Monday, April 28, 2008

Outrageously Obscene



Yesterday, Saskia Walker said: Long live genre fiction! I'm a storyteller, and my aspiration is simply to entertain a reader or two. And Kristina Wright said: I have had long discussions about this in academic circles. I'm still trying to make sense out of the ridiculous idea that writing about sex as a positive experience means you end up being labeled as a "sex writer," but writing about sex as a destructive force means you get the label "literary writer."

And I felt myself break into this huge grin. Because I've had this post half-written for over a month, and now feels like the perfect time to unwrap the cord and plug it in. Truly, this post has been half-written since I was in high school and forced to read a series of classics so god damn depressing I decided our English professor must truly have hated teenagers. When I would bring my noir fiction in to read during break, this professor would hold up the books as examples of true trash. (He seems very much like the academic Saskia lived with. He sneered and guffawed and refused to even consider that a crime detective book could be a classic.)

I am a rebel by nature. Tell me I have to wear a dress, and I will show up in tattered jeans. Tell me what to read, and I will slide my book between your covers and shoot you the virtual finger.

Still, my post scares me. Because I know there are people who love the books I am about to mention. And my goal is not to put down other people's favorites, but to explain, somehow, where I'm coming from. And yet, I'm ready. I'm standing here. Proud and naked and letting you know that....

Oh, my fucking god, I despised Billy Budd. I didn’t like Heart of Darkness any better. And I would have beat on Edith Wharton with a stick to demonstrate how much I hated Ethan Frome had she not been dead already.

Of Mice and Men? Shoot me now.

I don’t need stories to have a happy ending. I’m a fan of Hubert Selby Jr., JD Salinger, and Joyce Carol Oates. I like a few by Hemmingway and several by Fitzgerald. But my Top Ten (I mean 12), list looks like this:

The Dain Curse
The Continental Op
The Long Goodbye
The Last Kiss
The Thin Man
The Maltese Falcon
The Godfather
The Switch
The Lone Pilgrim
The Snapper
The Big Sleep
The Commitments

(Apparently, I like books that start with “The.”)

My college English professor elevated depressing, morose, everyone-fucking-dies-in-them stories as the ones to be revered. Why can you not like books filled with joy? Or novels that examine the human condition in a way other than killing off innocents or the mentally unbalanced? Why is Steinbeck “literary” and Chandler “not”?

I have a similar problem with the term "literary erotica," because the phrase is thrown out so randomly. What makes one story literary and another one porn? The use of the word cunt? Or cock? If you spell "cum" c-o-m-e is it literary? (Oh, god, "Coming and Cumming" by Susan St. Aubin. One of the best sex stories ever.)

Seems to me like just another way to put people down. Along the same lines as: "What I like is erotica. What you like is filth." According to who? Based on what standards?

I have a knee-jerk reaction to disliking this type of distinction. Feels affected and highbrow to me, which is why I tend to say that I write smut. But come on—nobody seems to know what “literary erotica” even means. In this article about a play that sold for $88,300, the headline says, “Rare piece of literary erotica auctioned in London.” The body of the article calls the work “the best known piece of English pornography,” describing it as “outrageously obscene in its sexual and scatological references, language and content."

Can the same work be both? One or the other? Or is the play "literary" just because it’s old? In which case we’ll all be literary in a few hundred years. (Actually, according to this article on erotica in Australian libraries: The works of the Earl of Rochester, Boccaccio and Pauline Reage are now widely available. What was once considered obscene has now seemingly become acceptable by its historicism.)

I suppose I don’t strive for the term because I’ve never enjoyed reading the types of books other people call "literary." I prefer to be down here with the riffraff, curled up in the corner of the bar, reading The Continental Op and drinking whiskey.

XXX,
Alison

P.S. I am open for disagreement. Tell me what I missed in Heart of Darkness, and I will listen. (The horror! The horror!) But if you make me read that one again, I swear, you'll have to choose two from my list to read yourself.

Labels: , ,

10 Comments:

Blogger jothemama said...

I could add Moby Dick - the boredom! The descriptions of rope! Yet my mother loved it,and it made my friend Alan want to go whaling (he confesses it still sort of does).

I see you're a big Roddy Doyle fan. I sat beside him in a café once - his son spilled his milk, and while my friend and me were proferring tissues, in reference to the fac the child wasn't wet, he said this wierd thing, something like 'oh, it's always the way, there'll be dead bodies all around him and he's walking away free and clear!'

Em, ok.

7:53 AM  
Blogger Mehreen said...

Out of all the ones you listed, the only one I think I'll like is Of Mice & Men. I never read it, but what I know about it makes me think that I would enjoy it. I didn't care for Steinbeck outside of the Grapes of Wrath. Wasn't a fan of Billy Budd or Heart of Darkness and I think the point of a "classic" is that only Ph.D's can see what is good about them.

That said, I don't think porn will ever break into mainstream awards. I don't think it's about elevating sex or not, but I do think it is about the human condition and erotica seems to have one purpose-orgasm. Literary works seems to require layers. I loved books like Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and Brave New World. To be deemed 'literary' I believe a work needs a plot line above and outside of just sex. It's hard to explain, but I wouldn't exactly call Harlequin romances or mass produced serials of YA fiction 'literary' either.

8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Saskia, I'm sorry for your past experience but I suppose that was edifying for you in the sense you learned where you stand.
I think there's also a rebel in me in the academic sense and I also believe some of us can make it be different as you guys are stating over here, although in general standards are very conservative and tend to change slowly. It's not easy to disagree with mainstream concepts but what else pays in life but to struggle to live to our real beliefs?
Cheers,
Tessa

9:15 AM  
Blogger Steve Perry said...

I think what you missed in "Heart of Darkness," and in most of what is termed literary fiction is stuff that a sixteen or seventeen-year-old high school student, or even a nineteen-year-old college student also miss, and probably for the same reason:

Few people that age have the experience to relate to the story.

Yeah, there are old souls, and kids that have been around too many blocks, but your average middle-class high school student -- if there is such a thing -- doesn't have any real tools with which to address such a tale. Nor will they until they go out into the world on their own and have to deal with life.

I was reading Ernest Hemingway when I was ten, because my parents had his books in their display rack at home. Being a precocious lad, I could understand the language and superficial plots fine -- just not the underlying themes of the stories.

At forty, "Heart of Darkness" made a lot more sense than it did at seventeen.

10:08 AM  
Blogger Alison Tyler said...

God, Steve, that's really so smart of you. I don't know why I never thought about re-reading or re-visiting some of these works. I just remember my horror (heh heh) at reading them the first time.

I should probably try again.
I do know that the Hemmingway I adored in college, I still love to read now....

Thanks for stopping by!!
Cheers,
Alison

P.S. Jo—wow you sat next to RD? I'm in awe! I think I would have wanted to reach out and touch him.

11:00 AM  
Blogger Saskia Walker said...

This feels kind of theraputic. :)Agreed, on Heart of Darkness! But ohmygod, even worse: Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy. Surely THE MOST depressing book on the planet.

Tessa, thanks! It's a long time ago now, thank goodness.

11:33 AM  
Anonymous jeremy said...

I'd define literary as social commentary and erotica as a means to get off,as Mehreen pointed out.

I consider Heart of Darkness journalism, an expose, but not literature.

One should ask, why is this boring. Moby Dick was a grand joke, that people take too seriously. Don Quijote, is quite dull but still has merit today..."Said the frying-pan to the kettle, Get away, blackbreech." Which is the origin of 'the pot calling the kettle black'--which is recrimination--a tactic used quite frequently today.

3:02 PM  
Blogger Kristina Wright said...

Can I stand next to you, Alison? :) I'm a rebel, too.

I always thought I was destined to be an English major until death us do part because I loved reading so much. I managed it for my undergrad, but I couldn't spend my graduate studies reading all the same stuff touted as "literature" by the Norton Anthology editors. I switched to Humanities-- oh, joyful, wondrous and inclusive Humanities!-- and loved it Pop Culture, Women's Studies, film, genre fiction-- it's all there in Humanities! If I get a PhD (big "if" right now), it will be in another area of Humanities.

I did manage 18 graduate hours in English so I could teach it-- but I took Asian Lit, Women's Lit, African American Lit, a terrific class called Language, Power and Gender and classes with my favorite cutie professor. I also did a presentation on romance novels for my Language, Power and Gender class that not only lasted for most of the class period, but resulted in me giving away a bunch of books from my collection to non-romance readers. Got an A, too. :)

Having said all that, I do think it's important to re-read some of those "literary" books later in life. I have read Kate Chopin's "The Awakening" no fewer than five times for various classes and for fun. Hated it the first time I read it-- soooo depressing-- but now I love it. Reading for class when you're in high school (or even college) is different than rereading for pleasure as an adult.

I will not, however, read Heart of Darkness again. Ever.

P.S. It seems like you might like Flannery O'Connor, but you didn't mention her.

3:30 PM  
Blogger jothemama said...

Saskia! Yes! Jude the Obscure, I blocked it out. Shudder.

I had to write on it in my finals - 'To what do you think the 'obscure' in Jude the Obscure' refers?'

Bastards!

4:04 AM  
Blogger kathrynoh said...

I remember reading Heart of Darkness in school and hating it - but writing lots of test essays on it because we had to memorise quotes from the books we studied (god knows why) and that had the easiest ones to remember!

I never really think about literary vs genre or other distinctions when I read. It's either 'good story' or 'bad story'. But I can't stand writers who use wacky grammar and punctuation to look arty.

5:21 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home