What do you think?
Rate this book
Deceit, Desire and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary Structure
This study extends beyond the scope of literature into the psychology of much of our contemporary scene, including fashion, advertising, and propaganda techniques. In considering such aspects, the author goes beyond the domain of pure aesthetics and offers an interpretation of some basic cultural problems of our time.
328 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1961
About the author
René Girard
124 books938 followersRené Girard was a French-born American historian, literary critic, and philosopher of social science whose work belongs to the tradition of anthropological philosophy.
He was born in the southern French city of Avignon on Christmas day in 1923. Between 1943 and 1947, he studied in Paris at the École des Chartres, an institution for the training of archivists and historians, where he specialized in medieval history. In 1947 he went to Indiana University on a year’s fellowship and eventually made almost his entire career in the United States. He completed a PhD in history at Indiana University in 1950 but also began to teach literature, the field in which he would first make his reputation. He taught at Duke University and at Bryn Mawr before becoming a professor at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. In 1971 he went to the State University of New York at Buffalo for five years, returned to Johns Hopkins, and then finished his academic career at Stanford University where he taught between 1981 and his retirement in 1995.
Girard is the author of nearly thirty books, with his writings spanning many academic domains. Although the reception of his work is different in each of these areas, there is a growing body of secondary literature on his work and his influence on disciplines such as literary criticism, critical theory, anthropology, theology, psychology, mythology, sociology, economics, cultural studies, and philosophy.Girard’s fundamental ideas, which he has developed throughout his career and provide the foundation for his thinking, are that desire is mimetic (all of our desires are borrowed from other people), that all conflict originates in mimetic desire (mimetic rivalry), that the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry, and that the Bible reveals these ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.
In 1990, friends and colleagues of Girard’s established the Colloquium on Violence and Religion to further research and discussion about the themes of Girard’s work. The Colloquium meets annually either in Europe or the United States.
René Girard died on November 4, 2015, at the age of 91 in Stanford.
He was born in the southern French city of Avignon on Christmas day in 1923. Between 1943 and 1947, he studied in Paris at the École des Chartres, an institution for the training of archivists and historians, where he specialized in medieval history. In 1947 he went to Indiana University on a year’s fellowship and eventually made almost his entire career in the United States. He completed a PhD in history at Indiana University in 1950 but also began to teach literature, the field in which he would first make his reputation. He taught at Duke University and at Bryn Mawr before becoming a professor at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. In 1971 he went to the State University of New York at Buffalo for five years, returned to Johns Hopkins, and then finished his academic career at Stanford University where he taught between 1981 and his retirement in 1995.
Girard is the author of nearly thirty books, with his writings spanning many academic domains. Although the reception of his work is different in each of these areas, there is a growing body of secondary literature on his work and his influence on disciplines such as literary criticism, critical theory, anthropology, theology, psychology, mythology, sociology, economics, cultural studies, and philosophy.Girard’s fundamental ideas, which he has developed throughout his career and provide the foundation for his thinking, are that desire is mimetic (all of our desires are borrowed from other people), that all conflict originates in mimetic desire (mimetic rivalry), that the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry, and that the Bible reveals these ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.
In 1990, friends and colleagues of Girard’s established the Colloquium on Violence and Religion to further research and discussion about the themes of Girard’s work. The Colloquium meets annually either in Europe or the United States.
René Girard died on November 4, 2015, at the age of 91 in Stanford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews
July 6, 2024
Dans Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque, publié en 1961, René Girard développe une théorie du désir et de sa représentation en littérature. Armé de son compas, Girard semble avoir trouvé les preuves de ce que Pascal jugeait impossible : une géométrie de l’âme ; au cœur des relations humaines, il prétend mettre au jour une figure simple, récurrente, constante : le triangle.
Girard postule en effet une relation géométrique fondamentale régissant l’intrigue des grands romans : le protagoniste désire quelque chose (richesse, statut social, un amant, etc.), mais en réalité, il désire l’objet à travers un médiateur qu’il souhaite imiter ou évincer. Le désir est donc mimétique et triangulaire — il ne va pas directement du sujet à l’objet, mais du sujet à l’objet en passant par le médiateur auquel il s’identifie.
Le premier exemple de Girard pour illustrer cette théorie est Don Quichotte, décrit comme la victime typique du désir triangulaire. Rien de ce que Don Quichotte désire ne vient spontanément de lui-même : tout dérive de sa fascination pour les romans de chevalerie et ses désirs sont médiatisés via Amadis de Gaule. Chaque objet qu'il voit est transfiguré par cette médiation : le fameux plat à barbe devient un heaume, les moulins à vent des géants, la fille du boucher la sans pareille Dulcinée, et ainsi de suite.
Le deuxième exemple est Madame Bovary : les désirs d'Emma sont médiatisés par les romans à l’eau de rose qu'elle dévore ; tout ce qu’elle veut dans la vie vient de ses lectures. Ces héroïnes romantiques, comme Amadis de Gaule, sont des médiateurs « externes », des modèles lointains et inaccessibles. Il est donc impossible pour Don Quichotte ou Emma Bovary d’entrer en rivalité avec eux, tout comme il est impossible au chrétien de rivaliser avec le Christ : il ne peut que tenter de l’imiter à distance, avec plus ou moins de succès.
Mais un changement quantitatif dans cette relation triangulaire entraîne un changement qualitatif dans le troisième exemple que Girard se propose d’analyser — l’œuvre de Stendhal, qui traite directement de l’ascension sociale. Chez Stendhal, les médiateurs sont de ce monde :
Et si, d’un côté, il ne fait aucun sens d’envier les personnages d’un roman, d’un autre côté, lorsque les médiateurs sont avec nous ici-bas, ils bloquent ou possèdent ce que nous désirons. Par un curieux retournement, ils semblent devenir la raison pour laquelle nous n’avons pas ce que nous voulons, bien qu’ils soient en réalité aussi la raison pour laquelle nous voulons ce que nous voulons. Ils deviennent donc des rivaux. Et ainsi entre en scène la vanité, sujet du Rouge et le Noir. Le vaniteux ne désire un objet que lorsqu’il est convaincu qu’un autre le désire également, et devient ainsi un rival. Il n’y a rien cependant de vraiment spécial chez ces médiateurs : Girard dit à plusieurs reprises que nous leur appliquons un « prestige arbitraire ».
Girard appelle la première condition la « médiation externe », tandis qu’il qualifie cette plus grande proximité avec le médiateur de « médiation interne ». Si les victimes de la médiation externe déclarent ouvertement et presque innocemment leurs héros sans honte, dans la médiation interne, nous devons cacher nos modèles aux autres et à nous-mêmes. Cela ouvre un monde de tromperie, d’auto-illusion et d’affects ambivalents. Le sujet est déchiré entre deux sentiments opposés envers son modèle : « la vénération la plus soumise et la rancune la plus intense. C’est là le sentiment que nous appelons haine. »
Selon Girard, la jalousie, l’envie et la haine ne sont que les noms traditionnels d’un phénomène sous-jacent : la « médiation interne ». Ces termes, parce qu'ils sont superficiellement binaires — nous envions un autre, nous haïssons un autre, nous sommes jaloux d’un autre — masquent la structure tripartite qui se cache en dessous.
Les deux exemples suivants sont Proust et Dostoïevski. Les jalousies extrêmement douloureuses subies par les personnages de Proust (Marcel vis-à-vis d’Albertine, Charlus vis-à-vis de Morel, les Verdurin vis-à-vis des Guermantes et vice versa) sont le résultat du rapprochement des médiateurs et de l’intensification de la situation de médiation interne, qui se décline bientôt en « médiation double », lorsque deux sujets deviennent simultanément médiateurs l’un pour l’autre, ou bien encore lorsque l’objet et le médiateur se superposent en un seul individu (cas de la « coquette » narcissique). Les désirs sadomasochistes ou bien enchainés en cascade sont encore d’autres cas de figure présents chez Proust. Mais le monde psychotique des personnages de Dostoïevski qui ne peuvent pas aimer sans haine ou être amis sans jalousie (voir le narrateur du Sous-sol) est la réalisation la plus intense et finale de la médiation interne qui conduit à toutes sortes de comportements destructeurs : meurtre, suicide, etc. Girard affirme que bien que le monde des dandys, des snobs délicats et des artistes sensibles de Proust ne semble pas avoir de lien avec celui des fous, des meurtriers et des fanatiques de Dostoïevski, en réalité, la différence n’est que de degré.
Comment sortir de cet enfer de la médiation interne ? Pour Girard, la solution réside dans une sorte d'expérience mystique qui combine le religieux et l'esthétique. Il nomme « transcendance déviée » la préoccupation morbide pour l’Autre qu'il trouve dans les romans ; c'est le résultat d'une sorte d'idolâtrie provoquée par la médiation interne, par laquelle nous cherchons en vain le divin dans le monde. Mais ce n'est qu’une analogie déformée de la quête métaphysique : « La transcendance déviée est une caricature de la transcendance verticale » (ch. 2).
La transcendance verticale est une sorte d’extase religieuse que peuvent atteindre les héros à la fin des romans. Il s’agit d’une libération des liens du désir qui, en elle-même, permet la création romanesque, une victoire sur l’égocentrisme fixé sur l’autre, et un renoncement à la fascination et à la haine. Le modèle en est le desengaño cervantin ou la remémoration proustienne, en particulier celle que l’on trouve dans Le temps retrouvé, dont la conclusion représente le paradigme de toutes les fins romanesques. Les moments de réminiscence claire du passé du Marcel narrateur ne sont plus infectés par les désirs morbides qui tourmentaient autrefois le Marcel protagoniste.
Le roman implique un renoncement à la fixation sur le médiateur, sur l’Autre, qui est en même temps une sorte d’identification empathique avec lui :
Abstraction faite de l’imagerie chrétienne, cela ressemble beaucoup au concept d’expérience esthétique chez Schopenhauer, où nous entrons dans un état de pure contemplation et sommes élevés pour un instant au-dessus de toute volonté, de tous les désirs et de tous les soucis (Le Monde comme volonté et comme représentation). La philosophie de Schopenhauer, on le sait, a été notamment influencée par son étude des textes hindous et bouddhistes et il est intéressant de trouver ici une analogie de la libération du soi chez Proust.
En somme, Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque jette un éclairage singulier sur certains des plus grands chefs-d'œuvre de la littérature occidentale. Cependant, comme toute lecture systématique, elle court parfois le risque de devenir un peu réductrice ou mécanique, négligeant d’autres aspects importants des romans au profit de sa thèse centrale. Néanmoins, la vision de Girard selon laquelle les grands romans nous révèlent la vérité du désir offre un aperçu troublant non seulement sur le roman, mais plus largement sur notre modernité. Et son affirmation finale selon laquelle le romancier et le héros de roman ne peuvent transcender le désir mimétique que par une forme de contemplation esthétique et religieuse est particulièrement stimulante.
Girard postule en effet une relation géométrique fondamentale régissant l’intrigue des grands romans : le protagoniste désire quelque chose (richesse, statut social, un amant, etc.), mais en réalité, il désire l’objet à travers un médiateur qu’il souhaite imiter ou évincer. Le désir est donc mimétique et triangulaire — il ne va pas directement du sujet à l’objet, mais du sujet à l’objet en passant par le médiateur auquel il s’identifie.
Le premier exemple de Girard pour illustrer cette théorie est Don Quichotte, décrit comme la victime typique du désir triangulaire. Rien de ce que Don Quichotte désire ne vient spontanément de lui-même : tout dérive de sa fascination pour les romans de chevalerie et ses désirs sont médiatisés via Amadis de Gaule. Chaque objet qu'il voit est transfiguré par cette médiation : le fameux plat à barbe devient un heaume, les moulins à vent des géants, la fille du boucher la sans pareille Dulcinée, et ainsi de suite.
Le deuxième exemple est Madame Bovary : les désirs d'Emma sont médiatisés par les romans à l’eau de rose qu'elle dévore ; tout ce qu’elle veut dans la vie vient de ses lectures. Ces héroïnes romantiques, comme Amadis de Gaule, sont des médiateurs « externes », des modèles lointains et inaccessibles. Il est donc impossible pour Don Quichotte ou Emma Bovary d’entrer en rivalité avec eux, tout comme il est impossible au chrétien de rivaliser avec le Christ : il ne peut que tenter de l’imiter à distance, avec plus ou moins de succès.
Mais un changement quantitatif dans cette relation triangulaire entraîne un changement qualitatif dans le troisième exemple que Girard se propose d’analyser — l’œuvre de Stendhal, qui traite directement de l’ascension sociale. Chez Stendhal, les médiateurs sont de ce monde :
Chez Cervantès, le médiateur trône dans un ciel inaccessible et il transmet à son fidèle un peu de sa sérénité. Chez Stendhal, ce même médiateur est descendu sur terre. Distinguer clairement ces deux types de relations entre médiateur et sujet, c'est reconnaître l'écart spirituel immense qui sépare un Don Quichotte des plus bassement vaniteux parmi les personnages stendhaliens. (ch. 1)
Et si, d’un côté, il ne fait aucun sens d’envier les personnages d’un roman, d’un autre côté, lorsque les médiateurs sont avec nous ici-bas, ils bloquent ou possèdent ce que nous désirons. Par un curieux retournement, ils semblent devenir la raison pour laquelle nous n’avons pas ce que nous voulons, bien qu’ils soient en réalité aussi la raison pour laquelle nous voulons ce que nous voulons. Ils deviennent donc des rivaux. Et ainsi entre en scène la vanité, sujet du Rouge et le Noir. Le vaniteux ne désire un objet que lorsqu’il est convaincu qu’un autre le désire également, et devient ainsi un rival. Il n’y a rien cependant de vraiment spécial chez ces médiateurs : Girard dit à plusieurs reprises que nous leur appliquons un « prestige arbitraire ».
Girard appelle la première condition la « médiation externe », tandis qu’il qualifie cette plus grande proximité avec le médiateur de « médiation interne ». Si les victimes de la médiation externe déclarent ouvertement et presque innocemment leurs héros sans honte, dans la médiation interne, nous devons cacher nos modèles aux autres et à nous-mêmes. Cela ouvre un monde de tromperie, d’auto-illusion et d’affects ambivalents. Le sujet est déchiré entre deux sentiments opposés envers son modèle : « la vénération la plus soumise et la rancune la plus intense. C’est là le sentiment que nous appelons haine. »
Selon Girard, la jalousie, l’envie et la haine ne sont que les noms traditionnels d’un phénomène sous-jacent : la « médiation interne ». Ces termes, parce qu'ils sont superficiellement binaires — nous envions un autre, nous haïssons un autre, nous sommes jaloux d’un autre — masquent la structure tripartite qui se cache en dessous.
Les deux exemples suivants sont Proust et Dostoïevski. Les jalousies extrêmement douloureuses subies par les personnages de Proust (Marcel vis-à-vis d’Albertine, Charlus vis-à-vis de Morel, les Verdurin vis-à-vis des Guermantes et vice versa) sont le résultat du rapprochement des médiateurs et de l’intensification de la situation de médiation interne, qui se décline bientôt en « médiation double », lorsque deux sujets deviennent simultanément médiateurs l’un pour l’autre, ou bien encore lorsque l’objet et le médiateur se superposent en un seul individu (cas de la « coquette » narcissique). Les désirs sadomasochistes ou bien enchainés en cascade sont encore d’autres cas de figure présents chez Proust. Mais le monde psychotique des personnages de Dostoïevski qui ne peuvent pas aimer sans haine ou être amis sans jalousie (voir le narrateur du Sous-sol) est la réalisation la plus intense et finale de la médiation interne qui conduit à toutes sortes de comportements destructeurs : meurtre, suicide, etc. Girard affirme que bien que le monde des dandys, des snobs délicats et des artistes sensibles de Proust ne semble pas avoir de lien avec celui des fous, des meurtriers et des fanatiques de Dostoïevski, en réalité, la différence n’est que de degré.
Comment sortir de cet enfer de la médiation interne ? Pour Girard, la solution réside dans une sorte d'expérience mystique qui combine le religieux et l'esthétique. Il nomme « transcendance déviée » la préoccupation morbide pour l’Autre qu'il trouve dans les romans ; c'est le résultat d'une sorte d'idolâtrie provoquée par la médiation interne, par laquelle nous cherchons en vain le divin dans le monde. Mais ce n'est qu’une analogie déformée de la quête métaphysique : « La transcendance déviée est une caricature de la transcendance verticale » (ch. 2).
La transcendance verticale est une sorte d’extase religieuse que peuvent atteindre les héros à la fin des romans. Il s’agit d’une libération des liens du désir qui, en elle-même, permet la création romanesque, une victoire sur l’égocentrisme fixé sur l’autre, et un renoncement à la fascination et à la haine. Le modèle en est le desengaño cervantin ou la remémoration proustienne, en particulier celle que l’on trouve dans Le temps retrouvé, dont la conclusion représente le paradigme de toutes les fins romanesques. Les moments de réminiscence claire du passé du Marcel narrateur ne sont plus infectés par les désirs morbides qui tourmentaient autrefois le Marcel protagoniste.
Le roman implique un renoncement à la fixation sur le médiateur, sur l’Autre, qui est en même temps une sorte d’identification empathique avec lui :
Les grandes créations romanesques sont toujours le fruit d'une fascination dépassée. Le héros se reconnaît dans le rival abhorré ; il renonce aux « différences » que suggère la haine. Il reconnaît, à ses propres dépens, la présence du cercle psychologique. Le regard que le romancier porte sur lui-même rejoint l'attention morbide qu'il prête à son médiateur. Toutes les puissances d'un esprit libéré de ses contradictions s'unissent en un même élan créateur. (ch. 12)
Abstraction faite de l’imagerie chrétienne, cela ressemble beaucoup au concept d’expérience esthétique chez Schopenhauer, où nous entrons dans un état de pure contemplation et sommes élevés pour un instant au-dessus de toute volonté, de tous les désirs et de tous les soucis (Le Monde comme volonté et comme représentation). La philosophie de Schopenhauer, on le sait, a été notamment influencée par son étude des textes hindous et bouddhistes et il est intéressant de trouver ici une analogie de la libération du soi chez Proust.
En somme, Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque jette un éclairage singulier sur certains des plus grands chefs-d'œuvre de la littérature occidentale. Cependant, comme toute lecture systématique, elle court parfois le risque de devenir un peu réductrice ou mécanique, négligeant d’autres aspects importants des romans au profit de sa thèse centrale. Néanmoins, la vision de Girard selon laquelle les grands romans nous révèlent la vérité du désir offre un aperçu troublant non seulement sur le roman, mais plus largement sur notre modernité. Et son affirmation finale selon laquelle le romancier et le héros de roman ne peuvent transcender le désir mimétique que par une forme de contemplation esthétique et religieuse est particulièrement stimulante.
August 21, 2012
I thought I understood envy. Then I read this book. It doesn't matter if (like me) you've never read the novels Girard analyzes here; you'll still come away wowed. The only thing that didn't seem quite clear in this book is a point that shines in I See Satan Fall Like Lightning--that mimetic desire, the built-in drive to want what others want, is not inherently bad. It's how we're made. It isn't a question of whether we imitate others in our desires, it's who we imitate. The who and what are what matter.
August 5, 2019
Jale Parla, Orhan Koçak, Nurdan Gürbilek gibi edebiyat aleminin önemli şahsiyetlerinin hakkında çok konuştuğu Girard'ın bu eserini nihayet ben de okudum. Söz konusu eleştirmenlerin en çok eleştirdikleri Girard'ın her türlü kuram ve akımdan azade kendi yolunu (kendi sistematiğini kurarak) çizen tavrı benim asıl sevdiğim tarafı. Şiddet ve Kutsal'da da buna şahit olmuştum. Hegel üzerinden Dostoyevski, Proust ve Stendhal okumak ile benim Nietzsche üzerinden Mevsim Yenice okumam arasında bir benzerlik var bence...
November 20, 2015
Lo giuro, non leggerò mai più un libro allo stesso modo. Si è squarciato il velo di Maya per me, come lettrice. Recuperare tutto dell'Autore.
Confusa e rapita.
Confusa e rapita.
November 15, 2017
This is my first introduction to Girard, and I'm already a huge fan. I have to admit, some of the things he said went over my head, but the gist of his message has already changed the way I think about desire and envy.
Girard is famously known for coining "mimetic theory," which claims that all desire is triangular; it includes the subject, the object, and the mediator. For example, if you were the subject and your object of desire is to be rich, you would think that it's just a straight line from you to your desire (subject-object). Girard disagrees by saying that there is always a mediator, in this instance, a rich person, whom you want to imitate (subject-mediator-object). But the object of your desire is really just an illusion. You don't really want to be rich. You just want to become the person who is rich.
Now if the mediator is someone who is wayyy out of your league, you will be satisfied in following his footsteps towards becoming like him (ahem, Christ). But if your mediator is on the same level as you are, you will see him as a hindrance to your object of desire. Thus, envy is formed.
Since the rise of individualism, Romantics have been tricked into believing that desire comes from "inside of themselves," but this is faulty according to Girard because it hides the social nature of desire. He brings up Cervantes, Stendhal, Proust, and Dostoevsky as exemplars of "novelistic geniuses" because they understand the triangular nature of desire.
The book goes through asceticism, sadism and masochism, double triangular desire (where both sides imitate one another), and so much more! This is definitely a dense read, but I highly recommend it!
Girard is famously known for coining "mimetic theory," which claims that all desire is triangular; it includes the subject, the object, and the mediator. For example, if you were the subject and your object of desire is to be rich, you would think that it's just a straight line from you to your desire (subject-object). Girard disagrees by saying that there is always a mediator, in this instance, a rich person, whom you want to imitate (subject-mediator-object). But the object of your desire is really just an illusion. You don't really want to be rich. You just want to become the person who is rich.
Now if the mediator is someone who is wayyy out of your league, you will be satisfied in following his footsteps towards becoming like him (ahem, Christ). But if your mediator is on the same level as you are, you will see him as a hindrance to your object of desire. Thus, envy is formed.
Since the rise of individualism, Romantics have been tricked into believing that desire comes from "inside of themselves," but this is faulty according to Girard because it hides the social nature of desire. He brings up Cervantes, Stendhal, Proust, and Dostoevsky as exemplars of "novelistic geniuses" because they understand the triangular nature of desire.
The book goes through asceticism, sadism and masochism, double triangular desire (where both sides imitate one another), and so much more! This is definitely a dense read, but I highly recommend it!
Read
October 3, 2019Girard'ın okuma ve yorumlama biçimi birçok farklı romana ve hatta gündelik davranışa uygulanabilir.
Biraz ayrıntılı bir yorum girme planım var, umarım gerçekleşir.
Biraz ayrıntılı bir yorum girme planım var, umarım gerçekleşir.
April 26, 2018
Siamo abituati a vedere il desiderio come una costruzione rettilinea che dal soggetto va direttamente all’oggetto: per esempio, io desidero essere ricco, quindi l’oggetto delle mie brame è la ricchezza in sè. Girard invece afferma che il desiderio ha una costruzione triangolare, ossia fra il soggetto e l’oggetto sta sempre un mediatore: per esempio io non bramo l’oggetto ricchezza in sè ma desidero essere ricco perchè esistono persone ricche, che fungono da catalizzatore del desiderio, e quindi, in realtà, quello che voglio è essere come quelle persone. Questo meccanismo triangolare del desiderio è sempre e comunque valido, e si applica a tutte le nostre voglie.
Quello che Girard sta dicendo è che la legge universale del comportamento umano consiste nel carattere mimetico, nel senso di imitativo, del desiderio. Noi imitiamo dagli altri i nostri desideri, le nostre opinioni, il nostro stile di vita. Chi imitiamo esattamente?, vi chiederete. Imitiamo le persone che stimiamo e rispettiamo, mentre contro-imitiamo le persone che disprezziamo. Quindi il nostro comportamento è sempre un’imitazione, perché è sempre in funzione dell’altro, nel bene come nel male.
Ma non finisce qui. Molto interessante è il fatto, nota l’autore, che questo modo di intendere il desiderio ha la sua radice in un male ontologico: il nostro desiderio di assoluto, che nella nostra società moderna viene distorto e reindirizzato dal sacro al mondano. Vi ricorda qualcosa? Non provate mai un senso di mancanza? Non cerchiamo più l’appagamento del nostro desiderio metafisico, che si configura come felicità, salvezza, o altro, in un dio distante ma in ciò che chiama mediatori, sempre più vicini a noi, che prendono incosciamente il posto della divinità oramai assente. Il nostro desiderio si configura quindi come una trascendenza deviata che non potrà mai essere soddisfatta. Quindi, assumendo un’ottica negativa, possiamo affermare che male e desiderio sono profondamente legati. Dice l’autore:
“Il male esiste ed è il desiderio metafisico stesso, è la trascendenza che tesse gli uomini al rovescio, separando ciò che essa pretende di unire, unendo ciò che pretende di separare[…].
Il valore dell’oggetto consumato dipende oramai solo dallo sguardo dell’altro. […] L’altro domina sempre l’esistenza dell’individuo ma questo altro non è più, come nell’alienazione marxista, un oppressore di classe, è invece il vicino di casa, il compagno di scuola, il rivale professionale. L’altro diventa più affascinante a mano a mano che si avvicina all’io”.
Ci crediamo esseri autonomi e liberi, crediamo nell’unità psicologica delle persone, nella nostra compatezza come IO, dissumulando a noi stessi la verità del desiderio, che è invece triangolare e mediato da altri. Questa è la grande menzogna romantica secondo l’autore, in cui siamo tutti avvinti. Menzogna che può assumere il carattere di autoinganno.
Troviamo poi un altro concetto a mio avviso molto affascinanante, che è quello di ostacolo. è proprio l’ostacolo che rinforza la passione, è l’ostacolo che tendiamo a ricercare perchè porta al parossisimo l’intensità del nostro sentire, anche se si configura poi come sofferenza. Anzi forse proprio per questo. Il termine ultimo di questa corsa verso ciò che ci sembra salvezza si esaurisce nel suo contrario, avverte l’autore:
“Il male ontologico continua ad aggravarsi man mano che il mediatore si avvicina al soggetto che desidera. Il suo termine naturale è la morte. […] Al masochismo succede l’ultimo stadio del desiderio metafisico, quello dell’autodistruzione”.
Davanti a questa evidenza, la lucidità contemporanea, il disincanto dell’uomo moderno, esegue una rotazione di trecentossessanta gradi e ritorna alla cecità. Adesso il desiderio metafisco coincide con la dissimulazione estrema, il pretendere di non desiderare, come il Mersault di Camus o il Roquentin di Sartre:
“Sono gli altri che desiderano intensamente, è l’eroe, cioè l’io, che desidera debolmente o addirittura non desidera affatto; […] Il primo romantico cercava di provare la sua spontaneità, cioè la propria divinità, desiderando più intensamente degli altri. Il secondo romantico cerca di provare la stessa cosa, ma con mezzi opposti. […] Si tratta sempre, insomma, di convincere gli altri e soprattutto di convincere sè stessi che si è perfettamente e divinamente autonomi
[…]Dietro la fantasmagoria moderna, dietro il turbinio degli avvenimenti e delle idee, al termine dell’evoluzione sempre più rapida della mediazione interna, vi è il nulla. L’anima è giunta ad un punto morto”.
https://wordpress.com/post/lacrepaint...
Quello che Girard sta dicendo è che la legge universale del comportamento umano consiste nel carattere mimetico, nel senso di imitativo, del desiderio. Noi imitiamo dagli altri i nostri desideri, le nostre opinioni, il nostro stile di vita. Chi imitiamo esattamente?, vi chiederete. Imitiamo le persone che stimiamo e rispettiamo, mentre contro-imitiamo le persone che disprezziamo. Quindi il nostro comportamento è sempre un’imitazione, perché è sempre in funzione dell’altro, nel bene come nel male.
Ma non finisce qui. Molto interessante è il fatto, nota l’autore, che questo modo di intendere il desiderio ha la sua radice in un male ontologico: il nostro desiderio di assoluto, che nella nostra società moderna viene distorto e reindirizzato dal sacro al mondano. Vi ricorda qualcosa? Non provate mai un senso di mancanza? Non cerchiamo più l’appagamento del nostro desiderio metafisico, che si configura come felicità, salvezza, o altro, in un dio distante ma in ciò che chiama mediatori, sempre più vicini a noi, che prendono incosciamente il posto della divinità oramai assente. Il nostro desiderio si configura quindi come una trascendenza deviata che non potrà mai essere soddisfatta. Quindi, assumendo un’ottica negativa, possiamo affermare che male e desiderio sono profondamente legati. Dice l’autore:
“Il male esiste ed è il desiderio metafisico stesso, è la trascendenza che tesse gli uomini al rovescio, separando ciò che essa pretende di unire, unendo ciò che pretende di separare[…].
Il valore dell’oggetto consumato dipende oramai solo dallo sguardo dell’altro. […] L’altro domina sempre l’esistenza dell’individuo ma questo altro non è più, come nell’alienazione marxista, un oppressore di classe, è invece il vicino di casa, il compagno di scuola, il rivale professionale. L’altro diventa più affascinante a mano a mano che si avvicina all’io”.
Ci crediamo esseri autonomi e liberi, crediamo nell’unità psicologica delle persone, nella nostra compatezza come IO, dissumulando a noi stessi la verità del desiderio, che è invece triangolare e mediato da altri. Questa è la grande menzogna romantica secondo l’autore, in cui siamo tutti avvinti. Menzogna che può assumere il carattere di autoinganno.
Troviamo poi un altro concetto a mio avviso molto affascinanante, che è quello di ostacolo. è proprio l’ostacolo che rinforza la passione, è l’ostacolo che tendiamo a ricercare perchè porta al parossisimo l’intensità del nostro sentire, anche se si configura poi come sofferenza. Anzi forse proprio per questo. Il termine ultimo di questa corsa verso ciò che ci sembra salvezza si esaurisce nel suo contrario, avverte l’autore:
“Il male ontologico continua ad aggravarsi man mano che il mediatore si avvicina al soggetto che desidera. Il suo termine naturale è la morte. […] Al masochismo succede l’ultimo stadio del desiderio metafisico, quello dell’autodistruzione”.
Davanti a questa evidenza, la lucidità contemporanea, il disincanto dell’uomo moderno, esegue una rotazione di trecentossessanta gradi e ritorna alla cecità. Adesso il desiderio metafisco coincide con la dissimulazione estrema, il pretendere di non desiderare, come il Mersault di Camus o il Roquentin di Sartre:
“Sono gli altri che desiderano intensamente, è l’eroe, cioè l’io, che desidera debolmente o addirittura non desidera affatto; […] Il primo romantico cercava di provare la sua spontaneità, cioè la propria divinità, desiderando più intensamente degli altri. Il secondo romantico cerca di provare la stessa cosa, ma con mezzi opposti. […] Si tratta sempre, insomma, di convincere gli altri e soprattutto di convincere sè stessi che si è perfettamente e divinamente autonomi
[…]Dietro la fantasmagoria moderna, dietro il turbinio degli avvenimenti e delle idee, al termine dell’evoluzione sempre più rapida della mediazione interna, vi è il nulla. L’anima è giunta ad un punto morto”.
https://wordpress.com/post/lacrepaint...
March 31, 2011
" يعرض المفكّر الفرنسيّ رينيه جيرار نظريّته المتعلّقة بالرغبة المحاكية، أي بالرغبة كمحاكاة، مُعارِضاً النظرة الأوديبيّة الفرويديّة، حيث ينظر إلى الرغبة كتابعة لرغبة أخرى متأتّية من آخر، لا
نابعة من ذواتنا، حيث تستلزم وجود وسيط، أي لا تتحقّق أركانها إلاّ بتكامل الشروط الثلاثة، راغب ووسيط ومرغوب فيه، تغدو الرغبة بحدّ ذاتها غاية ووسيلة، تنشأ بالتأثّر، وتتلاشى بانتفاء
شروطها، تأخذ بذلك شكل مثلّث، يسمّيه جيرار «مثلّث الرغبة»، ولا تكون العلاقة بين الراغب والمرغوب علاقة مباشرة، بل تكون عبر الوسيط، أو النموذج: داخليّ أو خارجيّ. ويؤكّد جيرار
أنّ الأغراض التي يمكن أن تكون موضوع رغبة هي تلك التي تقبل المشاركة وتولّد بين البشر مشاعر التعاطف، بالموازاة مع تلك التي لا تقبل المشاركة، وتكون مجالاً للمنافسة المحمومة،
بالتالي تولّد الكره والبغض والحسد والغيرة، ثمّ تنتج العنف الناشئ عنها... ولا تكون الرغبات مادّيّة فقط، بل تكون هنالك رغبات ميتافيزيقيّة، كأن يكون حلماً بكمالٍ منشودٍ، وتوقاً إلى
العظمة.
ينطلق جيرار من التجريد إلى التطبيق، يعتمد في تطبيقه الإجرائيّ، وتحليله الفنّيّ والأدبيّ والفكريّ والفلسفيّ المعمّق، على أعمال كبار الروائيّين كسرفانتس وستاندل ودستويفسكي وبروست،
حيث يرى أنّ هؤلاء الروائيّين المميّزين تمكّنوا من كشف حقيقة الرغبة والوسيط، كما أظهروا الوهم الرومانسيّ الذي يغلّف الرغبة ويتعلّق باستقلاليّتها وأصالتها، ليبلغوا عبرها الحقيقة الروائيّة
الكبرى. يظهر جيرار من خلال تفكيكه وإعادة اكتشافه العلائق بين الحقائق التي تثبتها الروايات التي تطرّق إليها، والأوهام التي كانت قد انطلقت منها، منقّباً عن الدرر التي تنطوي عليها
الإبداعات المتجاوزة، يقف مطوّلاً عند قدرة الروائيّ المبدع على التحليق في عوالم فريدة، لا تقلّ روعتها الفنّيّة، وحقيقتها المثبتة عن الكذبة الرومانسيّة الكبرى التي توهِم بها...
يستعرض جيرار في تحليله أهمّ الحيل والمناورات التي تعتمدها الشخصيّات الروائيّة، والتي تندرج في إطار الفنّيّات أو التقنيّات المستخدمة من الروائيّ، أو هي من الخدع الروائيّة التي ترتكز
عبرها الحقيقة الناشئة عن وهم أو حلم أو توق... يشرح جيرار كيف أنّ الرغبة المحاكية، تغدو سبيلاً للمنافسة، ثمّ تتحوّل في شكلها التصاعديّ، بحيث لا تقف عند صورة نهائيّة ثابتة، بل
يكون التحوّل سمتها الرئيسة، لتخلق مجالاً رحباً للتنافس، بالتالي يكون الصراع من أجل الحيازة والفوز، ويكون العنف في الانتظار دوماً... قد تكون هناك حالات إعلاء للرغبة، أو تعالٍ عليها،
لكنّ الرغبة تكون أقوى من كلّ تحدٍّ، لأنّها في تفجّرها، لا تقف عند حدود بعينها، تبحث عن وسائل إرواء وإشباع، إن كان في واقع الرواية، أو في الواقع الحقيقيّ الذي يكون المنبع
والمصدر. يحلّل التحذلق بوصفه آليّة دفاعيّة وهجوميّة في آن، يأخذ على معظم النقّاد عدم اكتراثهم بـ «القوانين النفسيّة»، ينسبونها إلى نظريّات نفسيّة قديمة، ما يظنّون أنّ جوهر العبقريّة
الروائيّة كامن في الحرّيّة، بعيد من تلك القوانين. ثمّ يتنبّأ لنهاية الخيال الذي يستمدّ قوّته من الأنا وحده، لأنّ الواقع الساحر الخدّاع حين يلامس البناء الهشّ للحلم سيقوّضه لا محالة،
حيث إنّ الخيال يقصر عن أداء أدواره المختلفة في تشييد او بناء عوالم غرائبيّة، لا يقوم بالإيحاء والإيهام والمخادعة كما ينبغي.
يعتمد جيرار على التأويل في شكل أساسيّ في تفكيكه النصوص الكثيرة التي يعالجها، حيث يكفل التأويل بفتح المجال واسعاً أمام الاحتمالات والافتراضات والاجتهادات، يكون مسلّحاً
بعمق فسلفيّ، وثقافة موسوعيّة أنتروبولوجيّة، يجيّرها لخدمة نظريّته التي أثْرَت الفكر الأدبيّ الإنسانيّ... " **
**هيثم حسين
August 23, 2025
A paradigm-altering elucidation of the operations of human desire and pride, as revealed by the great European novelists. The novelist is capable of shattering the romantic lie (that the source of my desires is my authentic, independent Self) only because he has recognized his own guilt reflected in the face of his rival. The miracle of the novel is that it breaks down the barrier between Self and Other, bringing both communion and transcendence within reach. "If the seed does not die after it has been sown, it will remain alone, but if it dies it will bear much fruit."
January 17, 2009
To truly understand human nature, it is necessary to internalize much of what Rene Girard has written. To truly understand how human nature is expressed in literature, it is necessary to internalize this book.
February 17, 2016
The basic theory of mimesis, or "imitative desire" laid out in the first 10 pages of this book is one of the most powerful and thought-provoking literary theories I've ever read. In the best tradition of revelatory theories, Girard's thesis that the lion's share of our desires, be they physical objects, sexual partners, glamour-related, or status-based, come from observing and copying the desires of others is intuitively sensible, convincingly argued, and infinitely applicable. Sometimes it takes a particular phrasing to make something click in your mind, and while the idea behind "keeping up with the Jones" is as old as the hills, the way that Girard connects the source of envy, jealousy, and hatred to both the appeal of classic literature and the petty emotions of everyday life is so elegant you'll wonder why you never thought of it in that way before. The rest of the book is a long exegesis of examples from great novels you probably haven't read, but the core insight is so valuable that it's worth powering through the rest of the book.
Given that most novels are explicitly about human desires, you would reasonably assume that novels are a good way to learn about those desires. Unfortunately, just as our own motives are typically opaque to our own reasoning, even novels that compel us are often just as mysterious. Why do we identify so strongly when "character X struggles struggles to choose between two lovers" in particular novels yet pass right by other books with seemingly similar themes? One reason is that talented writers have consciously or unconsciously discovered that imitative desire is an extremely effective way to draw readers in - we like to read about people struggling with the subterranean logic of desire because we ourselves are slaves to our passions, and hence find in those characters our own dilemmas, only much more attractively presented. Our lives are ceaseless pursuits of borrowed dreams, whose hard-fought realizations are often immediately discovered to be disappointments, and so it's on to the next new thing. Lather, rinse, repeat. "Mimesis" has been a known concept in Western thought at least since Aristotle; Girard grounds his own definition of the term in the way that people copy others, and in copying come to see the other as a rival. His analysis seems similar to Erich Auerbach's work on mimesis, except that Girard sees mimesis as much more than a purely literary device.
Attempting to build psychological theories out of literary plots, rather than the reverse process of showing how great novels adhere to established psychological models, is dangerous. Great novels typically contain many disparate elements rather than a simple unified outline, and so it's all too easy to see what you want to see, in the manner of some demented Zizek acolyte. Girard's work is similar to other "literary analysis as quasi-science" books I've read, like The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, in how carefully phrased yet sweepingly grand its claims are. The book is about the operation of imitative rivalry and desire in the behavior of the characters in novels by Cervantes, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Proust, and Stendahl. On the one hand this is awesome - if you happen to be writing academic papers on any of those authors, you will find a wealth of insight, with plenty of examples about how Stendahlian vanity differs from Cervantean desire, or Proustian snobbism, or Dostoevskian hatred, or Flaubertian bovarysm, etc. Girard is an enthusiastic reader who has really done his homework, and he supplies plenty of quotations to back up his assertions about Sancho Panza and so on so that you can follow along at home.
On the other hand, this kind of close reading can be less helpful for those who, like me, haven't waded through all of Proust and have to take his word that that's what Proust meant. What's nice on that score is that the writing style is remarkably clear, so kudos to translator Yvonne Freccero for avoiding any Gilles-Deleuze gibberish. I personally have an instinctive suspicion of anything with the subtitle of "Self and Other in Literary Structure", since that kind of abstract theorizing can quickly become impossible to follow, but any confusion with Girard's ideas is likely due to not having read a lot of these novels, rather than the ideas themselves being unclear. He's even clear in his wrongness: human nature being what it is, I don't think any single theory can explain everything, and so while Girard's arguments are often tremendously plausible (surely it's an inarguable fact that the ultimate source of many of our desires are our peers), it's easy to find counter-examples that have the same surface appeal.
For example, in chapter 1, Girard discusses how Don Quixote, generally considered the first modern novel, typifies the modern idea of imitative desire. "Triangular desire" (usually less salacious than its name would suggest) involves jealousy: two rivals competing for the affection of a third, or the creation of a rivalrous desire for a third object by one in the mind of the other. So far so good. But while the complex emotions of envy, frustration, and triumph that successful competition for someone else's love evokes are familiar to nearly everyone, I suspect that far fewer will fully agree that "One reaches the point of wanting the beloved to be unfaithful so that one can court her again". Wouldn't most people just chase after another, newer person rather than see their existing partner seduced? File that one under "hmm".
In chapter 2, there's a discussion of religion in Doestoevsky as it relates to the universal problem of reconciling our own seeming mental solitude with the plain fact that others are just as human as we are. Girard grandly proclaims that "Everyone thinks that he alone is condemned to hell, and that is what makes it hell", which immediately brings to mind Sartre's famous pronouncement in No Exit that "Hell is other people". Sartre's line in context is about other people's perception of you, not your perception of others, and while the two perspectives are obviously related, it's difficult to reconcile Girard's point on how your desires are copied from Others with Sartre's point about the pain of realizing that you yourself are an Other. Or something. I'll chalk it up as another instance where a great quote is merely a tool for understanding, and not understanding itself.
Perhaps my favorite example of arguable quotes in the whole book comes at the very beginning of the conclusion. "The ultimate meaning of desire is death but death is not the novel's ultimate meaning". Talk about a "well, that depends" moment! That mixture of elements is characteristic of those who approach criticism from a strongly aesthetic standpoint, loving the mixture of the irrational and paradoxical in the great novel, and indeed in great art as well, so I wasn't surprised to learn that Girard is strongly Christian. Whether you're religious or not, this is a tremendously insightful work even when it goes wrong, because as with all great works it proves its own point: I only read this book because a writer I liked mentioned it, and by reading it I hoped to gain some of that cachet by showing off my knowledge to others. How embarrassing? No: how human.
Given that most novels are explicitly about human desires, you would reasonably assume that novels are a good way to learn about those desires. Unfortunately, just as our own motives are typically opaque to our own reasoning, even novels that compel us are often just as mysterious. Why do we identify so strongly when "character X struggles struggles to choose between two lovers" in particular novels yet pass right by other books with seemingly similar themes? One reason is that talented writers have consciously or unconsciously discovered that imitative desire is an extremely effective way to draw readers in - we like to read about people struggling with the subterranean logic of desire because we ourselves are slaves to our passions, and hence find in those characters our own dilemmas, only much more attractively presented. Our lives are ceaseless pursuits of borrowed dreams, whose hard-fought realizations are often immediately discovered to be disappointments, and so it's on to the next new thing. Lather, rinse, repeat. "Mimesis" has been a known concept in Western thought at least since Aristotle; Girard grounds his own definition of the term in the way that people copy others, and in copying come to see the other as a rival. His analysis seems similar to Erich Auerbach's work on mimesis, except that Girard sees mimesis as much more than a purely literary device.
Attempting to build psychological theories out of literary plots, rather than the reverse process of showing how great novels adhere to established psychological models, is dangerous. Great novels typically contain many disparate elements rather than a simple unified outline, and so it's all too easy to see what you want to see, in the manner of some demented Zizek acolyte. Girard's work is similar to other "literary analysis as quasi-science" books I've read, like The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, in how carefully phrased yet sweepingly grand its claims are. The book is about the operation of imitative rivalry and desire in the behavior of the characters in novels by Cervantes, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Proust, and Stendahl. On the one hand this is awesome - if you happen to be writing academic papers on any of those authors, you will find a wealth of insight, with plenty of examples about how Stendahlian vanity differs from Cervantean desire, or Proustian snobbism, or Dostoevskian hatred, or Flaubertian bovarysm, etc. Girard is an enthusiastic reader who has really done his homework, and he supplies plenty of quotations to back up his assertions about Sancho Panza and so on so that you can follow along at home.
On the other hand, this kind of close reading can be less helpful for those who, like me, haven't waded through all of Proust and have to take his word that that's what Proust meant. What's nice on that score is that the writing style is remarkably clear, so kudos to translator Yvonne Freccero for avoiding any Gilles-Deleuze gibberish. I personally have an instinctive suspicion of anything with the subtitle of "Self and Other in Literary Structure", since that kind of abstract theorizing can quickly become impossible to follow, but any confusion with Girard's ideas is likely due to not having read a lot of these novels, rather than the ideas themselves being unclear. He's even clear in his wrongness: human nature being what it is, I don't think any single theory can explain everything, and so while Girard's arguments are often tremendously plausible (surely it's an inarguable fact that the ultimate source of many of our desires are our peers), it's easy to find counter-examples that have the same surface appeal.
For example, in chapter 1, Girard discusses how Don Quixote, generally considered the first modern novel, typifies the modern idea of imitative desire. "Triangular desire" (usually less salacious than its name would suggest) involves jealousy: two rivals competing for the affection of a third, or the creation of a rivalrous desire for a third object by one in the mind of the other. So far so good. But while the complex emotions of envy, frustration, and triumph that successful competition for someone else's love evokes are familiar to nearly everyone, I suspect that far fewer will fully agree that "One reaches the point of wanting the beloved to be unfaithful so that one can court her again". Wouldn't most people just chase after another, newer person rather than see their existing partner seduced? File that one under "hmm".
In chapter 2, there's a discussion of religion in Doestoevsky as it relates to the universal problem of reconciling our own seeming mental solitude with the plain fact that others are just as human as we are. Girard grandly proclaims that "Everyone thinks that he alone is condemned to hell, and that is what makes it hell", which immediately brings to mind Sartre's famous pronouncement in No Exit that "Hell is other people". Sartre's line in context is about other people's perception of you, not your perception of others, and while the two perspectives are obviously related, it's difficult to reconcile Girard's point on how your desires are copied from Others with Sartre's point about the pain of realizing that you yourself are an Other. Or something. I'll chalk it up as another instance where a great quote is merely a tool for understanding, and not understanding itself.
Perhaps my favorite example of arguable quotes in the whole book comes at the very beginning of the conclusion. "The ultimate meaning of desire is death but death is not the novel's ultimate meaning". Talk about a "well, that depends" moment! That mixture of elements is characteristic of those who approach criticism from a strongly aesthetic standpoint, loving the mixture of the irrational and paradoxical in the great novel, and indeed in great art as well, so I wasn't surprised to learn that Girard is strongly Christian. Whether you're religious or not, this is a tremendously insightful work even when it goes wrong, because as with all great works it proves its own point: I only read this book because a writer I liked mentioned it, and by reading it I hoped to gain some of that cachet by showing off my knowledge to others. How embarrassing? No: how human.
January 24, 2025
Ο René Girard ξετυλίγει προσεκτικά, δομημένα και με τρομερή υπομονή μια λογοτεχνική θεωρία για την αναπαράστασής της επιθυμίας στη λογοτεχνία. Πάντοτε μιλώντας τριγωνικά: ήρωας, αντικείμενο, διαμεσολαβητής, αναπτύσσει άλλοτε λακανικά, άλλοτε πιο πραγματιστικά πολλούς ήρωες κατά το περίπλοκο του πλούτου, της κοινωνικής θέσης, των συνθηκών, της οικογένειας και των εραστών που πόθησαν.
Ο Girard περιβάλλει τη λογοτεχνική θεωρεία με το κύρος από το οποίο ενέπνευσε ο διαμεσολαβητής στον ήρωα και τέλος πώς φωτίστηκε το αντικείμενο.
Η θεωρία είναι πλούσια από παραδείγματα και αναλύσεις, τεράστια πνευματικά, τοποθετώντας τους χαρακτήρες σε ένα πλούσιο φάσμα, από φιλοδοξία και ματαιοδοξία μέχρι σαδισμό και μαζοχισμό.
Ο Girard περιβάλλει τη λογοτεχνική θεωρεία με το κύρος από το οποίο ενέπνευσε ο διαμεσολαβητής στον ήρωα και τέλος πώς φωτίστηκε το αντικείμενο.
Η θεωρία είναι πλούσια από παραδείγματα και αναλύσεις, τεράστια πνευματικά, τοποθετώντας τους χαρακτήρες σε ένα πλούσιο φάσμα, από φιλοδοξία και ματαιοδοξία μέχρι σαδισμό και μαζοχισμό.
July 4, 2025
Girard's literary criticism is challenging but fantastic. I am sad I could not fully enjoy it since I was sleep deprived every night and had not read many of the "Great Books." I am inclined to now. Even so, I am blown away by his concept of metaphysical desire, the idea that characters (and people) imitate and pursue models that they consider more "complete." As they do this, they become ill with an "ontological sickness," disillusioned by the incompleteness of their models (Girard 279). This realization leads to a kind of "fragmentation" and death (Girard 279), a death characters are not often freed from if the novel reflects this desire rather than reveals it. However, Girard identifies that the authors of these great books reveal metaphysical desire through a sort of death-bed conversion, and thus, renounce it in their life. He writes,"Every novelistic conclusion is a beginning. Every novelistic conclusion is a Past Recaptured." (Girard 297). Although I do not fully agree that all successful novels must unpack metaphysical desire, I still find this concept one of his best and most interesting.
Read
October 15, 2025En fait, pourquoi les critiques littéraires sont les choses les plus bouleversantes à lire? A chaque fois je me vois profondément transformé par les observations… je pense au memes de “am i in love with them or do I want to be them?”….bah voila la réponse, on veut être ce qu’on désir….
August 14, 2025
correcto pero para decir lo que dice podría haber tenido 150 páginas menos
March 8, 2025
*revisited after reading the red and the black*
I came back to this after I recently finished Stendhal and oh my god Girard is a genius. I mean I saw that the first time I read but my god the way this man reads the novel and strings together what it all means is so beyond me. I can only hope to have thoughts this profound one day. Incredible commentary on the nature of the aristocracy and how it is inclined towards decadence. The most compelling criticism of the nobility and hereditary society I have yet to encounter. So so cool.
This book was awesome. I skipped a chapter on Proust because ugh I just couldn’t do it. But the rest of it was so incredible and he talks abt things in such a clear and straightforward manner I didn’t even get lost when he was commenting on the works I hadn’t read.
Amazing meditation on desire that I think is more relevant now than ever. He also makes an interesting comparison of the author to god and the character to humans and uses Kirilov as an example which I really liked. Interesting thoughts on metaphysical desire and the nature of death as well. Would highly recommend for the Dostoevsky enthusiast, or the aspiring literary critic.
I came back to this after I recently finished Stendhal and oh my god Girard is a genius. I mean I saw that the first time I read but my god the way this man reads the novel and strings together what it all means is so beyond me. I can only hope to have thoughts this profound one day. Incredible commentary on the nature of the aristocracy and how it is inclined towards decadence. The most compelling criticism of the nobility and hereditary society I have yet to encounter. So so cool.
This book was awesome. I skipped a chapter on Proust because ugh I just couldn’t do it. But the rest of it was so incredible and he talks abt things in such a clear and straightforward manner I didn’t even get lost when he was commenting on the works I hadn’t read.
Amazing meditation on desire that I think is more relevant now than ever. He also makes an interesting comparison of the author to god and the character to humans and uses Kirilov as an example which I really liked. Interesting thoughts on metaphysical desire and the nature of death as well. Would highly recommend for the Dostoevsky enthusiast, or the aspiring literary critic.
April 17, 2017
È un testo impegnativo e richiede una buona dimestichezza con l’opera di Stendhal, Flaubert, Dostoevskij e Proust, ma dire che è illuminante è dire poco. Il concetto di "desiderio mimetico" ha cambiato profondamente non solo il modo in cui leggo i romanzi, ma anche come mi relaziono con gli altri e con me stesso. Due sono le questioni da esplorare: i risvolti politici di questo concetto, possibilmente in un'ottica rivoluzionaria e non reazionaria (da qui a giustificare le strutture sociali che regolano-reprimono il desiderio è un attimo); e soprattutto, cosa si può fare una volta preso atto dell'ubiquità di questo meccanismo: è possibile scegliere il proprio "mediatore", o almeno indirizzarsi verso un modello "positivo"? Che margine di manovra abbiamo?
June 27, 2017
Quest'opera è la verità.
January 13, 2022
يحلّل الكاتب ما يسميّه ب"مثلث الرغبة"، من خلال تناوله لعدة روايات كبيرة. ويري أن تاريخ الروايات الكبيرة يمثل وحدةً، حيث تتمحور جميعا حول مثلث الرغبة، والرغبة الميتافيزيقية. وأن تراتب هذه الروايات يمثل تدرجا في تحولات نفس الرغبة الميتافيزيقية، تدرجا يبدأ من دون كيشوت لسرفانتس، ويصل لذروته في روايات ديستويفسكي. مارا بمدام بوفاري، الاحمر والاسود لستندال، البحث عن الزمن المفقود لبروست.0
.
لا تنبع الرغبة في غرض محدد من منبع أصيل ومستقل من داخل الفرد، وإنما يستعيرها الراغبُ من شخص آخر يملك الغرض المرغوب، ويتشكل مثلث الرغبة من الراغب، غرض الرغبة، الشخص الذي يملك غرض الرغبة والذي يسمي "الوسيط". تتوجه رغبة الشخص الراغب ظاهريا إلي الغرض المرغوب، ولكن في الحقيقة فإنها تتوجه إلي الوسيط. الوسيط هو الذي يشغل الراغب في حقيقة الأمر.0
والعلاقة بين "الراغب" و "الوسيط"، والتي تتشكل خلالها الرغبة، تسمي الوساطة. والكاتب يحلل العلاقات بين شخصيات كل الروايات المذكورة تبعا لمفهوم "الوساطة".0
والوساطة (علاقة الراغب بالوسيط) نوعان: خارجية وداخلية. الوساطة الخارجية هي التي يكون فيها الوسيط شخصا بعيدا عن الراغب، شخصا أسطوريا أو من زمن آخر، مثل شخصية الفارس الاسطوري أماديس بالنسبة لدون كيشوت. يستعير دون كيشوت رغباته المحددة والمتغيرة من تصوره الأسطوري لهذا الوسيط الخارجي والبعيد. فهو يري فيه الصورة الاكمل لما يجب أن يكون عليه. والوساطة الخارجية تتميز بأنها علاقة واضحة وهادئة، يعي فيها الراغب تبعيته للوسيط، وبالتالي يصبح أكثر هدوءا وأقل قلقا إذا فاته غرض رغبة بعينه. وبتعبير "جيرار" ينشر الوسيط البعيد ضوءا بعيدا كاشفا لمساحة واسعة، ويُمكّن هذا الراغبَ، دون كيشوت، من أن يتعامل مع فشله في مغامراته بهدوء لينتقل إلي المغامرات الأخري التي تليها.0
أما الوساطة الداخلية، فهي التي يكون فيها الوسيط قريبا من الراغب، وقد يكون شبيها به ومن نفس طبقته الاجتماعية، وهي علاقة شائكة، ديناميكية وحافلة بالتناقضات. فالشخص الراغب خلالها يتعلق بغرض رغبة محدد يملكه الوسيط، يكون مدفوعا إلي هذا الغرض من البداية بالهالة التي يرسمها للوسيط كشخص "آخر" مكتمل عنه. أي أن رغبته في هذا الغرض المحدد تكون مستعارة من الوسيط أو "رغبة بحسب الآخر"، في الخطوة التالية يشعر الراغب أن الرغبة هي رغبته هو وأن الوسيط الذي يشاركه الرغبة هو عقبة في طريق رغبته، وتتشكل هنا العداوة والكراهية والحقد تجاه الوسيط. وتغطي الكراهية علي التقديس الخفي الذي يحمله الراغب تجاه الوسيط.0
.
بعد التناول الظاهري للشكل الذي يتكون به مثلث الرغبة، سواء عبر الوساطة الخارجية أو الداخلية، يتناول الكاتب "الأصل الميتافيزيقي للرغبة". وميتافيزيقية الرغبة تعني أن الرغبة في أصلها رغبة واحدة أولية ومجردة، ويتم إسقاطها في تبديّات جزئية تظهر في الرغبات المحددة والمتغيرة وفي الوساطات المختلفة. فالفرد البشري يشعر بخوائه الداخلي، ويري دائما "الآخر" باعتباره أكثر اكتمالا منه، فالآخر دوما يملك ما لا نملكه. الآخر المجرد بوجه عام الذي كان يتمثل قديما في الشخصيات الأسطورية أو في الإله، ثم أصبحنا في العصور الحديثة وبعد سقوط الأساطير نُسقطه في "آخر محدد"، في وسيط داخلي يمثل لنا الآخر الذي نريد أن نكتسي بجلده ونُصبح هو.0
وبعد أن يصل الراغب إلي غرض رغبته المزعوم، بعد أن يمتلكه، يشعر بأن هذا الغرض فقد قيمته، لأنه ترك الآخر ودخل دائرة الخواء الذاتي للشخص الراغب، وهنا يحول الراغبُ رغبته إما لغرض آخر يملكه نفس الوسيط، إما لأغراض تقع في ملكية وسطاء آخرين.0
.
يوجد للرغبة الموجهة لغرض محدد تبعا لوساطة محددة، عاملان: عامل مادي، وعامل ميتافيزيقي. يرتبط العامل المادي بسمات واقعية مميزة للغرض المحدد، وتكتسب تلك السمات أهمية في المراحل الأولي التي يكون فيها الراغب مازال بعد بعيدا عن الغرض المرغوب وعن الوسيط. ويرتبط العامل الميتافيزيقي بلامعقولية وعبثية ارتباط الراغب بالرغبة المحددة، وهي اللامعقولية المرتبطة بميتافيزيقية وتجريد الرغبة في شكلها الأولي. ويزداد العامل الميتافيزيقي أهمية باقتراب الراغب من غرض رغبته ومن الوسيط. وكلما قلت المسافة بين الراغب والوسيط، زاد قلق الراغب وهوسه وتعلقه اللامعقول بغرضه حتي يري غرضه غير قابل للاستبدال، لأن الغرض من هذه المسافة يكون قد فقد سماته الموضوعية ويكون العامل الميافيزيقي للرغبة زاد علي حساب عاملها المادي. ويظهر هذا القلق المرتبط بالاقتراب من الوسيط، وبسيادة العامل الميافيزيقي للرغبة علي العامل المادي، في روايات ديستويفسكي، والتي تمثل ذروة هذا التدرج. ففيها نجد الصراعات الجنونية بين الشخصيات دون أن تكون السمات الموضوعية للاغراض محل الصراع واضحة من الأساس. كذلك نجد تسيد العامل الميتافيزيقي علي الرغبة في هذه المسافات الحرجة من الوسيط في "البحث عن الزمن المفقود" حيث تتشكل الصراعات عبر وساطات داخلية مزدوجة ومتبادلة، في صالونات متعادية هي متشابهة في الاساس وتنتمي لنفس الطبقة، من خلال تعارضات وهمية تكتسب خلالها فروقٌ ضئيلة وتافهة دلالاتٍ مهولة.0
.
يحلّل جيرار المازوخية، تبعا لما سبق، تحليلا رائعا. فالمازوخي هو شخص تراكمت أمجاده، أو بالأحري تراكم فشله. فكلما امتلك غرضَ رغبته كلما شعر بفشله. وبالتالي أصبح غرضُهُ هو أن يتعلق بوسيط قوي يمثل له عقبة هائلة لا يستطيع أن يتخطاها. فالمازوخي لا يرغب في الألم في حد ذاته، لكنه يستعذب الألم لأنه مرتبط لديه بالغرض المرغوب المستعص للأبد. إن المازوخي مثله مثل الغير مازوخيين، يبحث عما هو إلهي ومكتمل. لكنه ببصيرة أصفي من غيره يستبق عدمية الرغبات المحددة ويعلق نفسه من البداية بأغراض مستعصية بشكل أبدي.0
ويحلل النفسانيون المازوخي كشخص يرغب في الألم في حد ذاته، بآلية دفاعية منهم، يريدون من خلالها أن يجعلوا المازوخيين أشخاصا غرباء، مرضي، يرغبون فيما لا نرغب فيه نحنُ، البشرُ الأسوياء، في حين أن الرغبة التي تحركنا في الحقيقة واحدة.0
.
هذا الكتاب، بصرف النظر عن مدي اعتقادي في صحة نتائجه في تحليل الرغبة، وهو الشيء الذي يتطلب مني وقفة أطول لتحديده، هو كتاب عظيم ومُلهم.0
فتحليل الرغبة وأكاذيبها صحبني لمراجعات مشرقة لاغترار بعض رغباتي وزيفها، وجعلني أرقد هادئا متأملا بصفاء ومتخففا من أكاذيب كثيرة (ساعدت كتب أخري قرأتها مؤخرا في هذه الحالة) . كما أن تحليل الروايات فيه من أجمل وأكثر التحليلات الروائية تبصرا التي قرأتها في حياتي.0
وبنيته شديدة الإحكام، فكل الاستطرادات فيه، المتمثلة في التحليلات السياسية والاجتماعية والروائية، تتبع نفس الفكرة والأسلوب، بتكثيف شديد وبدون جملة واحدة تمثل حشوا او خروجا عن فكرة الكتاب. كتاب أصيل ومتفرد بشكل ملهم.0
.
لا تنبع الرغبة في غرض محدد من منبع أصيل ومستقل من داخل الفرد، وإنما يستعيرها الراغبُ من شخص آخر يملك الغرض المرغوب، ويتشكل مثلث الرغبة من الراغب، غرض الرغبة، الشخص الذي يملك غرض الرغبة والذي يسمي "الوسيط". تتوجه رغبة الشخص الراغب ظاهريا إلي الغرض المرغوب، ولكن في الحقيقة فإنها تتوجه إلي الوسيط. الوسيط هو الذي يشغل الراغب في حقيقة الأمر.0
والعلاقة بين "الراغب" و "الوسيط"، والتي تتشكل خلالها الرغبة، تسمي الوساطة. والكاتب يحلل العلاقات بين شخصيات كل الروايات المذكورة تبعا لمفهوم "الوساطة".0
والوساطة (علاقة الراغب بالوسيط) نوعان: خارجية وداخلية. الوساطة الخارجية هي التي يكون فيها الوسيط شخصا بعيدا عن الراغب، شخصا أسطوريا أو من زمن آخر، مثل شخصية الفارس الاسطوري أماديس بالنسبة لدون كيشوت. يستعير دون كيشوت رغباته المحددة والمتغيرة من تصوره الأسطوري لهذا الوسيط الخارجي والبعيد. فهو يري فيه الصورة الاكمل لما يجب أن يكون عليه. والوساطة الخارجية تتميز بأنها علاقة واضحة وهادئة، يعي فيها الراغب تبعيته للوسيط، وبالتالي يصبح أكثر هدوءا وأقل قلقا إذا فاته غرض رغبة بعينه. وبتعبير "جيرار" ينشر الوسيط البعيد ضوءا بعيدا كاشفا لمساحة واسعة، ويُمكّن هذا الراغبَ، دون كيشوت، من أن يتعامل مع فشله في مغامراته بهدوء لينتقل إلي المغامرات الأخري التي تليها.0
أما الوساطة الداخلية، فهي التي يكون فيها الوسيط قريبا من الراغب، وقد يكون شبيها به ومن نفس طبقته الاجتماعية، وهي علاقة شائكة، ديناميكية وحافلة بالتناقضات. فالشخص الراغب خلالها يتعلق بغرض رغبة محدد يملكه الوسيط، يكون مدفوعا إلي هذا الغرض من البداية بالهالة التي يرسمها للوسيط كشخص "آخر" مكتمل عنه. أي أن رغبته في هذا الغرض المحدد تكون مستعارة من الوسيط أو "رغبة بحسب الآخر"، في الخطوة التالية يشعر الراغب أن الرغبة هي رغبته هو وأن الوسيط الذي يشاركه الرغبة هو عقبة في طريق رغبته، وتتشكل هنا العداوة والكراهية والحقد تجاه الوسيط. وتغطي الكراهية علي التقديس الخفي الذي يحمله الراغب تجاه الوسيط.0
.
بعد التناول الظاهري للشكل الذي يتكون به مثلث الرغبة، سواء عبر الوساطة الخارجية أو الداخلية، يتناول الكاتب "الأصل الميتافيزيقي للرغبة". وميتافيزيقية الرغبة تعني أن الرغبة في أصلها رغبة واحدة أولية ومجردة، ويتم إسقاطها في تبديّات جزئية تظهر في الرغبات المحددة والمتغيرة وفي الوساطات المختلفة. فالفرد البشري يشعر بخوائه الداخلي، ويري دائما "الآخر" باعتباره أكثر اكتمالا منه، فالآخر دوما يملك ما لا نملكه. الآخر المجرد بوجه عام الذي كان يتمثل قديما في الشخصيات الأسطورية أو في الإله، ثم أصبحنا في العصور الحديثة وبعد سقوط الأساطير نُسقطه في "آخر محدد"، في وسيط داخلي يمثل لنا الآخر الذي نريد أن نكتسي بجلده ونُصبح هو.0
وبعد أن يصل الراغب إلي غرض رغبته المزعوم، بعد أن يمتلكه، يشعر بأن هذا الغرض فقد قيمته، لأنه ترك الآخر ودخل دائرة الخواء الذاتي للشخص الراغب، وهنا يحول الراغبُ رغبته إما لغرض آخر يملكه نفس الوسيط، إما لأغراض تقع في ملكية وسطاء آخرين.0
.
يوجد للرغبة الموجهة لغرض محدد تبعا لوساطة محددة، عاملان: عامل مادي، وعامل ميتافيزيقي. يرتبط العامل المادي بسمات واقعية مميزة للغرض المحدد، وتكتسب تلك السمات أهمية في المراحل الأولي التي يكون فيها الراغب مازال بعد بعيدا عن الغرض المرغوب وعن الوسيط. ويرتبط العامل الميتافيزيقي بلامعقولية وعبثية ارتباط الراغب بالرغبة المحددة، وهي اللامعقولية المرتبطة بميتافيزيقية وتجريد الرغبة في شكلها الأولي. ويزداد العامل الميتافيزيقي أهمية باقتراب الراغب من غرض رغبته ومن الوسيط. وكلما قلت المسافة بين الراغب والوسيط، زاد قلق الراغب وهوسه وتعلقه اللامعقول بغرضه حتي يري غرضه غير قابل للاستبدال، لأن الغرض من هذه المسافة يكون قد فقد سماته الموضوعية ويكون العامل الميافيزيقي للرغبة زاد علي حساب عاملها المادي. ويظهر هذا القلق المرتبط بالاقتراب من الوسيط، وبسيادة العامل الميافيزيقي للرغبة علي العامل المادي، في روايات ديستويفسكي، والتي تمثل ذروة هذا التدرج. ففيها نجد الصراعات الجنونية بين الشخصيات دون أن تكون السمات الموضوعية للاغراض محل الصراع واضحة من الأساس. كذلك نجد تسيد العامل الميتافيزيقي علي الرغبة في هذه المسافات الحرجة من الوسيط في "البحث عن الزمن المفقود" حيث تتشكل الصراعات عبر وساطات داخلية مزدوجة ومتبادلة، في صالونات متعادية هي متشابهة في الاساس وتنتمي لنفس الطبقة، من خلال تعارضات وهمية تكتسب خلالها فروقٌ ضئيلة وتافهة دلالاتٍ مهولة.0
.
يحلّل جيرار المازوخية، تبعا لما سبق، تحليلا رائعا. فالمازوخي هو شخص تراكمت أمجاده، أو بالأحري تراكم فشله. فكلما امتلك غرضَ رغبته كلما شعر بفشله. وبالتالي أصبح غرضُهُ هو أن يتعلق بوسيط قوي يمثل له عقبة هائلة لا يستطيع أن يتخطاها. فالمازوخي لا يرغب في الألم في حد ذاته، لكنه يستعذب الألم لأنه مرتبط لديه بالغرض المرغوب المستعص للأبد. إن المازوخي مثله مثل الغير مازوخيين، يبحث عما هو إلهي ومكتمل. لكنه ببصيرة أصفي من غيره يستبق عدمية الرغبات المحددة ويعلق نفسه من البداية بأغراض مستعصية بشكل أبدي.0
ويحلل النفسانيون المازوخي كشخص يرغب في الألم في حد ذاته، بآلية دفاعية منهم، يريدون من خلالها أن يجعلوا المازوخيين أشخاصا غرباء، مرضي، يرغبون فيما لا نرغب فيه نحنُ، البشرُ الأسوياء، في حين أن الرغبة التي تحركنا في الحقيقة واحدة.0
.
هذا الكتاب، بصرف النظر عن مدي اعتقادي في صحة نتائجه في تحليل الرغبة، وهو الشيء الذي يتطلب مني وقفة أطول لتحديده، هو كتاب عظيم ومُلهم.0
فتحليل الرغبة وأكاذيبها صحبني لمراجعات مشرقة لاغترار بعض رغباتي وزيفها، وجعلني أرقد هادئا متأملا بصفاء ومتخففا من أكاذيب كثيرة (ساعدت كتب أخري قرأتها مؤخرا في هذه الحالة) . كما أن تحليل الروايات فيه من أجمل وأكثر التحليلات الروائية تبصرا التي قرأتها في حياتي.0
وبنيته شديدة الإحكام، فكل الاستطرادات فيه، المتمثلة في التحليلات السياسية والاجتماعية والروائية، تتبع نفس الفكرة والأسلوب، بتكثيف شديد وبدون جملة واحدة تمثل حشوا او خروجا عن فكرة الكتاب. كتاب أصيل ومتفرد بشكل ملهم.0
October 31, 2019
Minha vida mudou lendo esse livro.
Para que não fique só nessa frase, advirto: quem veio ao livro procurando ler uma obra de crítica ou teoria literária sairá muito frustrado. Este não é um livro sobre literatura. É a gênese de uma teoria social, psicológica e espiritual sem precedentes. A literatura romanesca só foi seu veículo.
Para que não fique só nessa frase, advirto: quem veio ao livro procurando ler uma obra de crítica ou teoria literária sairá muito frustrado. Este não é um livro sobre literatura. É a gênese de uma teoria social, psicológica e espiritual sem precedentes. A literatura romanesca só foi seu veículo.
July 12, 2022
I found this to be simply unreadable. I've read much Girard (I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, Things Hidden.., The Scapegoat, La route antique des hommes pervers, and I'm sure another one or two I'm forgetting), in both English and French, but this work felt nigh-unbearably tedious from the moment I opened it. A big problem for me was that I've read none of the works studied carefully throughout it, aside from Don Quixote, and have zero desire to, but nearly all the text revolves around specific, minute analyses of these works.
When it comes to Girard, I recommend people read I See Satan Fall.. and La route antique des hommes pervers, which are IMO highly-developed and self-contained works that by far capture the best of his thought, while skipping his more egregious missteps. I wouldn't recommend approaching this book unless one is familiar with and interested in the novels it studies, or is particularly interested in Girard's typical style of literary analysis.
When it comes to Girard, I recommend people read I See Satan Fall.. and La route antique des hommes pervers, which are IMO highly-developed and self-contained works that by far capture the best of his thought, while skipping his more egregious missteps. I wouldn't recommend approaching this book unless one is familiar with and interested in the novels it studies, or is particularly interested in Girard's typical style of literary analysis.
November 14, 2010
Il segreto del desiderio umano colto dai grandi romanzieri.
Al di là dell’interessante analisi delle opere di Cervantes, Dostoevskij ecc., è impressionante vedere quanto le teorie di Girard permettano di “chiarire” l’animo umano.
Al di là dell’interessante analisi delle opere di Cervantes, Dostoevskij ecc., è impressionante vedere quanto le teorie di Girard permettano di “chiarire” l’animo umano.
September 8, 2007
Profound analysis of modernity and desire.
November 10, 2012
Exceptional. I agree with previous reviewers who say that this book has changed their lives. I am extremely intrigued to read Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World.
Read
August 8, 2014Thorough analysis of the greatest prose writers. Basic pattern in every society: the tendency to imitate, but concealed.
February 28, 2023
Stable dream is reality
Rene Girard's wonderful book analyzing Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Proust, Cervantes and Stendhal in one book and one concept.
It deals with the phenomenon of "desire" through these five authors. It dwells on the non-spontaneous nature of desire. Desiring, for Girard, does not originate from the desiring or desired, but in a third way.
Girard has a famous theory. It's called the "triangular theory of desire". According to this theory, there is the subject in one corner of the triangle, the object in the other corner, and the mediator in the other corner. He links the formation of desire to what he calls the mediator. At this point, he argues that the nature of desire is imitation, and the 'spiritual distance' of the subject, object and mediator determines the nature of this desire formation.
He divides the novels into two as novels and romantic ones, and accepts that there is only a connection between the subject-object, and that by hiding the third corner, the novels that attribute the source of desire to the subject and the object are romantic, and the novels that do not hide the mediator are romantic.
To put it simply, if you sense an artificiality in the relations between the characters in the novel you are reading, if you see a constant behavioral fault in the characters, these works are classified as romantic. However, if the complicated behavior of the character you are reading has created an unpredictable environment and has taken over you, those books are also novels.
in Girard; Dostoevsky examines the novels of Flaubert, Proust, Cervantes and Stendhal based on the theory of triangular desire. Of course, these are the names that offer us the best of the model he mentioned. Girard calls this thing done by writers who research the imitative aspect of desire that exists in human nature as a constant mediator and reveal this in their novels, as "novelistic truth".
Rene Girard's wonderful book analyzing Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Proust, Cervantes and Stendhal in one book and one concept.
It deals with the phenomenon of "desire" through these five authors. It dwells on the non-spontaneous nature of desire. Desiring, for Girard, does not originate from the desiring or desired, but in a third way.
Girard has a famous theory. It's called the "triangular theory of desire". According to this theory, there is the subject in one corner of the triangle, the object in the other corner, and the mediator in the other corner. He links the formation of desire to what he calls the mediator. At this point, he argues that the nature of desire is imitation, and the 'spiritual distance' of the subject, object and mediator determines the nature of this desire formation.
He divides the novels into two as novels and romantic ones, and accepts that there is only a connection between the subject-object, and that by hiding the third corner, the novels that attribute the source of desire to the subject and the object are romantic, and the novels that do not hide the mediator are romantic.
To put it simply, if you sense an artificiality in the relations between the characters in the novel you are reading, if you see a constant behavioral fault in the characters, these works are classified as romantic. However, if the complicated behavior of the character you are reading has created an unpredictable environment and has taken over you, those books are also novels.
in Girard; Dostoevsky examines the novels of Flaubert, Proust, Cervantes and Stendhal based on the theory of triangular desire. Of course, these are the names that offer us the best of the model he mentioned. Girard calls this thing done by writers who research the imitative aspect of desire that exists in human nature as a constant mediator and reveal this in their novels, as "novelistic truth".
January 2, 2025
È stata un’illuminazione. Il dispositivo ermeneutico elaborato da Girard è talmente perfetto che non può che informare, per chiunque, un nuovo modo di leggere radicalmente diverso dal precedente. C’è un pre e c’è un post Girard. Non leggerò mai più niente allo stesso modo. Non solo: mentre parla degli altri, Girard è capace di parlare di te. Cosicché gli altri, i personaggi della letteratura lontani da noi di un secolo almeno, non sono mai veramente altri. Ti fanno sospettare, anzi, di essere tu, in luogo di loro, nelle pagine della loro opera. Nessuno bene come Girard sa consegnarci la misura apocalittica della verità romanzesca, e denunciare, stanandoci, la menzogna romantica. Gli altri siamo noi, e lo saremo ancora per lungo tempo.
August 23, 2024
Decisamente uno dei libri della vita. Adesso, con calma, recuperare tutto di Girard.
September 3, 2026
Lovely, although a little repetitive. I feel like there is one thing, french philosophers don‘t get told often enough: Chéri, this could have been a paper.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews