« Ninja civil servants avoid detection | Main | Keep your cereal dry, boys »

October 12, 2007

Comments

Lori

Beanie, It was great meeting you! Putting face with words just adds a whole new dimension to the voice in my head when I'm reading you!

Here is the extent of my Harry Potter knowledge: http://www.hahnathome.com/2007.08.01_arch.html#1186024544048

Sad, I know. Very sad.

pam

Look! Look! I think I finally pissed off a reader. Someone stumbled upon my blog yesterday (maybe after googling 'textile porn'? She says she didn't, but my stats say otherwise ...) and she e-mailed me:

"Boy, you give Slate magazine a lot more credit than they deserve.
Just because they make up a term which makes no sense at all doesn't [mean]
the reader has to fall for it."

I liked the term for the same reason my husband and I like to call the Home and Garden Television channel "decorating porn" - other people put themselves out, it's stimulating, there's a voyeuristic quality, it always ends with The Reveal, which is a climax (of sorts), and when it's done you haven't exerted yourself at all.

Get it?

Anthony

The inimitable Tom Lehrer said it best (im his ode to salaciousness "Smut"):

"When correctly viewed/
Everything is lewd..."

Because, indeed, the entire narrative tradition of the West is built on the eventualy fulfillment of delayed gratification; even if the gratification isn't explicitly sexual, the technique is the same. We watch/read/absorb things because we are being presented with a mechanism which invokes one of three emotions: curiosity, anixiety or desire. Often more than one. But the heightening of the feeling du jour is, in essence, arousal and our response to it is exactly the same whether it's "get away from her YOU BITCH" (Cameron is a master at anixiety-provocation) or "are you as turned on as I am?" (the single most imitated scene it romantic sit-coms in the last two decades or so).
Textiles, gardening, sex. No difference.

The comments to this entry are closed.