Gratuitous overuse of the frog analogy
May. 5th, 2005 08:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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
Date: 2005-05-05 05:29 pm (UTC)-Rhi
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 09:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 11:38 pm (UTC)I know what you mean, though, about the author becoming distracted. I've read fanfics where I thought the sex scenes were there because...well...they've got to be there, right? Everyone else's fics have 'em.
The first Harry/Draco fic - actually the first ever HP fic - I read had a kiss as its culminating emotional point. And I found that entirely erotic and moving. And there are a few current writers who still stop there and move me just as much.
Maybe that should be my new mantra: penetration not required!
no subject
Date: 2005-05-06 02:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-07 09:18 pm (UTC)What really connected in what you say is that it reminded me of two recent wanks against the evil, nasty plagiarism that is fanfic that recently crawled out from under a rock. Both were started by men and echoed by a Greek chorus of me-too boys. And it just frosted me. Your quotes made me realize why - I see it as another attempt by men to demean women and their 'hobbies'.
Well, and the topper for one of the wanks was to back off of the initial challenge that fanfic writing was theft, only to settle on the diatribe that it was written by and for pedophiles. Grrrr.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-06 01:46 pm (UTC)You are now returned to your regularly scheduled discussion...
Here from Ds...
Date: 2005-05-30 03:21 pm (UTC)