Kris Van der Bijl

Dear Professor

Thank you for allowing me to share these thoughts on Georges Bataille’s Histoire de l’œil (Story of the Eye). My main thoughts seem to be centered around power in the Bataille’s novella, and the complex relationship that seems to exist between the characters wanting to have power and asserting dominance in a way, but also the seeming want to be dominated. 

The eye can be seen as what the story is about and morphs throughout the novel, and the two Bonnie-and-Clyde main characters seem to acknowledge with a want to change and ignore this fact. 

Simone’s mix of wanting to be dominated yet still be in control in certain circumstances can be seen from the instructions she gives the narrator (“I don’t want you to toss off any more without me”) and her fem fatale-like control of the priest and Sir Edmund. 

Yet she seems to ‘get off’ when she is urinated on (I’m seeing urination as a means to make one’s territory). The reversal of these acts is the narrator’s release of dominance and submission. The characters are stuck trying to find their place, tossed between different roles while the eye stares them down.

The changing of the eye to ear and to bull testicle, I would then say, is the changing of that which is in power to a different and seemingly random with a hint of pattern form that the characters never seem to catch. This seems to align with the plot’s progression as it moves from parents, society (in the form of the violence inhibited in the bullfight), and finally, the catholic church.

In each case, a different form of the power is confronted, but it always seems to have the upper hand. Both characters experience this differently, though. The narrator, whose parents seem uninterested and indifferent to his running away, seems to tie into that notion of parental neglect, causing a child to lash out for attention. Simone seems to have a parent who cares but cares in a ‘let the kid do what they want’ kind of way. 

Both kids seem to enjoy their freedom and enjoy the process of domination but also seem to be doing it with that which dominated them in mind, therefore not seeming to be fully in control and arguably submitting. This ties into the never-ending eye and the power dynamic that exists, with this story being the story of the eye. The missing article before story vs the definite “the” before eye also seems to play into this dynamic.

I suppose one could draw relations to this and the Double bind discussed in yesterday’s lecture. The characters inhabit a world (the story) that is not about them, where their only option is the grotesque (arguably) sexual acts that at times cause them pain (The orgy at lunch, etc.). 

The second injunction would be when they have run away and have no hope to return home yet still maintain the inhibition that they are acting out of their own will. It then all comes home with the desecration of the priest at the church, leaving them with no option but to flee.

Simone tries one last time to ‘sit’ on the power, as she has been doing in its various forms, but mentioning the “blazing sun” and “reddish eyes” at the end seems to suggest that that power over them still exists. They also leave with “a crew of Negroes”, indicating that they still are attempting to portray domination over something.

I didn’t mean this unwanted narrative on Story of the Eye to be so long + I hope it wasn’t too much of a time waster for you. An interesting theme that David Foster Wallace touches on is the insecurity that comes through when one’s writing tends to focus on them rather than trying to portray how smart they think they are vs the reality of the situation.

I’ve been trying to work on that in life and writing so I would be more interested in whether I got that right and got the critical process right. But humanly, I would also dig my ideas on the novella to be right.

Regards,

05-08-2018