posted
Does anyone have examples of contemporary writers who actually do a good job covering the topic of human sexual interaction -- and I don't mean from an erotic or pornographic point of view, but ones who capture the emotional, romantic, and physical aspects.
Is this a case of the things we leave unsaid are better than what we describe in minute detail?
My only credible example would be John Fowles (sp?) The Magus, but I'm not all that well versed in this "genre." Do you think some of the Romance Novel writers are good at this?
posted
I think one of my favorite examples has to be Laura Esquivel's novel "Like Water For Chocolate." Her depictions of the sexual experience is beautiful but never demeaning or rauchy. There is almost a spiritual quality, a sanctity about how she expresses the emotional and physical nature of what is happening between lovers. It will knock your socks off.
I can understand why it is difficult to capture all of this in words. Most writers I know are still afraid to write honestly about sexuality.
posted
You could try out Julian Barnes' "Talking It Over". Interesting from a technical view point (the story is told first-person by each of the protagonists in turn) it is also an insightful and (to me at least) deeply moving account of the complexities and viscictudes of the sexual relationships that develop between three people.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Feb 1999
|
posted
Chaim Potok in 'The Gift of Asher Lev' touches on it, but it forms only one of the aspects of the novel. The central character is an artist, and his relationship with his wife is often the inspiration for his art. It's a wonderfully written novel anyway, and well worth a read.
Posts: 191 | Registered: Feb 1999
|
posted
The most effective ingredient to a story is that which brings the most drama. Drama is that which threatens the current life of the character involved. This can be the imanence of death or a true insight into the nature of reality. In this light sex can be an extreme element of drama if used well. However, these days almost always sex is the by-produce of a story. This is unfortunate because sex is one of the universal experiences that humans have.
Umberto Echo in the "the Name of the Rose" and "Foucult's Pendulum" uses sex to underscore both the loss of innocence and the awakening of the power of lust.
Robert A Heilein uses sex (mostly allusions to sex rather than complete descriptive passages) to highlight the dependence of human to human built by the bonds encouraged or forbidden by sex.
Eric Lustbader uses it constantly for shock value turning the bond of love into bonds of guilt, regret, and pain.
With Gabriel Garcia Marquez sex molds into his strange blur of reality/unreality. Read "Hundred Years of Solitude."
Almost every current Mystery writer uses sex in the same way that other writers may use eating. Its a natural thing of no great importance other than to give the reader (and their protagonists) a break from plot twists. However, I have been struck by the three novels written by Laura Joh Rowland. Sex in these mysteries set in 18th century Japan are central to the protagonist's development and are not mere sideshows.
posted
In almost all the SF I've read, human sexuality is almost dismissed because it's treated in such a matter-of-fact fashion. Most of the sex in SF is what I consider animalistic in nature, i.e. monkey see, monkey screw. There seems to be almost no depth, complexity, passion, intensity, or seriousness involved.
Only in some French movies have I seen any storytelling at all which deals with human sexuality in an honest way. I wonder why, since sex is a topic which interests almost everybody, we don't do a better job of telling the truth about it? Maybe because nobody understands it? Because it scares us?
posted
I think that part of it is that sexuality is a rather unique type of relationship, one that is difficult to deal with openly by it's very nature.
Blood ties-- like parents, children, and siblings-- are very close ties. But we do not chose them, they are accidents of biology. We resign ourselves to the fact that these relationships exist, but there is always a barrier there. I did not choose to have the blood ties that I have, and it is duty rather than anything more that compels me to acknowledge them.
Our friends are different. We will never be the same blood, never be tied by that bond. We may be close to them, true, but there is seperation there. We are not family.
Sex is the one relationship that can break that tie. Whether or not you have children with someone, by nature you become subject to a permanent tie with your sexual partner. The same feelings about blood and honor that are part of a family relationship are found in the sexual relationship, along with the element of will. Thus a relationship that includes sex, when freely entered into, can be stronger than any other relationship possible to us.
It is also the most fragile. Trust is good in a family tie, and important among friends, but it is paramount in a sexual partnership. If I don't trust my brother, we are still brothers. If I don't trust my friend, we can still be friends. If I don't trust my lover, then we can only be a good F*** to each other, never anything more. There are a lot of other dimensions to a sexual relationship, but this one is unique to sexuality.
And trust in the sexual relationship is complex. There are many rules. Stay with me forever. Never hold out on me. Don't even look at another. Don't tell my deepest secrets to a stranger. Don't treat me like an object, or a specimen. Hold me sacred.
You can see why it becomes difficult to write about the deepest and most fulfilling relationships. The rules tend to forbid it.
If a writer's first loyalty is to the truth, maybe that's why he's the one whose "selfish trade it is... to keep no beauty to himself." Maybe that's why "here shall your sweetheart lie... untrue forever."
[This message has been edited by Nomda Plume (edited September 19, 1999).]
posted
You know, my last post kind of bothers me. See, I use the F*** to imply the F word, and I sort of hesitate when I think of editing it out with a less strong word.
I would like to use a less harsh word, but that would sort of defeat at least part of my purpose. I want to make it clear just how I feel about demeaned sexuality, where the sexual act is without the deeper context of love and trust. And that word makes it evident immediately. But I don't like that word.
posted
The idea you were conveying was of purity and truth. To abrogate that trust with lies is an obscenity. I thought you used the right word.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted
Darn. I really don't like that word. Maybe because I don't like what it means, so I guess that I would also dislike any word that meant the same thing. Hmm. Oh well. Wouldn't it be nice if there were no need for such a word? If that sort of thing never happened?
posted
I have to admit that I have very solid opinions about the whole subject!
Let me just say up front that I don't consider myself a prude, but I was raised with very strong values about what is and is not appropriate. I believe that sex is and should only be a result of a very loving, completely trusting, permanent relationship. To use it as part of entertainment is not acceptable not appropriate. I wouldn't let someone - even my best friend - come into my home and have sex in the front room while I had to watch! I'm certainly not interested in watching or reading about or listening to, someone I don't know do that sort of things. The old TV shows had the right idea, a flirty look and a closing door say all that needs to be said.
There are so many ways to describe a relationship without the use of total physical intimacy that sex becomes unnecessary. If you truly understand the relationship that you are describing, then the nuances of two people relating to each other in every way can be much more powerful than just stating 'they had sex'.
And I agree about the "F" word, Survivor. I personally think there is no reason to use it. I wonder if the teenagers you hear using it everywhere even know what it really means. If you can use it in appropriate context, then you are talking about a violent act that no one accepts as okay. It has no redeeming qualities or uses! I appreciated the truncated version you used.
I like what you said about how there are other ways to talk about the relationships that are portrayed. Sexuality touches all of our feelings about relating to another. There is so much else to describe that is infinitely more important than the basic biology that is going on. Most of us already know about the biology, it's very similar for most humans. Or at least I hope so, I would hate to get married and then discover that 'sexual incompatibility' was more than a silly myth. Heh.
When you're talking about love and trust, or hate and invasion, or whatever, the most important part is emotional and mental, not physical. Once you establish that an exclusive relationship does exist, there is no need to go into detail. Or if you are talking about an attack, there is also no need to go into great detail. In fact, talking about emotions and thoughts is the strength of writing over other media. I say, exploit it.
posted
I don't know about that. I mean, so humans are shallow, so what? It's not like John Q. has sex with everyone he knows.
I think the chief thing is not that we can't explore a deep and complex relationship without talking about sex, but rather that we should never try to talk about sex without being open about the deep and complex relationship factors first. Or even instead of. That deep a relationship, it touches us at every level, I think. Biologically, and spiritually, and emotionally, it's a life changing, life transforming event, and there is much that needs to be considered aside from the obvious.
posted
True. Besides, without it how do you explain children?
I just don't want to hear about it like it's an exerpt from some X-rated magazine.
The worst example I can think of offhand? I read Clan of the Cave Bear as a reading assignment in high school, and really liked it. It describes sex, but only when necessary to the story and not to great degree. Because I liked it so well I got the sequel to it by the same author called Valley of the Horses (I think...). It's the same leading character, so I thought it would be good. However, the first several pages of Chapter 4 were nothing but an explicit play by play of some guy we just met having an 'arranged' sexual encounter with some girl he didn't even know. Then he went his way and she went hers and the entire peice had nothing to do with anything. Needless to say, I didn't make it past Chapter 5, and the book only made its way to the trash can.
That's what I object to, not a loving relationship between a man and his wife. Carnal sensationalism is just not okay.
posted
Yeah, a lot of really good writers were just ruined by the sixties and seventies. 'Free love', what a crock. The same thing happened to Heinlein to some extent. I don't think it got him as bad as it got Auel--Aeul? Aul? What is her name? And I don't have any of her books around to check. That's the really sad thing, when writer's cut themselves off from the future by being so disgusting in the hope that the future will forgive them. That's just dumb.
As a writer, you want to have impact, and that can never happen if your work is automatically dismissed as filth. And the morons running around trying to increase our tolerance level aren't helping. Making it easier for people to put out this sort of sludge devalues those works that might have genuine merit, because everyone who is not averting their eyes is looking at something other than the art.
It's a law common to both currency and literature, that a debased coinage will drive out a pure coinage. Well, I better shut up before I get emphatic.
posted
I guess there are places where there must be fine lines, though.
I know for his day, Walt Whitman was considered racy and downright lewd. But I love his works! What he talks about (for the most part - I'll try not to overgeneralize) is the joy of human relationships and the beauty of the human body and mind. Yet he came close to being banned.
"I effuse my flesh in eddys And drift it in lacy jags..."
Could sound pretty racy if you didn't read the entire passage!
posted
I don't know that it could be construed sexually, though. Sounds more like Hydro-man, the super villian made of water.
I think that part of the problem with Whitman had more to do with the prevailing attitudes about his personal sexual orientation rather than what he actually wrote. There is a whole other problem, one that I'm not even ready to tackle. But I do have to say that it is grossly unfair to judge someone's work on rumors about their personal life. You can make the decision about whether or not you personally trust or like them, but making a case against their work based solely (solly? Soully?) on what you think you know about their biography is always a loser game.
I mean, half the time, you are just wrong about their personal information. If you didn't like someone, then you can go to them and say, 'oh, I loved your work but I thought you were a scum because people told me lies about you' and just sound sort of gullible and silly. If you are forced to admit instead, 'oh, I really liked your work but lied and said that it was terrible because I let my feelings about you as an individual poinson my judgement', then you look like a fool and a liar.
Literature is just words. If you criticize someones words, the only thing that you can reasonably hope to accomplish is how they use words. There are things in Whitman's poetry that I object to, but that is an issue of not liking what he wrote. It should have nothing to do with who he was as a person. I like other poems that he wrote, and they were written by the same guy.
If we were basing musical value on the moral code of the composer, we would have to throw out the greater part of all 'classical' music. Most of the 'classic' operas would go, too.
I love Mozart, but I'm sorry to say he would be the first to go!
Music (classically speaking) is a little easier to treat with leniency, though, because their lifestyle is not so blatantly conjoined with their work like literature tends to be. (Well, maybe that's truer with Mozart than Puccini. The operas do tend to get a little lewd.)
[This message has been edited by W.P. Morgenstien (edited October 02, 1999).]
posted
When you talk about modern music, particularly the lyrics, that changes. But still, all that horrible gangsta rap about vile subjects isn't vile because of how the writers of it live themselves, but because of what the lyrics themselves say. I maintain that you can and should hold someone's work entirely separate from how you feel about them as a person, except in one case.
If you are making someone your personal representative, then it behooves you to pick someone that you trust and have something in common with. After all, you are picking them to represent you. And I think that in some other cases, such as when you feel that the way that someone accomplishes their work is immoral or unjustifiable, then you should boycott their product. You know, like if a movie maker decided to use real deaths in his movie to give it more impact or something. I think at that point you have to say, enough.
But most of the time, they don't touch. Personal life and work, I mean. And if something in their personal life is so bad that you have to do something, then address it directly, not by criticising their work unfairly. I mean, what do you do about an immoral and evil person that's not an artist or craftsman?
posted
Well, I'm afraid you all are going to be very shocked by my novel, if I ever get it written and published, because (to return to the topic subject) I think sex is such an important part of being human that I wouldn't dream of leaving it out any more than love or struggle or honor. It's so much more important than just some bodily function that it's hard to even talk about it. It's the physical substrate that supports the spiritual bond between lovers.
I think there's something to be said for not glossing over it or leaving it implied, too, because if the only explicit writing about sex that exists is pornography, then how will real sex ever get written about or thoughtfully examined? What will there be to balance the sleaze? And all the married couples there are in the world who have bad or unsatisfying sex... how will they find a different path?
So there will most likely be explicit descriptions of sex in my novels (sorry, mom), but I hope that they will be the furthest thing possible from sleaze.
posted
One of the wonderful things about this country is the freedom of expression. Write what you will and I will read what I will. If I'm reading your book and find it trashy I'm free to toss it in the garbage. The problem with being sexually explicit is that no matter how beautiful and necessarty you think it is to the story there will be those who will be affended and those who are only interested in, how do I put this, participating in the scene you portray on a rather personal level. Where does that leave your story's integrity. One does not finish reading and the other probably just scans for the next 'hot scene'.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted
Well, see what you think. I hope I can do it in a way that will be uplifting and pure and beautiful to almost anyone. I think to be a writer is to open up the deepest and most sacred parts of your psyche to public inspection with the near certainty of some condemnation and possible debased interpretations. Look at what people said about Wyrms. I'm not sure if I can deal with that... hmmmm... maybe my first novel will end up being my last.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted
The part of sexuality that is most important to us is not in the physical depiction. It is honor and sacrifice, devotion and commitment. The words that lovers might whisper to each other, the memories of times past and hopes for the future, all tell us more about their love than any investigation of positions or body temperatures or physical endurance.
And the most intimate language of two persons, what they actually do together, really cannot tell us anything. We cannot understand it in context, and to portray it is necessarily to mock it. We have to be told what it means anyway, and once that is done, what need is there to show what is done? It's as futile as describing a characters emotions by reference to their electoencephalogram. More so, because we all have fundamentally similar neural architecture, but very different expressions of affection.
We call a lot of things sex, but meaning is found, not in the act, but in the actors.
posted
Now, now - Do Not give up on a second story before the first is even born! That is too defeatist, esp. for this forum. Where's your spunk. If every author gave up at the first sign of critism there would be no literature!
posted
I was just making a distinction that I always find useful in discussions of sexuality. In other words, the way to make sexuality uplifting and pure and beautiful is to concentrate on what makes sexuality uplifting and pure and beautiful. And that is not what is done, but who does it.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
True, but when you talk about bridges, there is a good reason to discuss spans, stresses, bricks, tensile strength, concrete, steel, and statics, as well as spiritual connectedmakingness between opposite shores. One is meaning, the other is physical substrate. Architects cherish both.
[This message has been edited by Nomda Plume (edited October 28, 1999).]
posted
Well, I would have to say that your anology is valid in a certain context. Between two people that share such a relationship, those details may well be discussed. But to anyone that is not part of that relationship, those details are meaningless.
Relationships are highly individual, in a way that bridges are not. Talking about technical aspects of lovemaking with someone that you do not share that relationship with is no more meaningful than discussing the technical aspects of bridge construction on earth with a being that lives outside of the material universe. It might be interesting, but you will miss out on the meaning if you do that.
posted
If in that universe there was great need for something like a bridge, then perhaps they could generalize the idea and it would be a marvelous gift from our world to theirs.
God lives in the details... somebody once said. I forget who.
posted
I just have to say something about the 'bridge' thing!
You speak of architects and plans, and the necessity of promoting a sound bridge, but what popped into my mind was this:
I think that one of - if not THE - most beautiful bridges in the world is the San Francisco Golden Gate. And yet, for all it's beauty and it's structural soundness, did you know that it is illegal to walk a dog across it? I swear this is true!!! The Golden Gate is a suspension bridge, and there is something about a dog's gait or footfalls that can echo an earthquake! One dog could fell that mighty bridge!
Now, how does that compare to sex? The soundness of any given relationship can be brought down by one small, seemingly unharmful, thing. Just as to open the Gate to dogs could possibly dammage it, treating lightly something of such nameless import as sex can only do it damage, possibly unforseeably great!
Man did not plan nor create sex - much as he would like to think he did. And if he needs instructions on how to do it right it should not come from works of fiction!"
(Submitted by 'ducky' on my computer. My computer seems to be very possesive - if anyone writes on it it MUST be me!)
[This message has been edited by W.P. Morgenstien (edited October 30, 1999).]
posted
Where, the Bible, then? The Kama Sutra? I'm unaware if God has given us his instructions on the subject.
It wouldn't be an instruction manual, anyway. Only like all fiction a gift from the author to the reader of some experience or part of life or humanity or herself, to be used or kept or discarded as needed.
I'm completely sure that a dog can't harm the golden gate bridge. Unless it's Cerebus or unless Sirius strikes it or something! Hah! I believe the metaphor holds, that a well built bridge will not fall from small forces. Not unless they're repeated over a long period of time, like rusting, or fatigue stress cracking. Otherwise it takes an earthquake or tidal wave or hurricane.
But it's pretty difficult to build a really good bridge, and they do need maintenance, too. What a beautiful thing it is, when it's built, though! How lovely and true!
The thing is, you have to build from both shores toward the middle. If it doesn't connect in the middle, if there's only half a span extendind out to a sheer precipice, then it doesn't hold; it's all out of balance.
[This message has been edited by Nomda Plume (edited October 30, 1999).]
posted
Do you mean to tell me that you have never heard of a SEX MANUAL? Ask your doctor or therapist, I'm sure they could suggest a few. Sorry, that sounded rather snide. we're just never going to agree about this and that's ok.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted
The thing with the dog is not true. The resonance frequency of the GGB is much lower, in the tenths of a hertz. There are secondary, teriary, and other higher order resonance frequencies that can damage the bridge, but each higher order frequency would require more energy to reach the danger level. I think that there are other, more mundane, reasons for not allowing dogs on the bridge.
As for instructions on sexuality, every relationship is an independent and individual entity. The technical aspects are not interchangable. If they were, then the partners would of necessity be interchangable as well. I know that many people believe that this is the case, but I don't think any of us do. There is no universal code that makes sense for all, or even most, relationships. There are commonalities, but that's all they are, commonalities.
And as a side note, yes, they do need bridges there, even more than we need them here. And they have them, have had them from before the foundation of this world, and will have them forever. But they are not constructed in anything like the manner that we are familiar with. They don't even use what we would recognize as materials, gravity--when it exists--is not of the least importance, and tensile strength is not measured in terms of Mass times distance over time squared.
A technical discussion of how to build a bridge here would not help a person trying to build a bridge there. In fact, if they tried to apply anything that I could tell them about building bridges here to trying to build a bridge there, then the result would be a disaster.
Anyway, this example was intended as a simile, but someone seems to be trying to make a metaphor out of it. Obviously, there are more commonalities between two human couples than between the material universe and outside, but the problem of transferring from one to the other is the same.
And most of the commonalities are things that are obvious.
1. A good relationship is based on understanding, communication, and trust.
Understanding means that you enter into the relationship with compatible goals.
Communication allows you to learn to get along with each other and reach those goals.
Trust means that you are committed to those compatible goals, and you are sure of each other's commitment as well.
2. Sexuality is inextricably connected to the begetting of children. We usually abstract that to some extent. I usually say the raising of a family. Some would say the building of a marriage relationship, with some other primary aim then children. Some would allow it in any strong, lasting relationship (or at least that's what they say, although those kind seem to actually have longer and more stable relationships with people that they don't have sex with). There are other viewpoints, which I will not bother to mention.
3. Some behaviors are loosely identified with certain attitudes towards a sexual relationship.
Cuddling--prolonged physical contact that is not overtly sexual but is nonetheless directed towards a sexual partner--is strongly associated with long term commitment, as far as I can tell. This behavior includes holding hands, sitting close together, and sleeping(sleeping, as in resting in an unconscious state) together, and is characterized by relaxation and comfort.
Flirtation is a good indication of sexual interest and attraction. It is interaction which is not overtly sexual, but is directed to arouse sexual tension and excitement. This behaviour is evident at many levels, physically being characterized by light, furtive touching, upward trilling vocalizations, and body language which is deliberately ambiguous. It is characterized by tension and excitement.
Deliberate indifference is indicative of indecision or fear. It is rejection of interaction, directed towards a particular person (when not directed towards a particular person or group of people it is most likely genuine indifference rather than deliberate). It is evinced by turning eyes and/or body away from another person and consistently avoiding them. It is characterized by feelings of uncertainty and fear.
Um, sorry, got called away and lost my chain of thought. I would just like to say that the distinction between so called High art and Low or popular art makes the production of worthwhile art almost impossible.
[This message has been edited by Survivor (edited October 31, 1999).]
posted
True, Ducky, we aren't going to agree on this subject! So please don't read the first one. I'd hate to think I offended or disappointed you with my work. Later there may be one you can enjoy. I'll let you know!
Which is better, you think, though: Ender's Game or a non-fiction manual written by some psychologist titled, How to Find Your Way Through Pain and Numerous Ethical Dilemmas to Become a Human Being?
P.S. I love your name! It lets me address you as though we're dear friends.
posted
Thank you, I hope on some level we are friends. I certainly do not think friends must agree on everything. That would be rather boring, don't you think?
As for sex in a story - I take it the story is not about sex - If it's a good story with a strong story line I'm perfectly capable of skipping anything offensive. With the literature on the required reading list when I was in school I had to get good at that.
Survivor, I always enjoy your discourses. It proves your are involved in what you are writing. Seems like you have put a lot of thought into the subject and it obviously matters to you. Thank you for your eloquence!
posted
Yes, Ducky, my story I hope is chock full of things you'll like. It takes place in the context of a larger struggle. The two main characters at first seem to be as opposite as can be... but then you begin to see that they're very much alike underneath. They're fighting for exactly the same thing, though they initially have very different philosophies as to methods. So the book starts out with them at complete loggerheads.
But, of course, as they're forced by their common goals to work more closely together they begin to have a growing mutual respect, then against all odds they fall totally in love, overcome tremendous obstacles, (while incidentally huge advances are made in the more important struggle of which they're both a part), and finally marry. By the time we get to the big steamy scene, I hope it will be so true and right and inevitable and that the reader will have looked forward to this for so long that if I'm any kind of writer at all, you won't be able to put it down.
Hah! I've only written chapter one but I can already forsee sequels about the struggles of their many children and grandchildren. Those will be even more fun to dream about!
Ducky, I hope you do think of me as your friend. I'd be honoured.
posted
Well, chapter one is where all dreams are born. Sounds wonderful! May I ask how long you've been working on it? Sometimes it's so hard to keep going. I haven't decided, or rather discovered if my story is going to be a short or if it's the lead-in to a grand epic. I hope it tells me soon!
Posts: 80 | Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted
It seems to have turned into a romantic fairy tale. I tend to write in prose so I guess that was a natural turn.
It is the story of an unusual girl. she is different than everyone else. she has a natural affinity for nature but little connection to her fellowman. So far, it is the story of her discovery of her place and purpose. I'm not sure where it will end up yet. It may end up a lead-in to a longer story of a delightful and mysterious people. Wish me luck!
[This message has been edited by ducky (edited November 03, 1999).]
posted
I am NOT FIBBING!!! I dare you to try to walk a dog across the Golden Gate. You will be ticketed. Where do I get my information, you ask? From my husband, who grew up in San Francisco! SO THERE!!! (How do you make a smiley face with it's tongue sticking out, anyway?!)
posted
I am NOT FIBBING!!! I dare you to try to walk a dog across the Golden Gate. You will be ticketed. Where do I get my information, you ask? From my husband, who grew up in San Francisco! SO THERE!!! (How do you make a smiley face with it's tongue sticking out, anyway?!)
posted
Oh, I'm not saying that it's legal to walk a dog across the bridge. I'm just saying that the resonance frequency of the GGB is a couple of tenths of a Hertz or something like that. Walking a dog across won't hurt the bridge at all, but there's just no way a dog is going to make it all the way across the bridge without relief. That pretty much defines taking a dog across the bridge as a premeditated attempt to despoil public property. It's nothing to do with knocking the bridge out.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
I look crosseyed at everything, so I would never let something pass without suspecting it. But yes, sometimes things that people don't suspect cause havoc.
I more often have trouble with things that I didn't expect rather than things I didn't suspect.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
