It wasn't until two or three years ago that I actually learned that in the end he actually did kill someone. But that was a choice that he faced: to kill or be killed.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
He was definitely known as the foremost man killer in the West; however there's controversy about virtually every killing that he was known to have been involved in.
I didn't want to kill a man. I'm not capable of killing a man. I wanted to kill a tyrant.
Rather, like the anarchists of the last century, he didn't care if he was killed or not. They just wanted to be known. We found no trace of any conspiracy.
I didn't know how to kill off a character unless I was able, as a narrator, to get really complicated. Because it was a big deal. I'd never killed a character before.
Very few of us playing a murderer will actually have killed someone.
There's no difference between one's killing and making decisions that will send others to kill. It's exactly the same thing, or even worse.
After all, every murderer when he kills runs the risk of the most dreadful of deaths, whereas those who kill him risk nothing except promotion.
What broke in a man when he could bring himself to kill another?
Whatever you think of de Sade, he was a complex figure and we should not look for easy answers with him. He was, strangely perhaps, against the death penalty, and he was never put in prison for murders or anything like that.
He had decided to live forever or die in the attempt.