hsf@hlexa.UUCP (Henry Friedman) (12/27/85)
Recently I bought an sf novel from the Quality Paperback Book Club, Samuel R. Delany's "Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand." The book club's blurb had read something like: "drama of life, death and sexuality in the distant future." The problem I have with this is that the ad didn't disclose that the "sexuality" was predominantly gay sexuality. Despite some features of interest, I stopped reading the book about half way through, when it became evident that just about all the romance and sex was to be gay. Upon opening the cover, I had noted that Delany had also written "Dhalgren", which I HAD enjoyed (because of its unusual dreamscape development), even though much or most of the sex in that was also gay. (My only real annoyance was when the hero said something like, straights who won't engage in bisexual affairs must have a mean-spirited streak.) Now, I'm not saying that I couldn't enjoy ANY novel with a gay theme, any more than I'm saying that gays wouldn't enjoy any straight novel. But, if the novel isn't "great literature," an important component of one's enjoyment is usually the ability to identify with the major characters. This leads to my questions (at the risk of getting flamed as homophobic, etc.): 1) Should ads for novels at least suggest whether the sex/romance is predominantly straight or gay? (I don't think this would be necessary if the main themes are not romantic, such as novels about social/political oppression.) 2) Should it make any difference? In other words, should it have mattered to me? 3) Was it my fault for not remembering or knowing that Delany's sf writing has a gay slant? 4) Do I have a point in objecting to the way the book club advertised the book? 5) Was the book such a work of creative genious that it transcended such considerations? --Henry Friedman
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (12/30/85)
I think Christine Robertson (globetek!chris) said it as well as anyone could. Actually, I'm glad this guy brought Delaney's book up, because I just purchased it, taking a chance that I remembered its mention a long long time ago here on net.motss. On the other hand, I wasn't SURE that this was the book, and given my aversion to SF in general, and the fact that the cover really didn't say much about its "orientation", I was afraid myself that I would have to wade through (shudder) pages of straight sex as well as SF writing! :-) Talk about being cheated out of $3.95! -- /Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.harvard.edu harvard!dyer
dat@hpcnof.UUCP (12/30/85)
Henry Friedman (hlexa!hsf) brings up an interesting point about the relationship of people who read books to the characters in the books. As with Henry, I enjoy books where I can identify with the protagonist (vicariously or otherwise) and have started a number of books that I've just thrown down in disgust after finding NO-ONE and NOTHING that I could identify with. (The example that comes to mind is by Michael Moorcock - "The Cornelius Chronicles") > 1) Should ads for novels at least suggest whether the sex/romance > is predominantly straight or gay? (I don't think this would be > necessary if the main themes are not romantic, such as novels > about social/political oppression.) I don't think so, unless it's significant to the plot of the book (e.g. a book about sexual repression, for example, should be indicated as such, but a book where the protagonist is intimate with a "Significant Other" shouldn't need it (unless the intimacies are most of the book)). On the other hand, it's certainly safer to indicate - I would, for example, find reading a book about pedophiles most disturbing, and would probably be quite unhappy with the store that sold it to me for not indicating it was such a story...It's just a matter of having honest legitimate summaries of the stories on the flyleaf, or the back of the paperback, or whatever. > 2) Should it make any difference? In other words, should it have > mattered to me? Certainly. We are what we are, to paraphrase Popeye, and you shouldn't have to repress your heterosexual bias when you read a book. If one feels uncomfortable with a certain area, it's OKAY. Just be honest about it. I also have hangups about certain things (like rape, and strange S/M stuff and so on) and prefer to know ahead of time if that sort of stuff is in a book I'm reading. > 3) Was it my fault for not remembering or knowing that Delany's > sf writing has a gay slant? Hmmm...the tone of this is kinda strange, Henry, but I guess perhaps it was. If you find an author that has a tendency towards certain things (like Heinlein and the inevitable older man and two younger women *yawn*) that you don't like, you should perhaps keep that in mind next time you pick a book by the author. On the other hand, what if you'd never read anything by Delany before?? > 4) Do I have a point in objecting to the way the book club advertised > the book? Yes. See #1. Write 'em a letter, anyway. > 5) Was the book such a work of creative genius that it transcended > such considerations? In a word: Nahhh. The 'creative license' of artists has been vastly abused just to feed the public lightly covered pornography and other disgusting stuff - and I don't personally believe that I'm too "dumb" to appreciate ANY book that I choose to read. If I don't like something I find it hard to convince myself that maybe I'm the one at fault, not the 'critics' or whatever... Anyone have further thoughts on this thorny topic? -- Dave Taylor ps: Henry, I applaud you for bringing this important topic up. Well done!
rooter@well.UUCP (Brian Mavrogeorge) (12/30/85)
Congratulations on experiencing what gay people do everytime they read the great "classics" of our time. I suppose for some sexual orientation labeling might be appropriate but would so much better if you could learn to celebrate others sexuality. Sort of like when I read most novels which contain abundant depictions of heterosexuality -- I dont fint it particularly exciting but certainly interesting -- and I certainly wouldn't stop reading the book because it had too much heterosexuality in it. If the depictions were exceedingly graphic I might stop but because of the explicitness not the sex of the participants. No, I don't accuse you of being a flaming homophobe. Yours was a honest question. I might suggest tthat you read the "20 questions to ask a heterosexual" that were previously posted. You may be close to a consciousness raising - go for it!!
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) (12/31/85)
In article <4729@hlexa.UUCP> hsf@hlexa.UUCP (Henry Friedman) writes: 1) Should ads for novels at least suggest whether the sex/romance > is predominantly straight or gay? (I don't think this would be > necessary if the main themes are not romantic, such as novels > about social/political oppression.) Only if you are a prude or a homofobe. Sex is sex, romance is romance; if you enjoy reading about "straight" sex without feeling "naughty" or guilty you you should be able to enjoy a love story about two(?) individuals regardless of their sex. What DOES irk me is sex between alien species.... >2) Should it make any difference? In other words, should it have > mattered to me? I don't see why... Sex is sex.... >3) Was it my fault for not remembering or knowing that Delany's > sf writing has a gay slant? Only if you object to homosexuality getting "equal time". >4) Do I have a point in objecting to the way the book club advertised > the book? No. It's like objecting to not mentioning any demonic, satanic, pagan, magical subject matter. It sonds like PMRC's record labeling system. And we all know how silly that is ;-) >5) Was the book such a work of creative genious that it transcended > such considerations? Don't know, have not read it (yet?). -- Disclamer: I don't work here anymore - so they are not responsible for me. +-------------------------------+ Don't bother, I'll find the door! | STAY ALERT! TRUST NO ONE! | Oleg Kiselev. | KEEP YOUR LASER HANDY! |...!{trwrb|scgvaxd}!felix!birtch!oleg --------------------------------+...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg
dlb@stcvax.UUCP (David Black) (01/02/86)
I'm a little surprised about the complaint about the sexual content of the Delaney novel. I read the book a couple of weeks ago so the general impression that it gave is still fresh in my mind. Sexual desire is an important part of the book but sex acts themselves are not, so unless the original poster's objection is to the very idea or mention of homosexuality, I don't understand what the complaint is. I understand that the original posting was about the general idea of labeling but I don't understand how this particular book provoked it. Are there others who have read the book and can comment on their reactions to the sexual action vs. the sexual orientation?
oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) (01/05/86)
In article <223@birtch.UUCP> oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >In article <4729@hlexa.UUCP> hsf@hlexa.UUCP (Henry Friedman) writes: >1) Should ads for novels at least suggest whether the sex/romance >> is predominantly straight or gay? (I don't think this would be >> necessary if the main themes are not romantic, such as novels >> about social/political oppression.) > >Only if you are a prude or a homofobe. Sex is sex, romance is romance; if >you enjoy reading about "straight" sex without feeling "naughty" or guilty you >you should be able to enjoy a love story about two(?) individuals regardless of >their sex. > >>2) Should it make any difference? In other words, should it have >> mattered to me? > >I don't see why... Sex is sex.... On the contrary. It seems to me that there is an increasing tendency among folk nowadays, in their attempts to appear or to be tolerant of the behavior of others, to express a uniformly "nonjudgemental" attitude by exercising a lack of judgment altogether. Toleration need not imply approval; I do many things that my friends strongly disapprove of. They do not feel the necessity of forcing me to adopt their attitudes, and I do not feel the need to make them approve of my actions. Approval and tolerance are quite different, and as with all things in my opinion, should involve the use of one's judgmemental faculties, not the abandonment of them. As a case in point, all sex is not just sex. Whether it be heterosexual(1), homosexual(2), or autoerotic(3), there are a wide class of sexual activities which either represent profound emotional disease or are simply evil. To fear to express disapproval of an act for fear of appearing intolerant is a form of moral cowardice. Similarly, one's tastes, like one's moral stance, should involve some descrimination. To appreciate a fine wine it is necessary to recognise that there will be vintages which compare unfavorably with it, to your palate at least. There is no requirement to enjoy pears as much as apples; there is no requirement to care for pears at all - it certainly does not imply evil intentions towards pear orchards nor towards those who care for pears. To suggest that all wines or all fruit or all writing should appeal equally to ones taste is to argue for a dulled sensiblity and foggy thought. Thus, it is not at all necessary, nor even desirable, that one enjoy a recounting of any random sexual act. I suggest quite the opposite, that one has every right to object to buying a bag of apples and finding it full of pears. > >>3) Was it my fault for not remembering or knowing that Delany's >> sf writing has a gay slant? > >Only if you object to homosexuality getting "equal time". It is not your responsibility to keep tabs on the sexual proclivities of all those who put pen to paper. An adequate book review should have reflected the contents of the book. > >>4) Do I have a point in objecting to the way the book club advertised >> the book? > >No. It's like objecting to not mentioning any demonic, satanic, pagan, magical >subject matter. It sonds like PMRC's record labeling system. And we all know >how silly that is ;-) That depends on how much of a review one can expect from the vendor. I suppose that if you buy a bag simply labeled "fruit", you can't complain too much if pears are what's inside. You might write the company and let them know that their labelling is inadequate. I personally think that one should expect better of a book review. It is in the best interest of a merchant to please his or her customers, especially in things that cost little money or effort to change. To claim that an adequate book review is censorship is to argue that we should buy and read books randomly - a waste of time, effort, and money. > >>5) Was the book such a work of creative genious that it transcended >> such considerations? > >Don't know, have not read it (yet?). A book rarely transcends its content. > Oleg Kiselev. Bill Oliver Asst. Chief Medical Examiner State of North Carolina Upon Love Love brought me to a silent Grove, And shew'd me there a Tree, Where some had hang'd themselves for love, And gave a Twist to me. The Halter was of silk and gold, That he reacht forth unto me: No otherwise, then if he would By dainty things undo me. He bade me then that Neck-lace use; And told me too, he maketh A glorious end by such a Noose, His death for Love that taketh. 'Twas but a dream; but had I been There really alone; My desp'rate feares, in love, had seen Mine Execution. Robert Herrick, 1648 (in ref. 3) References: 1) Wilber, C G. A case of lust murder. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 6:226-232,1985. 2) Walter, R. Homosexual panic and murder. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 6:49-52,1985. 3) Hazelwood, R R, Dietz, P E, Burgess A W. Autoerotic Fatalities. Lexington Books, DC Heath and Co., Lexington, Mass., 1983. 208pp. All opinions expressed are mine alone and do not represent the opinions of any other official, nor any Office or Agency, of the State of North Carolina.
dyer@harvard.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (01/05/86)
I've just finished the first major section of the book, and perhaps things might be different later on, but all of the sex so far in this book, homosex or otherwise, has about as much to do with gay or straight 20th century Earth culture as moon rocks do. Delaney uses sex just like any other characteristic as a means to "alienate" the readers from the characters and the worlds they inhabit. Whether its the fact that all the people wear little lozenges over their face or that all the straights want to get flogged or the fact that our hero likes others of the same sex, it's all just an example of his maddening arbitrariness. But to call this a "gay" novel is ridiculous--as ridiculous as making an issue of the protagonist's predilections to begin with. -- /Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.harvard.edu harvard!dyer
jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) (01/05/86)
I wonder if the idea that to appreciate a story one must identify
with its major characters is attributable to television? (Half serious.)
Back to Delany: Just about all of his early work has no sex in it at all.
This includes The Jewels of Aptor, the Towers Trilogy, the Einstein
Intersection, Babel-17, and Nova. Read the last three if you don't
like some particular variety of sex in your books but want to see why
Delany is considered to be such a good writer. Babel-17 has a strong
female protagonist, for those who are tired of Delany's Kidd character.
There are several short story collections, none with a bad story,
many of them Hugo or Nebula winners, all with practically no sex.
If you *want* weird sex, try Tides of Lust (if you can find it).
It's got a bit of everything. It appears that he wanted to practice
writing about sex before he wrote Dhalgren.
Personally, I like his later stuff as well or better than his earlier.
--
John Quarterman, UUCP: {gatech,harvard,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!jsq
ARPA Internet and CSNET: jsq@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU, jsq@sally.UTEXAS.EDUdyer@harvard.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (01/05/86)
I was wondering what discussion Bill Oliver was participating in in his most recent posting on Delaney's book, but I suspect that it's been lost in the net, for everything he says seems pretty irrelevant to the points at hand. To review some facts: o there is no "book review" here, only a book ad. o for those who have read, or will take the trouble to read SIMPLGOS, you will note that his treatment of sexuality really has little to do with "gay"/"straight" issues. It is certainly anyone's prerogative to take offense at Delaney's book, but that does not exempt the person who makes a public statement about being offended by the supposed "gay" slant of the novel from equally public criticism. We'd take any similar statements about other groups as simply vulgar and an indication that the poster had problems which needed to be worked on, and it think it's to the credit of everyone who's responded except Bill that this is the prevailing sentiment here. It's a little unclear to me why Bill cites three articles on evil/bad sexual practice, because the offensive part of Friedman's article was PRECISELY because he expressed a dislike for the book's um, orientation, and not because he felt that specific acts were evil or immoral. How SHOULD someone respond, huh? "Thank you for sharing that with us"? -- /Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.harvard.edu harvard!dyer
db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry) (01/06/86)
In article <4729@hlexa.UUCP> hsf@hlexa.UUCP (Henry Friedman) writes: >1) Should ads for novels at least suggest whether the sex/romance > is predominantly straight or gay? (I don't think this would be > necessary if the main themes are not romantic, such as novels > about social/political oppression.) AHEM - gay people are socially oppressed all over the world, and politically oppressed in most places. (I guess SF & LA may be exceptions to this). Anyway, the main theme of "Stars in my Pocket ..." isn't romantic, at least I didn't think so. It's about the uncertainty surrounding language; the family vs. the SIGN, the linguistic WEB (an image he used in Babel 17). The central character is called Marq Dyeth (MARK DIE-ETH, geddit?). The "romantic" bits are more concerned with sexuality than romance - which sexual practices are tolerated in different societies, how people react to this. >4) Do I have a point in objecting to the way the book club advertised > the book? No. Gayness is perfectly normal, and shouldn't require any warning notices, bell-ringing, or crying of "unclean, unclean". >5) Was the book such a work of creative genious that it transcended > such considerations? No. I don't think a book ever transcends the considerations you apply when you read. If you mean "was it so good in other ways that these considerations are outweighed", that's for you to decide. Since you only read half of it, I guess for you it wasn't "great literature". I think it's Delany's worst book since babel-17. It preaches too much (the epilogue is particularly bad at this). Parts of it are brilliant, but overall I rate it lower than his other recent stuff (still worth reading though - I rate Delany pretty highly!) Try "Neveryona" for similar ideas done better, and with less gay content. You probably want to miss "Flight from Neveryon" though - it's much more explicit than "Stars in my Pocket ...". -- Dave Berry. CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh ...mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db
oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) (01/07/86)
In article <585@harvard.UUCP> version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site harvard.UUCP unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!dyer dyer@harvard.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: >I was wondering what discussion Bill Oliver was participating in in his >most recent posting on Delaney's book, but I suspect that it's been >lost in the net, for everything he says seems pretty irrelevant to >the points at hand. To review some facts: > > o there is no "book review" here, only a book ad. > o for those who have read, or will take the trouble to > read SIMPLGOS, you will note that his treatment of > sexuality really has little to do with "gay"/"straight" > issues. > >-- >/Steve Dyer >dyer@harvard.harvard.edu >harvard!dyer I apologise if my comments regarding the questions about objecting to homosexual content in a book seemed a bit bizarre. In part, this was because my first reply was in fact a comment on Mr. Kiselev's statement that one should not have a preference in the way sex is depicted in literature, since "sex is sex." I suppose I am simply rather sensitized to the subject due to my line of work (for those of you who do not read net.med, I am a forensic pathologist. Forensic Pathology is that medical specialty which deals primarily in the evaluation of unnatural death, though we are also usually heavily involved in evaluating any process, natural or unnatural, which has a general public health impact.), but I was trying to make the point that sex is not just sex, and that one should not mildly accept nor feel obligated to appreciate a literary description of sexual activity on the ground that a nonjudgemental approach to the subject is necessarily the best approach. In the case of the paraphilias, it is a repeated pattern that practitioners mature within a given practice, beginning with the aquisition and appreciation of allusionary or allegoric material, move to more explicit accounts, and eventually to frankly pornographic material which is then used both for gratification alone and as templates for acting out. Maturation of paraphilic experience is thus a learning experience which may occur over a period of years, ending in fatality and/or exploitation. As to Mr. Dyer's criticism that what I had to say had little to do with homosexuality, I must admit culpability and repeat that I reacted more to Mr. Kiselev's reply than to the original question. I certainly do not wish to imply that homosexuality, per se, is a paraphilia. Quite the opposite; I have dealt with more than a few people who suffered considerable ill effects because of such a misapprehension. One young man, for instance, tried so hard to deny his homosexuality that he became engaged to be married. He suffered numerous psychosomatic diseases, including peptic ulcer disease and ulcerative colitis, both of which can be extrememly serious and rarely frankly life threatening, primarily because of his profound constant anxiety. Once he accepted his orientation, his health improved immeasurably. Still, I feel strongly that Mr. Friedman (the original poster) need not feel guilty in any way because he lacks an appreciation for homosexual literature. My second point was that if one has a pronounced preference for a given sexual orientation in literature, it is not "wrong" to express that preference in one's buying habits, nor is it "wrong" to be disappointed when those preferences are not met in a book that one expected to gratify that preference. The original poster had specifically asked if it was somehow wrong for him to be disappointed in finding a homosexual slant in a book he had bought with the expectation of finding descriptions of heterosexual sensuality. My ignorance that the reviews by the Quality Paperback Book Club are meant to be very brief was a misapprehension based on my experience with the only book club I belong to, the History Book Club. In it, most new additions to the lists are accompanied by a review of a few pages in length. While older books are described in just a short sentence, almost all books listed have been reviewed at length at some time. I still feel that a book club has a certain responsibilty to its members - I have seen volumes of Norman's Gor series described in the same uninformative terms of "sensuality" and would be distressed to find that I had spent money to obtain such a volume. As an aside for those of you interested in history, I have been extremely happy with the service and selection of the History Book Club. I suppose that since I am strongly opposed to literary censorship (Indeed, there is often no better way to attempt to understand the psychodynamics of, or subjective responses to the paraphilias than through literary description. Observe the description of erotic asphyxiation in William S. Burroughs' "Naked Lunch", or the hanging of Roland in "Justine" by de Sade.), I feel that the most appropriate way for society to deal with paraphilic literature is through diffuse societal disapproval rather than legislation. In another area of public health, such a society wide approbation is developing, for instance, against cigarette smoking, and I feel that such an attitude will work effectively to decrease fatality as today's young mature. Similar attitudes are developing regarding drinking and driving. Unfortunately, I see the opposite occuring in the area of sexuality, with greater societal acceptance of a number of sexual activities which may lead to greater exploitation of the young and an increase in sexually related fatalities. Of the lust murders I have seen in the past few months, the great majority have been perpetrated by people under the age of 18. I have great respect for Mr. Delaney, both for his writing and for his success as a homosexual parent, though I prefer his earlier work (Triton, Driftglass, Dhalgren, The Ballad of Beta Two) to his later efforts. While I have never had the pleasure of meeting him, my cousin, a poet in New York and student of Allen Ginsburg (her name is Alice Notley - BUY HER BOOKS!!!) has had such an opportunity and describes him in glowing terms. Upon reflection, I am sure that Mr. Kiselev, when he made such global statments that "sex is sex" and "romance is romance", had the vision of any number of loving couples in mind. When I read such a statement, however, I instead thought of fugue states and edged weapons. I apologise for projecting my concerns on the net. Bill Oliver The opinions expressed are my own and should not be construed to represent those of any other official, nor of any Office or Agency of the State of North Carolina.
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) (01/08/86)
In article <783@unc.unc.UUCP> oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) writes: >In article <223@birtch.UUCP> oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev [ME] ) writes: >>>2) Should it make any difference? In other words, should it have >>> mattered to me? >>I don't see why... Sex is sex.... > >As a case in point, all sex is not just sex. Whether it be heterosexual(1), >homosexual(2), or autoerotic(3), there are a wide class of sexual activities >which either represent profound emotional disease or are simply evil. To >fear to express disapproval of an act for fear of appearing intolerant is >a form of moral cowardice. We are talking of fairly staright forward gay sex here - NOT anything "EVIL" or emotionally sick ( unles you call homosexuality and autoeriticism "SICK" and/or "EVIL"). If the characters in the book are gay - I'd expect them to practice gay sex. If the characters in the book are slimy slugs - I expect THEIR sexual practices to be slimy slug ones. If the book unnecessarily overemphasizes the erotic and sexual aspects and becomes pornographic - that's one thing. If the author has included an erotic scene as a means to better define the characters and their relationships - that's a totally different situation. >[ A LENGTHY PARABLE TO SHOW THAT THE ***REVIEW*** SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED ] >[ THE HOMOSEXUAL SLANT OF THE BOOK ] >It is not your responsibility to keep tabs on the sexual proclivities >of all those who put pen to paper. An adequate book review should have >reflected the contents of the book. It's NOT book review we are talking about - it's the blurbs on the cover and the back of the book.( OR *WAS* it a review ? If it was - ignore this paragraph) The cover blurbs usually give you a GENERAL idea about the GENERAL direction of the book. Since I have learned to read English (I still have not learned to wright ;-) I have bought close to a dosen books based on their cover blurbs and a quick scan of the wrighting stile - and found them very dissatisfying and boring to the point where I could not bring myself to finish them. Out of 250-300 books - that's not a bad ratio! Those WERE paperbacks, tho'. If they were hardcover editions that I have payed $14-$18 for - I'd be upset too.... >To claim that an adequate book review is censorship is to argue that >we should buy and read books randomly - a waste of time, effort, and >money. I agree to some extend - but who's responcilbility is it to seek out the reviews? The reader's or the book distributor's? Adequate book review is a great thing. Expecting an in-depth review from a short blurb is absurd. Most often the book and record clubs grace only the "selectio of the month" items with reviews. (I could be wrong - I have not joined ALL the clubs out there :-) >>>5) Was the book such a work of creative genious that it transcended >>> such considerations? >>Don't know, have not read it (yet?). > >A book rarely transcends its content. > >Bill Oliver >Asst. Chief Medical Examiner >State of North Carolina HUH? Tell that to the readers of the Bible - it has a few VERY graphic sex scenes in it ( and a large number of mass slaughter and mayhem scenes). Then again, on THIS point I ***AGREE*** with you. -- Disclamer: I don't work here anymore - so they are not responsible for me. +-------------------------------+ Don't bother, I'll find the door! | STAY ALERT! TRUST NO ONE! | Oleg Kiselev. | KEEP YOUR LASER HANDY! |...!{trwrb|scgvaxd}!felix!birtch!oleg --------------------------------+...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg
peterson@vaxwrk.DEC (Bob Peterson) (01/08/86)
From: ASHBY::USENET "USENET Newsgroup Distributor 07-Jan-1986 2116" 8-JAN-1986 10:43
To: @[.net.motss]NEWS.DIS
Subj: USENET net.motss newsgroup articles
Newsgroups: net.books,net.sf-lovers,net.motss
...!mcnc!unc!oliver (Bill Oliver) writes:
< My ignorance that the reviews by the Quality Paperback Book Club are
< meant to be very brief was a misapprehension based on my
< experience with the only book club I belong to, the History Book Club.
< In it, most new additions to the lists are accompanied by a review of a
< few pages in length. While older books are described in just a short
< sentence, almost all books listed have been reviewed at length at some time.
This is exactly why I don't belong to (sf) book clubs. I need to browse a book
before buying it. (Additionally I detest the requirement to buy books on a
regular basis). Unfortunately I miss out on savings, hard to find books, etc.
\bob usenet: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxwrk!peterson
/\ arpa: peterson%vaxwrk.DEC@decwrl.ARPAjagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (01/09/86)
[...] In all the discussion of "Stars In My Pocket Like Grains Of Sand", no one seems to have mentioned that one of the book's major themes is the avoidance of sexual pigeon-holing. This is demonstrated by the pronoun convention that has been described in a previous article: every sentient being is "she" and a "woman" regardless of gender... except when one is sexually aroused, in which case the object of arousal is "he" and a "man". In this world, "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are defunct words. Gender is not directly related to desire. The narrator of the second part of the story muses at one point that he always seems to be drawn towards males with ugly hands...and the "ugly hands" part is more interesting to him than "males". The people of this world may remark upon the consistency of their tastes, but they have no concept of sexual categorization. You are not "heterosexual" or "homosexual", even though you may find that the individuals who appeal to you all happen to have the same gender. You can argue all you want about whether this is a realistic attitude or one that you would like to see adopted. If you read the book, you may find it boring or unappetizing. You can also discuss general policies for stating that a book has explicit sex scenes, gay or straight. Given the nature of "Stars In My Pocket", however, I think a specific warning like "This book is a homosexual love story" would be a gross insult to a major premise of this particular novel. It misses the entire point. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
donn@utah-gr.UUCP (Donn Seeley) (01/11/86)
I disagree with a number of Bill Oliver's philosophical assertions but I don't see how anyone can reasonably take issue with his point that there are sexual behaviors which are dangerous to people and involve unwilling participants. Rape comes to mind as a classic example. It's not the case that 'sex is sex'. If you still doubt, there is an SF book that is designed to stress your sensibilities which you might try reading: J G Ballard's CRASH. The narrator of CRASH develops a sexual fixation for mutilations which are suffered in automobile accidents; he becomes entangled in another man's erotic fantasies about committing suicide in a violent car crash with a famous actress. Have you ever wondered about some of the people who come to stand and stare at the gore and debris that result from a deadly crash? This novel confirms your worst fears about them... CRASH is a pornographic horror novel -- it is 'eroticism' which is guaranteed to shock you and revolt you. Reading the book to the end is a strong test of liberal attitudes, and if you're like me you'll come away with a much less complacent view of sexual perversion. Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@utah-cs.arpa 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn
mhirsch@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Michael Hirsch) (02/01/86)
In article <424@stcvax.UUCP> dlb@stcvax.UUCP (David Black) writes: >I'm a little surprised about the complaint about the sexual content >of the Delaney novel. I read the book a couple of weeks ago so the >general impression that it gave is still fresh in my mind. Sexual >desire is an important part of the book but sex acts themselves are >not, so unless the original poster's objection is to the very idea >or mention of homosexuality, I don't understand what the complaint >is. I understand that the original posting was about the general >idea of labeling but I don't understand how this particular book >provoked it. >Are there others who have read the book and can comment on their >reactions to the sexual action vs. the sexual orientation? I too was a little thrown by the sexual orientation. Not the gender orientation, but the fact that the protagonist was gay, but that he was only interested in men with acne scars who bit their nails. However, I don't think the publisher should have to warn readers "This book is cheifly of interest to Ugly homosexual nailbiters." What I do object to is that the blurb on the back said the book was about a love affair that would affect the galaxy. This in fact never happened. In fact, nothing ever happened. The whole book sets the scene for the sequel (which may or may not be out now). I guess the publishers decided (possibly correctly) that the SF reading public would not but a novel advertised as a character study. That's too bad, because as a character study it is interesting. The writing is pretty good, too. I especially liked the way Delany turns sexual imagery on it's head by calling everyone 'she' unless she/he/it is being thought of sexually, in which case Delaney uses 'he'. The sexuality of the book was unusual, but in no way disturbing. It also was not at all erotic, which is unusual in a modern book about love.