![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
| You Are Surrealism |
 Dreamy and idealistic, you've created a world that is all your own. It's very likely that you've either dabbled in drugs or are naturally trippy. You are always trying to push beyond the boundaries of your culture and society. You believe that art, love, and freedom can change the world. |
What Art Movement Are You?
Poor, poor Jim Webb. During the latest 2006 campaign for one of Virginia's U.S. Senate seats, his opponent, Sen. George Allen, found some of his books - based primarily on Webb's experience as a Marine in Vietnam, as I understand it - and apparently rifled through them in the hopes of finding something incriminating. I suppose in the olden days it would have been looking for references to Communism. Hate to think what the censorship gestapo would have done to The Musicians of Bremen, the old fairytale about animals who escape from their brutal human masters to be musicians in the town of Bremen, where everyone is free. Pinko! Anyway.
He didn't find Communist manifestoes, but he did find... "graphic underage sex scenes"! If you read that phrase you will probably feel that you have stumbled accidentally on a 4 chan porn site, but no, it's just Allen's way of attracting attention. I love how censors like to sensationalize the thing they find offensive... stirring up angry mothers, I suppose, but also secretly stroking their own flaccid... oops. I should stop. My point is, I have a suspicion that people who get really riled up about "graphic underage sex scenes" are the ones who are afraid these scenes will turn them on, and for the sexually repressed, this is a very frightening concept. This is the only explanation I can believe.
The other explanation just demands too much human stupidity. Moral outrage. There's nothing wrong with feeling morally outraged if you read a scene containing parent-child incest - however, to equate this as one blog-commenter, "kevin", did, to there being "no moral lower limit for Democrats" and Democrats being "completely without morals", just wracks the wits. How do these people feel about the masses of people that die in action-packed novels of Crichton and Clancy? Does writing about murder equate to their authors having no morals? I doubt it. It's the sex.
1. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH FUCK BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
The most oft-cited example:
“A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy’s penis in his mouth.”
Of course, all these passages are taken badly out of context, as Webb says. I don't need that to be explained to me. It makes me rather curious to read it, to be honest, to understand where it's coming from. I mean, it's a book called Lost Soldiers, something about veterans readjusting to life at home. It's not a book about fellatio. The passage isn't sensually written. I doubt the entire book is this, and even if it was, that wouldn't exactly make for smut - it would just make for a very odd subject to write about, without explanation, without analysis. Such is what happens when you put a book into a search engine and search it for sexual terminology, as Allen's aides clearly did. Here's what I mean by "out of context":
Her neck was burning too where he held her, and then that ended when he threw her back on the table, always with her face down and her unable to move. He saddled up to her and pulled down on her jeans and then put his hands on top of hers, his fingers intertwined with hers as if in a lover’s embrace, and his weight fell on top of her, the weak, symbolic wings concealing them both. She could hear his grunting as he settled into position and periodically said to her, “What did you think would happen when you spat in my face, you stupid bitch? You know I can’t let anyone disrespect me like that, especially not any woman."
I will defend the right of this scene to be included to the end of the Earth. Why? Because it characterizes my antagonist, Ahriman, as the pre-Roman and Christian god of lust, Baphomet, and as an antagonist in general. And because I don't think that writing instead "he began to rape her" is actually more respectful or tasteful or decent. Rape isn't any of those things, and the sterile dis-inclusion of details, especially when it's happening to your story's heroine, is neither good storytelling nor what she as a character deserves. You want the details in there. She can't spare the details, so neither should the reader. That is, at least, my opinion.
A lot of conservative commentators seem to be of the persuasion that sex should be entirely left out of literature, because they're distracting and unnecessary, and the books are better without them. Of course, sex is a huge part of life - one might say, sex is responsible for life - and I've always found stories that glossed over them, no matter who the audience, to be ignoring a huge part of what it means to live on Earth. In fact that's something I sort of criticize about The Lord of the Rings series. Unless you're writing about automatons, you need to involve some measure of sexual feelings and sexual actions. I've always looked up to Crichton for this, actually (even though his recent politics make me squeamish) - he doesn't often put in sex scenes, but he will throw in sexual comments - like Ian Malcolm says to Ellie (the female paleobotanist) in Jurassic Park, "you have very lovely legs... I could look at them all day". Could he have written this scene without this? Of course. But comments like this spurt out in real life, so why not? Similarly, Stephen King, who also doesn't do sex scenes, writes brief snippets like a man who's been pulled over in the American desert somewhere by an extremely sketchy-looking cop fearing that the cop is going to rape his wife on the hood of the car. It did widen my fifteen-year-old eyes when I read it, but I do think that given the situation, it was a reasonable fear on the part of the husband, and I see no reason why King should not have put it in.
Then, of course, there's also the realization most of us eventually come to that all the great writers of history do write about sex - they just tend to disguise it a little better than authors do nowadays, and perhaps the metaphor goes over the head of some of these commentators.
3. LIGHTS, CAMERA, PERFECT!
Here's another reason we should vote against Webb. Not only is he a sexual deviant for writing "explicit underage sex scenes", but he is disrespectful of women. As Allen says, "Webb’s novels disturbingly and consistently – indeed, almost uniformly – portray women as servile, subordinate, inept, incompetent, promiscuous, perverted, or some combination of these. In novel after novel, Webb assigns his female characters base, negative characteristics. In thousands of pages of fiction penned by Webb, there are few if any strong, admirable women or positive female role models."
Oh, damn. What does he think of Catch-22, I wonder? This was the classic book hated by all the girls in my American Literature class for its portrayal of women. And yes, it's pretty bad. There are no, and I mean no strong female characters in the entire book (unless you count Nately's Whore, who goes after Yossarian with a knife). However, it's my favorite book. What gives? Well, Catch-22 isn't about gender politics. It's about the military culture, it's about war, it's about revolt against authority. Throughout most of this, it's humorous - it's not intended to be taken seriously and seen as the author's true views, like I suspect stupid Catherine of Farewell to Arms was supposed to be Hemingway's ideal woman. Toward the end, when Yossarian has his sort of philosophical break through, Aarfy rapes and kills a servant girl and doesn't care. When the police come, Yossarian is sure that it's to arrest him - instead, it's to arrest Yossarian, for being out past curfew. So yes, most of the female characters are more like blow-up dolls, but who the hell cares? It's not from their perspective. It's not a feminist manifesto. But stylistically, conceptually, philosophically it is - I believe - one of the great works of Western literature.
Also, am I the only one who finds it funny that Republicans are pandering to the feminist vote?
4. VIRGIN EYES
Here's the final bullet from the Allen camp: "Most Virginians and Americans would find passages such as those below shocking, especially coming from the pen of someone who seeks the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, one of the highest offices in the land".
I swear, if we want our politicians to be celibate and have no knowledge of sexual relations, should we just take them from monasteries? Or the sex offender registries (the ones who have been chemically castrated)?
Also, this
Snake (the protagonist) sees his mother on the bed: "She looked as if she were carefully attempting to re-create a picture from some long-forgotten men's magazine . . . . She was naked underneath the robe . . . . and the robe fell loosely away, revealing her. Snake shrugged resignedly."
is really not that bad.
Please don't judge politicians on fictional works they've written. Because I am seriously going to be fucked for the State Department if this becomes our standard operating procedure and I want to try to publish anything. And please... don't censor. Writers like to scare people. As Johnny Nucleo the blogger says: "Which leads us to the second reason writers write freak out scenes: Writers like to freak people out. Writers want readers to go, "Wow." If it's, "Wow, that's the most disgusting thing I've ever read," at least there's a wow there."
Needless to say, Webb won. Hooray.
He didn't find Communist manifestoes, but he did find... "graphic underage sex scenes"! If you read that phrase you will probably feel that you have stumbled accidentally on a 4 chan porn site, but no, it's just Allen's way of attracting attention. I love how censors like to sensationalize the thing they find offensive... stirring up angry mothers, I suppose, but also secretly stroking their own flaccid... oops. I should stop. My point is, I have a suspicion that people who get really riled up about "graphic underage sex scenes" are the ones who are afraid these scenes will turn them on, and for the sexually repressed, this is a very frightening concept. This is the only explanation I can believe.
The other explanation just demands too much human stupidity. Moral outrage. There's nothing wrong with feeling morally outraged if you read a scene containing parent-child incest - however, to equate this as one blog-commenter, "kevin", did, to there being "no moral lower limit for Democrats" and Democrats being "completely without morals", just wracks the wits. How do these people feel about the masses of people that die in action-packed novels of Crichton and Clancy? Does writing about murder equate to their authors having no morals? I doubt it. It's the sex.
1. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH FUCK BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
The most oft-cited example:
“A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy’s penis in his mouth.”
Of course, all these passages are taken badly out of context, as Webb says. I don't need that to be explained to me. It makes me rather curious to read it, to be honest, to understand where it's coming from. I mean, it's a book called Lost Soldiers, something about veterans readjusting to life at home. It's not a book about fellatio. The passage isn't sensually written. I doubt the entire book is this, and even if it was, that wouldn't exactly make for smut - it would just make for a very odd subject to write about, without explanation, without analysis. Such is what happens when you put a book into a search engine and search it for sexual terminology, as Allen's aides clearly did. Here's what I mean by "out of context":
( Read more... )
Now, what the excerpt-reader does not know is that this is a dream sequence brought on by a previous encounter with said neighbor, Richard Claversoll, regarding keeping it down in the bedroom because "it's only polite", a conversation had over the hedge, whichRichard Claversoll was trimming with garden clippers. Is this what this book is about? Of course not! I just consider it an amusing, brief look into Rod's head. Does this mean that if I were to run a campaign my opponent could say that I have violent fantasies about cutting off penises with garden clippers? Seriously? Seriously.
2. THE "YOU ARE WHAT YOU WRITE" MYTH
Her neck was burning too where he held her, and then that ended when he threw her back on the table, always with her face down and her unable to move. He saddled up to her and pulled down on her jeans and then put his hands on top of hers, his fingers intertwined with hers as if in a lover’s embrace, and his weight fell on top of her, the weak, symbolic wings concealing them both. She could hear his grunting as he settled into position and periodically said to her, “What did you think would happen when you spat in my face, you stupid bitch? You know I can’t let anyone disrespect me like that, especially not any woman."
I will defend the right of this scene to be included to the end of the Earth. Why? Because it characterizes my antagonist, Ahriman, as the pre-Roman and Christian god of lust, Baphomet, and as an antagonist in general. And because I don't think that writing instead "he began to rape her" is actually more respectful or tasteful or decent. Rape isn't any of those things, and the sterile dis-inclusion of details, especially when it's happening to your story's heroine, is neither good storytelling nor what she as a character deserves. You want the details in there. She can't spare the details, so neither should the reader. That is, at least, my opinion.
A lot of conservative commentators seem to be of the persuasion that sex should be entirely left out of literature, because they're distracting and unnecessary, and the books are better without them. Of course, sex is a huge part of life - one might say, sex is responsible for life - and I've always found stories that glossed over them, no matter who the audience, to be ignoring a huge part of what it means to live on Earth. In fact that's something I sort of criticize about The Lord of the Rings series. Unless you're writing about automatons, you need to involve some measure of sexual feelings and sexual actions. I've always looked up to Crichton for this, actually (even though his recent politics make me squeamish) - he doesn't often put in sex scenes, but he will throw in sexual comments - like Ian Malcolm says to Ellie (the female paleobotanist) in Jurassic Park, "you have very lovely legs... I could look at them all day". Could he have written this scene without this? Of course. But comments like this spurt out in real life, so why not? Similarly, Stephen King, who also doesn't do sex scenes, writes brief snippets like a man who's been pulled over in the American desert somewhere by an extremely sketchy-looking cop fearing that the cop is going to rape his wife on the hood of the car. It did widen my fifteen-year-old eyes when I read it, but I do think that given the situation, it was a reasonable fear on the part of the husband, and I see no reason why King should not have put it in.
Then, of course, there's also the realization most of us eventually come to that all the great writers of history do write about sex - they just tend to disguise it a little better than authors do nowadays, and perhaps the metaphor goes over the head of some of these commentators.
3. LIGHTS, CAMERA, PERFECT!
Here's another reason we should vote against Webb. Not only is he a sexual deviant for writing "explicit underage sex scenes", but he is disrespectful of women. As Allen says, "Webb’s novels disturbingly and consistently – indeed, almost uniformly – portray women as servile, subordinate, inept, incompetent, promiscuous, perverted, or some combination of these. In novel after novel, Webb assigns his female characters base, negative characteristics. In thousands of pages of fiction penned by Webb, there are few if any strong, admirable women or positive female role models."
Oh, damn. What does he think of Catch-22, I wonder? This was the classic book hated by all the girls in my American Literature class for its portrayal of women. And yes, it's pretty bad. There are no, and I mean no strong female characters in the entire book (unless you count Nately's Whore, who goes after Yossarian with a knife). However, it's my favorite book. What gives? Well, Catch-22 isn't about gender politics. It's about the military culture, it's about war, it's about revolt against authority. Throughout most of this, it's humorous - it's not intended to be taken seriously and seen as the author's true views, like I suspect stupid Catherine of Farewell to Arms was supposed to be Hemingway's ideal woman. Toward the end, when Yossarian has his sort of philosophical break through, Aarfy rapes and kills a servant girl and doesn't care. When the police come, Yossarian is sure that it's to arrest him - instead, it's to arrest Yossarian, for being out past curfew. So yes, most of the female characters are more like blow-up dolls, but who the hell cares? It's not from their perspective. It's not a feminist manifesto. But stylistically, conceptually, philosophically it is - I believe - one of the great works of Western literature.
Also, am I the only one who finds it funny that Republicans are pandering to the feminist vote?
4. VIRGIN EYES
Here's the final bullet from the Allen camp: "Most Virginians and Americans would find passages such as those below shocking, especially coming from the pen of someone who seeks the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, one of the highest offices in the land".
I swear, if we want our politicians to be celibate and have no knowledge of sexual relations, should we just take them from monasteries? Or the sex offender registries (the ones who have been chemically castrated)?
Also, this
Snake (the protagonist) sees his mother on the bed: "She looked as if she were carefully attempting to re-create a picture from some long-forgotten men's magazine . . . . She was naked underneath the robe . . . . and the robe fell loosely away, revealing her. Snake shrugged resignedly."
is really not that bad.
Please don't judge politicians on fictional works they've written. Because I am seriously going to be fucked for the State Department if this becomes our standard operating procedure and I want to try to publish anything. And please... don't censor. Writers like to scare people. As Johnny Nucleo the blogger says: "Which leads us to the second reason writers write freak out scenes: Writers like to freak people out. Writers want readers to go, "Wow." If it's, "Wow, that's the most disgusting thing I've ever read," at least there's a wow there."
Needless to say, Webb won. Hooray.
