From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes"
Subject: Re: (urth) Re: RAH sex Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:09:03 -0700 >... 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 ... H'mmm. While I agree that RAH's writing about sex (both in the concrete and the abstract) is very little short of abysmal, it's never affected me that way: possibly because I _am_ a het male who grew up with RAH's writing. Two books, and two alone, really offended me on first reading: FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD, for reasons too numerous to mention -- though I have since concluded that RAH never intended what he seems to intend with that book, it still is what it is -- and "THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST--", for reasons primarily of sexual politics ("Husband! What a heart-filling word." Icky. Double icky.) >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. Neither of which seems to me to help: it is indeed far and away the most brutal of Wolfe's rape scenes, and made worse by the fact that the victim chooses to blame herself ... which is part and parcel of that "supernatural aspect," come to think of it. That whole scene bothers me, perhaps, more than anything else in Wolfe, which is saying quite a lot; I think there has to be some kind of meaning to this scene which I have never grasped, and I'm not sure I _want_ to. --Blattid _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail --