Deadly Dialectics: Sex, Violence, and Nihilism in the World of Yukio Mishima [Paperback]

Roy Starrs (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: June 1, 1994 | ISBN-10: 0824816315 | ISBN-13: 978-0824816315

First study of Mishima to recount his intellectual background and thought processes, to treat his major works in their proper literary context as philosophic novels, and to show the intimate and integral relation between his thought, psychology, militant sexuality and propensity to violence.

--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Product Details

• Paperback: 232 pages
• Publisher: University of Hawaii Press (June 1, 1994)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0824816315
• ISBN-13: 978-0824816315
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 5.8 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #205,609 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #90 in Books > Literature & Fiction > History & Criticism > Asian

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Mishima is not that easy to analyze., January 20, 2007

By 

Angry Mofo "angrymofo" - See all my reviews

This review is from: Deadly Dialectics: Sex, Violence, and Nihilism in the World of Yukio Mishima (Paperback)

The last analysis of Yukio Mishima's novels that I read was Marguerite Yourcenar's Mishima: A Vision Of The Void, which I found unreadable. Though written in a tendentious academic tone, Starrs' book is better. Even as he approvingly quotes Yourcenar, he deflates her idea that Mishima was supposedly drawn to a "Buddhist void," by arguing that Buddhism may actually not have held much meaning for Mishima. To this end, he cites passages from The Temple Of The Golden Pavilion that are antagonistic to Buddhism, and also parts of Runaway Horses that seem more sympathetic to Shintoism. He also rejects other explanations for Mishima's behaviour and writing, such as the "patriotic" explanation. This is a valuable discussion that clears away some of the rhetorical baggage that had been hung on Mishima after his death.

But then Starrs comes up with a new explanation. In his view, Mishima was a Nietzschean nihilist. His novels were philosophical arguments in favour of nihilism, and he made a distinction between "passive" and "active" nihilism. Passive nihilism is the weak, intellectual kind, like that of the Superior in The Temple Of The Golden Pavilion, whereas active nihilism is the strong, violent kind, like that of Isao in Runaway Horses. Then all of Mishima's works fall into this framework. In The Temple Of The Golden Pavilion, Mizoguchi is torn between passive and active nihilism, whereas The Sea Of Fertility is a criticism of passive nihilism, allegedly exemplified by Honda. In this context, the denouement of The Decay Of The Angel is one big expression of nihilism, meant to underscore the futility of the passive version.

Starrs considers The Temple Of The Golden Pavilion to be central to Mishima's work. By contrast, The Sea Of Fertility is "incomplete," because it does not have a character who neatly personifies a clearly demarcated conflict between passive and active nihilism. The protagonists in the last two novels of the tetralogy are more passive, and do not effectively represent active nihilism.

This sounds convincing as long as you use The Temple Of The Golden Pavilion as your main reference point. But in my opinion, that novel is not really that important. It is definitely a "philosophical" novel, though I'd pick Dostoevsky over Nietzsche as the biggest influence. But that influence makes it one of Mishima's least distinctive works. It's too glib, the lines are too clearly demarcated.

After that novel, Mishima drew away from this overtly "philosophical" style of writing. The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With The Sea is somewhat similar, in that it describes a precocious youth who moves from passive intellectual brooding to violent action, but the portrayal of the character is completely different. There's now something petty about him. His very seriousness is kind of ridiculous. Toru in The Decay Of The Angel has similar inclinations, but is resoundingly condemned.

Let's look at Ying Chan in The Temple Of Dawn. Starrs considers her a shining example of passive nihilism. He calls her "lecherous" and "evil," and states that she personifies "passive femininity," as opposed to the more manly active form of nihilism. This assertion is crucial to one of his arguments, which is that Mishima used the increasingly passive "incarnations" to illustrate the decline of the world.

But unlike Toru, Ying Chan is portrayed sympathetically. In the beginning of the book, when Honda sees her as a child, she makes a very pure impression. This is a key scene, because the book never focuses on her to this degree again, so it shapes much of our perception of Ying Chan. But she stays out of the picture not because of her passive femininity, but because the narrative has begun to constrict around Honda. We only see her when he does. This shows Honda's distance from youth and his inward retreat, not Ying Chan's evil.

And Ying Chan is hardly lecherous. After all, she resists the advances of that guy Honda sends to seduce her. If anything, she's admirably monogamous. Keiko's the lecherous one. It's more likely that she seduced Ying Chan rather than the other way around.

No, Ying Chan is actually exactly like Kiyoaki and Isao. She's beautiful, but not cold like Toru. Her beauty is effortless, unpremeditated. She's completely carefree, impulsive, and unaware of herself, which is precisely why Honda is drawn to her. In that sense she's much less passive than Kiyoaki. She can't express nihilism, because she doesn't think about such things. The real distinction is not between Kiyoaki and Isao on one hand, and Ying Chan and Toru on the other, but between Toru and the first three. In fact, it is revealed that Toru is not a "true" incarnation. Whereas The Temple Of The Golden Pavilion simply has no characters like Kiyoaki, Isao, and Ying Chan, and it doesn't touch on the real issue at all.

It's not about masculinity against femininity or passivity against action, it's about carefree irrationality against self-aware egoism. At first this sounds similar to the distinction between passive and active nihilism, but the thing is, self-aware egoism doesn't need to be passive or nihilistic. Mizoguchi's egoism isn't in conflict with his action, it leads him to it. His action is too theatrical and self-justifying to express a rejection of life. Actually it makes him want to live!

Starrs categorizes Toru as passive, because that fits into his explanation, but he isn't. When Honda adopts him, he is galvanized to action of sorts, and he's very capable at it. Whereas Kiyoaki is mostly passive, allowing himself to be consumed by love rather than committing violent acts. Yet it's clearly Toru who's the bad guy.

Then again, the final pages of The Decay Of The Angel imply that the first three incarnations might never have occurred, thus depriving them of meaning. The word "nihilism" is already too intellectual and self-aware to describe this irrational ending. Honestly, I think The Sea Of Fertility is impervious to critical analysis.