The Case for Reading Erotica
A couple weeks ago I read an article in the New York Times that I considered blogging about but ultimately did not find compelling enough to do so. This is not because I didn’t find the article interesting but rather, I think, because I had not read enough of the work the author referenced to find myself relating to what she was postulating.
The article was about sex writing by male fiction authors of this and the immediately prior generation. Today I read three pages of letters to the editor in response to it, and those I have found compelling. (Compelling enough to blog about, obviously.) With the qualifier that I have still not read all or even many of the works the author references in her article or the ones mentioned in many of the responses, a consistent theme struck me, and a response began to arise repeatedly as I read more and more of the letters.
The summary of the article, written by Katie Roiphe and titled “The Naked and the Conflicted,” reads,
“We denounce the Great Male Novelists of the last century for their sexism. But something has been lost now that innocence is more fashionable than virility, the cuddle preferable to sex.”
The article’s general thesis seems to be that the current generation of male fiction authors are shying away from sex in their work, penning ambivalent, self-conscious sex scenes as contrasted with the previous generation’s works by authors such as John Updike, Norman Mailer, and Philip Roth, about which she says, for example, “There is in these scenes rage, revenge and some garden-variety sexism, but they are — in their force, in their gale winds, in their intelligence — charismatic, a celebration of the virility of their bookish, yet oddly irresistible, protagonists.”
She later laments things like, “But our new batch of young or youngish male novelists are not dreaming up Portnoys or Rabbits. The current sexual style is more childlike; innocence is more fashionable than virility, the cuddle preferable to sex,” and “Gone the familiar swagger, the straightforward artistic reveling in the sexual act itself,” concluding that in the previous generation’s work, “. . . there is in these old paperbacks an abiding interest in the sexual connection.”
The letters to the editor in response are varied, of course, but again, as I read them, a similar theme seemed evident to me.
This is an example of one of the responses:
Katie Roiphe’s essay has confirmed my suspicion that I’m not the only one to lament the disappearance of straight male sexual bravado in literature. I’m a feminist, but I still want to see inside the head of a man’s animal lust. Why must every roll in the hay be so ironic and self-conscious that it’s somehow castrated?
Other responses countered Ms. Roiphe’s proposition, but I also saw a few that introduced the idea that the trend she postulated may be resultant of a perceived “hypersexualized” culture and bombardment of messaging, expressed with lines such as, “In a world in which sex has become entirely ironic, and thus detached from real emotion, they find that the most emotional moments are no longer sexual,” and “a passing glance at Internet porn should explain why sexual candor no longer seems like much of a touchstone for artistic ambition.”
Whether the writers of the letters were agreeing with Ms. Roiphe’s hypothesis or expressing disgust or frustration with a “hypersexualized” culture in which explicit sex does not seem a “touchstone for artistic ambition,” the same response arose in me. This isn’t so much a response to Ms. Roiphe’s literary critique of past and contemporary treatment of sex by male authors (nor is it meant to be a discouragement of interpretive critique of literary trends and related societal implications) as it is a practical offering to what so many of the responders (and perhaps Ms. Roiphe herself) seem to be seeking, either overtly or between the lines:
Read erotica. If you’re not finding the authenticity, sincerity, directness, fearlessness, nuance, integration, and variety of sexual exploration and articulation you want to see in mainstream literature, read erotica. Read erotica published by Cleis Press, Black Lace (what will have to be already-published erotica now), Logical-Lust Publications, and any number of publishers listed on various erotica writers’ websites. That’s what the genre is here for, and if you think it won’t be “literary” enough, I am delighted to take the opportunity to direct you to evidence to the contrary.
For starters, pick up Donna George Storey’s novel Amorous Woman, Charlotte Stein’s short story collection The Things That Make Me Give In, erotic short stories written by Shanna Germain, Craig Sorensen, Alana Noel Voth, Nikki Magennis, P. S. Haven, to name a very few. That is a wholly non-exhaustive list, of course, but once you’ve delved into such things, you will likely discover a network or references with much more you may find of interest. Because that’s what this is—literary work that doesn’t hide sex, fearfully peeking at it from behind mainstream standards that demand either rebellion against or acquiescence to them. Just integrating sexuality into the work of writing fiction, the same way it is integrated into life.
“Sexual male bravado” and “a man’s animal lust” are not write-able only by males, as the above examples readily evidence.* Further, there are such things as female sexual bravado and a woman’s animal lust that do not seem to be mentioned in either the context of the “traditional male greats” or the supposed watered-down sexual description plaguing contemporary fiction. They are a part of sexuality, however, and may also be found in abundance in the above-cited works.
I have not read all of the referenced authors or work in either Katie Rophie’s article or the responses to the editor. But I have read the list presented above. And I offer it very sincerely as an antidote to what Ms. Roiphe and her responders seem to lament—from whatever perspective they may do so.
Love,
Emerald
“‘Cause the good old days weren’t always good, and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems…”
-Billy Joel “Keepin’ the Faith”
danielle
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 at 3:29 am
@ em
thank you for that post…its a very interesting subject indeed…
maybe its all about male erotica writers because we are very..well..underratet? there arent many of us and we dont get as much publicity as female erotica writers since writiung erotica i somehow a female section of literature and its more fashionable to write about a “dirty minded female” then a man who does the same…
Craig Sorensen
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 at 5:30 am
I’ve often said that women asserting themselves in publishing of erotica late in the last century raised the bar for the genre. The fine ladies you mentioned (and among whom I’m honored to be included) are perfect examples of this, as Haven is a great example of a strong masculine voice.
When a genre experiences a change, that impact has a ripple effect, and I think we’re seeing that. There are more sensitive men carving a niche within erotica, and this is a good thing. Men in general are less chauvinistic, and that is reflected as well.
There is such a broad range of authors in erotica approaching it in so many ways, but this is not in the realm of mainstream. I completely agree that women can write male oriented stories just as men can write from a female perspective. That’s another feature of modern erotica that begs consideration.
Finally, I loved your statement: Just integrating sexuality into the work of writing fiction, the same way it is integrated into life.
That’s what it’s really all about. The men Roiphe mentioned were products of their time, we are products of ours.
I’d like to see greater growth of our richer, modern erotica into the mainstream. Maybe this is what Roiphe should be calling for.
Thanks, as always, for a thought-provoking post.
Jo
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Ha. It’s my mission to English up Danielle so he can unleash himself on the scene. And then you’ll see.
He’ll have to give me something to work with first though…
Charlotte Stein
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 6:40 am
Wow- fantastic post, Emerald. Really loved your response to this- all too often I think true erotica gets overlooked as some sort of poorer cousin, when discussions about sex and literature abound.
And thanks for the mention, too! I squeed a little bit!
Donna George Storey
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Yes, I add my thanks for this post, Emerald. I read Roiphe’s article on the recommendation of a friend and my initial impression was “where are the women authors?” But then again Roiphe is yet another in a line of “good” daughters whose basically anti-feminist stance charms male editors into publishing them. In this case, the provocation lies in ignoring so much else. Craig is so right, as always, that we are products of our time. Roth et al were breaking boundaries, but the younger men have different boundaries to break and sex, alas, is still held in contempt in society and literature. Recently I’ve been thinking that’s because women are still held in contempt, if more secretly than before, and we represent sex. We all win if we can accept our sexuality, but now I’m really digressing, lol.
I feel really honored to be included among your examples and know they are many other great writers out there doing going things for smart sex–you top among them, Emerald! We’ve all taken the first important step of writing what matters to us with honesty and passion. Katie Roiphe may never find us cool or important enough to write about, but then she has to live in a world where external validation is everything–and in the end, still today, that’s a place where women disappear.
I really appreciate your speaking out about this!
Emerald
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Hello everybody, and thank you so much for stopping by and for commenting.
Hi Danielle! I hear what you’re saying about erotica writers, though Ms. Roiphe’s article was actually about (male) mainstream fiction writers, interestingly.
And welcome, Jo! I can imagine Danielle’s unleashing would be something to see…I have certainly enjoyed your “unleashing” on the blog scene, Danielle! :)
Craig said,
“Maybe this is what Roiphe should be calling for.”
Yes, exactly. That’s what occurred to me too, even more so when I read the various responses to her article. A dissatisfaction with the way sex is being written about in contemporary literature seems to be being lamented, and as Charlotte points out, it seems like erotica is not acknowledged at all. As I read it kept occurring to me, “Read erotica! That’s what it’s for!”
As Donna alludes to, it occurred to me that perhaps that hadn’t seemed to occur to Ms. Roiphe or the writers of the letters because it didn’t occur to them that erotica was “literary,” but obviously that seems woefully misperceived to me. And of course that is speculation—I don’t know why it didn’t come up, but it really did seem something I sincerely wanted to offer Roiphe and all who were similarly lamenting.
To Ms. Charlotte: I just finished The Things That Make Me Give In last week—I haven’t finished composing my review for Amazon yet, but I was really blown away by it. I was so impressed, and in what I am talking about above, it seems to me truly a prime example.
Thank you again everybody! Namaste.
Charlotte Stein
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Great comment, Donna.
I wonder if the lack of acknowledgement, in particular, of women writing about sex, has to do with the old “romance- ugh!” thing. Any time female writers get even close to writing about love and desire and all that stuff, they’re often dismissed.
Far easier to do that, or blame feminism, than investigate the whole situation.
And Emerald- eep! Thank you! I did wonder if you’d just included my book because it’s new and came to mind, or summat, so to know you really liked it…I’m squeeing big time.
Donna George Storey
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I have your book in my shopping cart right now, Charlotte. Emerald has great taste in books ;-)!
I think Katie Roiphe is a huge snob of the old school, as in so old women are even allowed to write at all. I mean, I know that the article was about men writing sex, but I seriously got the vibe that women weren’t mentioned not because there were so many good ones and she had to confine herself to men, but that women can’t write good sex, real sex, at all. We’re just passive recipients, beautiful empty objects to be possessed. And yes, indeed, erotica is by very definition “bad writing.” People have said that to me at parties. Do you think they’d ever admit they read a stroke book in a public forum? It is truly sad how these supposedly sophisticated people are so limited.
I went and read the reactions to Roiphe’s article and I just can’t get this out of my mind–the letter by the “feminist” who was about to ask Norman Mailer a question and he said “please don’t hurt me.” Talk about passive aggressive?! I think the battles of those times are still being fought at a deeper level, as the writing and publication of the essay proves. But I also agree that it wasn’t the sex part I objected to, but the misogyny and the unwillingness to grant women sexual agency. By writing erotica we are insisting on agency and authority. Maybe more people will notice–I think they already are slowly, slowly. We just have to keep writing.
Which I’m going to do right now, lol. Thanks again all for such an inspiring discussion.
Charlotte Stein
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
I completely agree, Donna- I don’t object to men writing about sex. I don’t object to anyone writing about sex. I will object if you’ve written a stinky misogynistic rant thinly disguised as literary fiction.
I do wonder if the sex scenes of your Norman Mailers and your John Updikes aren’t as prevalent now because of things like the Bad Sex awards. It’s no longer cool and edgy to write about saggy earthy breasts swaying and leathery purses below fragrant stalks- not when there are huge amounts of excellent erotica about that want to make sex sexy, not kind of gross.
And even if people like Roiphe won’t accept erotica, maybe it’s making a mark. As you said, Donna- people like yourself, Thomas, Emerald and about a million others- just have to keep writing.
Also: eep! Donna George Storey has my book in her cart! Excitement!
P.S. Haven
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Superb post, Em. Thank you! Thoroughly researched and measured, as always.
I think it is sad and utterly regrettable that we, as a culture, seem to have sacrificed some of our lust for “vive la différence” over the past three or four decades. You’re absolutely right, though. You want it, you come to us! (And thank you sincerely for listing me among that roll call of badasses. I’m honored!) (And back at you, Craig)
I would like to think that we erotica writers offer all the “différence” while simultaneously exalting empowered women as characters and creators as well as celebrating that crucial, old-school (but hopefully a little bit enlightened) manly man. (The former group I am a devoted worshipper of; the latter, a card-carrying member.)
Long live swagger, baby.
Emerald
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
It is such a delight to come back from an outing this afternoon to a fabulous, thoughtful discussion on my blog! Wow, thank you!
Donna said,
“I think the battles of those times are still being fought at a deeper level”
Indeed, that seems obvious to me too. Since you said you read them, did you notice that seemed to be alluded to by the very first letter to the editor? I was actually reminded of that when I read Charlotte’s comment too of, “Far easier to do that, or blame feminism, than investigate the whole situation.”
The letter (first one listed here) says in part,
I found that response very interesting. (I almost included it in the post but it ended up seeming outside the scope of it to me.)
Thank you all, really—I am so appreciating your input and this fascinating discussion.
Emerald
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Charlotte - you mentioned,
“I did wonder if you’d just included my book because it’s new and came to mind”
No. I really did write this post seriously as though I were offering it to Ms. Roiphe and some of the responders to her article via letters to the editor. The list I included above—again, obviously not close to exhaustive—was what occurred to me immediately as representative of the kind of incredible, beautiful fiction/art the erotica genre, in my experience, has offered. As I said, I haven’t read all the work the article and responses cited…but I have read the list that I gave. :)
Emerald
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Thank you Haven!
“(The former group I am a devoted worshipper of; the latter, a card-carrying member.)”
Seriously, I laughed out loud when I read that!
Well, to me, it seems what you have been doing has been working. :)
Thanks so much for coming by and again for contributing to this discussion (which I really find fascinating).
Charlotte Stein
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Oh no! I didn’t mean to imply that you hadn’t written it seriously! Just that…I think I find it hard to accept that people like my work. Even when all evidence points to the fact that they do! Spent the whole weekend sure that a reviewer had praised my work as some sort of elaborate joke. Am bonkers, most likely.
(apologies for comments sidetrack!)
Emerald
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Lol Charlotte. No, I didn’t think you were implying I hadn’t written it seriously. :) I was just reiterating. Happy to take the opportunity to emphasize how much I enjoyed The Things That Make Me Give In. Xoxoxo
Erobintica
Saturday, January 30th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Late to the discussion, though I read your post right away, but didn’t have time to comment, then forgot to come back. I read that same article (it was linked to from a lit blog I read - can’t remember which one or I’d link to it, hahaha). I read it and got kinda irritated. But I can’t remember why right now - maybe I’ll go back and reread it (or maybe not, lo).