Our author, whether writing as Comte de Lautréamont or Isidore Ducasse, is a master of negation, contradiction, and contrast.
Maldoror (and Poems) is a great work. It's audacious, original, startling, heartfelt, insincere, sincere, brutal, funny, outrageous, paradoxical, inspirational. It is the opposite of itself. It's one (or two) of a kind.
Some will be attracted to the book because it is sensational. Some will be repelled for the exact same reason. I've commented earlier and elsewhere that--though I could be regarded as a jaded reader--I found some of the passages in Maldoror remarkably difficult and painful. Though I don't think I am any kind of sadistic thrill-seeker, I'd say that the preceding sentence is actually evidence of the strength (and peculiar nature) of the book. That's because the author does not merely hammer upon us with a barrage of violent absurdities (though some will perceive it that way). On the contrary, he knows how to enlist our sympathy without seeming to do so. Or perhaps he simply exploits our humanity.
In a previous pre-review, I objected to the association of this text with surrealism. The surrealists were inspired by it, and the text has some relationship to the later developments of surrealism, but I think it would give a very distorted picture to suppose there is a strong relationship here. I also objected to the cover art, which is a petty gripe, but seriously... this is not Dracula. One more objection I raised was against the main description attached to our Goodreads record. Yeah, well, this is a tough book to categorize or accurately portray in a capsule, and I suspect that readers will be highly divided on just how this book could be fairly described.
Which brings me to another point. I think if you assemble twelve fans of this book, they will all eye one another very suspiciously. None will trust the others' motives or rationale for liking--or loving--this book. Then, one may also feel a bit uncomfortable looking in the mirror after reading this. You may suspect your own reflection, or may recoil in shame at the piercing and accusatory glance which confronts you.
Thus, of course, we must have a very suspicious and uncomfortable relationship with the author too--or with the author as we imagine him to be.
I referred, a few times above, to contradictions. It appears to me that the author employed an interesting strategy with remarkable results. It appears that he wrote, then returned and revised his sentences by arbitrarily inverting them, throwing in a "not," or other negation just when its appearance would be least intuitive, may be quite irrational at first glance, but which also invites a new perspective. This appears to happen in Maldoror (I perceived it as happening more frequently starting with "Book 3" of Maldoror) and it is developed to its extreme when we come to the anti-book "Poems."
I think Maldoror will always be the main focus of readers' attention. It's the only "complete" work. But let's not neglect "poems." I was looking forward to seeing how the author would go about writing a sort of counterpoint to his own work, which is what I expected "poems" to be, and I do like the idea of deliberately pursuing a literary goal which may be counter to one's nature. However, it turned out quite different from my expectation, because "poems" is a 95% facetious work. First of all, I keep putting quotes around "poems," because, as far I can tell this could be a title for the work, but it is not a collection of poems... if anything, it is a tirade against poetry. But anyway, if readers were prone to misconstrue Maldoror, I think they're doubly likely to be deceived by "poems." Here, it appears that our author has successfully defended Maldoror by anticipating the objections of his harshest (imagined) critics, and then presenting their arguments in such extreme and absurd style as to render the criticism ridiculous. When reading something of this sort, coming from this particular author, knowing what we know of the work he has previously produced, knowing his age and literary leanings, this should be an obvious caution: If you read something which seems patently absurd in "poems," you should take it as a sure sign that the author was aware of the absurdity--and it was intentional.
But this does not preclude the %5 sincerity which may be buried in here. The author's approach, and the nature of his topic, ensure that his writing will always remain somewhat mysterious and paradoxical. What exactly were his most sincere thoughts cannot be easily or certainly deduced... there is a permanent air of doubt, which highlights the irony of the fact that "poems", more than anything else, is an argument AGAINST doubt.
Which leaves the strongest impression? The terror of sin which is communicated in-between the lines of Maldoror, or the savoring of sin and the sadistic joy of annihilating mankind and oneself in the process? Which is stronger, the advocacy of passionate and anarchic literature which peeks through the cracks of "poems," or the surface moralizing and overt condemnation of all expressions of sorrow and negative passion... well, positive passion too. In the end, is Maldoror truly "poems" in disguise, while "poems" is a concealed Maldoror? They both affirm one another covertly, while expressly repudiating one another.
-----------------------------------
In my pre-review I also wrote a few things of which I will preserve a snippet or two. (Later, I may revise again to introduce a few quotes from the work into the section above):
"The author, in fact, may have been strongly interested in teaching good, by causing us to be revolted by evil. His evil protagonist is a sensitive soul too, and at times has a noble desire to see evidence of the goodness of man, but he's also so terribly cynical, on a scale we rarely see in any form of literature, and the author is such an effective devil's advocate, that he makes the reader experience both the thrill and the shame of his devilishness."
"He's also infinitely self-contradictory and hypocritical, thus plunging the reader into an ethical and experiential morass. Who knows what will come out in the end?"