![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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!
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?
Re: Sad that you are so rarely moved by the sex
The main reason I read slash, though, is because I want to read more about my favorite characters, so there's no comparison between fanfic and an original novel. The latter will always be lacking if what I want to read is more about certain characters.
here through d_s
*sigh* I love At Swim so much....
Re: Sad that you are so rarely moved by the sex
The note about characters - yeah, one of those things that was so obvious I missed it. But you're right - that's got to be a prime part of the fic to interest me. A lot of my LJ friends write in other fandoms that I'm clueless about. And I know the writers; they're good, but I can't read the story becasue I don't know who these guys are.
Even in HP, there's one character *coughluciuscough* that's really hard for me to read about sexually. I've tried. And I know some superb writers use him in their stories, but...
Re: Sad that you are so rarely moved by the sex