Del asesinato considerado como una de las bellas artes

by Thomas de Quincey, Luis Loayza (Translator)

Obra maestra de la sorna y la ironía aplicadas a la literatura, "Del asesinato considerado como una de las bellas artes" expresa, asimismo, las obsesiones íntimas de Thomas De Quincey (1785-1859). El libro está compuesto por dos artículos publicados en 1827 y 1829, y que constituyen una pieza clásica del humorismo inglés, y por el Post Scriptum de 1854, dominado por una tensión más oscura. Si el tono de los artículos -presentados como una conferencia leída ante la Sociedad de Conocedores del Asesinato y como las actas de una cena conmemorativa del club- concilia la erudición y la brutalidad en una de las muestras más perfectas de mordacidad literaria, el Post Scriptum, aun sin perder esta nota, es una reflexión sobre el horror, superpuesta a la escalofriante descripción de los célebres crímenes de John Williams y de los hermanos M'Kean.

Genres: Classics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Essays, 19th Century, History, Literature

144 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 1827

About the author

Thomas de Quincey was an English author and intellectual, best known for his Confessions of an English Opium-Eater (1821).
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_d...

Reviews

[Ruby Granger · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a delight to read. It's funny, clever and engaging -- but also gives a great insight to early Victorian fears about moral degeneration. Would recommend (especially if you are a fan of dark academia!).

[Leonard Gaya · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fake lecture, written entirely pince-sans-rire by one of the great English essayists of the early nineteen century —best known for his slightly disturbing Confessions of an English Opium-Eater. On Murder is a semi-funny sermon with many convoluted moral considerations and a hodgepodge of examples from ancient and modern history.

One of the most memorable parts is the one dealing with the murder attempts on 17th and 18th-century philosophers: Descartes, Spinoza, Hobbes, Malebranche and Berkeley, Leibniz and Kant. All to conclude that “how we could have done without [Cartesian philosophy], considering the world of books it has produced, I leave to any respectable trunk-maker to declare.” The fist-fight story with the fat baker, towards the end of this little book, is an entertaining episode as well.

After beating about the bush for quite some time, De Quincey ends up declaring:

For the final purpose of murder, considered as a fine art, in precisely the same as that of Tragedy, in Aristotle’s account of it, viz. ‘to cleanse the heart by means of pity and terror.’

I guess Lecter and Dexter could not agree more…

[Sean Barrs · Rating 1 out of 5]

Perhaps such sharp humour is wasted on me, but referring to Tubal Cain (a decedent of Cain the brother of Abel) as being renowned for inventing tubes is just ridiculous. Ok, so tube and Tubal sound the same but that doesn’t make the joke funny. It just seemed completely ridiculous coming from an author who is renowned for such black humour. It was weak and, quite frankly, made me put the book down. If I’m wrong someone tell me, but Tubal Cain was the first worker of brass not a tube maker.

Overall I failed to see the “point” of this work and found it intolerably boring.

Penguin Little Black Classic- O4



The Little Black Classic Collection by penguin looks like it contains lots of hidden gems. I couldn’t help it; they looked so good that I went and bought them all. I shall post a short review after reading each one. No doubt it will take me several months to get through all of them! Hopefully I will find some classic authors, from across the ages, that I may not have come across had I not bought this collection.

[amapola · Rating 4 out of 5]

E se potessimo valutare l’assassinio come una forma d’arte? Se potessimo apprezzarlo come si fa con un dipinto o una statua?
Thomas De Quincey (personalità tormentata, oppiomane) fu uno tra i più originali e dissacranti scrittori inglesi del XIX secolo; in questo saggio vuole dimostrarci che il genio umano può esprimersi anche attraverso l’omicidio, l’azione più abietta che si possa compiere, e per raggiungere il suo scopo intreccia resoconti di celebri casi giudiziari del suo tempo collegando, spiegando, rimandando a grandi autori (Milton, Hobbes, Kant).
Libro di non facile comprensione (almeno per me), ma grazie al tono smaliziato, spregiudicato, ironico, è stata una gradevole lettura. Testo originale, in cui l’autore sembra divertirsi molto a provocare il lettore “giocando” con la sua morale, le sue convinzioni, i suoi preconcetti, ribaltandoli, scompigliandoli, confondendoli con uno spietato umorismo nero. Pare di vederlo intento a scrivere seduto alla scrivania sogghignando tra sé e sé.

[Erfan Bayat · Rating 5 out of 5]

بسیار مهم.
خیلی حرف‌ها میخوام بزنم ولی جا کمه و حوصله اندک.
فکر می‌کنم اشاره به چند ایده و نکته‌ی مهم راجع به اثری شاخص و شاهکار مثل در باب قتل برای اینجا کافی باشه.

اولین و مهم‌ترین نکته‌ی اثر تفکیک سپهر اخلاقی و سپهر زییایی‌شناختیه.
صحبت کردن از قتل به مثابه پدیده‌ای مهیب، هولناک و هیجان‌انگیز که انسان‌ها رو دور هم جمع می‌کنه و احساس شگفتی و حیرت رو در اون‌ها برانگیخته می‌کنه چیزیه که برای دی‌کوئینسی مساله‌ست و به خاطر همین در همون آغاز جاپای خودش رو تو مقاله‌ی "قتل به مثابه هنرهای زیبا" اگه درست نوشته باشم باز می‌کنه و مسیر خودش رو از افرادی که صرفا به مذمت اخلاقی و از منظر خیر و شری به این امر نگاه می‌کنن جدا می‌کنه.

اما نکته‌ی دیگه‌ای که بسیار مهمه اینه که دی‌کوئینسی توی سال ۱۸۲۷ تو دل آثارش به یه نکته‌ی مهمی آگاهانه یا نا‌آگاهانه اشاره می‌کنه ( به نظر خودم آگاهانه ) که انسان گاهی توسط امیالی به حرکت درمیاد که خودش هم هیچ‌آگاهی نسبت به اون امیال نداره.
فکر می‌کنم برای علاقه‌مندان به فروید همین نکته بس باشه که فروید خودش متولد ۱۸۵۶ هستش یعنی حداقل بیست و نه سال بعد از دی کوئینسی با ما با نظریه‌ی امر ناخودآگاه فروید طرفیم.
این رگه‌های روان‌کاوانه که دی‌کوئینسی رو به مطالعه‌ی پرونده‌های جنایی مشتاق می‌کنه هم بسیار این اثر رو اثر مهمی می‌کنه.

امیدوارم که در ترغیب کردنتون به خوندنش موفق بوده باشم.
ببخشید زیاد شد.

[Sam Quixote · Rating 1 out of 5]

Thomas de Quincey’s 1827 essay, On Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts, is a satirical take on the English public’s fascination with gory murder, inspired by the 1811 Ratcliff Highway killings.

De Quincey imagines a sophisticated, but secret, group of gentlemen who meet to discuss the aesthetics of murder as some are wont to do with a painting or a novel or a piece of music. The essay is framed as a “stolen lecture” from the group.

It’s meant to be hysterical but who knows what the jokes were! Besides some bad puns, is the idea of discussing murder as an art hilarious in itself? There are a couple of strange murders described where a horseman killer puts stockings on his horse’s feet so nobody can hear him coming. Another describes a 27 round boxing match in a bedroom. Oh my sides… or were those real and not intended to be humorous?

The rambling essay mentions the murders of famous philosophers – apparently, heh, if you weren’t murdered, haha, you weren’t, hahahaha, a worthwhile philosopher AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! – as well as numerous Latin phrases. I thought the latter was a pretty pretentious feature but then again Latin was more well-known in those days so I expect it was commonplace practice back then(translations are included).

I’ve a feeling De Quincey’s On Murder went over my head as I didn’t understand what was so special about it. I couldn’t tell what the jokes were or what points the essay was making (if any). I like the concept and the title is good but it was laboriously written, slow and ponderous – a mystifyingly dull “classic”.

I’d recommend reading the Ratcliff Highway murders Wikipedia page instead which is vastly more interesting and is roughly the same length as de Quincey’s essay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratclif...

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

...the mob of newspaper readers, they are pleased with anything, provided it bloody enough."
- Thomas De Quincey, On Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts



Vol 4 of my Penguin Little Black Classics Box Set. This satirical essay, writen in 1827, for Blackwood's Magazine, seems both a bit dated (some of the humor is lost on me), but also strangely perfect for an age that seems almost Victorian in its prudence about nudity, but loves a good murder. De Quicey would have certainly found the popularity of Dexter and Hannibal Lector a vindication of his essay.

The part I loved the best was the section on the murder (or more often, the near murder) of most philosophers. From de Carte to Kant. It was strangely British, but also so narrow and philosophically provincial that I found myself laughing thinking of philosophers agonizing over NOT being murdered, or philosophers that definitely SHOULD have been murdered. I also appreciated the section where de Quincey details the principals, sensibilities, and aesthetics of a proper murder. Obvioulsy, someone with kids, living in the right part of town, etc. You want to focus on murders that will create both pity and terror. Murdering Cockney tailors just won't do. Orwell gives us the proper way to make tea while de Quincy details the proper way to kill your neighbor.

Anyway, if you like Swift's "Modest Proposal" or Defoe's "The Generous Projector" you should enjoy this. Hell, if you like "the Onion" or late night television or Donald Trump's tweets, you might also be game. It wasn't brilliant, but it wasn't dull either.

[Amaranta · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un curioso piccolo saggio sulla bellezza dell’assassinio perfetto, quasi come una filosofia, un fine da perseguire nel caso si abbia intenzione di “ agire”.
Spirito dissacrante e idee curiose, una lettura interessante per gli amanti del genere.

[Hon Lady Selene · Rating 4 out of 5]

"I say, what's the use of any more virtue? Enough has been given to morality; now comes the turn of Taste and the Fine Arts. A sad thing it was, no doubt, very sad; but we can't mend it. Therefore let us make the best of a bad matter; and, as it is impossible to hammer anything out of it for moral purposes, let us treat it aesthetically, and see if it will turn to account in that way."

I found this hilarious - but the humour is specifically Satirical and specifically British so I understand where some reviewers are coming from when questioning the funny - I'm actually surprised de Quincey himself wasn't murdered in his bed for publishing it in 1827. He argues my point in his very own words on the assassination of philosophers:

"If a man calls himself a philosopher, and never had his life attempted, rest assured there is nothing in him."

Inspired by Ratcliff Highway murders, dQ creates a narrator writing about a fake London society that celebrates murder aesthetically. What follows is an incredibly clever and entertaining piece of writing, I'm not even sure how to read it - on the one hand it discusses mostly historical people, making it a non-fiction, but there's a fictional narrator upset about a fictional society, so the Line between reality and fantasy is blurred from the very onset - and therein lies the provocative genius of dQ.

"And against Locke's philosophy in particular, I think it an unanswerable objection (if we needed any), that, although he carried his throat about with him in this world for seventy-two years, no man ever condescended to cut it."

Sitting on a high horse, the narrator continues with an academic discourse on the history of assassination, treating the deaths of Descartes, Spinoza, Kant as murders - these are superior pieces of satire disguised as lectures on detective work - it would take one careless blink during a particularly long Latin quote to simply forget that we are in dQ's world and take it all at face value.

"Possibly, gentlemen, you may fancy that, on the model of Caesar's address to his poor ferryman,—"Caesarem vehis et fortunas ejus"—M. Des Cartes needed only to have said,—"Dogs, you cannot cut my throat, for you carry Des Cartes and his philosophy!"

To ground the Reader back into 'reality', there is a discussion on modern murders, including the very real Ratcliff Highway murders, then attention turns towards the murder victims, where the narrator emphasises the importance of choosing the victim carefully:

“The subject chosen ought to be in good health: for it is absolutely barbarous to murder a sick person, who is usually quite unable to bear it. On this principle, no Cockney ought to be chosen who is above twenty-five, for after that age he is sure to be dyspeptic.”

Edgar Allen Poe parodied dQ's essays in Diddling, Considered as One of the Exact Sciences - an Edgar Allan Poe Short Story. He was also inspired by it to write The Murders in the Rue Morgue, which is often seen as the beginning of detective fiction. The essays have also been cited by Chesterton, Orwell, Nabokov and Truman Capote, and the almighty Borges.

"The Latin language sinks under the very idea of murder. "The man was murdered;"—how will this sound in Latin? Interfectus est, interemptus est—which simply expresses a homicide; and hence the Christian Latinity of the middle ages was obliged to introduce a new word, such as the feebleness of classic conceptions never ascended to. Murdratus est, says the sublimer dialect of Gothic ages."

[Michelle Curie · Rating 1 out of 5]

The idea of this little essay was definitely more interesting than the execution. The back of the book describes its content as Thomas de Quincey casting "a blackly comic eye over the aesthetics of murder through the ages". Written in the early-nineteenth-century after a series of brutal murders took place in London, this could have been an interesting read.



Having murder portrayed as an art form is an intriguing concept, despite its morbidity, yet my biggest issue was that this essay simply wasn't funny at all. I can't tell if it's me or the fact that I am reading this two centuries after its original publication, but the jokes were stale and sometimes uncomfortably flat, including a few too many bad puns for my liking. The inclusion of various latin phrases and quotes interfered with the reading flow and I can't really think of anything that I gained from reading this. Oh well.

Roughly a year ago Penguin introduced the Little Black Classics series to celebrate Penguin's 80th birthday. Including little stories from "around the world and across many centuries" as the publisher describes, I have been intrigued to read those for a long time, before finally having started. I hope to sooner or later read and review all of them!

[Ele0n0ra · Rating 2 out of 5]

Una decepción. No sé dónde le encuentra la genialidad Stephen King y algunos escritores más del género de terror. Son 3 capítulos, por no decir que son artículos para periódico de la época, en los que trata de demostrar con mucho sarcasmo que así como una pintura, una composición musical, una escultura se consideran obras de arte un asesinato cometido bajo ciertos parámetros de "belleza" durante el procedimiento y teniendo en cuenta la circunstancias y la/s victima/s en cuestión es también una pieza digna de ser calificada como obra de arte. Me esperaba otra cosa. Me parece que fue una mala elección mia acercarme por este libro.

[Bahar Hf · Rating 4 out of 5]

"هیچ کس نباید خیال کند  که می تواند مرا با چند کلمه ی خشک و جدی مرعوب سازد و موجب شود "اخلاقیات مذبوحانه" را اتخاذ کنم. "
ت. دی کوئینسی

دی کوئینسی کیست؟ کسی که بسیااار آدم جالبیه و من خیلی دیر بهش توجه کردم 🥲 (با وجودی که توی داستانای ادگار آلن پو چند بار هم به آثارش اشاره شده بود)
از باشگاه کارآگاهان و  انجمن قتل شناسی گرفته تا نقد تو مجله ی بلک وود، از آلن پو تا آگاتا کریستی رو یادم انداخت.
البته، سبک کنایی هم بعضی جاها استفاده کرده که اگه قبلا به مقاله های بلک وودی، که آلن پو هم درش مطلب می نوشت، برخورده باشید، این نوع سبک براتون بیگانه نخواهد بود.
(مجله ی بلک وود مجله ای بود که برای گوشه و کنایه و تندروی ارزش زیادی قائل میشد و نقدهای ادبی روشنگرانه رو خیلی راحت می پذیرفت ولی در کل عمده ی شهرتش به خاطر چاپ داستان های ترس و وحشت بود).

* و اما سه نکته قبل از خوندن کتاب، درباره دی کوئینسی بسیار مهمه: (موخره ی کتاب عالی بود در این رابطه)

۱. اگه برگردیم به ادبیات قرون ۱۷م( تا تقریبا اوایل۱۹ م) متوجه میشیم این ادبیات وقتی از "قتلهای وحشیانه"  حرف میزنه، عموما مدافع سرسخت اخلاقیاته، اون هم اخلاقیاتی بسیار سفت و سخت؛  که یعنی دعوت به پرهیزگاری و تقوا در انتهای داستان امری معمول و پذیرفته شده بود و این انسانهای جانی و قاتل باید  به سزای عملشون برسند و ما از عاقبت اونها درس عبرت بگیریم. توی این فضایی که هر حرف مخالف مطرحی که باب طبع جامعه نباشه، سریعا محکوم میشه،  شخصی مثل دی کوئنسی ظاهر میشه که  کنجکاوی و علاقه ی عجیبی داره به توجه به قتل های ثبت شده ی روزنامه ای و علی الخصوص نقد واکنش جمعی و مردم به دنبال اون واقعه هول انگیز. جوری که مقاله ای می نویسه درباره ی قتل به عنوان هنر زیبا!
ویژگی برجسته دی کوئنسی که توجه منو جلب کرد این بود که این آدم با طرح انتقاداتی از ارزش‌های مقبول جامعه و زیر سوال بردن فلسفه ی کانت درباره ی اخلاقیات و زیبایی شناسی (با مقاله ی قتل به عنوان هنر زیبا)، از بدنام کردن خودش توی جامعه (چه آکادمیک ، چه عموم) ابایی نداشت و اتفاقا به نظر میرسه که داره با سر به درون این خطر (حرکت خلاف جریان) میره:

"دی کوئینسی محدودیت های اخلاقی جامعه را برای خود قائل نبود  و در حالی بقیه ی نویسنده ها از نوشتن در مورد انسانهای پست  و رذل منزجر بودند او به سراغ آنها می رفت. بدنامی را به جان می خرید  و در کمال میل "انسان محترم" را نادیده می گرفت. اخلاق را کنار می زند تا راهی به سوی آزادی زیبایی شناسی  بیابد. "

این به چالش کشیدن اخلاقیات مورد تایید جامعه شدیدا یادآورد عصیان نیچه است که او هم با نقد کانت ، فلسفه ش رو بزدلانه خطاب می کرد.

۲. دومین نکته ی جالب در رابطه با دی کوئینسی  چرخش دید راوی از حکایت کار قاتل به سمت مقتول و توجه زیاد به واکنش قربانی قبل و حین به قتل رسیدن بود. دی کوئنسی با این کار قصد داشت نشون بده ترس و اضطراب قربانی در لحظه ای که پای مرگ و زندگی در میون باشه باعث بروز استعداد جدیدی در فرد قربانی میشه و این نه به علت تفکر منطقی ، که به دلیل غریزه ی بقا و دفاع از خود ، به شکل ناخودآگاه اتفاق می افته. نمونه ی بارزش هم همون حکایت نانوای چاق و چله ی خموده ایه که وقتی با قاتلش مواجه میشه چنان قدرتی برای دفاع از خودش پیدا می کنه که با قدرت قاتل مشت زن حرفه ایش  برابری میکنه.
از طرفی هم با زوم کردن روی قربانی تلاش مذبوحانه ی فرد رو برای زنده موندن به تصویر میکشه که همون ریشخند کردنه نقاب اخلاقیات ظاهریه اون زمانه. به همین خاطر هم میگه مقتول هرچی "آدم بهتری"باشه قتل رضایت بخش تر و هنرمندانه تره.

توجه: رویکرد نویسنده توی داستان خونخواهی متفاوته و داستان حول محور انتقامجویی می چرخه. راجب مکافات و عاقبت قهرمانی به ظاهر کامل اما در هم شکسته و فاسد ( الگوی بسیار آشنای ادبیات  میانه و اواخر قرن ۱۹)  قهرمانی که خودش رو ماموری برای اجرای عدالت میدونه ولی در انتها مشخص میشه که او هم مانند همونهایی  که می خواد ازشون انتقام بگیره شرور و بی رحمه:

" انتقام نوعی لذت جویی است چنان سکر آور که شخص  را به جنون می کشاند چه زمانی که آتش نفرت خود را با انتقام فرو می نشاند و کامروا می شود ، چه وقتی که در کار انتقام ناتمام می ماند.." (مقایسه کنید با نگرش نیچه در چنین گفت زرتشت در مورد انتقام ).

نکته ی سوم هم اینکه، دی کوئینسی تاثیر بسیار زیادی داشته بر ادبیات معمایی کارآگاهی کلاسیک به خصوص کارآگاه پشت میز نشین که توی داستان‌های متعدد آلن پو و بعدها آثار کانن دویل و کریستی این تاثیر رو به وضوح مشاهده می کنیم.

خلاصه اینکه صداقت این فرد در رابطه با احساسات خودش واقعا تحسین برانگیزه. هرچند دی کوئینسی رو نویسنده ای محافظه کار می شناسن اما حداقل توی این کتاب شجاعتش در نقد ستودنیه.

[Tristram Shandy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Si necatus esses, philosophus mansisses.

Or, in plain English: If you had been killed, you would have remained a philosopher. This is one of the invaluable lessons we can take from Thomas de Quincey’s tongue-in-cheek lecture On Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts, which he claimed fell into his hands from a secret Society of Connoisseurs in Murder but which, of course, he wrote himself.

Being an aficionado of classic mystery fiction myself, I must say that his starting thesis according to which, once we have done justice to morality by condemning murder and expressing our indignation at a murderer’s deed, we may feel free, once the heinous deed has been done, to savour the preparatory work that went into its planning and execution. There are, after all, plain and uninteresting murders and then there are – at least on the pages of Agatha Christie or Dorothy L. Sawyer’s novels – murders that stimulate a person’s intellect and imagination. One of my favourite murders occurs in an episode of Columbo, where the murderer trains his two Dobermans Laurel and Hardy to kill a man once he pronounces the word “Rosebud”. Is this ability not only to see a murder as a despicable deed of violence but also as an intellectual feat proof of man’s depravity or of his capacity for abstraction and his appreciation of “beauty”? Even though I feel unable to answer this question, I must say that I thank de Quincey for bringing it up in such a quirky way.

The lecturer in de Quincey’s essay not only discusses several well-known murders of his day and age but also makes absurd claims such as the one that the value of a philosopher can be decided on the basis of the question whether he lost his life by murder or was at least imperilled that way. Sometimes, de Quincey stoops to silly puns – such as on the invention of the tube – but at other times, his humour is quite brilliant (although maybe not living up to modern standards of political correctness), as when he says,

”Now, does any man suppose that Mr. Coleridge, – who, for all he is too fat to be a person of active virtue, is undoubtedly a worthy Christian, – [….]”

But then, can any humour live up to modern standards of political correctness without losing its wit, and can an appreciation of murder as “a fine art” be politically correct at all? Even if you don’t savour de Quincey’s humour here at all, you may still appreciate this fake lecture for posing the question why man has such a fascination for murder committed in style.

[Jacob S · Rating 3 out of 5]

When George Orwell wrote” Decline of the English Murder”, he was very much indebted to Thomas de Quincey.
130 years apart, you may easily say that the artistic quality of what is commonly known as homicide had not moved many steps up – or down -the evolutional ladder.
Thomas de Quincey satirically argues that the trivial murder cases only displays the poor minded murderers, we must look back into late antiquity to find the truly artful cases, or at least to the Borgias, even the Italian murder by poison show an undignifying lack of enthusiasm and fantasy.
The heydays though, were during Roman times – not to mention the Assasines, true to “The Old Man on the Mountain”.
Calling out ancient and recent philosophers, some who met their fate by sword, some who escaped, merely by the cowardice and unprofessionalism of their murderers, it is established that mankind has since the very beginning appreciated a nice killing. That said, the first recorded murder, when Cain slew Abel, allegedly with an ass´ jawbone is such a primitive act of violence that only the valiant character of the victim justifies it´s place in the chronicles.

Right, are you not yet … Meeh???
Read on and be your own judge(!), and remember that Thomas de Quincey is said to have kindled a fire for opium …

The Gutenberg Project has made a lot of Tomas de Quincey´s works available here:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10708...

[Βασίλης Μέγας · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting and witty study from a man who claimed he had murdered his tom-cat.

[Carolien · Rating 4 out of 5]

A completely fabricated lecture to the Society of Connoisseurs in Murder where the lecturer sets out to discuss the art of murder including the selection of the victim, the place and the weapons. He provides evidence that a number of famous philosophers were murdered (or nearly so) despite history recording them as dying peacefully in their beds. Dark humour at its best.

Available in this collection: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/61668...

[Fabio · Rating 3 out of 5]

Due senza tre
L'intenditore di assassini, il curioso in materia di omicidi, l'amatore e dilettante nei vari tipi di carneficina, può essere paragonato all'appassionato di arte? E' concepibile analizzare e apprezzare un omicidio come se si trattasse di un quadro, una sinfonia, una rappresentazione teatrale? De Quincey prova a immaginare che si possa - e Manganelli, subdolamente, nella prefazione insinua il dubbio che l'intento sia tutt'altro che satirico.

Il libro è composto da tre parti, stese in anni distanti tra loro: due "relazioni", supposti verbali della Società degli intenditori d'assassini, e un poscritto che analizza l'operato di due assassini. Mentre le prime sono assai godibili e cinicamente divertenti (in particolare quando si tratta lo spinozo argomento dell'assassinio di filosofi), il poscritto appesantisce l'opera e non desta particolare interesse. Peccato, due senza tre.

E' un fatto che ogni filosofo eminente negli ultimi due secoli o è stato ucciso, o, quanto meno, è andato molto vicino a esserlo; al punto che, se un uomo si dichiara filosofo e nessuno ha mai attentato alla sua vita, può esser certo di non valer nulla; e considero, in particolare, un'obiezione irrefutabile alla filosofia di Locke (se pur ve n'è bisogno*) il fatto ch'egli abbia portato seco la propria gola per il mondo per settantadue anni, senza che nessuno abbia mai accondisceso a tagliargliela.
* mi dissocio da tale obiezione

Adrian Belew e l'assassinio di una sei corde https://youtu.be/galXYbepW_s

[Noa Velasco · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ha sido interesante pero un poco irregular. Parte de una premisa original y sugerente, con algunas dosis de humor elegante. Nos presenta una asociación de diletantes (en la primera mitad del s. XIX) del incomprendido arte del asesinato que, aclara, no comparten ni justifican, más bien aborrecen y censuran, pero que una vez realizado no hay por qué despreciar los maravillosos elementos que acompañan a los casos más sonados.

Así pues, consta de unas supuestas conferencias en las que habla de dicha sociedad, en las que destacaría las anécdotas y algunas reflexiones, como que los filósofos a los que no han intentado asesinar no son destacables, o la cercanía del asesinato de Descartes. A pesar de tener un lenguaje agradable y correctísimo, ciertos temas y la inclusión de algunos fragmentos escritos en latín, en crudo y sin traducción, hacían que perdiera fácilmente el hilo y me diera cuenta una página después de que no había estado atendiendo. Me pasa mucho U_U

La última parte consiste en el relato de dos casos que conmocionaron a la población londinense hacia 1812, y aunque da vueltas, repite, va hacia adelante y atrás, te atrapa y te mantiene en vilo. Lo mejor del libro, tal vez.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The subject chosen ought to be in good health: for it is absolutely barbarous to murder a sick person, who is usually quite unable to bear it."

[evie · Rating 1 out of 5]

wasn’t funny to me but maybe a reread will change my mind

[شمس · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Enough has been given to morality; now comes the turn of Taste and the Fine Arts." —On Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts

"That once, when sitting alone with her, he had said, ‘Now, Miss R., supposing that I should appear about midnight at your bedside, armed with a carving knife, what would you say?’ To which the confiding girl had, replied, ‘Oh, Mr. Williams, if it was anybody else, I should be frightened. But, as soon as I heard your voice, I should be tranquil.’" —Postscript [to Ibid.]

__________
This short volume collects De Quincey's Essay On Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts, along with his Second Paper, and Postscript on/to the same subject. It also includes a very short piece of literary criticism, On the Knocking at the Gate in Macbeth, and a short story, The Avenger.

Like his Confessions, De Quincey's Papers are excellently written, and also very satirical and amusing. His first and second Papers are the most interesting, with the third being essentially a retelling of the event with which De Quincey is engrossed, The Ratcliffe Highway Murders.

Although I don't have much of an interest in "thriller/horror" stories, I quite enjoyed The Avenger, although I think the concluding letter could have definitely been cut down.

Like the Confessions and Suspiria, I would have no trouble recommending this solely on the authority, vivacity, and humour, of De Quincey's writing.
__________
"A man can never cultivate his taste too highly." —Second Paper On Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts

" . . . One, perhaps, might suggest the Iliad—the other the Odyssey: what do you get by such comparisons? Neither ever was, or will be surpassed; and when you’ve talked for hours, you must still come back to that." —Second Paper On Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts

"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop." —Second Paper On Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts

"And now, gentlemen, in conclusion, let me again solemnly disclaim all pretensions on my own part to the character of a professional man. I never attempted any murder in my life, except in the year 1801, upon the body of a tom-cat; and that turned out differently from my intention. My purpose, I own, was downright murder. “Semper ego auditor tantum?” said I, “nunquamne reponam?” And I went down stairs in search of Tom at one o’clock on a dark night, with the “animus,” and no doubt with the fiendish looks, of a murderer. But when I found him, he was in the act of plundering the pantry of bread and other things. Now this gave a new turn to the affair; for the time being one of general scarcity, when even Christians were reduced to the use of potato-bread, rice-bread, and all sorts of things, it was downright treason in a tom-cat to be wasting good wheaten-bread in the way he was doing. It instantly became a patriotic duty to put him to death; and as I raised aloft and shook the glittering steel, I fancied myself rising like Brutus, effulgent from a crowd of patriots, and, as I stabbed him, I

called aloud on Tully’s name,
And bade the father of his country hail!"

—On Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts

[Blake Xenos · Rating 4 out of 5]

The question that consistently arises while engaging with this book is whether De Quincey's intellectual foundation and his aesthetic manifesto, which presents a satirical interpretation of the logical unity of ethics and aesthetics in Kant's philosophy, can be regarded as overlapping with a form of Protester optimism that tends to perceive "murder" as one of the new arts of modernity, characterized by a perspective imbued with refined taste and romantic delicacy. I posit that the answer is affirmative.

.

The sublime, when it engages our authentic sensibilities, traverses the realm of disgust rather than pleasure. Indeed, there exists a rare and simultaneously harsh irony: catharsis manifests in the moment when the fear, disgust, and pity directed towards the body of a slaughtered infant can purify the heart and soul. This leads us to the understanding that the entirety of this situation may be regarded as an aesthetic contemplation only when the murderer and the victim interact with one another, akin to a painter and his model.
.

Like excitable painters in need of talented subjects, murderers illustrate with a discerning taste the intricacies of the evolution of creation, even if this creation is negative and embodies a repugnant reality. As an individual who has studied criminology, I find myself both astonished and intrigued by the peculiarities of this book. Legal professionals and criminologists, who have traditionally united under the classical principles of morality and justice, may very well be confounded by a manifesto in which morality and justice are subverted; for aesthetics fundamentally arises from the concurrent presence of emotions, and one of the audacious tenets of aesthetics in this context is the disregard for punishment....In fact, De Quincey asserts that compassion for the victim arises from the instinct of self-preservation, which disregards the sensory distinctions among humans and consequently leads to a form of objectification. De Quincey’s manifesto is not intended to endorse murder; rather, it serves as a proposal to comprehend the perspective and nature of the murderer. His manifesto appears to possess an anti-superstitious character. In contrast to Kant's aesthetics, which seeks to defend reason against emotion, De Quincey, in this work, presents a framework for the aesthetics of violence derived from the dual coexistence of reason (disgust) and sensibility (pity). Unlike Kant, De Quincey consistently acknowledges passion and desire alongside reason and imagination. This book, adhering to journalistic conventions, transcends mere prophecy, establishing a foundation for detective literature in the subsequent years. Truman Capote should be regarded as an individual significantly influenced by him.......


In general, De Quincey's words still seem radical even after all these years, echoing through the corridors of literary history with a resonance that challenges conventional thought. The book serves as a curious yet insightful flashback, much like an unexpected interlude in the midst of a raucous drinking party, where laughter and revelry mask deeper, often unacknowledged truths. This gathering comprises an eclectic mix of attendees, each bearing the weight of a depressed intellect, their minds clouded by the fog of societal norms and expectations.
At first glance, the book may appear dangerous, almost subversive, as it dares to present murder not merely as an act of violence but as a form of beautiful art, executed with an unsettling tranquility that invites contemplation. This is not art in the traditional sense; rather, it is an art that demands a discerning taste, an appreciation for the aesthetics of brutality. In fact, within its pages, De Quincey intricately weaves together elements such as the careful decoration of a crime scene, the precise timing of a murder, and the palpable suspense that hangs in the air like a thick fog. These are not just mere details; they are the conditional elements that elevate this grim subject to a form of artistic expression.
De Quincey posits that even in the darkest moments of a struggle between victim and killer, there exists a potential for the victims to unveil their latent talents. It is this complex interaction that breathes life into art, stirring the minds and emotions of the audience in profound ways. The act of violence, then, becomes a means to strip away the veils of secrets that reason alone is incapable of revealing. Each person's life is a unique relationship with truth, a personal narrative that unfolds in the shadows of existence, and De Quincey's exploration of this theme reveals a truth that remains an unspoken secret, lingering just beneath the surface.
The repressive nature of reason, as articulated in Kant's philosophy, often dictates a protective stance towards the human soul, advocating for a rational approach to understanding existence. However, De Quincey's rebellious emotions chart a different course, one that seeks to embrace humanity in all its complexities, including its infamy and persecution. Through his lens, we are invited to confront the darker aspects of human nature, to acknowledge the struggles and the beauty that can emerge from chaos. In this way, the book challenges us to reconsider our perceptions of morality, art, and the very essence of what it means to be human. It is a call to embrace the full spectrum of experience, to find beauty in the grotesque, and to understand that even in the depths of despair, there lies the potential for profound artistic expression.




A book like no other.

.

[Floor tussendeboeken · Rating 1 out of 5]

Maybe it's me, but I didn't get the point of this piece of satire that was supposed to be funny. I didn't laugh and when I finished it I was like; huh, what did I just read???

[Iza Brekilien · Rating 2 out of 5]

Reviewed for Books and livres

When I first started reading this little book (50+ pages), I found it verbose, pontificating and extremely boring. I fell asleep on it for more than 3 hours - at least, it's an efficient sleeping pill !
Then I woke up, picked it up and started to find it a little less boring, so I gave it a second chance and got back to the beginning.

The second time, I found it a little better - not laugh out loud funny, but I smiled several times. However, I'm very grateful that it's short because I couldn't have kept reading a longer version.

To sum it up, I'm very disappointed. I'd heard of this text for a long time and was happy at the idea of finally reading it. It wasn't what I expected. If you're looking for a short text in the same collection with dark humour, but far superior, you should pick "A modest proposal" by Jonathan Swift !

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thomas De Quincey was perhaps the most renowned author who was strung out on opium (in the form of laudanum). His On Murder Considered As One Of The Fine Arts And Other Related Texts ranges from hilarity (describing the aesthetics of murder) to ghastliness (giving details of two early 19th century serial murders). There are moments within this long essay when De Quincey writes like an angel. Other times, he can be merely brilliant.

It is worth reading him because he is one of the greatest essayists using the English language. At his best, there is no one better.

[Marjolein (UrlPhantomhive) · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read all my reviews on http://urlphantomhive.booklikes.com

Thomas de Quincey states at the start of the essay that it is a transcript from a meeting of a mysterious group of gentleman who are fascinated by murder. The rest of the essay is then the transcript and elaborates on several murders and the murder of philosophers.

Based on the fact that people are usually (to some extant) fascinated by murder, I was really looking forward to it. However, I didn't think it was as hilarious as the description told me. The humor was rather bad or maybe sometimes I just didn't get it. I don't think I would read a complete book by Thomas de Quincey.

Little Black Classics #4

[Ecem Yücel · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was the fourth book of my Penguin Little Black Classics 80-book-box-set challenge.

This was a satiric essay by De Quincey which was written after a serial killer was arrested at the time. It is evident that these murders had an impact on De Quincey -enough for him to pen this lecture at least, but even though my interest was piqued in some parts, this wasn't a very engaging book for me. It is possible for readers who read more non-fiction books than me to like it more than I did.

[Cristóbal Angulo Rivero · Rating 1 out of 5]

Este libro es tan malo que no voy a encender el ordenador para escribir la reseña. Es supuestamente escandaloso pero todo lo que hace es ser un poco menos mojigato. No voy a hablar sobre "las desventuras del opio" porque ya me jodería, ser tan inglés y tan pedante que hasta drogarte sea aburrido. Vaya mierdon infumable amalgama de pedantería decimonónica ensalzada por la gente por no habérselo leído.

[Lea · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well, humorous stories are always going to have a difficult time with me because most times I just dont find them funny. Really didn't get the point of this book...

[~Madison · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read this again and ehh.. still bad but not as bad as the first time I read it.

all I took from this book is that they’re were 🎶 two bros sitting in a bathtub 5 feet apart because they’re not gay🎼