From: "Alice K. Turner"
Subject: (urth) Re: RAH sex Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 22:50:51 -0400 From: "Jeff Wilson" quoting me: > > Wrong. No one ever, ever, including hack porn writers, EVER, EVER wrote > > worse sex than Heinlein. With possibly the momentary exception of a > > long-forgotten 9-day wonder of the 60s or 70s called -The Harrad > > Experiment-. And I am something of an expert here. I should probably say, > > for members of this group, that IMO Sturgeon wrote bad sex too, though not, > > by leagues, in the same abysmal class. > > I don't find sprunging nipples to be an inappropriate idiom, and neither > did my ex-wife. The spiggots remark I will give you, but I find Clarke's > depiction of sex to be poorer storytelling than Heinlein's overall. Have you considered why she's your ex-wife, hmmm? No, seriously, none of the Golden Agers could address sex; you could say that they were trained out of it by convention, and by the time things loosened up it was too late for them. Clarke had the further problem of the het stuff being a bit alien, hence indeed "poor storytelling." But only RAH was actively offensive in a horrible lame, leering, really repulsive sort of way--for me it's that chalk screaming across a blackboard syndrome to a degree I've never felt with another writer in any genre. Ask your ex if she likes any of RAH's later books (anything after -Stranger-) and if so why. Perhaps I should add, being rather outnumbered by gender here, that I do not find Wolfe viscerally offensive sexually. There are rape scenes, yes, but they are not gloated over and they seem to me in context. The worst rape is that of Seawrack, and that is certainly agonized over, and also has a certain supernatural aspect. -alga --