Black Hole of Desire

Courtly Love is a technical paper about the form and theory of “courtly love;” it also discusses many of the characteristics of courtly love. It is not real in the sense that it is not directed at any specific women. Even the woman in question is not real, “the Lady in courtly love loses concrete features and is addressed as an abstract Ideal” (Žižek 89). There are no specific features given, so the Lady is not relatable or desirable. Lacan even states a woman is a “kind of automaton, a machine which utters meaningless demands at random” (90). She is like a voodoo doll, channeling the form of a real person, but is only an empty shadow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Courtly love is not just not real, but it is only a mirror of the man’s own narcissistic desires. She is unattainable and meant to be viewed as such. Even if the woman were to present herself as available, the man would no longer want her. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . The woman is an imitation of the real and nothing more, “[she is] the mute mirror-surface…a kind of ‘black hole'" (93). The replacement of the woman with a black hole or void is a troupe that reappears through out the essay. The ‘black hole’ refers to the inaccessibility of the Lady, for one can never venture to the end of a black hole. The women is merely a series of unattainable detours put in place by the man who wants her. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Courtly love is expressed in Bernard de Ventadorn’s poems, through the use of literary devises,like imagery and anaphora of words like “color,” beauty,” and “youth.” Lacan also refers to love as a game or formula. Courtly love is not passionate only mannerly. One interesting quote was, “Masochism confronts us with the paradox of the symbolic order of ‘fictions’: there is more truth in the mask we wear, in the game we play, in the ‘fiction’ we obey and follow, than in what is concealed beneath the mask” (92). When does the woman or man stop acting and face reality, how much of the mask is their real self. The need for desire is already there she simply draws it out of him and focuses in. she is the center of his black hole. “Object is attainable only by way of an incessant postponement, as its absent point of reference” (95). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The poems are a conduit of portrayal of this ‘courtly love’ as depicted by Lacan. The speaker believes the pain outweighs the love her feels for the woman. He never provides detailed descriptions of her, effectively keeping her out of the realm of the real and always suspense in this ideal unreality. He always refers to her in a master/king and servant/ peasant dynamic. He never views himself of worthy of her; she is out of reach. She is merely the Object of the Thing according to Lacan. The speaker even admits that “the sighs have a sweeter taste,” referring to the enjoyment of suffering for his desire. In the poem the speaker is constantly removed and distanced from his love. He only loves and fears her, what kind of a relationship is that? More of a God to man, rather than two humans being on equal grounds. The speaker has elevated the women to a God-like position. He references the “Myth of Narcissus” in poem 26, he states that her eyes are mirrors, then he refers to the woman as “Mirror” just an outward projection of his inner longings. She symbolizes the mirror and embodies it as well. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . That Obscure Object of Desire ties in well with the two other pieces because of the dynamic between the two very different actresses. One is sweet and innocent, and more respondent to the wishes of Mathieu, than the other seductive- world-wise actress, who seems very aware of her body, and very disdainful of Mathieu as well. Like Lacan references in Courtly Love, the woman only serves to postpone the highly sought, sexual act, never to fulfill the desires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . ... . All of these pieces, support the idea that real love and desire is a mirror and lacking a truth, and a real nature. One can only chase, detour, and postpone, but never actually obtain the Object of their desires. There will always be a deferral of gratification that is impossible to be had. Just like Narcissus that pursued the image in the Lake, but as soon as he tried to touch or kiss the image disappear, leaving ripples of disappointment and despair in its wake.

Desire in Self and in Others

In Song of Songs, the relationship between the lover and beloved is clearly intimate. One pines for the other, and envisions the other as the most sought after person in the world. At one point the lover says, “Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest is my beloved among the young men.
 I delight to sit in his shade, and his fruit is sweet to my taste. Let him lead me to the banquet hall, and let his banner over me be love” (Songs 2: 3-4). They use fruit, herb, and architectural imagery to describe each other’s various body parts. It is specific and vivid. The beloved does not simply say to the lover, “Your eyes are pretty, and you have big breasts,” he instead proliferates, “Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon 
by the gate of Bath Rabbim” (Songs 7:3-4). Today this language may appear excessive and over-the-top, but hundreds of years ago, epic love poems like this were much more common, a similar style to “Epithalamion,” by Edmund Spenser. This text is intended to demonstrate the perfect marriage between two people, who both love and desire each other in a biblical context. Back in Genesis, a perfect marriage is ordained by God, when Eve is first created, “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones
 and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.’ That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:23-24). Song of Solomon, can be read a various of ways , the two most recognized being, a visual text of a holy, unabashed relationship between man and woman, or a conceit for man’s relationship with Christ (he is the head of the church and the church is his bride). In “The Myth of Narcissus,” Echo was a talkative Nymph, who was cursed by Juno to only be able to repeat the last words someone spoke. An echo today essentially does the same thing, when we are in a large empty room or cave, except it cannot throw arms around you and hug you. Also, echoes cannot fall in love with you and try to get you to speak. It can also not choose which words you just spoke to repeat back to you. However, with Echo the line between an echo and a person is blurred. At one point she appears to simply have a “handicap,” but later it seems like she cannot choose who to reply to, like she must reply the last few words spoken every time she hears someone, “Never again would she reply more willingly to any sound,” (Ovid, 84). Another grey area is when the texts implies he is “deceived by what he took to be another’s voice,” (84). So, in more than one way, Echo does not have her own voice, and in that way she is more shadow an individual. This conversation toys with the power of his own beauty to charm even his echo into falling in love with him, which is what makes the next situation seem less absurd, but still confusing. Narcissus falls in love with “the boy trapped in the pool,” it takes him a while to begin to figure out who the boy is, and even when he learns the boy is, in fact, himself, it is too late. He so is overcome with desire for the person “trapped underwater,” he cannot tear his eyes away from the creature that stares at his from in the water. This tragedy illustrates when your desires can be attainable or foolish, you, outside of your own free will, are trapped and held captive by the apple of your eye, whether or not the apple is a mere illusion. As portrayed in the text, “He…was…excited by the very illusion that deceived his eyes…Why vainly grasp at the fleeting image that eludes you? The thing you are seeing does not exist,” (85). Lacan’s text was quite confusing, referring a lot to how captivating and disrupting one’s own image can be. It parallels Narcissus in that by simply seeing your own reflection it can wreak havoc on and disrupt your current stage of development. Narcissus lost his youth, by being caught up in his reflection in the pool.