|
Author
|
Comment
|
Dark Siren
Unregistered User
(5/6/05 9:40 am)
|
Re:Women!!
I don't howl - I drool. ;)
And I always say,men are like computers - I know what they do,but don't have a clue how they work!
|
Carrie
Unregistered User
(5/6/05 9:51 am)
|
beasts
This thread seems rather fragmented, but I wanted to add that I'm
of the opinion that several stories in The Bloody Chamber could
be used in a discussion of this type. I can't locate my copy right
off hand, but I believe it is the Tiger Bride where our heroine
takes the opportunity to become a beast -- taking that freedom for
her own instead of just experincing it second-hand. I've seen this
idea in many other modern takes on fairy tales including Teri Windling's
lovely poem Brother and Sister (www.endicott-studio.com/c...sis.html).
Just a thought.
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(5/6/05 1:18 pm)
|
Re: beasts
I'd like to add to Erica's cogent points. It's worth noting that there is a world of difference between crushing on volatile, unpredictable, violent, or otherwise "wild" fictional characters, and what one wants out of a romance or sexual relationship in real life. By their very fictionality, such characters are completely safe objects of desire--their violence is of course completely under the control of the writer/reader/fantasizer, and thus can be sexually alluring, as power often is, without being dangerous. Violence in real-life relationships is a completely different matter.
In "Creative Writers and Day-Dreaming," Freud made specific mention of sexual fantasy and also wrote that "The unreality of the writer's imaginative world...has very important consequences for the technique of his art; for many things which, if they were real, could give no enjoyment, can do so in the play of phantasy, and many excitements which, in themselves, are actually distressing, can become a source of pleasure for the hearers and spectators at the performance of a writer's work." He's talking about writers here, but the entire essay is an argument for understanding creative writing as an artistic form of fantasy, and in this essay, I think he's right. I believe we all enjoy a number of things in fantasy and fiction that we would want no part of in real life.
I, for instance, can't get enough of the movies Jaws or
Aliens, but under no circumstances would I wish to be either
at sea with a near-psychotic shark-obsessed captain and a gigantic
killer shark or trapped on a planet overrun by deadly aliens with
acid for blood. Similarly, when I was 13 years old, I had a crush
on J.D., the character played by Christian Slater in the movie Heathers.
But if I had been confronted by a real teenage boy who carried guns
to school, poisoned my more obnoxious schoolmates, and set in motion
a plan to blow up my school, I'm quite certain I would have been
horrified and told my mother. Fortunately, I was spared any such
test.
Edited by: Veronica Schanoes at: 5/6/05 2:30 pm
|
bielie
Unregistered User
(5/6/05 4:18 pm)
|
Beasts...
And here was I, thinking Heathcliffe was a drag and a whus. Now I understand: He was spawned by the dark desires of the female id. Think I'll go and slap my significant other around a bit and see what happens... Grrr!
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(5/6/05 4:58 pm)
|
Re: Beasts...
You know what, Bielie? I'm pretty sure you were joking, but I really don't find domestic abuse, which injures and kills scores of women, funny. At all.
|
Erica
Carlson
Registered User
(5/7/05 8:45 am)
|
What she said
What Veronica just said. And here I'd thought "Abuse is bad" was fairly clear. Huh.
|
Dark Siren
Unregistered User
(5/7/05 1:46 pm)
|
Re: What she said
Abuse bad.Men hitting women bad.Women hitting men bad.
Tempting as it is to give bielie a slap myself for that comment.But I'm a woman,we ahve stronger restraint than men,so I will refrain.
But if you'd said that to my face,you wouldn't be so lucky.
|
bielie
Unregistered User
(5/7/05 2:30 pm)
|
Thanks Veronica
Thanks Veronica. My point exactly.
You said:
"It's worth noting that there is a world of difference between crushing on volatile, unpredictable, violent, or otherwise "wild" fictional characters, and what one wants out of a romance or sexual relationship in real life. By their very fictionality, such characters are completely safe objects of desire--their violence is of course completely under the control of the writer/reader/fantasizer, and thus can be sexually alluring, as power often is, without being dangerous. Violence in real-life relationships is a completely different matter."
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Voilent fantasies lead to voilent acts. Fantasy is real. Thoughts and fantasies germinate into actions. Of course not always. Not every smoker gets cancer. But certain types of cancer always start with smoking. Action always starts as thought.
I do not believe there is one predator who does not fantasize about the act before he perpetrates it.
I read an interesting article the other day: Soldiers are now taught to kill with video games. If you can kill in a game of fantasy, you can kill for real. Before, only about 30% of soldiers really shot to kill. After video game conditioning, the kill rate goes up to 95%. Or something like that, if I remember the article correctly.
That is why I find this thread very disconcerting.
You may fantasise from the POV of LRRH. I am a man. My kind will take the POV of the wolf.
I believe both kinds of fantasies are equally destructive.
|
AliceCEB
Registered User
(5/7/05 2:43 pm)
|
Re: Thanks Veronica
Hmm. This dovertails interestingly into the "Fairy Tales linked to violent relationships" thread. Going to think some more on this.
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(5/7/05 4:12 pm)
|
Re: Thanks Veronica
Quote:
I do not believe there is one predator who does not fantasize about the act before he perpetrates it.
This is no doubt true, but the truth of an if/then statement does
not mean that its converse is true; that is to say, that although
everyone who commits a violent crime has fantasized it first, that
does not mean that everyone who fantasizes about violence will then
engage in it. I don't even think that the issue is exceptions. I
don't know anybody who hasn't had violent fantasies, and
I know almost nobody who has carried them out.
Quote:
Voilent fantasies lead to voilent acts. Fantasy is real. Thoughts and fantasies germinate into actions.
So, it has not been my experience that violent fantasies lead to
violent acts. Nor did I ever say that "fantasy wasn't real."
What I said, and what I stand by, is that fantasy is different
from reality. What I want in a crush is not necessarily what I want
in a boyfriend. And while I may have excessively violent fantasies
about, oh, revenge on people who have Done Me Wrong, I have never
carried them out, or even tried to.
|
AliceCEB
Registered User
(5/7/05 6:40 pm)
|
Re: Thanks Veronica
In thinking about the soldiers being taught to kill by using video games (I too have heard about this study), I wonder if there isn't a qualitative difference in the fantasy involved. You can sit down and think up violent, gory ends, even write stories to that effect, and yet be a gentle person. But if you spend time shooting guns attached to a machine, the act of shooting becomes less real--the consequences don't matter so much since what you're killing isn't real. The soldier who is then presented with a real gun, has fired it numerous times and thinks less about the consequences?
Also, the shooting game wasn't in the soldier's imagination: it was a series of physical actions (firing a gun) with consequences. These consequences were virtual, but they weren't thought up by the soldier for his/her amusement--they were external to him/her. So by repeatedly doing this action with consequences external to the soldier, being presented with the real thing seems, perhaps, of less consequence.
This brings to mind Ender's
Game by Orson Scott Card where a boy who becomes a master
of virtual war games is given the ultimate test of games--which
turns out to be a real war, even though he isn't aware of it. Because
it is in the form of a game, he does not realize that his losses,
hundreds and thousands of soldiers, are real, and he's able to commit
the ultimate act of destruction--the anniliation of another planet--thereby
winning the war. The book barely scratches the surface of the psychological
damage that must cause--but it provides the seed of the notion behind
the video shooting/soldiers deadliness study.
I don't really have an answer here, just more questions. But I don't believe that fantasies lead to bad behavior. It's the moment when those fantasies are given some form of life that they become much more dangerous.
More thinking to do.
Best,
Alice
Edited by: AliceCEB at: 5/7/05 6:44 pm
|
Terri
Windling
Registered User
(5/14/05 9:46 am)
|
Re: Thanks Veronica
To me, the point of the attraction of a "beast" in literature
is that he is a creature of the imagination, and as such
he is under the reader's control. He can't hurt you, he
can't touch you, you can close the book any time you want to. Violence
in the real world is not under control, and thus truly
frightening to many women (and men too, of course). I don't personally
like violent literature or violent romantic heroes, but I can understand
their appeal for people who find it cathartic to control violence
(or the threat of violence) in fantasy in a way that they can't
in daily life.
Though I personally find the Heathcliff variety of "brooding
and brutish" romantic hero unappealing, I do find myself drawn
to various kinds of Animal Bridegroom tales. Not the ones in which
the Animal Bridegroom is violent or cruel, but the ones in which
he's simply Other, wild, and represents a potent connection to the
world of nature. Generally in such tales the most appealing thing
about him is the care and gentleness with which he treats the heroine,
despite his animal nature. Alice Hoffman explores this theme beautifully
in her novel Second Nature.
We have an article on Animal Bridegroom stories over on the Endicott
site, if anyone's interested, at: www.endicott-studio.com/rdrm/rrMarriedToMagic.html.
(I seem to be linking to lots of Endicott articles today. My apologies
if this seems like a tacky plug for the site...)
Edited by: Terri Windling at: 5/14/05 9:48 am
|
Dark Siren
Unregistered User
(5/17/05 1:26 pm)
|
Re: Thanks Veronica
I agree with Terri in her first two paragrapghs.If I don't like someone or what they're doing,I'll put the book downb,rant and rave a wee bit,and then go back and continue to despair as I read.(In fact,I think the last time I did that was Anita Blake 8 - how could she do that to Jean-Claude,especially when Richard dumps her later anyway.Jean-Claude is always there - though I'm beginning to do the same with Ash and Atremis in Sherrilyn Kenyon's Dark-Hunter series.)You know he can't hurt you,and especially if he treats his heroine so tenderly,so preciously...well,I dunno about anyone else,but I just melt.
Though I do love Heathcliff and Darcy and their like.
|
beautifulstars
Unregistered User
(5/17/05 9:23 pm)
|
not necessarily
Wow--it's been awhile since I've had access and am amazed at how this thread has spiralled into other discussions.
I'm not necessarily certain that an attraction to, or an affinity for, the 'darker' characters in fairy-tales (ie. the beast over the prince, the wolf over the huntsman, etc and so on) speaks to anything violent or abusive. I certainly don't equate the beast himself with abuse. I think part of the interesting nature of the tale is that, at least in many versions, the beast, while having such an intimidating external nature and an animalistic nature to which he must answer, is very tender with Beauty. Perhaps our dislike of his return to the Prince human-form is that he will then, quite likely, begin to act like most human men, in other words not treating his bride as tenderly and with as much care as he did as a Beast.
I am simply very fascinated by the fact, and have heard many discussions on this board along this line, that woman and men in this day and age tend to be more attracted to the less than fairy-tale perfect characters. We are attracted to Gretel rather than Cinderella, or to the older Cinderella characters rather than the newer, much more stereotypical ones.
Dark Siren---it's not that I dislike Jean-Claude, but that I find Hamilton has really dropped him as a main character, using him now as a convenient foil when Anita needs something or has had enough sex with everyone else. Loving Jason. Richard definitely is an @#%$, but there's still something about him I like.
I haven't read Wolf-Hunt but it certainly is interesting.
As for the diference between fantasy and reality...they are certainly connected, although an affinity in one aspect does not necessarily lead to a materialization in the other.
|
Dark Siren
Unregistered User
(5/18/05 6:25 am)
|
Re: not necessarily
Isn't that what I've been saying all along?
I agree completely,Richard is a pr**k - when will Anita wake up? - and Jason is great,but I dunno if we can say that about Jean-Claude.I think she might be falling into that trap,but hopefully she'll manage to put things right.At the moment,though,I want more Asher than book 12 had(though I think that was something to do with 11 being very Asher-orientated,so we should be back to normal in 13),and more second triumverate - especially Damian.
Can I just point out to all those who don't like Jean-Claude(not necessarily you,beautifulstars,so you don't get the wrong idea)that he is always there for Anita? Richard practically forces her to dump him,then dumps her.Everything - or one - is too new yet to compare,I think.(Unless you want to count Micah,in which case I think he's still trying to make up the whole Chimera thing.Everything that's new for Anita is new for him too.)
But Jean-Claude is always there.I mean,he's the one in the dream in book 9,and for those of you who have read the anathology Bite,well...who is it she goes to?She practically *admits* that with Jean-Claude - okay,she does admit it - she can be herself.
|
Dark Siren
Unregistered User
(5/18/05 6:41 am)
|
Re: not necessarily
(Got cut off. :o )
PS.And that thing you like about Richard?It wouldn't be his gorgeous
looks(his hair!HIS HAIR!!!)and his...bedside manner,by any chance?
;) It's okay,me and Senga feel the same.
Oh,and that he was okay before book 6.I made an effort to like him,and
I kinda did(even though I'd read the backs of all the others and
knew they split up while she stayed with Jean-Claude).He blew that
in 6. >: That was evil...oh,and he tried to stop Anita saving Asher
in 11...lets just say if it had been *his* help Asher needed,then
Asher would either be a pile of dust or back in France.*shudders
at both thoughts*I actually feel sick at that.
|
beautifulstars
Unregistered User
(5/18/05 9:26 am)
|
anita...and co.
:D I love how I have someone to discuss these books with. I have
gotten so many people addicted to them.
You are completely right--Jean-Claude has always been there for Anita, which, as horrible as it sounds, feeds back into my personal affiliation with the 'darker characters' in fairytales. He's too easy-going. There's not much conflict between him and Anita. I like it when they are arguing, or sort of going toe-to-toe mentally with each other. There was a particular book they did that in....can't recall the name.....alot of it was set in the strip club....anyways. I like Richard because there is always emotional and mental arguement when he is around. I like that friction between my characters. Hell, I always choose boyfriends who aren't afraid to have a good arguement.
Can't wait to see what she does in the next book. Damian also doesn't do it for me. He's not unique enough and has been too whiny up to this point to suddenly be a turn-on. But I like...Micah(?) He's pretty cool. And again, with the Jason--loving him. And I liked alot of the arbitrary smaller characters she introduced in above-mentioned book whose name I cannot recall.
I forgot to address something else. I wasn't trying, originally, to suggest that we, as woman are 'howling after the beast.' I don't think that's necessarily true. But I do think there is something in the less-than-stereotypically perfect characters in fairytales (the ones in which their beauty and charm aren't necessarily part of the mentioned package) that draw us to them. It's not even necessarily a desire for the beast, but perhaps an expression of the darker, more animalistic and instinctive part of ourselves in reflection.
|
Dark Siren
Unregistered User
(5/19/05 9:40 am)
|
Re: anita...and co
Hmm.Jean-Claude and Anita arguing?Where *do* I start...? :lol
Well,the clubs narrow it down.There's book 4 - "Lunatic Café" - when he finally gets her to go out with him...yeah,okay,because he *hints* he might just kill Richard(but now he can't,cause it would kill them both,and now Nathaniel and Damian,so moot point - but she's still with him.Yay).Or there's book 10,"Narcissius in Chains",where they marry the marks,and Anita gets the ardeur and the leopards and Richard goes suicidal,and Anita gets mad when she sees what happened to Gretchen - uh,*why*? - and Jean-Claude gets *really* mad...so does Asher,come to think of it...
It could be book 11 "Cerulean Sins",but that isn't the
clubs.Then it could be "Bite - The Girl Infatuated With Death",but
can you call that arguing?...Book 12 "Incubus Dreams"
is step in a *hella* lotta strip clubs,but I don't remember them
arguing particularly. :rolleyes
Then there's just books 1-3,they do a lot of arguing,but he's only really in that bit where she's looking for Wanda in book 2...
And about that reading Marianne did in 12.I say the person from her past is Edward.Basically,me and Senga think that Mommy Dearest will wake,kill Belle - YAY! - and Anita's left to clear up the mess,most probably with Edward's help...lotta guns going bang-bang then.I mean,even with a new family,Edward's hardly going to pass up a chance to against the first ever vampire,is he?
What do you think? :D
|
sagana
thas me
Registered User
(5/19/05 10:38 am)
|
Re: anita...and co
Personally, I'm about fed-up with the Anita Blake books. I've read them avidly from the first and she's a wonderful writer. But if I didn't already care about the characters, I wouldn't even have read this last one. If you took what counts as a plot out and put it in a separate book - I don't think you'd even have a short story :( Personally, I want more story and less... emotional frenzy and sex.
|
beautifulstars
Unregistered User
(5/19/05 12:43 pm)
|
plot in anita blake
'you took what counts as a plot out and put it in a separate book
- I don't think you'd even have a short story :( Personally, I want
more story and less... emotional frenzy and sex.'
sagana thas me-- lol. I agree with you, actually. For a long time I was frustrated by the books because it is actually the crime-solving aspects of the booiks that I was interested in. This is the reason I've given up on the Merry Gentry books altogether--there is absolutely no plot. However, I eventually came to peace with the fact that a) I like the books b) they are Mary-Sue books in entirety, but there is some satisfaction, for me, in the fact that I know that ANY interesting character that shows up, Anita will undoubtedly have sex with. c) they aren't hard to read, so they are enjoyable time for me. they are, in some sense, comfort books.
dark siren-- mommy dearest has been definitely peeking her head up recently. I like Edward's character somehow--he definitely interests me. I was a little perturbed by Hamilton's disintegration of the relationship between Blake and her police friends, however, since it was one of the juxtapositions that, for me, made the books interesting. No, the book I'm referring to (why can't I remember the name, damnit!) there was dancing at a club....Jean-Claude had just gotten a new second in town who was threatening and whom Anita disliked. Her ardor took over and she went in the back with two cute litte strippers, both of whom I enjoyed.
I must say, I also like it when Hamilton takes Blake to various other locales. I loved 'Blue Moon.' I re-read it constantly.
|
|
