Discussion → Sex Writers of the World, Unite! You Have Nothing to Lose But Your Fears!
-
ps. that episode makes me a "failed sex writer" so i shouldn't even be in this thread, i suppose. also, i'm apparently unable to count to 10 so that eliminates me from the gene pool in a big, irreversible way.
-
Read Sarah Seltzer's excellent response "No, Katie Roiphe, Feminism Didn't Kill Virility" here:
-
The point of books, partly, is that they let you live lives you wouldn't want to really live. So maybe we shouldn't have tried to sanitize the books, maybe we should have allowed some room for bigger-than-life, Zorroesque writers, and angry, passionate, even somewhat sadistic eroticism, because although we mostly want civilized lives, we need to know that someone, somewhere is on the rampage.
-
You know, when I read Roiphe it left me just *sputtering* mad—there’s more insight and sagacity and thought-provoking commentary in this brief discussion here than there is in the entirety of her piece. For starters—Stephen: “I'd say that Roiphe had settled on her conclusion before she started her research and then only quoted what suited her.” And Elizabeth: “writing about sex is very difficult for me, not because I'm scared my mom will read it, but because it feels a bit like trying to describe yet another beautiful woman or nice twilight in yet another new way.” And Katrina: “Sex not for sex's sake, but sex because it belongs.” And I could go on, but you get the idea. And then I went to get a cup of coffee and came back and found Michelle’s link to Sarah Seltzer’s response and yes, I’d pull quotes from that too.
I’m sorry, but there’s something about Roiphe’s piece that just smacks of such cynicism and, I would argue, such intellectual dishonesty, that it gets my panties up in a right wad. It read to me like an opportunistic and arbitrary bit of provocation that does a disservice to *all* of the writers she discusses.
It’s become popular to “deride the sex scenes in [the Great Male Novelists’] novels”—it has? Eggers et. al. have “repudiated the aggressive virility of their predecessors”—this might be news to them. We’ve “internalized [a] feminist critique”—I had no idea. “Roth’s sex scenes are still enraging us”—hey, Katie, trust me—ROTH isn’t the one enraging me right now.
And sweet Jesus, that’s just the first two paragraphs.
Grrrr.
Gary, dammit! It’s too early for a cocktail!
-
Victoria, awesomeness. Ann, you are such a good writer it makes me want to chew my sneakers. Roxane, dang, dang, dang. And Elizabeth, "a bit like trying to describe yet another beautiful woman or nice twilight in yet another new way."
What's interesting here, too, is that so many women are doing the nailing.
I was talking with a woman friend last night about how powerful sex is, how it makes people do stupid things--deeply stupid things--but also beautiful things. But also how completely peculiar it is. I mean, if we weren't hardwired for it, I can't imagine that anyone would ever want to do it.
-
v,
oh thank god someone finally said it, about our katie (le sigh, as nicolle elizabeth is fond of saying....)
and this HAS been a fascinating thread, i think--is certainly engaging me in better, deeper thought about the topic, and yes, far beyond the origical article in the times.
-
Finnegan Flawnt, you make me blush.
Victoria, good points. All good points. Yes, I see how Roiphe had her own panties in a wad before she sat down at her keyboard. But I also see how she's just a little bit right about sex not being quite as raucous as it was back in the day. I have not read everything she discussed, but I must admit that I too have lamented honestly written sex for a little while, and I'm glad that she at least spoke up about it, even if her quoted passages were chosen to make her point. (That's no excuse, by the way, for her shoddy criticism.)
Sigh.
A good conversation-starter, obviously. Gary, thanks for fanning the fire. This needed to be discussed.
-
Gosh! Finnegan cannot count to ten? Hmm, that is a sorry situation, indeed.
I am quite concerned with Mr Flawnt's admission to his history as a "failed sex writer"! And here he is just lounging among us very successful sex writers ...er... I mean, writers who cultivate sex in the first sentence!
Though to be fair, many of us are perhaps writers that are wishing they were having sex instead of writing about famous writers who write sex. Indeed.
What was I talking about? Oh, the unpredictable Finnegan Flawnt! My God!
-
Gary, indeed I would prefer Mailer to Chabon where sex is concerned. This is not to say I don't care for Chabon. I'm a big fan of his work. He would not get kicked out of bed, so to speak, but I find that he's not as, and forgive this characterization, masculine in his depictions of sex as I like.
-
if i recall, closest chabon came was maybe mysteries of pittsburgh, which was wistful, ambiguous, double-gendered, and gatsby-litish.
but i may be remembering that all wrong--
anyway--have you seen those old dick cavett show re-runs with mailer, that cavett ran in the times a while back. drunk & screaming--great fun.
maybe sex is not as raucas because writers are not driking enough? or going on tv shows wasted? dunno. that's a theory i bequeth to you all, next dissertation.
research at victoria's place--name your cocktail or bring the beer.
-
As someone whose literary tastes tend more toward the back of the bookstore, where the stacks are badly lit and the covers are more lurid, I should say that I find both Katie's essay and Sarah's rebuttal to be artifacts of a somewhat alien culture. I don't feel very confident that I have any reasonable idea what they're talking about.
I will note that if you want to read the kind of explicit sex that will peel the paint right off your nails, then you should look no further than literotica.com.
Granted, you'll have to slog through a lot of bad, sticky slush before you find anything both memorable and pleasant to read, but it can be found there, and it seems to me that it serves as ample proof that our world has no shortage of writers who know how to deploy the word 'cunt' properly in a story. I'll note that editors and publishers who think they can sell the works of such writers seem to be a rarity, but given that there are so many places where you can find writers just giving it away for free, I'm not sure I'd point the blame for that at working stiffs in the publishing industry. More that it's the tastes of the readers who are drawn to the literary fiction tables at the front of the bookstore, and who don't like having their genre conventions fucked in the ear.
It seems to me that if the practitioners of literary fiction feel like they've gotten backed into a corner where they can't write honestly about sex anymore, then they should consider switching to another genre— one where they don't feel like they're faking it— like, say, erotica. The plus side of that would be that the remaining literary fiction writers would probably be the ones with the real talents.
-
Marcelle, thanks for posting Sarah Seltzer's response - interesting and I do agree w/ many of her points re. Roiphe's construction of her argument. Though the whole "Jewish writer" point felt a bit simplistic/cliched. Roiphe as well doesn't seem to read widely, if this is the best list of male writers she could come up with.
An aside, after reading Updike's Journals in light of his sexuality and frustrations with, I can't help but wonder if, had he expressed this more fully in his work, would he be fall into the Chabon category? Also, speaking of not having any balls, did anyone read the article in tne NYT about Chabon and Waldman's relationship/ parenting? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/fashion/18chabon.html?pagewanted=2)
-
ok, will somebody please write a story about this poor guy with the fourteen inch penis who cannot find work?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/jonah-falcon-man-with-wor_n_412388.html
-
wonderful find, gary. i struggled for years with the same problem as this man (give or take a few inches), and i'd just like to say to him: working in the adult movie industry isn't so bad at all, especially if your issue in life is to want to be taken seriously.
of course, given his main concern, he should never become a writer.
-
what's happening on the "recommended list" between yesterday and today, regarding the 'mano a mano' (doug bond) between penis and pussy shows the enormous untapped potential for ... yes, for what? it shows something though, i'm certain. (if only the accuracy of gary's instincts.)
-
it's a new day at fictionaut, lads & lassies
we go eurotrash, tomorrow.
zoom.
-
"Our Vaginas, Ourselves" by Daphne Merkin in The New York Times Magazine, Jan. 1, 2006:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/magazine/01wwln_lead.html
I'd forgotten this article until today.
-
A friend wrote: "This kind of essay [Roiphe's] always seems to be about trying to include Updike into the canon of Bellow, Roth, and Mailer. Odd indeed. Although I haven't read this crew exhaustively, Bellow seems to be a genuinely great writer, Roth an excellent entertainer, Mailer an illiterate posturer, and Updike unreadable. Roiphe quickly skips over Miller as their literary forebear, which is probably where the professors want him, in a footnote. What a disappointment, this article, with so much missing."
I can reveal who did not write the comment. The writer added, "I prefer to keep my misconceptions to myself."
-
toward the end (last two decades, at least) updike seemed to develop george will syndrome.
he doesn't fit the jewish group at all, given his penchant for lutheran guilt, with odes to kierkegaard and barth. he is christian guilt shot through and through. so yeah, it's puzzling to include him with roth and mailer--he fits better with cheever, certainly, though they are diff in other respects.
-
More Naked, More Conflicted:
http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/more-naked-more-conflicted/
Group Description
you know what i'm talking about
This is a public group.
Anyone can see it and join.