Umm, okay...The first portion of this book is wonderful. The forced lasciviousness of the female protagonist, the pathetic attempts at seeming like a banshee, a Siren, all draped in furs and spouting some bullshit about Paganism. I have met this girl before, and this boy, I have watched their pitiful dance of apathy, their ham-handed fears of monotony and monogamy, the (in my opinion) bullshit notion that caring in the romantic sense for one chosen and well-suited person with whom you specifically connect and no other (and it goes without saying, no 'many others') is selfish and demeaning to the notion of 100% Venus-like, 'hypersensual' love of sexuality/sensation, inhibits one's ability to love all other human beings genuinely, and denies pure, primitive desires, bladdy fuckin' blah. I mean, I have greeted lovers with apathy, sternness, initial doubts which reached fruition in feelings chilling, freezing, eventually frozen; I would be completely out of touch with myself if I were to believe otherwise. We have all been cruel, we have all wavered, our eyes have wandered, our emotions fallen flat. Sure, sure. What I could never stand was the hyper-rationalizing of this emotion, the forcing of it. There was always a bit of schadenfreude which set in when some of the loftier of my hippie-dippie, "I just have to be free, maaaaan" acquaintances found themselves face-to-face with their own inherent, albeit denied natures, when all their trite musings and assumed sentiments about free love came back to kick them in their collective private parts via severe jealousy and heartache. It reminded me of this conversation I had a few years ago. I was at a bar catching up with some old friends I had not seen in forever, though they were all still quite close, and seeming a little cult-y to me based on our talks that afternoon. They were discussing the various free-love, non-committed relationships they were attempting, and how this was "opening them up" to the possibilities of connection contained in any number of people. (Snicker.) After my initial, more pressing questions (e.g. "Uh, you have health insurance, right?"), I just set to half-drunkenly saying "Good luck?" and "No way, man. I have enough trouble dealing with one person. Also, I would be, you know, really depressed and completely miserable in that situation." Once I began attempting to explain the few snippets of evolutionary science I had read on the subject of jealousy, eyes glazed over, and it was clear we had reached an impasse. "Again, good luck," I said. They all shortly ended their romances. I guess people got jealous and shit got complicated. Weird.Sorry to rant. I just adored the introductory chapters of this book for the fact that the woman they present is just. So. Full of it. What's better is, her nonsense about being free from attachments, a goddess who commands the love she needs then drops the tired bits like pencil shavings, a woman incapable of loving another human being, but rather simply bent on seeking out pleasure in the most hedonistic, unashamedly egocentric sense, seems to be heading toward a serious reckoning. What's more is, the man who is painted as her future slave represents all that is flighty in the dance of romance. He only loves a woman of stone, his interest wanes at kindness, he wants the one he can't have, and it's driving him mad all over all over all over his face every single goddamn time until the very moment when she cares, when she drops her guard and loves him back, and then his foot is suddenly wedged firmly in the door and his panties are noticeably roomier. We are all guilty at some point, right? People get bored. They want excitement and unpredictability and newness. They crave the hunt. Malaise. What could be were I free? It happens. It is not ideal.Unfortunately, her reckoning does not ever really come about, and this suddenly turns into some bullshit about not letting yourself care about others, lest you be a malnourished, mistreated donkey. Exactly where I thought this was going is precisely the opposite of where it went, and not in a clever, plot-twisty sense. About midway through, I came to realize that Sacher-Masoch saw this forceably cruel woman as some sort of lesson-teacher about how cruel Women are. The smart ones, anyway! They know how to hold on to a man: treat him like shit! Okay, I admit that the two men I have been wholly unfrosty with in my adult life are the two men who have broken my heart, but I would like to think this won't always be the case, and that it is a horrifying and just awful notion that to keep someone in love with me, I have to hate his guts, or just deal with his existence begrudgingly like I deal with Austin drivers or my next door neighbor who is constantly making humping noises through the wall. These things I deal with. Companionship is often played like a chess game, but I thought the idea was to find someone with whom all that crap drops away? Ever seen an 80-something year old man carrying his similarly elderly wife's oxygen tank for her through Denny's? Did that warm your heart? Don't read this. Ever had friends who slipped into counter-culture to such an extent that your conversations suddenly turned into the dynamic of them constantly preaching and you constantly scoffing? Did it suck? Don't read this.I should write an aside here that I know that there are all types of people in the world, all sorts of romantic arrangements, etc. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just think it goes against the more common manifestations of human nature to not feel emotions of possessiveness toward a cherished lover. Even a hated lover, sometimes! Your brain, your evolutionary history, your biology is playing tricks on you at all times, it's all very complicated, and sorry to over-simplify. It just seems like a lot of this modern embrace of what it is to be an Enlightened Lover and Self-Actualized Person is quite often going against the intrinsic needs of those who proselytize about it. It's, you know, hip, like riding a fixed-gear bicycle without being able to explain to me why you prefer not having brakes, or eating the 'Organic' ramen noodles because somehow they're better in this way you seemingly haven't even bothered to contemplate yet. You may have an explanation, and you may really feel it. More power to you. I'm quizzical by nature though, and am more often than not left, in my hippie-interrogations, with vacuous stares and zero answers from the interrogated. Hence the rant.So this book: thank you for the lame female character I could make fun of, thank you for the spotty but at times quite lovely observations of human emotional chameleon-ism and the malleable nature of attachment...thanks for all that stuff. I also thank you for The Velvet Underground & Nico, which in every single song manages to explore the subjects of dominance and submissiveness, passiveness and passion in a much purer, more accurate, and rewarding way than you ever possibly could, you mediocre book, ya. And that album has not just a heroine, but heroin! I'll be your mirror, and reflect what you are, in case you don't know: an overrated book; the scenes from a porno which lead into the actual pornography, as there is no sex in this book about sex, but just the ridiculous lead-up conversations. Do you watch Logjammin' to find out if he fixes the cable? No, you don't.
"You interest me. Most men are very commonplace, without verve or poetry. In you there is a certain depth and capacity for enthusiasm and a deep seriousness, which delight me. I might learn to love you." (20)This line really jumped out at me, because it's just what I imagine a lot of nerds imagine some lady will say to them some day. And they'll be like yeah! I have a depth and capacity for enthusiasm! I was just waiting for someone to notice! I bet nerds really like this book, which was written by a nerd and then translated to English by a different nerd.You know that old defunct Tumblr, "Nice Guys Of OK Cupid"? It was a collection of dating profiles from guys who were all "I'm so nice, why don't any women love me? I would treat a woman like a goddess but I guess they don't want to be treated like goddesses, they all want some asshole instead! Women are such bitches, because they don't love me!" They're descendants of this loser. Masoch can't stop quoting this one line from Goethe, "You must be hammer or anvil." He thinks that "Woman demands that she can look up to a man, but one like [our dorktagonist Severin] who voluntarily places his neck under foot, she uses as a welcome plaything, only to toss it aside when she is tired of it." (105) The problem here isn't with Severin's (or Masoch's) particular fetish, which is to have ladies whip them. That's fine, man, have your fun. The problem is that he extends it to some kind of conclusion about human nature that's not at all true. Women do not by nature demand either to look up to a man or toy with them. (Men aren't like that either.) That's a dumb idea. Here's another thing that's not true: "Man even when he is selfish or evil always follows principles, woman never follows anything but impulses." (43)And it's boring! God, for a book about whipping there is none too much whipping. Instead there's a whole lot of him begging to be her slave, and then her treating him vaguely slave-y, and then him getting all indignant, and then her all "Well see, you're being a dick about it," and then him being all "Oh, you're mad at me, treat me like a slave," and then we circle back around to the beginning like fifty times. Wahhhhh, quit topping from the bottom, nerd.If you flip the characters' genders in your head while you're reading, the book goes an awful lot like that 50 Shades thing does. (I know more or less how it goes from hearing a million readers and feminists get all pissy about it. It's hard to tell who's more offended about that book - readers or feminists.) But there's a funny twist at the end (spoilers follow for this and I think 50 Shades too): you'd expect a female protagonist to win over the guy and be with him (one way or another). But here, she just dumps him. She's all "I can easily imagine belonging to one man for my entire life, but he would have to be a whole man, a man who would dominate me, who would subjugate me by his innate strength" (23) and then she runs off with a dude who's just like that. So Masoch's kink assumes that one who has it isn't enough to satisfy a woman. That's weird, and probably kindof a bummer for him.So this is a book about a self-defeating fetish for being controlled, born out of a weird hatred and fear for women. It's unpleasant, and boring, and all too familiar because I still hear that shit today, from miserable nerds.Lame, dudes. Lame.
What do You think about Venus In Furs (2000)?
Bello más no excepcional. Parece ser que muchos esperaban una clase de novela erótica-pornográfica-sensualona, pero se vieron decepcionados al ver que sólo es un bello trozo de literatura (un tanto sensual) que simplemente muestra una relación enfermiza entre una hermosa mujer que juega un papel de cruel ante un hombre que básicamente le suplicó que lo maltratara como a los peores.La historia comienza con un interesante sueño de alguien ajeno a la historia, fue una conversación entre este hombre extraño y la venus de las pieles; este hombre comenta su sueño al protagonista, y tras su descripción el protagonista decide compartir un trozo de su historia con aquella Venus que le robó la cordura y con quien firmó un contrato de esclavitud.La prosa está muy propia a la época, muy descriptiva y bonita sin caer en lo ridículo o confuso, era algo que quedaba con el tema y con el ambiente en general. Eso es lo que la hizo amena a pesar de las crueldades y locuras que se expresaban. Es un libro para pasar el rato.Como dato extra, la edición que leí explica que la historia está basada en algo que le sucedió al protagonista. El también firma un contrato con una de sus amantes.
—Fernanda
Haven't reviewed on goodreads in a while, but was googling this work's translation dates and came across the negative reviews here. Thought I should contribute my defence.What Makes Venus in Furs a groundbreaking and thoroughly enjoyable work?1)Literary traditionThe finely-rendered frame structure follows the German novella tradition's strong, almost proscriptive, tradition of narrative framing (think Goethe, Storm, Hoffmann). Accordingly, it created a sensation among early readers by presenting shocking content (deviant sexuality) within a deeply conservative, conventional form.2)Interpretation (dreams and ekphrasis)What desires does a given dream or artwork represent, directly or indirectly? The novella demands that we read the layers of art within art, dream within fiction. It anticipates the work of his fellow Austrian, Sigmund Freud, particularly his Interpretation of Dreams (1900).3) Sexual TheoryVenus in Furs undoubtedly ranks in the top ten books of the nineteenth-century for advancing new ideas about sexual practice. The famous sexologist Kraft-Ebbing is deeply indebted to Sacher-Masoch, as one sees in the monumental Psychopathia sexualis (1886).4) Contract TheoryThe work carries interesting implications for the student of law in literature. The sadist Wanda and the masochist Severin set up a contract wherein he relinquishes himself utterly to her will. (The fiction's contract was based on a real contract Sacher-Masoch made with his wife!!!)5) Feminist MoralS-M concludes that as long as women do not receive the same educational opportunities as men, power differentials will exist between the sexes: "Woman...as man is at present educating her, is his enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion. .This she can become only when she has the same rights as he, and is his equal in education and work." (emphasis mine)6) Charming to ReadFrom the prose details of costume, to the outrageousness of the "perversions", to the sense of place the text creates, the reader has a rich world in which to plunge. It's not a world I'd want to live in, but certainly a delightfully cruel world to imagine.p.s. Deleuze has an interesting book on Venus in Furs--Coldness and Cruelty.
—Meredith
I wanted to write an in-depth review, quoting favorite passages from the book, but for now let's just say that this was the right read for me at the right time. I was expecting it to be titillating and dirty but instead encountered something rather lovely: a concentrated tale of obsession and longing and risky role playing that turns a woman emulating a simple ancient Grecian hedonism into a enthusiastic wielder of capricious physical and mental cruelty -- rendered to the sadomasochistic male lover who goads her into it in the first place and ends up getting more than he bargains for in the process. This is a tale dressed in elegant clothes and exquisitely described 19th-century European settings. This primal text in S&M lit must surely be one of its most poetic. I just found the whole book charming.The bonus short story, "The Black Czarina" is a superfluous leftover scrap in the same vein. You can safely skip it.This edition of "Venus in Furs" is the 1965 translation by H.J. Henning, which to my eyes is cleaner and more in the spirit of things than the commonly available and more stilted one by Fernanda Savage.
—Evan
