I’ll be honest, I find Confessions of a Mask more than a little
disturbing. In fact, I find it ‘a lot’ disturbing… In doing some research on
this book and its author, I was shocked to find that virtually no one who has
written about it mentions insanity. In fact, in googling “Yukio Mishima insane”
the first result to appear is an article on Zimbio the first line of which
reads, “I’m not sure if it’s fair to call the great Yukio Mishima crazy. He was
definitely an intensely charismatic figure who broadened his horizons to
encompass as many facets of cultural literacy as his time allowed”
(Mansuramed). Frankly, I do not think cannibalism or sadism should be justified
as “broadening one’s horizons”. Knowing
this work is largely autobiographical, I find it incredibly tragic that no one
ever seems to offer Kochan (or Mishima) help at any point. For Kochan, I suppose
it’s understandable since he keeps his fetishes a secret for the most part.
However, Mishima publicly writes about his sufferings, maybe as a cry for help,
and no one answers, instead they just regard him as the “suffering genius” and
leave him at that. He’s even given further praise for performing seppuku, a
traditional Japanese suicide by disembowelment. This man died cutting up his
own stomach and people praise it. Instead of offering psychiatric treatment for
this man or any others who might be suffering in the same way, our society
calls it “brilliance” and allows it to continue. I find that more than a little
sad…
Sources
I wonder if it's easier socially to honor a tragic figure than deal with the messy, imperfect, unsettling steps required to help the individual and deal with the cultural conditions that made such tragedy possible?
ReplyDeletePersonally I found the story of Mishima's life to be significantly less tragic. Although it is nice to think that his troubles could have been averted, it is also important to remember the huge influence perception has upon life. Even though I think most suicides are tragic and entirely avoidable, lately I have allowed a gray area to arise, in which perhaps there is a place for honorable suicide. If Mishima suffered from the relentless sort of self doubt that Kochan exhibits, I can imagine that an end would be more than welcome after 45 years. Perhaps he found coping mechanisms that allowed him to find fulfillment, but not the ease of mind he truly desired. Once he had proven to himself that he had the willpower to accomplish so much, the only fitting end he saw was that of ceremonial seppuku. If the glorification of death in battle, one not so out of place in WWII Japan, was truly a part of Mishima just as it was a part of Kochan, it makes perfect sense that he would spend over a year plotting his death(wikipedia), and that his last act would be an attempted coup detat. Regardless of our own emotions regarding the death of another, it was culturally honorable way to go, and it was at the very least a fitting end to an impressive man.
ReplyDeleteYou know I just realized something with this. Perhaps the whole purpose of this book; of him going into these detailed accounts of his bizarre fantasies and desires; is him trying to cope with them in some way and perhaps crying out for help. Perhaps he really was disturbed by these desires himself, they haunted him day and night causing night after night of restless paranoia, and then finally, when instead of help he was greeted with replies calling him a masterful writer and brilliant, he could take it no longer.....or perhaps I've been watching too much doctor phil.
ReplyDelete....wait I never watch regular tv what am I talking about?
I must say I don't find the sexual fetishism as disturbing as I find Kochan's inability to express his desires (ANY of them) in any way throughout his life. I am intrigued by Lisa's idea that when Kochan looks at a man he finds attractive, he instantly desires to see that man torn apart, in essence 'killing' the desire. After some thought, I must respectfully disagree with that assessment (even though it kicks ass in it's symbolism). I believe that Kochan is a sadomasochist and in his inability to express his yearning for this activity he retreats into his mind to play out the fantasies, his imagination allowing him to do to others what he cannot do in reality. Thus his imagination is honed as he ages, and the fantasy's become more detailed, more disturbing to the reader. Had Kochan been able to find the leather community (as Lisa suggested), or found a source of literature that did not criticize his cravings, he may not have presented these morbid fantasizes of cannibalism and torture. However, Sophia’s blog brings to mind the fact that our Author had expressed his desires and these expressions did not allow for normalcy, so perhaps the author had been trying to play out what would have happened to himself had he kept his secrets held to his chest instead of exposing them to the world. Or not. Dude was a bit unpredictable.
ReplyDeleteI for one believe that we all think and act differently and that it is unfair to press ones vision of normality on others. Live and let live but my question is what do we do with members of society who's psyche clearly make them a danger to themselves and to others around them. When one has sadomasochistic fantasies like Kochan how do we approach them? They are clearly a human being and as entitled to this earth as the rest of us. However, their brand of "normality" seems to threaten a peaceful existence for the rest of us. If there condition of abnormal psychology is simply form a traumatic history, we clearly reach out to these people and give them and support to try to return to and less dangerous psychological state. What if this is their nature? What then do we reject their humanity, or do we reject our peaceful existence. Society was designed to give humanity safety and state of mind. So when someone’s arousal is dependent on the pain of others should we then deny them society? That is the question I want you folks to ponder.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of headache inducing just to imagine trying to go through the moral labyrinth involved with the cultural implications of his suicide. On the one hand, in his culture it was honorable and dignified, but on the other hand, if Waukesha tradition dictated that oversleeping could only be condoned by jumping off a bridge, I don't think I'd risk it. For scholars writing on the subject it's always important to remember that you can't superimpose your perception onto someone from a different time period. Mishima couldn't just go hang out at a Starbucks and complain about it on his blog, he was confined by the time he lived in. However, I don't know if I can get behind a modern scholar who writes about the coolness factor of suicide by disembowelment when we have kids committing suicide before they should even know the word. But those are just my thoughts; I could just be lost in the moral labyrinth getting eaten by the Minotaur.
ReplyDelete