twelveoone
ground zero
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2004
- Posts
- 5,882
Lauren Hynde said:Might be much nicer to read, yes, but not to type at 1:30 AM. It was not meant to be part of any discussion, but a jab at a friend who already knew what I thought of the subject. Besides, it spurred a lot of discussion, so it couldn't have been all bad.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
That's really the crux, isn't it? Works by Manet, Joyce, Miller, Lawrence, Ballard, Ellis, Welsh - they have every resemblance of pornography but, somehow, one argues they are no longer pornography as such - as if the word were an infectious disease carrier. We can't call them erotic, because they're certainly not within the realm of Eros, but we obviously can't call them pornography - a word set apart for the sleaziest of sleaze. So, we just call them what, hyper-realists? Naturalists? Or just call it art and hope no one notices the inconsistency.
I say no. They are pornography, patently, and they draw great strength from it.
So you do understand my point. An overtly pornographic novel that carries a deeper message hidden under the superficial layer of gratuitous sex and violence can be much more poetic and effective than any novel that deals with the same subject open- and blatantly.
Surprised? Only thing I have to add is "Literotica" has a better ring to it than "Literpornotopia", although it too often reaches that low point with multiple 17 syllable submissions surfeit with cum, cunt, and cock.