Talk:The 120 Days of Sodom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Many would not classify The 120 Days Of Sodom as 'pornography' since the sex is repetitive and not described in great detail. Furthermore, many of the paraphilias involved, such as coprophilia, pedophilia, rape, torture and murder, are (deliberately) those which the majority of people find either unstimulating or repulsive."

I removed (deliberately) as it is of a speculative nature, as likely as it may be.

I think the second half of the passage doesn't even make sense -- certainly, just because most people would fine those things repulsive does not make it not pornography (if that makes sense): in other words, just because there are people who find sodomy unstimulating does not mean that erotic works involving sodomy isn't pornography. For that matter, just because sex is repetitive, does not mean its pornography (i.e. Penthouse letters?). I'm reworking that passage. Janet13 04:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, on second reading, I deleted the entirety of the two sentences because they are speculative and have no sourcing (and, as I mentioned above, the arguments don't actually make sense). Janet13 04:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also -- the sex IS described in great detail. It isn't really repetitive either: de Sade and his characters were both unfailingly inventive. Too many talk about this book without having read it. Perhaps some believe nothing from the past could equal the degradations of today. How wrong wrong wrong. (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pornographic doesn't necessarily mean pornography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:9535:AE63:8D1A:63D9 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When published?[edit]

The introduction says first publishing was in 1905, but the History section says 1904. Which is correct?

The first printing in English was in 1934; cf. Library of Congress catalogue – New York : privately printed, 1934. (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julie not killed[edit]

The characters-section section states "The victims who will eventually be killed are: The daughters of the four principal characters, whom they have been sexually abusing for years. "

If I understood correctly: Julie, daughter of le Duc de Blangis survives? (16 survivors: 4 heroes, 4 studs, 4 prostitutes, 3 cooks, Julie?) Pukkie 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing French online text link which has been identified as Dangerous by Trend Micro Internet Security Pro[edit]

This French online text link, updated by User: on July 12, 2009, has been identified as "Dangerous" by Trend Micro Internet Security Pro. For obvious reasons, I'm not going to access the website to determine whether it's safe or not; I feel it's prudent to remove the link immediately. Feel free to add the link back if you can vouch for its reliability and safety, or replace with a different source (the previous link appears to be broken). Thanks, Baileypalblue (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Moved. Station1 (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

120 Days of SodomThe 120 Days of Sodom — Title starting with "The" appears to be the most commonly used title in English; see, for example, [ here], [ here], [ here], [ here], [ here], here, and here. Page was moved from The 120 Days of Sodom in 2005 for reasons unknown. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

information about author?[edit]

is it relevant to note somewhere that the man himself was a habitual rapist? There's stuff about whether or not the book is sexist, perverse, etc. I think you can write a book like this without advocating the behavior, even condemning it or satirizing it, but I think it's relevant to consider that the author himself had committed (relatively minor!) sexual crimes (this is why he was imprisoned- to protect people), so while it's an over-the-top work of fantasy you can't say that the man wasn't at least somewhat serious about his amoral libertine philosophy. I dunno maybe it's not relevant here, but just a thought. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It's absolutely relevant, when the article says "It is no coincidence that they are authority figures in terms of their occupations. Sade despised religion and authority and in many of his works he enjoyed mocking them by portraying priests, bishops, judges and the like as sexual perverts and criminals."

The guy was himself a sexual sadist and rapist, this book wasn't condemning as much as it was fantasy — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Sade, tell me, what is it that you were searching for? /The good, the bad, an angel, a whore? / *heavy breathing*" (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The 120 Days of Sodom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under 'When published' above I have added a note as to the first printing in English (1934); perhaps someone could add this information to the right-hand box on the main page since I do not know how to. (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original manuscripts tale[edit]

Something should be said about the travails of the original manuscript. From its discovery in the Bastille prison to its eventual purchase by the French state. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artistic Classification[edit]

As a novel, it is both given merit and controversy. The lead mentions it is erotic and pornographic while literary merit is further expounded upon later in the article. How do we distinguish pornography from literature here? Does anyone have works on whether a work can be pornographic without being pornography (a creation solely for arousal)? 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:9535:AE63:8D1A:63D9 (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]