Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography

Rating:
Summary: Knowledgeable Study Of Pursuit of Experience
Review: Roger Shattuck poses a very interresting question as the thesis to this book. What ought we as a society ought not to know? Is any knowledge Forbidden? In this day and age where science and technology make learning easier than ever are there still taboos in society?

He answeres these questions by anaylzing art and science from (as title says) Prometheus to Pornagraphy(although his main examble of latter is de Sade which is debatable today after his "ehabilitation" how pornographic de Sade remains.) He dissects various literary examples of his theme.

Shattuck does an excellent mini survey of classics such as the Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost citing examples relelvent to forbidden knowledge. It is obvious he did his research before undertaking to write this book.

This is not the easist read. Shattock does an excellent job writing on this topic yet already some of his material seems dated or irrelevent through no fault of his own. It just seems like in the twenty-first century the author has a uphill strugle convincing any reader who has access to the internet that certain experiences and fruits of knowledge should be left alone. Aloso Shattock does not dumb down his tome at all which is another reason for it not being easist read. As a layperson and not expert in literature or science I found myself really having to concentrate, and in cases re-read passages to understand what he was saying.

However all that said this book is really interesting and made me think about the topic in ways unbefore thought.

Rating:
Summary: Shattuck Brilliantly Defeats His Own Argument
Review: Shattuck's book, calling for moderation and humility in our pursuits of knowldege, embodies its own contradiction -- a far-reaching and erudite treatise on the necessity of maintaining limits. Each of the individual essays has much to recommend it but as a whole, his enterprise took me aback. His learned discussions on Milton, Madame de la Fayette, and de Sade (despite his obvious reluctance to engage such a subject -- he puts off the literary analysis of Sade's works as long as possible) are refreshing -- few authors in modern times have seriously questioned the epistemological bases by which we order of lives and labors, let alone trace its intellectual history. He does an especially admirable job discussing the positive aspects of taboo in Dickinson and de la Fayette -- he helps us to appreciate that personal restraint does not always mean uptight prudery. Yet, his book is also unsettling as well. Shattuck's argument could be taken as a justification for anti-intellectualism (people may feel that any mental effort beyond MTV is "beyond their limits") and his belief that we should "know our limits" leads one to ask: how can those limits be established and who has the power to do so? (the scientific decision on limiting research into recombitant DNA notwithstanding, the question remains: do all fields of human endeavor needs limits and, especially in subjective fields as such as the humanities, can we really encourage restraint on creativity?) Shattuck's own far reaching literary exploration belies his own cautioning against curiousity and, even though I can respect his ambivalence toward progress (which is one aspect of modernism), his suggestions appear insubtantial rather than practical. Modern science may be creating new Frankensteins and Hydes that we'll have to face in the future but I think the greater problem to face is a lack of curiosity: growing illiteracy, social nihilism, the deadening influence of mass media on our conscience, and increasing apathy to art, literature, science, and politics by increasing numbers of people. Shattuck's eloquent book speaks intelligently of one potentially dangerous human tendency - overweening thrist for knowledge - but he fails to resolve the contradictions in his own presentation as well as the opposite situation: do we really want curiosity and imagination to be discouraged and inflexible limits to be placed upon us? Shattuck the moralist may want this but Shattuck the literary scholar keeps demonstrating the opposite. This dazzling work of literary criticism (one of the few genuinely readable pieces of lit. crit. in a long while) defeats its own argument: Shattuck's book is just too smart and intellectually alive to believe that intellectual limits are a good thing.

Rating:
Summary: Tough question, great attempt
Review: Shattuck's concern is the following: Is there knowledge that we should better label "forbidden"? In his quest for an answer, he takes us in an illuminating journey all the way from the Bible into modern mainly literary, but also political times. One of the possible candidates for this forbidden knowledge is the Marquis de Sade's "The 120 Days of Sodom". Mr. Shattuck quotes some shatteringly brutal passages from this book. They are so brutal that I would feel tempted to suggest to you not to read Sade, just as Mr. Shattuck would. But the flaw here, which someone so clairly brilliant as Mr. Shattuck does not address is the following: Why not let others read Sade and form their own opinion? Mr Shatuck does not answer this question. It certainly does not have an easy answer, if it has one. Anyway, if Sade and other likewise writers had not existed, we would not have had such a marvelous book as Shattuck's "Forbidden Knowledge". And that would have been a real pity.

Rating:
Summary: Readable and riveting
Review: Shattuck's prose is energetic and free of the obtuse sociological newspeak that disfigures so many other books on like topics. He is strongest (to me at least) where his expertise lies: in the analysis of literature and legends and what these are telling us about fundamental aspects of human nature. I will comment critically on the middle section of the book, where he discusses modern genetics, the area of my expertise. Shattuck understands the current state of knowledge to a degree outstanding for someone without formal training. However, he betrays his limitation by failing to point out that all our sophiscticated knowledge of human genotype, that is, the exact sequence and structure of each gene, far outstrips our understanding of what these genes exactly do. And beyond this, we have no earthly clue about how each gene interacts with other genes (there are 100,000 of them at least), and even beyond that, how these gene interactions change with age, experience, and exposure to the environment. The dangerous conceit is, that once we have the completed the Genome Project, decisions about people's lives might be made by governments and insurance companies based solely on knowledge of genotype. I believe this conceit can be avoided, and that we should push forward, but the danger ought to be acknowledged. Despite this shortcoming, I give Shattuck a five because I so thoroughly enjoyed this book and learned so much from it.

Rating:
Summary: Shattuck should make up his mind
Review: This book has been summarized already by previous reviewers, so I won't rehash that. I agree with the reader from Austin that this book was very disappointing. To me, it seemed as if Shattuck couldn't decide whether the book should be literary criticism or historical overview or a chance for him to air out his morals. He tried to do all three at once, resulting in a bit of a mess. He kept switching back and forth between objective history lesson and subjective moralizing to the point where the points he professed to be trying to make became somewhat lost and pointless. The objective bits were dry and boring and the moralizing was condescending and annoying and insulting to the reader.

Rating:
Summary: Beware of "Fear of Freedom"
Review: This book has many commentaries and that supposes that it has disquieted to the readers. But, as all in Internet, the base of these commentaries corresponds overwhelmingly to English speaking readers of Protestant roots. Therefore, modestly, maybe an opinion from other side can be opportune: that of a Spanish man educated in the Catholic culture, 49 years old. I knew the dictatorship of general Franco until his death in 1975. My school, a sort of military service for children governed by religious priests was full of ignorance - also known as "Forbidden Knowledge"- as all Spain then. University was no much better. Ex- Nazi refugees, altough no great criminals, were no rare living in Spain then. Reading a Bible without censorship was difficult in my youth, and also the known of the works of almost all authors mentioned in this book. To explain the Theory of the Evolution from Darwin was virtually forbidden. Curiously, Mr. Shattuck mentions Cervantes several times, but I think he has not well understood it because, yet insane, Don Quijote, says the following phrase: "By freedom it can, and yet it should be to risk the life". Books as these, are attractive, but preoccupates me... because I have known very little knowledge and many, many prohibitions. I don't deny the value of the common sense, and we don't use all things what are invented: simply we can't. And I don't believe me a God neither nothing similar... this must be clear because -no doubt- the English God writes would be much better than mine.

Rating:
Summary: A mind provoking book
Review: This book is of the rarest kind of books; it is as enjoyable as a coffe-table book and in the same time it runs so deep and academic without being pedantic. The scope is dazzling and the language is up to its subject and beutiful. Trying to restrict art and science within some kind of ethical borders is the nearest thing to sacrilige in our times, but the power of this book's argument (and maybe, his weak point that prevented me from giving him a 10 ) that he tries very hard to prove his point from within his subject's system of references instead of imposing an outsider's. I liked this book and I keep returning to it for the sheer joy of reading.

Rating:
Summary: Deplorable Scholarship
Review: This work by Roger Shattuck is the worst piece of scholarship that I have ever had the displeasure of reading. The lack of intellectual integrity is astounding, especially for someone so high up in the academic world. His arguments are poorly reasoned and replete with terrible, mis-represented anecdotes which serve more to disprove his hypothesis than to sustain it. This book will appeal to those who secretly wish to resort back to the good ol' days when life was simple and God was still an unassailable reality, but for those of a higher intellectual nature, this book is a travesty.

Rating:
Summary: Shattuck is a fascinating writer and thinker
Review: Via an in depth discussion of diverse works of literature, the author has thoroughly explored the dichotomy's of: life/death, virtue/vice, indulgence/abstinence and justice/injustice - in our world. His best work is when he traces the 'streams of thought' from what was originally composed through the adulterations and embellishments of revisionists; and shows us how concepts that we take for granted (in the 21st century) are caricatures of the original. Moreover, he asks probing questions about the advances of science/technology and the level of our ethical development (read, lack of development) and posits that we know too much too soon; and are 'playing with fire' as a consequence. A must reading for any serious thinker.

Rating:
Summary: Astute Analyses
Review: Via an in depth discussion of diverse works of literature, the author has thoroughly explored the dichotomy's of: life/death, virtue/vice, indulgence/abstinence and justice/injustice - in our world. His best work is when he traces the 'streams of thought' from what was originally composed through the adulterations and embellishments of revisionists; and shows us how concepts that we take for granted (in the 21st century) are caricatures of the original. Moreover, he asks probing questions about the advances of science/technology and the level of our ethical development (read, lack of development) and posits that we know too much too soon; and are 'playing with fire' as a consequence. A must reading for any serious thinker.