7">7</a> [[Zizek]] develops this notion of 'liberating violence' at some length with [[particular]] |
− | reference to David Fincher's 'Fight Club in 'Lenin's Choice', in <i>Revolution at the | + | reference to David Fincher's 'Fight Club in '[[Lenin]]'s [[Choice]]', in <i>[[Revolution]] at the |
− | Gates: A Selection of Writings from February to October 1917</i>, ed. Slavoj Zizek | + | Gates: A Selection of Writings from February to October 1917</i>, ed. [[Slavoj Zizek]] |
(London and New York: Verso, 2002), 250-63.<br><br> | (London and New York: Verso, 2002), 250-63.<br><br> | ||
− | <a name="8x"></a><a href="#8">8</a> Claire Brennan, <i>The Poetry of Sylvia Plath</i> (Cambridge: Icon Books 2000), 22.<br><br> | + | <a name="8x"></a><a href="#8">8</a> Claire Brennan, <i>The [[Poetry]] of Sylvia Plath</i> (Cambridge: [[Icon]] Books 2000), 22.<br><br> |
<a name="9x"></a><a href="#9">9</a> Sylvia Plath, 'Daddy', in <i>The Collected Poems</i>, ed. Ted Hughes (New York: | <a name="9x"></a><a href="#9">9</a> Sylvia Plath, 'Daddy', in <i>The Collected Poems</i>, ed. Ted Hughes (New York: | ||
Line 263: | Line 263: | ||
<a name="10x"></a><a href="#10">10</a> This paper was originally written as an introduction to the Virago Modern | <a name="10x"></a><a href="#10">10</a> This paper was originally written as an introduction to the Virago Modern | ||
Classics edition of <i>The Birds and Other Stories</i> (London: Virago, 2004), but was | Classics edition of <i>The Birds and Other Stories</i> (London: Virago, 2004), but was | ||
− | rejected 'for being too theoretical and disrespectful of du Maurier' (Zizek, private | + | rejected 'for being too [[theoretical]] and disrespectful of du Maurier' (Zizek, private |
− | communication). The six stories listed here were collected in this volume. | + | [[communication]]). The six stories listed here were collected in this volume. |
==Source== | ==Source== | ||
− | * [[Are We Allowed To Enjoy Daphnée du Maurier?]]. ''Centre for Theology and Politics''. <http://www.theologyandpolitics.com/Files/Zizek%20CTP%20Daphne%20du%20Maurier.pdf>. Also listed on ''Lacan.com''. <http://www.lacan.com/zizdaphmaur.htm>. | + | * [[Are We Allowed To Enjoy Daphnée du Maurier?]]. ''Centre for [[Theology]] and [[Politics]]''. <http://www.theologyandpolitics.com/Files/Zizek%20CTP%20Daphne%20du%20Maurier.pdf>. Also listed on ''[[Lacan.com]]''. <http://www.lacan.com/zizdaphmaur.htm>. |
Latest revision as of 18:45, 27 May 2019
|