geoviki: (peeps)
geoviki ([personal profile] geoviki) wrote2005-05-05 08:11 am

Gratuitous overuse of the frog analogy

A recent book review in our newspaper read:

Wallace Stegner writes ... that the difficulty with explicit sex in novels is that it invariably usurps all else that the author is attempting to accomplish:

"The trouble with excessive sexuality, in novels or in life, is that it is so compellingly interesting and attention-holding that it makes everything else seem tame or dull; it crowds off the page whole areas of human experience and human feeling that belong there but can't maintain their foothold."

Such is the case in Sue Miller's newest novel, Lost in the Forest. Although Miller's exploration of grief and self-discovery is both compelling and insightful, the sexual trysts of 16-year-old Daisy are so unforgivingly explicit that Miller's attempts to uncover the depth of who Daisy is are muddled by a nipple here and an arched back there....


I thought this over and decided that somewhere, I had crossed over to where this wasn't true for me. I've noticed that after reading fan fiction for nearly two years, I no longer find excessive sexuality all that distracting. It's like the classic analogy of the frog in slowly heating water: little by little, I no longer notice the erosion of my ability to be shocked, tittilated, or even surprised by graphic writing. I have become comfortably numb.

How about you?

Aside: Does anyone have an mp3 of Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven that I can, er, borrow? Got it. Thanks, Paula!

Re: Sad that you are so rarely moved by the sex

[identity profile] millefiori.livejournal.com 2005-05-05 04:39 pm (UTC)(link)
I read slash (and het, too) because I adore romance and mainstream entertainment just doesn't have enough for me. (I suppose romance novels would, but I think I'd had my lifetime quota of that genre when I was 13 years old!)

Romance, yeah!

[identity profile] gilded-kage.livejournal.com 2005-05-05 05:43 pm (UTC)(link)
I like the romance, too, and the desire. When the sex is just body parts, it's no fun for me...it's got to be mixed in with issues of desire, personality, and, sometimes, power, for it to be interesting and compelling.

Romance novels have desire, but it's usually so cliched. Good slash fanfic is constantly trying to write desire in new, fresh ways. The whole subversiveness of same-sex pairings helps with that, of course.

Re: Romance, yeah!

[identity profile] geoviki.livejournal.com 2005-05-06 01:15 am (UTC)(link)
I agree with you so much. I'm looking for compelling stuff. I never read many romance novels - a few of the classics at the time when I hit high school, but then I lost interest. But recently I leafed through a book on how to write a romance novel, and it seemed so restrictive. It didn't offer much room for innovation. Everyone was stuffed into a role, and the reader's expectations of what was permitted seemed to be overemphasized. In other words, no squidfic allowed.

Re: Romance, yeah!

[identity profile] millefiori.livejournal.com 2005-05-06 04:37 am (UTC)(link)
The romance genre is *so* restrictive! I read so many of them during my early adolescence that I know the formula by heart. I think it's possible to break out of the box though--I think I did when I wrote my romantic novella. I think it ended up being a combination of all the things I liked about romance novels and the exact opposite of the things I hated. I don't know that I could've sold it to one of the formula romance publishers, but it did get a few positive reviews!