2006-08-03 11:24:19 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
The brilliant/psycho dyad is not inherently exclusive - he could be both or neither.
It would be unfortunate to classify him with terms such as psycho, sociopath, etc The important thing to remember about psychoanalysis is that it is a normalizing force - anything that is not "normal" (whatever THAT means) is a condition to be treated. Not having a long enough attention span, being socially awkward - even homosexuality has been targeted as a disease to be cured. So let's be wary of these kinds of descriptions.
Brilliant? Think about this: You can buy his writings in Barnes and Noble, but try and read one aloud in the bookstore! You will at the very least be asked to leave. What is so dangerous about sex (even writing about sex), when it is carried to its extremes? De Sade realized that sex is the supreme locus for power and definition and his brilliance lies in his exploitation of this truth.
2006-08-03 19:12:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Both brilliant AND psycho. It is often said that geniuses are crazy.
If you're really into considering it further without too much research, try watching the film "Quills" with Jeffrey Rush as the Marquis, Joaquin Phoenix as an abbey in charge of the assylum, MIchael Caine as a ruthless administrator, and Kate Winslow as a laundress.
2006-08-04 07:03:05 · answer #2 · answered by VerdeSam 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Psycho. Brilliant is a word that should be used for someone who creates new things not involving sadism or perversion. Psycho is anyone who thinks of such horrors, much less act on those ideas. I find nothing to be admired about de Sade's cruel nature.
2006-08-03 11:29:07 · answer #3 · answered by Teacher 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He was more then just "psycho", he was a vile fiend.
He raped and mutilated little boys and girls.
To be brilliant, he would have show considerable skill. The only skill he seemed to have was using his power as a member of nobility to force his victims to unwillingly participate in his brutal orgies.
The last book I read of his was "The 120 Days of Sodom and Other Writings". I could not finish the book. I am a mature reader who can usually read difficult subjects, however, this book made me physically sick. I have yet to come across a book as vicious as the "The 120 Days of Sodom".
T.
2006-08-03 16:32:40 · answer #4 · answered by Theophania 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He was brilliant in how he could insightfully describe products of his psychopathy, or should I say his "research & experiments", so I would say that he is both, but not in equal measures. His brilliance seemed to apply only to this one thing, where his cruelty was far more prolific.
2006-08-03 13:16:57 · answer #5 · answered by Thinkithtrough 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Brilliant in that he did not shy away from describing situations about human nature - which occured then (see Priests and all sorts of deviant sexuality) and definitely still occur today (see priests *doing it* to young kids).
2006-08-03 11:31:05 · answer #6 · answered by robert43041 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Psychopath lololololololol
2006-08-03 11:28:01 · answer #7 · answered by Calamity Jane 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Either way he'd fit right in in today's world.
2006-08-03 11:43:07 · answer #8 · answered by Mollywobbles 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
both and a perv
2006-08-03 13:08:21 · answer #9 · answered by Mags 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋