Bersani scrutinizes the tradition in Western literature of solidifying ego in order to create literary territory within the framework of the fictional text. He presents several examples of works that subvert this tendency and opens up a new psychological approach to the study of lit.

This is the most reasonable, well organized work on gay political culture in existence. Bersani delves beyaonf the rhetoric, and into the psyche of society and the gay culture, making clear why "de-gaying gayness" is a travesty to all parts of society. It is a must reaa for anyone grappling with their sense of society, belonging, be-ing.

If you can find another translation of this seminal book (see my review of Freud's Gravida), then do so. Strackey translates "kultur" (culture) as "civilization," "I" as "ego," and in general makes Freud seem so lifeless and cold-blooded that it's nearly impossible to get an accurate feel for his thought.

Without defending Freud's obvious reductionism, it needs saying that it was he who prompted us to ask: do the demands of modern life encourage or pathologize our innermost strivings? What do they do to our eros, our capacity for loving and feeling solidarity? And how do they stimulate our frustration and aggression?

While I disagree with Freud's conclusion that the total psychic repression of powerful passions is a necessary evil for the existence of culture, I do think he challenges us to wonder about just how high a price we pay for what we believe to be the "higher" and "nobler" achievements of the mind.

To whoever is interested in Freuds "Civilization and It's Discontents" I SAY READ IT! An excellent book which depicts civilization for what it is. In this book Freud discussed a varity of topics such as religion, sex, happiness and human suffering (listed in no particular order). I think that the entire purpose of the book was to show humans that civilization is not any better than times before it occured. We tend to think of ourselves better than pre-civilized times however, nothing has changed because reality is constant. Human nature is focused on beauty, instinct and will.

Freud's Civilization and its Discontents could arguably be one of the most compelling books you will ever encounter, if read properly. The problematic posed by Freud is a fundamental one. Freud argues that the demands of civilization and demands of our instincts are out of sync. He posits that humans are haunted by an assortment of powerful unconscious needs. These hardcore "needs" range from sexual fulfillment to a release of aggression. These primal needs for sexual fulfillment and aggressions were once the tools we used to survive. With the dawning of a new age, we no longer need to use these tools. We turn inwards. See, juxtaposed and interconnected is the other side of the coin, is civilization - a phenomenon that inhibits these primal drives. But we need civilization to give us a different sense of security. It is a catch-22. Throughout the ages, then the constant tug of war between these two forces has caused ruptures in our history was the tension is expressed in frustration.

Freud is really informative when he posits that we turn this aggression inward. Perhaps it is how civilization has configured good and evil that is turning this mechanism out of sync. In an almost sado-masochistic move, the superego is now torturing the ego. It is the collision rather than the confluence that is ruining this forced marriage. I am not certain that Nietzsche really had this sort of impact on Freud but I am reminded of Dionysus and Apollo from The Birth of Tragedy.

Nietzsche was trying to convey a partnership between them more than a countering or perhaps better, a "healthy tension." To be human is to be stretched between these two domains. The Dionysian is the raw impulses, chaos, and absurdity of existence; the Apollonian is the ordering impulse that seeks order, the eternal (in logic, religion, or morality, etc.) and beauty. As a particular existence, we are comprised of the raw stuff that is life in its very heart. We are contradiction, passions, chaos; but we cannot live in this domain alone, because it is ugly, terrifying and absurd. Thus we are wont to make it beautiful, to create from it a habitable and beautiful world (and self). Without the Dionysian, there can be no Apollonian. Without Apollonian, life would not be bearable. Hopefully, Nietzsche (as does Freud) does not advocate a return to our "bestial natures." However, Nietzsche declares that it is better to be a Cesare Borgia than a Christian, for at least great things are possible with the raw power and nobility of the beast. The Christian, to him, is enfeeblement and brutalizes the nobility and power inherent in humankind. To be capable of greatness, one must be capable of evil and good. The Christian, however, esteems everything that is meek, pitiful and weak. Action is evil, the world is evil, and we must quietly await a better one. Nietzsche, and the existentialists, would resist any attempt to ascribe a "nature" which predetermines us. We are flux. We are change. We are in a constant state of becoming and there is no prior nature that determines what we will become.

Although Freud was a champion for the recognition of these primal urges, it cannot be said that he advocated a free for all. What is really powerful in Freud is that civilization is not seen to be purely an external thing and it has real consequences on the inside. Our superego - civilizations handmaiden on the inside - is now calling the shots. As we internalize what the external is telling us to do, how to act - like gnawing guilt it invades our psyche to the extent that no matter how we wish to transgress, we become and need the very thing that causes our frustration.

If you peg the most basic response to fight or flight, then civilization can be seen to have removed that which was causing all sorts of anxiety - as we no longer express and remove sexual needs and aggression "in the wild." Freud it could be argued is saying that the superego now attacks the ego denying out most elemental needs. Those needs though, because of the reconfiguration of civilization are suppressed. The two forces - the superego and the ego, instead of working together are working against each other. If perhaps there is a hope for a sense of a new humanism, that this might be the answer - finding a way for the superego to work with rather than against the ego, that is of course if you have bought in on the duality. The debate rages on.

Miguel Llora

Madame Bovary is a wonderfully tragic and passionate novel. Emma's passion for romance is portrayed candidly, realistically, with no sloppy sentimentalism. Her disillusionment and downfall are brought about by her own actions, fired by her own flaws. Flaubert is very frank in his portrayal of her affairs. He is truthful about their emptiness and their consequences. This is the quality that elevates the book from a supermarket romance novel to a classic. Flaubert is quite avant garde in his sympathy for the plight of women in Emma's time period. He recognizes their lack of freedom and the social restrictions placed on women that are not placed on men. Yet he does not excuse Emma because of this injustice. She is still held accountable for her actions. I recommend this book to anyone who enjoys a good tragedy. It is easy to relate to Emma Bovary, for everyone knows what it is to have high ideals dashed. I found the story rather slow in the beginning, but as the pace of Emma's life quickens, so does that of the novel. If you enjoy action packed plots, you may not enjoy this book. Those who enjoy satire and dark humor would also like Madame Bovary. Flaubert has a wonderful dry, cynical wit. One notices this in his descriptions of characters, especially the minor ones. He is a dark Jane Austen. I am a student at Mercy High School in CT, and I read this novel as part of the Advanced Placement curriculum. I would recommend this book to other AP students; it is entertaining, and a valuable novel to be familiar with.

When I was teaching World Literature we began class each year reading Gustave Flaubert's "Madame Bovary." Unfortunately, this is the one novel that most needs to be read in its original language since Flaubert constructed each sentence of his book with the precision of a poet. As an example of the inherent problems of translation I would prepare a handout with four different versions of the opening paragraphs of "Madame Bovary." Each year my students would come to the same conclusion that I had already reached in selecting which version of the book they were to read: Lowell Bair's translation is the best of the lot. It is eminently readable, flowing much better than most of its competitors. Consequently, if you are reading "Madame Bovary" for pleasure or class, this is the translation you want to track down.

Flaubert's controversial novel is the first of the great "fallen women" novels that were written during the Realism period ("Anna Karenina" and "The Awakening" being two other classic examples). It is hard to appreciate that this was one of the first novels to offer an unadorned, unromantic portrayal of everyday life and people. For some people it is difficult to enjoy a novel in which they find the "heroine" to be such an unsympathetic figure; certainly the events in Emma Bovary's life have been done to death in soap operas. Still, along with Scarlett O'Hara, you have to consider Emma Bovary one of the archetypal female characters created in the last 200 years of literature. "Madame Bovary" is one of the greatest and most important novels, right up there with "Don Quixote" and "Ulysses." I just wish I was able to read in it French.

...that is to say : this is one the books that can't be translated, becauses it uses all potentialities of french language. Those who admire in this book the cruelty and truth of the psychological portraits mustn't forget that Flaubert's dream was to write a "book about nothing, that would be held only by the force of the style". The story didn't interest him and in his correspondance you see how he got bored while writing it. Personnaly I don't like this kind of "feminine life in the country and loss of illusions that is to entail" but the style is just amazing. Proust said that Flaubert had "a grammatical genius". That's why anyone who can read french might throw his english version. Also, don't be obsessed by the famous "Madame Bovary, c'est moi". Flaubert wrote this book to get rid of his romantic tendancies : hence this mix of sympathy and deep cruelty about the stupidity of his heroin. This cruelty is reinforced by the use of the "focalisation interne" (when the writer writes from the point of view of the character) and the perfect neutrality : we live from the inside Emma's dreams and feel how ridiculous they are, and then, from the outside, we see them being slowly destructed. Read this masterpiece, and focus your attention on the style, and the construction (otherwise the book has little interest!)

I looked forward to this book with much anticipation, and readit carefully twice and I am not convinced by their argument, but feelthat in its trendiness it will not be a long-lasting addition to Caravaggio scholarship. In many ways, after only a few years on the market, it remains fairly unnoticed by the academy, and remains relatively untaught in graduate seminars. I can't image it is a book that will interest the general reader with its physcoanalytic interpretations and academic lingo. I feel compelled to give it one star in order to balance out the scales and alert prospective readers that there are those of us who did not find it worthwhile. END

It is sad to see how this book has been misunderstood. This book is not about "art history" or even "criticism." But it is a creative attempt to affirm one's experience through Caravaggio's paintings as inventing different "forms" to relate to others (both human and non-human).

Bersani and Dutoit, in such a poetic way, challenge how we look at art in general--. We interpret it instead of experiencing it. As a practioner of painting, I feel that they wrote this book NOT from the position of a critic, who often tries to be a custodian of culture.

I disagree with the other reviewer -- this *is* art history. Yes, art history relies on documents, history, even x-radiography, but it is equally reliant on models of analysis and new ways of looking. Caravaggio's work has begged a critical approach like this one, and while I may not agree with the authors' conclusions, their discussion is provocative and inspiring. If you want a survey of Caravaggio's career, choose one of the many books out there that satisfy this niche. If you want to deepen your perspective of Caravaggio, and of art in general, read this book. It will give you something to think about.