THE OBSESSIVE-TRANSGRESSIVE

 I'll probably never use the titular term "obsessive-transgressive" on a regular basis, for the phenomenon I'm addressing would be better called "syndromic cathexis," as opposed to its opposite, "casual cathexis." This opposition of the syndromic and the casual was first cited in my essay SADISM OF THE CASUAL KIND, and the proximate inspiration for that essay was to point out the gross fallacies of Wertham and Legman as they accused comic books of engendering millions of proto-sadists with their sexy/violent content. However, my argument-- that "cathexis," the process of investing any perceived phenomenon with mental/emotional energy, takes both casual and syndromic forms-- was grounded by an observation of Plato in the PHILEBUS:

I take the position of Plato's PHILEBUS, which asserted that the "soul" could experience many affects in the course of its "owner's" life, and that some would have transitory effects while others would permanently "make their mark," so to speak.

Now, cathexis in either manifestation is not confined to a given subject's response to sex and/or violence. On this blog I've tended to concentrate on the literary versions of those two real-world phenomena both to (1) refute Wertham, Legman, and similar faulty thinkers, and to (2) explore the writings of George Bataille on the subject. But clearly any subject can display varying levels of cathexis toward any phenomenon, such as (to cite an easy example) food. If I like a given food but can do without it for long periods of time. then my liking for that food is casual cathexis. If it's a food that I keep indulging in repetitively, possibly not only for reasons of gustatory enjoyment but also for self-esteem issues, then that would be syndromic cathexis.

Bataille's ideas about transgression probably got their greatest application to literary matters in his collection LITERATURE AND EVIL, which I explored here. Rather than summarizing Bataille, I'll confine myself here to his influence on me: "EVIL did greatly influence me to consider that every conflict in a fictional story involved a transgression against someone or something." However, Bataille's concepts seem largely applicable to what I've termed "confrontation narratives," and are not that much help in dealing with their opposite, "accomodation narratives." I discussed both of these forms to some extent in the essay ACCOMODATING ACCOMODATION. Accomodation narratives may begin with some transgression but they end with a resolution that usually eliminates the source of the transgression, at least temporarily.

While I am stating that syndromic cathexis can apply to any perceived phenomenon, be it food or sports or music, I did begin these ruminations as I sought to justify why some narratives about sex seem more "obsessional" than others. To take an obvious example, director Russ Meyer's devotion to big-bosomed women goes IMO beyond the level of simply trying to appeal to filmgoers of similar tastes. He clearly loved photographing such women, almost without exception, over specimens of more modest dimensions. And his cathexis was repeated so often that no one could seriously doubt that his feelings toward the tit-monster phenomenon was syndromic in nature.

I may explore one or two other examples of such syndromes in future. The works of Jack Cole seems like they would make an interesting subject, partly because he seemed to be cathected to almost any type of violence, not just violence with some sexual connotations, as was the obvious case of the Marquis de Sade. However, I'll close by noting an anomaly: that it's possible for a given creator to *simulate* a syndromic cathexis in just one work, yet not show any dominant trend toward such a cathexis in his other work, whose cathexes, if any, would be more casual in nature. The creator-example I have in mind is one William Read Woodfield, whose example of a syndromic-seeming work I discussed in my review of THE HYPNOTIC EYE. I quoted Woodfield in that review as saying that EYE was just a "wacko idea" that did not result in a "good movie," and that he later went on to "better things"-- a verdict with which I disagree. Admittedly I haven't seen his other metaphenomenal TV-movies in some time, such as the 1971 EARTH II and the 1975 SATAN'S TRIANGLE, but I don't think that these, or any of his genre-TV episodes, would rate that highly. (He did invent the LOST IN SPACE antagonist "Lorelei" in the episode "Wild Adventure," but I didn't detect any syndromic currents in that fairly simple rendition of the "Sirens" myth.) So if I'm correct that HYPNOTIC EYE is the only syndromic bolt to come from Woodfield's quiver, that would indicate that certain creators can work themselves into a "syndromic mood" that lasts only so long as he/she is working on a particular narrative.