![[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?
no subject
'Sex gets elided *so* frequently in the canon/mass culture that fanfic's become for me an awesome window on an entirely ignored dimension of the characters.
Yes, exactly. It's the stuff we rarely get to see (or see done *well*) and it's an important facet of characterization - how does this guy behave with his girlfriend? The stranger he's picked up in a bar? The first time he has sex with another guy? His ex? etc.
And in boyslash, especially, where there's often little room for deep discussions of feelings, the act of sex can tell a lot about where the character is emotionally - content, desperate, angry, numb, etc.
also, sex is so badly written in published (non-erotic) fiction that I think people tend to minimize its importance. We'll often see the resulting fall out from people having sex (divorce, revenge, murder, depression, etc.) in fiction without seeing the cause from which these effects sprung, and what it says about the characters.'
no subject