/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23209540]

Why do people say this guy wrote smut when most scenes are just 4 pages of monologue about why murder and sodomy are fucking based? I don't find any of the sex stuff particularly arousing, just oddly humorous at times.

I've seen others claim that sade was actually writing secular religious texts, that the characters are intentionally written to be as evil as possible to produce a religious experience in the reader, drawing christ from negative space or something, but sade's writing style is just too funny for me to reproduce this experience.

Does anyone else feel this way? Like, eugénie de franval is supposed to be a demoralizing piece, but the imagery in my head had me loling at several points throughout the thing, even at the ending when the villain breaks down and begs the priest for forgiveness. Maybe it's the translator, I don't know why I can't take it seriously. It's like he can't help but write the story in a funny way, and I don't know if that's what he was going for.

[Anonymous No.23209945]

bump

[Anonymous No.23209947]

I thought "nice digits" but that was the image resolution

[Anonymous No.23209971]

Nah he thought it was funny people would contort themselves into strange positions to not admit they were lying to themselves

[Anonymous No.23210221]

>>23209971
He lied to himself.

[Anonymous No.23210509]

>>23209540
stuff on sad panda is better.
white race 0
japanese 1

[Anonymous No.23210841]

>>23210509
>stuff on sad panda is better
link an example

[Anonymous No.23210878]

>>23209540
He was a shit writer and a mediocre philosopher. He is only remebered by people who try to look edgy after reading his coomer shit.

[Anonymous No.23211250]

>>23209540
He was a kino writer and giga philosopher.

>Why do people say this guy wrote smut
Cause he did and nothing you said challenges that