|
Return To the Celestial Review (This does NOT open a new window) Return To the Index (This does NOT open a new window) Note, to make reading multi-part stories easier, story links (links with dejanews.com or www.qz.to, NOT the review or profile links) will open up a new browser window. When you are done reading the story, or section of the story simply CLOSE the story window. |
|
* "Catalyst" by Mark (voyeurism) 10, 10, 10
* "Catalyst" by Mark (MarkB@aboy.demon.co.uk). All the other stories in this issue were written by "regulars" - people whose stories I have reviewed before. In many cases the authors were kind enough to send the stories to me for my convenience. And a fine bunch of stories they are! I remember seeing this one in the postings; but I decided to skip it, because I already had too many stories to read. Then a reader clipped it and sent it to me with his recommendation. I want to thank that reader. This is an excellent story by an author I have never read before. In chemistry class we learned that a catalyst is a substance, usually used in small amounts relative to the reactants, that modifies and increases the rate of a reaction without itself being consumed in the process. Through metaphor, the term also refers to a person who precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences. That's the role of this story's narrator, who observes a freshman girl at a party lusting after the hunk across the room. The narrator has two problems: (1) to bring the two together so that they can fulfill their mutual urges and (2) to do so in such a way as to be able to watch their hot interaction. I'd tell you more, but it will be more fun for you to find out the rest for yourself. The author is posting these as part of an "Alphabet Series." I plan to look for more stories in this series. Ratings for "Catalyst" Athena (technical quality): 10 Venus (plot & character): 10 Celeste (appeal to reviewer): 10 CELESTIAL VOCABULARY NOTES: DISINTERESTED/UNINTERESTED. One of the authors used this sentence in a story this week: " Faith listened disinterestedly as she casually sipped her tea." Strictly speaking, Faith should have listened UNinterestedly, or since that sounds a bit odd, without interest. A person who is DISinterested is impartial or free of bias and self-interest, which is different from being indifferent or showing no curiosity. The distinction is gradually evaporating, since so many people use the two words interchangeably. Personally, I would have Faith listen "without interest," simply because both of the competing words contain six syllables, are hard to pronounce, and therefore make the thought seem more complex than it really is. While we're doing vocabulary distinctions, let's look at the difference between PORNOGRAPHY, EROTICA, and OBSCENE material. The online dictionary supplied to me by Microsoft Bookshelf defines pornography as "pictures, writing, or other material that is sexually explicit and sometimes equates sex with power and violence." The encyclopedia from the same Bookshelf (more correctly, I think) defines pornography as "written, graphic, or oral depictions of erotic subjects intended to arouse sexual excitement." The encyclopedia adds, "Pornography is commonly divided into two categories: soft-core, in which erotic content is more titillating than explicit; and hard-core, in which erotic content is explicit and intense." It seems obvious to me that if someone wants to talk about sexually explicit material that is degrading or violent, it is necessary to use a modifier to extend the word pornography to include the broader concept. If pornography is by definition violent and degrading towards women, then almost none of the stories reviewed in this issue of CR are pornography. And this stuff IS pornography: As Mark Twain said, I know it when I see it. I make this point because I watched a TV special a few weeks ago on which people were denouncing pornography because it was violent and degrading to women. As I listened to this conversation, I muttered to my husband, "Then most of the stories I review are not pornography." Of course they are; they're just not violent or degrading pornography. By not making the distinction, the people having the conversation were seriously muddying the waters. My Bookshelf encyclopedia defines obscenity as "acts, utterances, or items (primarily publications and films) deemed contrary to public standards of sexual morality. That's a pretty clear definition. It tells me that pornography (something intended to arouse sexual excitement) becomes obscene when it violates public standards. My Bookshelf dictionary defines erotica as "literature or art intended to arouse sexual desire." The Bookshelf encyclopedia does not mention the word at all - making me glad that I received Bookshelf "free" with Microsoft Office. In other words, pornography is the same thing as erotica, except that it's restricted to "literature." My offline dictionary defines erotica as "literature or art dealing with sexual love." My other Grolier's Multimedia Encyclopedia (for which I paid good money) pragmatically defines erotica as " the name given to any artwork--written, pictorial, or performed--that portrays sex explicitly yet possesses enough value to escape condemnation as pornography." This makes sense to me. With regard to this newsgroup, pornography refers to writing that is intended to arouse sexual excitement. Erotica refers to any writing that describes human sexual lovemaking without becoming obscene. (Sex, of course, is possible without love. As Woody Allen once said, " Sex without love is an empty gesture. But as empty gestures go, it is one of the best.") Obscenity refers to attempts at pornography and erotica that violate community standards. All three of these forms of literature are appropriate and abundant on the alt.sex.stories.* newsgroups. About 98% of the stories are pornography, because most people who read them find them to be sexually arousing. A much smaller percentage of stories (probably under 75% of the stories I review) would be referred to as erotic. I excluded 25 percent because a large number of stories (e.g., rape stories) may be sexually arousing but not related to what most people would call lovemaking. In addition, a small number of erotic stories are not pornography – because they are not designed to arouse the reader. For example, some stories in the bible are erotica but not pornography: they exalt in the beauty of the human body and human love in order to glorify God rather than to stimulate dirty thoughts. Imagine that. Finally, I suppose about 95% of what I have reviewed would be considered obscene by the standards of my real-life community. That's why it's on this newsgroup, where people whose standards it would violate don't have to read it. It's interesting that even on this newsgroup people differ in their "community standards." Some readers regard incestuous pedophile rape stories as obscene – and therefore choose not to read or review these stories because the obscenity squicks them; whereas others consider the same stories to be harmless pornography. I don't think it is possible or desirable to make global statements about what is and what is not obscene. I personally don't think it is right to impose general censorship on any of these categories – although I do think it makes sense to regulate the access of children at various ages to all three categories. However, right now I am not at all interested in discussing legal or psychological issues, important as they may be. What I am suggesting here is that there may be some value in thinking over and clarifying what we mean by these words, so that we can communicate more clearly. -- |