"Erotic books" is (not) an oxymoron, because ...

In another thread (What floats your boat) the argument seemed to be made by several posters that (I take full responsability for the following summary, no poster actually wrote this sentence):
"Reading erotica novels doesn't float my boat at all, there are other media that I dig a lot more."

Which might be considered at first glance a surprising point of view for a response on a forum that is book-related in a group that is named 'Erotica'.
However, everal posters seemed to indicate that the availability and quality of the reading material was so bad compared to the availability and quality of other media that serve the same purpose as erotica books do, that they have virtually stopped reading erotica novels.

Which leads to the question: Is the term "erotic books" an oxymoron? And is that the case by definition, or can conditions be found when it is not?

For erotic purposes, I often prefer print to images, painted or drawn images to photographs, and stills to movies. These preferences sometimes require more imaginative effort on my part, but if I put that in, then the payoff can be commensurately better. Also, they are more obviously invested with the subjectivity of the author/artist: they more effectively expose the turn-ons of their creators.

#2

You bring up a very interesting distinction. I too prefer print or painted/drawn images to photographs and movies. The former leave more to MY imagination. Movies are the toughest to enjoy (ironic with all the porn now available) because of the profusion of elements that can "go wrong". Typically there's only a short sequence that might work. It's also frustrating to watch all that movement and not be able to direct it. Which!--reminds me of the time I was watching Caligula with some friends. There's a longish orgy scene by the end and the camera keeps returning to one very well endowed, very excited young man lying on his back. With all the fucking going around him, you keep expecting him to get into it too. But long minutes pass, camera keeps grazing him, and nothing... I got really absorbed in this waiting--will it? won't it? when?--when a friend burst out "WILL SOMEONE PLEASE SIT ON THAT COCK!!!" (Everybody laughs.) Thankfully, someone eventually did.

That was obviously the "longer" version of Caligula because all the great actors in it viz Malcolm McDowell, John Gielgud, Peter O'Toole and Helen Mirren were I think unaware of the final "longer cut". The film was panned by critics and Roger Ebert gave it a rare zero stars rating, calling it "sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash".

I traveled all the way to England to see it only to find it was heavily censored. I did finally see the version you mentioned in the late early 80's in a room full of people as well.

(But I think I digress)

#4

You travelled to another country for a dirty movie!! (There's a Father Ted episode where the good fathers protest a movie to such success that people start coming over from Denmark to see it...)

I don't rate Ebert as a movie critic at all (actually, I can't be bothered with any film criticism)--not that I'd claim any extraordinary greatness for the Guccione/Brass production. Or would I? Where else does one get to see Gielgud, O'Toole, Mirren, McDowell in the same bed, so to speak, with porn actors? One must admit it at least is never boring.

I adore cinema and theatre and I haven't got the slightest intention of disparaging them, or the acting profession, but to me acting has a strong pornographic function. All actors hire out their bodies so that other people can enact fantasies, for their own enjoyment. A kiss isn't full-on intercourse, fake oral sex isn't "real" oral sex, but projected on a screen they accomplish the same thing for the viewer.

I saw Caligula first in a cinema in New York, in 2000/1? with my girlfriend. At some point I bought the DVD and watched it (only for the second time!) with those friends, but only because they asked to. (My policy is never to watch sexy movies with people I don't intend to sleep with!)

#2 : Completely agree.

I don't think "erotic book" is an oxymoron by definition.
Reading any work but certainly an erotic work stimulates my mind, my imagination; one of the primary ingredients in sexual stimulation as well I thought.
I suppose it helps that I like to read.
Although there are works out there in which the character building, plot development, writing style, scene sequencing is so badly done (imo) that it detracts from my reading pleasure to the point of irritation and exasperation. That category I could not label as 'erotic books' anymore, just 'terrible books'.

> 6

Yes, if you are going to judge a medium, you should use it's best instances rather than its worst.

#6 said exactly what I was thinking.

I like reading and I prefer to use my imagination.

I've written and drawn erotic comics, and frankly, I'd rather picture what's going on than actually see it.

When I've watched erotic movies (or porn) I feel kind of embarrassed watching the people when they're "doing it." It's like I'm spying on them. I usually fast forward through that part because I'm more interested in the plot.

One of the great things about imagining erotica is that you can change anything at any time. You're not locked into someone else's visual representation.

#2 (et al) - agreed! The best of written erotica generally trumps the best cinematic sort because we can cast and direct it to our own tastes. The result is that for any individual there are bound to be more books that hit the mark (so to speak) than movies.

Oh, and #3, re: the uncredited extra's expectant cock - the first thing that came to mind (alright, the second) was Tim Curry's line: "I see you shiver with antici........pation."

I had no problem defining erotic when I grew up. Where I lived there was strict censorship in force; these were both political or sexual. Every Friday a list of banned books was produced in the Government Gazette. The political books were obvious so the remainder were sexual. There was also a bit of blasphemy. So you immediately had a list of books you knew you had to read. Of course being resourceful you managed to obtain some of these by hook or crook. I read the most dog eared copies of books that you can imagine. Does anyone have pages 51-94 of The Carpetbaggers by Harold Robbins , they were missing from the copy I read in 1967.

Oh yes I am not American (lol). Lola are Canadians not Americans... or that an insult.

Oh and Lola #5. Not only to see Caligula. There was if I remember that one day I saw 3. Klute also as well as the Devils with Oliver Reed.

> 10 the Devils with Oliver Reed

and Vanessa Redgrave, as directed by Ken Russell, based on the book by Aldous Huxley. That's a movie I've wanted to see for a long while. Thanks for drawing my attention to it, as it appears that a DVD was finally released last year!

I'm a recent import to Canada and without strong feelings on Canadian identity, but in general Canadians do not fancy being mistaken for Americans. They are too polite to tell one off about it, though.

Ken Russell! I think his Lair of the white worm is available on You Tube--I hope I remembered to save it... saw it yonks ago on a school trip. I have Gothic somewhere too, another strangeness.

> 12

Yeah, that Worm is a doozy.

How did you move 8927 books Lola?

#14

They weren't 8927 to begin with! In 1992, when I moved to the States, I brought about a thousand books, by ship.

> 10
I'm going to open a new thread on censorship relating to erotica novels.

OT:
In general, would it be out of line to suggest someone reopen the "off topic?" thread for postings that would be more appropriate there, so as not to clutter this one?

(Yeah yeah, I know I'm new, and probably would do best not to be so mouthy (yet), but I also think I read somewhere that moderation is a joint task on LT? - Holds her breath, steady as she goes - :D )

We're self-moderating on LT, for the most part. Anyone can "reopen" any thread.

ETA: And thread drift is sort of a way of life. Please don't get too worried about being "on topic."

With apologies for being 'on topic', against the trend (LOL), I vehemently disagree with seeing 'erotic books' as an oxymoron.

Surely, a book is simply that - a book. Oxford English Dictionary defines a 'book' as a 'written document'. So written erotica is, by definition, a book; any erotic nature it might have cannot change that. Is whoever called the phrase an oxymoron simply misunderstanding the meaning of the word?

Perhaps I should explore what might be meant by the question. I eschew the word 'pornography', particularly if associated with the written word.

My long-held view could well annoy those who believe that 'literature' is a form of high art, a component of what we admire most about the human condition, but I define literature more simply as a piece of writing. {Try fitting the common phrase 'scientific literature' into any other mould!} Using this definition indicates that 'erotic literature' is just literature, one of whose aims is deliberately to arouse the sexual parts of the human imagination. No more, no less.

There's also good and bad literature - a judgement based on ease of reading, pleasing style and/or plot, novelty, humour, etc.. There is also a gradation in how erotic a particular work might be. Both criteria are subjective. For instance one might find erotic the suppressed sado-masochism in Jane Eyre.

------
Moving on, I agree that erotic graphic art is usually more erotic than erotic photographic art, not least because details are chosen by the artist, rather than (often) incidental to the scene in which the arousing impulse takes part.

> 19 wrote " For instance one might find erotic the suppressed sado-masochism in Jane Eyre."

Please enlighten me, as I seem to have missed these bits every time I have read that novel...

>20 Bluerabella:

Well, Jane's submissive relationship with Rochester is one thing. Further, the punishment of Helen Burns at Lowood is a strong hint of the sort of regime at the school that Bronte would not have been encouraged to specify in greater detail, but which would have been consistent with the strict educational practices of the era. The rigour of Mr Brocklehurst is another indicator.

I admit that one might well see what one wants to see, but many aficionados will spot the signs. P N Dedeaux took the hint in his ' An English Education' (Blue Moon, 1996), which was carbon-copied by Blue Moon at 'Disciplining Jane' (2001) under the pseudonym 'Jane Eyre'. Not, perhaps, for the weak-stomached or politically correct, but taken to a sort of obvious conclusion.

Eve Sinclair's book provides an alternative erotic viewpoint into this work.

People are indeed capable of imagining anything, and this particular romance fuelled plenty of adaptations, but as far as the original is concerned, Jane is never psychologically submissive to Rochester. She's hired help (lording it over such would be a risibly cheap way of affirming "dominance" btw), he's literally "da boss", and even so she never bends to his will. Quite the opposite--he bends to hers. Constantly.

The real sub is Rochester, at the end even physically reduced to a pitiful helpless wreck, dependent on Jane for his entire well being. (I always hated that ending! To hell with Christian punishments of Christian sins!)

There's a more obvious victim in the chained madwoman up in his attic, although the story goes that even she suffered from an excess of yang, not yin.

>22 LolaWalser:

I bow to your analysis, Lola. I may have been swayed too much by Dedeaux!

I definitely find written erotica more enjoyable. I used to work at a sex-toy shop and was able to borrow any videos I wanted without charge. I saw a LOT of porn, including the uncut Caligula, which I hated for the shallowness and cruelty of the characters, not the sex. I loved The Devil in Miss Jones II - which is just campy and hilarious as well as having lots of sex. (The first Devil in Miss Jones was depressing as all hell with its whole anti-sex moral framework.)

For me an erotic book opens a door to a whole variety of fantasies, whereas erotic films reduce the variety by forcing me to think of the character as having specific physical and vocal characteristics. In addition, porn actors are too pretty - I find it hard to imagine myself in a role when the person on the screen has no spare fat and a perfect ass. (I actually don't appreciate extremely explicit character description in books for the same reason. I can imagine myself with a different hair color - but not with a 15-inch waist.)

>24 Helcura:

I completely agree regarding written versus filmed. In fact - for me at least - that's the single greatest factor swaying my choice of a book over a movie. Regardless of the quality of the acting, I'd be much more interested in the films if the actors were more realistic in shape, size, stamina, etc. When reading, it's my vision of the characters that adds to the experience.