Friday, July 20, 2007

Decadence

(I have to write a new post just so I don't see the word "Rape" every time I look at the blog).

From what I've read, no one really knows what Laclos' intentions were in writing "Dangerous Liaisons," although he apparently wrote it at a remote army outpost as a way to erase the boredom. The first edition sold out in Paris in less than a week, and one fan was Marie Antoinette. Many critics have suggested that it was a morality tale about the French aristocracy, who were moving rapidly toward the guillotine on a wave of revolt. Other critics have pointed out that the book was beloved by the aristocracy, that virtually all the characters in it are aristocrats, that the "editor" is neutral and that the author himself was aligned with that social class. What do you think? Did you see any indications that the book was meant to be an indictment of the decadent upper class?

(I also read that this is the only novel he ever wrote. And he only published two other things, one being a tract criticizing the system of female education, which I'd like to read because I think "DL" is clearly an indictment of the way women were living and being treated. I think you could argue until the cows come home whether he was a feminist per se, as many claim, but I don't think it's arguable that he concerned himself, regardless of side-taking, with issues that are important to feminists.)

11 comments:

Ben said...

It's tough for me to figure out what his intentions were. It seems to me that he wanted to write a form of pornography, and the comeuppances at the end were to satisfy his need for the dramatic and the public's need for a moral to the story.

If I'm right about that, then the only negative thing he could be saying about the marquise and the vicomte is that they use people. And I think he is saying that she is unique and he is the best at what he does. So it may be unfair to extrapolate what he thinks of the upper classes based on those two characters.

Madame de Rosemonde may be Laclos's representative of the normal upper-class woman. If so, Laclos is not saying anything bad about the upper classes.

kc said...

Interesting read.

I was going to ask whether you guys thought this novel was really about sex, or whether it was concerned with larger questions of human nature and jealousy and vanity and control, etc.

I didn't see any pornographic intent myself. That is, I don't think he was using sex to titillate, but rather to illustrate the conniving, sacrilegious machinations of the marquise and Valmont. I think if he wanted to have the novel be a form of pornography, there would have been more "seductions" and not so much dwelling on rationales and outlook and the rather tedious correspondence between Madame de Tourvel and Valmont. It would have been a straightforward Rake's Progress.

I don't think Laclos is saying that Valmont is the best at what he does. I think he was saying the marquise is the best at what he does. (The only way he could top her was simply to make the letters public, and that requires no skill or wit whatsoever).

I saw the book as a commentary on the decadence of the French aristocracy only insofar as it was about people wielding cavalier control of the lives of others, but control freaks are to be found in every walk of life.

Ben said...

I chose the wrong word: it isn't pornography. But I think he wanted to write about decadence and didn't necessarily want there to be any consequences for it.

kc said...

Do you mean consequences or authorial judgment? I think there were most definitely consequences, of the harshest kind.

kc said...

Or did you mean consequences for himself, as someone who might face criticism for having written the novel?

Ben said...

I mean that he didn't necessarily want his characters to face consequences, but he had to in order to get an audience. He would have taken so much hell for it if there hadn't been consequences.

There was a comment in the introduction to the book that he was proud that a bishop said it was a moral tale, but I don't know whether he was proud because he had duped the bishop or whether he really thought he was telling a moral tale.

kc said...

Hmmm. It's sort of hard to imagine the story where they both get away with it. How would it end? It doesn't seem like that would be much fun. I like the ending where they each prove to be the other's ruin. I find that very satisfying. They took each other down because no one else was capable of it. Despite all the liaisons they form, they are each other's most dangerous liaison.

Ben said...

And that's why I said it satisfied his need for the dramatic -- the story works well with the tragedies at the end.

I guess my only point is that I get the feeling Laclos didn't have a personal need for the story to have any moral to it.

cl said...

Hmmm. I would think of it chiefly as a novel about power and control, and how even privileged women couldn't obtain it. Even the marquise, the master of so many affairs, didn't have control. After all, society's mores dictated that she conduct her affairs in secret. We're to suppose that she and Valmont had equal dirt on each other, but is that really true? Didn't he always have the upper hand, just by being a man whose behavior society would condone, and display his power in the end by sharing her letters?

kc said...

Good point, cl. I meant she had the upper hand in terms of smarts.

In the fanatstic Letter LXXXI, she asks him: "And what have you done that I have not surpassed a thousand times? You have seduced, ruined even, a number of women; but what difficulties did you have? What obstacles to surmount?"

"If I granted you as many talents as we (women) have, still how much we should surpass you from the continual necessity we have of using them!"

In the end, Valmont, who was thoroughly outmaneuvered and outwitted, relied not on skill, but blunt trauma, brute force — the seduction vs. rape metaphor again — to achieve his ends.

kc said...

I mean, as I said above, the publicizing of the letters was the sledgehammer he always had in reserve.