Is the age of sensuality dead?

[Dark Muse]

I have found that you can scarcely pick up a contemporary novel without discovering within it a rather vivid and graphic depiction of sex between characters. While I know a lot of people take offence or have a general dislike for such occurrences, I myself am not so prudish about it, and it does not truly bother me all that much, but it did bring a question to my mind.

I have found in my reading of a classical works and perhaps this is more often the case in poetry, but it present in my novels as well, from the period of the 19th century to earlier, there is a very strong suggestiveness, and sensuality. In a time when it was not typical to lift the curtain in the bedroom, and where there were certain taboos about sexuality, authors found a variety of creative ways, elegant descriptions, metaphors, symbolism, to suggest desire and lust, without revealing it.

When I reflect back to the contemporary novels I have read, and often enjoyed, it seems that the approaches to sex has taken a bit more of a crude note.

Do you find that with the new open door policy on sex, sensuality (which can often be more tantalizing than a frank, hit you over the head with it approach) is dead in writing?

[Jozanny]

No :) and I know that is a short answer. Let me add two things: The implied metaphors of 19th and early 20th century realism have moved into modern films, like Chocolat, by Joanne Harris, or The Letter, where Tom Selleck shocked me by actually acting, for a change.

What the modern novel has done to graphic sex, where that sex is not merely for gratification, is use it for thematic intent. I reviewed lots of this, actually quite demanding reading, when I was more active in the small presses.

Love making is difficult to write well, really; it isn't just about knowing your anatomy.

[kelby_lake]

I think it is basically dead. You had to be cleverer as a writer when things were banned but now you can write absolute filth. Normally there is no reason for most of the shocking content apart from to give the writer a little thrill as he reads over his work.

[dfloyd]

Henry Fielding was pretty graphic in Tom Jones and Joseph Adrews. Daniel Defoe's Moll Flanders leaves little to the imagination. Fanny Hill is worse than Tropic of Cancer. But all of these are considered literature. Without being too graphic, Dumas has D'Artagnan have a married woman for a mistress, and he tricks Milady into a bedroom rendevous. Definitely not a children's novel.

Good writing can be graphic and the writer can get away with it. Poor writing can be graphic but soon forgotten.

[mayneverhave]

What's filthy about sex?

[Vladimir777]

What's filthy about sex?

I'll side with this. Although at times subtlety and sensuality and taste are great things, just because something has graphic sex (and most sex in novels isn't even that graphic to me, although I guess people have different standards, although something like American Psycho I think all can agree is pretty graphic and disgusting) doesn't mean it can't be called great literature or sexy. There is room for both things in literature, just as a lot of classics like the Iliad have graphic scenes of blood and gore in them. But I do understand the cry not to forget about tasteful eroticism, which can be a lot sexier than actually cutting straight to the chase. But certainly there isn't anything wrong with sex--I'm not a Puritan like a lot of people seem to be in our society.

[Dark Muse]

I will say for myself that I really have no taboos about the appearance of sex in literature, and that I have never been disturbed or offended by it. I do not think there is anything in of itself that is wrong, or bad, but I do wonder reading the difference between counterpart novels and classical novels if the contemporary more graphic and direct approach to sex has been at the expense of some of the tantalizing, beautiful suggestiveness at a time when authors did have to be more clever in conveying physical desire.

I am not so much bothered by the presence of the sex itself, but wonder if prose has suffered a bit from more modern openness, and the fact that I think (and perhaps not wrongly) people think in this day and age that sex really does sell.

Though considering that in a lot of literary environments I do encounter complaints about the use of sex in today's literature, I wonder if not a more elegant approach to the subject could still co-exist with modern society.

In a way are modern day authors actually lazier in their approach to sex? Because then can so blatantly just put it out there?

[JBI]

There is a problem though - what is the purpose of sex in fiction - is the graphic sex depicted depicted for a reason, and if so, how does the potrayal then add to the general understanding of the themes of the novel?

Atwood, for instance, often has brutish sexuality in her works (that's an understatement), except you cannot separate the sexuality from the themes. Likewise, if the author is going to bother wasting lines on a sex scene, it definitely needs to prove a point, and not just be some sort of trivial scene - unless of course they are writing erotica, in which case, I need not even comment.

[mayneverhave]

There is a problem though - what is the purpose of sex in fiction - is the graphic sex depicted depicted for a reason, and if so, how does the potrayal then add to the general understanding of the themes of the novel?

That question can be directed towards literary every aspect of a work of fiction, not just sex.

Sex, in and of itself, is a positive, life continuing force. Most people take part in it, and all of us are the product of it, but this association of sex with violence and putting sex on a morally worse level than violence is ridiculous.

I don't want to debate morality, but if rape is evil, it is because it is violent and forceful, but that doesn't make sex necessarily violent and forceful.

[AmericanEagle]

Likewise, if the author is going to bother wasting lines on a sex scene, it definitely needs to prove a point, and not just be some sort of trivial scene

Have you read The Time Traveler's Wife? It was basically Henry and Clare having sex on every other page. I fail to see why these scenes are significant.

[JBI]

That question can be directed towards literary every aspect of a work of fiction, not just sex.

Sex, in and of itself, is a positive, life continuing force. Most people take part in it, and all of us are the product of it, but this association of sex with violence and putting sex on a morally worse level than violence is ridiculous.

I don't want to debate morality, but if rape is evil, it is because it is violent and forceful, but that doesn't make sex necessarily violent and forceful.

Oh, of course one can do this with every aspect of a novel, and that is my point - we question the depictions of sexuality, therefore we can question how our understanding of sexuality, in both the discourse of literature, and in broader cultural frames has changed. When you see changes in themes and depictions, it is possible to then make statements about patterns.

Not that I agree with the original post - I think the sexual depictions in, for instance, Japanese mythology (which was first written down in 680 AD) are far more graphic, violent, and course than anything we find today in serious literature.

If we look at, for instance, even Shakespearean literature we see a sort of frankness toward sexuality which is beyond our understanding (look at all the sexually provocative language used throughout Romeo and Juliet, for instance).

This of course, is my opinion - but I feel by comparing trends we see different patterns - we question why such things are in books, and then we can deconstruct the cultures around the text and the text itself.


Have you read The Time Traveler's Wife? It was basically Henry and Clare having sex on every other page. I fail to see why these scenes are significant.
They are significant because that was what people wanted to buy - the actual book, so I am told, is kind of crappy, so I have avoided it, but from what I know about it, it functions on sentimentality, with the theme of time central - sex then functions as the idea of the "idealized moment" perhaps, when the couple are together, but also perhaps creates an escape for the novels readers to get absorbed into.

Was it at least sexy?

[AmericanEagle]

Was it at least sexy?

Well, I didn't think so. I found them to be bizarre and irrelevant.

Henry and Clare even discuss whether it's normal to have so much sex.

[Dark Muse]

If we look at, for instance, even Shakespearean literature we see a sort of frankness toward sexuality which is beyond our understanding (look at all the sexually provocative language used throughout Romeo and Juliet, for instance).

It might have very frank language about sex but there isn't a near to pornographic love scene between Romeo and Juliet describing in vivid detail their making out as one would find if the story was written today.

And I am not trying to make any judgements against such things, as I have stated before, I don't truly have a problem with the presence of sex, I am just questioning the use of prose and language used within literature and how sensuality may indeed have a stronger affect than sexuality.

[mayneverhave]

If we look at, for instance, even Shakespearean literature we see a sort of frankness toward sexuality which is beyond our understanding (look at all the sexually provocative language used throughout Romeo and Juliet, for instance).

This of course, is my opinion - but I feel by comparing trends we see different patterns - we question why such things are in books, and then we can deconstruct the cultures around the text and the text itself.

Shakespeare is a good example, because sex, whether explicit or implicitly mentioned permeates throughout his entire work - and therefore to ignore these aspects of his work (i.e. when teaching it in, say, an elementary level class) is to miss a major motif in his work.

Look at the constant and vehement reactions to female sexuality in Hamlet and King Lear (the recurring "nothing"), and the ever present anxiety in Shakespeare of female infidelity - i.e. a song in As You Like It:


Take thou no scorn to wear the horn;
It was a crest ere thou wast born:
Thy father's father wore it,
And thy father bore it:
The horn, the horn, the lusty horn
Is not a thing to laugh to scorn.

or even the multilayered puns of Falstaff:


Well, he may sleep in security;
for he hath the horn of abundance, and the lightness
of his wife shines through it: and yet cannot he
see, though he have his own lanthorn to light him.

[kelby_lake]

Well, I didn't think so. I found them to be bizarre and irrelevant.

Henry and Clare even discuss whether it's normal to have so much sex.

Same here! The sex scenes were just so...boring. It was like reading an instruction manual.

Yeah, there's lots of sex in Shakespeare's stuff. A copy of Titus Andronicus I read explained in the footnotes what the line 'I have done your mother' meant. Who writes these footnotes?! I was 13 and I knew what that meant.

[Scheherazade]

Same here! The sex scenes were just so...boring. It was like reading an instruction manual.Must... not... comment...
Yeah, there's lots of sex in Shakespeare's stuff. A copy of Titus Andronicus I read explained in the footnotes what the line 'I have done your mother' meant. Who writes these footnotes?! I was 13 and I knew what that meant.Maybe not everyone as wise?

;)

[prendrelemick]

I'm reading Tenant of Wildfell Hall, and for heaven sakes, do Huntingdon and lady Lowborough do the deed or not during those assignations in the shrubbery? I really want to know, but Anne isn't explicit enough.

[isidro]

I think that once a person gets used to walking around naked everywhere, the beautiful art of subtle flirtation wears off and that's one of the most adorable qualities about romance in the first place. It gets boring when there is no Jane Austen, peering through eyelashes across a crowded room, trying to catch one's breath and hide a blush by looking at one's needlework because Mr. So and So walked into the room and gave her that one LOOK. C'mon - that what the game is all about! :)

[Jozanny]

I am not quite sure where the controversy is here, if indeed one is developing. Prurient interests are not always mutually exclusive from the tantalizing, although I am not saying they cannot diverge. Sex scenes can be important to the writer's narrative. Mine, or Pynchon's in Gravity's Rainbow, where there was one, in particular, involving feces, which I did not get the full import of until I learned about certain Nazi episodes which were important to Pynchon's thematic arc. Sensual? That is a judgement call, but integral to the novel itself? Yes. A concrete sexual description may be important, and it may be gratuitous, but calling them a waste of time seems dismissive.

As I posted earlier though, I think sensuality in metaphoric terms is now dominated by film, whether traditional or avant garde.

[Dark Muse]

I think that once a person gets used to walking around naked everywhere, the beautiful art of subtle flirtation wears off and that's one of the most adorable qualities about romance in the first place. It gets boring when there is no Jane Austen, peering through eyelashes across a crowded room, trying to catch one's breath and hide a blush by looking at one's needlework because Mr. So and So walked into the room and gave her that one LOOK. C'mon - that what the game is all about! :)

Yes, that is what I am trying to get at. I am not anti-sex but there are times when in literature, I do miss those moments. They do not exist anymore in most of our current works of fiction.

It does not mean sex has to be abolished completely, and I am not advocating that, but a little more subtlety at moments would not be a bad thing, not because of any prudish views, but more for the greater experience and enjoyment of the prose.

[kelby_lake]

Must... not... comment...Maybe not everyone as wise?

;)

Oh, not like that! :eek2: I was at that age when I liked to read shocking things.

[Annamariah]

I have found that you can scarcely pick up a contemporary novel without discovering within it a rather vivid and graphic depiction of sex between characters.

(...)

Do you find that with the new open door policy on sex, sensuality (which can often be more tantalizing than a frank, hit you over the head with it approach) is dead in writing?

I've noticed the same thing too, which is why I don't like most contemporary literature that much. I don't want to read any graphic sex scenes, I prefer the "sensual approach" you mentioned.

[Jozanny]

I think the discussion is somewhat incautious, as I do not know that there ever was an "age of sensuality" in literature or the arts that could be declared dead. During the reign of Cosimo in Medieval Florence, there was a great flourishing of homo-erotic art, later curtailed by the Roman Church.

In modern Western societies, there are really no closets left, except those that Sche and Logos use here in the forum ;) but I'd need more evidence than physical realism to say that sensuality is dead.

Julia Roberts did not pick up the tag "America's Sweetheart" out of nowhere. She exudes wistful sentiments without full frontal nudity.

[Dark Muse]

I think the discussion is somewhat incautious, as I do not know that there ever was an "age of sensuality" in literature or the arts that could be declared dead. During the reign of Cosimo in Medieval Florence, there was a great flourishing of homo-erotic art, later curtailed by the Roman Church.

In modern Western societies, there are really no closets left, except those that Sche and Logos use here in the forum ;) but I'd need more evidence than physical realism to say that sensuality is dead.

Julia Roberts did not pick up the tag "America's Sweetheart" out of nowhere. She exudes wistful sentiments without full frontal nudity.

But sensual prose does not really exist anymore, not in the same way that it did particularly during the age of the romantics, and the Victorians. Now within books, as within modern life, it is all just hanging out there. The language around sex in works of written fiction have become a lot more crass, and a lot less suggestive, and clever.

In considering this discussion I keep thinking about something someone said regarding the use and sensuality of gloves within The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton, and well it seems today the glove has been completely discarded and thrown out the window.

Naturally literature with society will be given to change, but there is something much more provocative about the mystery of what the glove conceals, than the bare naked flesh in full exposure.

I have just recently started reading The Woman in White, and recall the wonderful moments of Mr. Hartright describing his falling in love with Miss Farlie, and the way he talks about his cheek bent close against hers as they look over the drawings. And the sensuality of the way the women are described within their silk dresses.

Today if the story was written they probably would have already had some illicit romp and a lot of the beautiful and evocative wiring would be completely lost.

[Jozanny]

But sensual prose does not really exist anymore, not in the same way that it did particularly during the age of the romantics, and the Victorians. Now within books, as within modern life, it is all just hanging out there. The language around sex in works of written fiction have become a lot more crass, and a lot less suggestive, and clever.

In considering this discussion I keep thinking about something someone said regarding the use and sensuality of gloves within The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton, and well it seems today the glove has been completely discarded and thrown out the window.

Naturally literature with society will be given to change, but there is something much more provocative about the mystery of what the glove conceals, than the bare naked flesh in full exposure.

I have just recently started reading The Woman in White, and recall the wonderful moments of Mr. Hartright describing his falling in love with Miss Farlie, and the way he talks about his cheek bent close against hers as they look over the drawings. And the sensuality of the way the women are described within their silk dresses.

Today if the story was written they probably would have already had some illicit romp and a lot of the beautiful and evocative wiring would be completely lost.

I don't necessarily disagree Dark, and I actually think you have a good thesis for school; it might be a topic I am interested in too, but I have to finish x number of things.

It might be dead in novels overtaken by modernism or by the loss of the closet, but as to the WIW, my heart thumped, as I am reading it too; I am on pg 64 and have a thread here:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=774171#post774171

If you care to add your insights, I'd welcome the chat; don't worry about spoilers, as far as I am concerned, though other mems may want a warning.

I will come back to this.

[Dark Muse]

I will have to look into that, acutally we are not that far apart I am on page 83

[dfloyd]

of The Woman in White as the mysteriousness and suspense of the novel, although it could have been edited for a smoother read. However, I believe it was serialized, as many of the Victorian novels were, so the authors were paid by the word.

Overall, I agree with the Dark Muse, but readers of Wilkie Collins read him for the mysteriousness of his novels rather than the romance. Mysteries were a novelty in Victorian times. I have read both the Moonstone and the Woman in White twice, about 30 years apart, and enjoyed them both times. Also, if you like the Collins novels, look for The Masterpiece Theatre dvds on both novels. No one dramatizes Victorian literature like the English. After all, doesn't everyone love a good mystery?

[stlukesguild]

But sensual prose does not really exist anymore, not in the same way that it did particularly during the age of the romantics, and the Victorians.

Well of course not. And I would presume that there were those living during Romanticism or the Victorian era who bemoaned the fact that sensual prose does not exist anymore in the same way as it did during the 18th century... or the time of Shakespeare. Personally I find that there is plenty of lush, romantic language to be found in Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Pablo Neruda, Octavio Paz, A.S. Byatt, Jonathan Safran Foer, etc... The more specific complaint as to how sexuality is represented has much to do with how the artists and larger society view and experience that aspect of life. I might mourn the fact that no painter today presents an image of humanity bathed in the sort of golden light used by Rembrandt... but the reality is that Rembrandt viewed much of the world (at least after the sun had set) under the glow of lamplight or candlelight. Today we view the world under electric light... fluorescent, neon, incandescent... or the glow of the TV or the computer. With time these will seem just as "romantic" as the light of Rembrandt. In the past society dictated that discussion of sexuality be cloaked in metaphor... remain to a certain extent "chaste". One might obsess about the lace of a skirt, the turn of an ankle, or the way the hair fell upon the shoulders... but then the rest was left to the imagination... by necessity. Was this inherently better? One might argue that openness has deprived the artists/poets/writers/composers of the need to creatively cloak sexuality in metaphor... allusion... and the faintest suggestion. Another might argue that the same artists/etc... today have the advantage of being permitted to explore sexuality (and many other themes) in ways they were never before permitted. The results depend upon the intentions... and the skills of the artist.

I have just recently started reading The Woman in White, and recall the wonderful moments of Mr. Hartright describing his falling in love with Miss Farlie, and the way he talks about his cheek bent close against hers as they look over the drawings. And the sensuality of the way the women are described within their silk dresses.

There are sexual scenes in A.S. Byatt, in Garcia-Marquez, in Carlos Fuentes, etc... that are every bit as sensual as any Romantic/Victorian bit of writing... albeit far more explicit, admittedly. Obviously one would need to look for the works of a writer whose focus was upon the sensual and sensory as well as upon the psychological relationships between persons... couples... if one is to find such in contemporary writing. One might suggest that our literature... our art as a whole is far less "romantic" and far more rooted in irony... humor... absurdity... and hard realism. We are not alone in this. A great deal of the 18th century reveled in a similar obsession with harsh realism... to the point of the scatological... with irony and humor. One might think of Swift's The Lady's Dressing Room, any number of the poems of Lord Wilmot, or even The Rape of the Lock by Pope which mocks the grandiose romantic epic.

[prendrelemick]

I've noticed the same thing too, which is why I don't like most contemporary literature that much. I don't want to read any graphic sex scenes, I prefer the "sensual approach" you mentioned.



I too prefer the sensual sugestive approach, but sometimes in order to make sense of the plot you really need to know if they are "at it" or not. I don't mean with graphic discriptions, but just to know, in order to make sense of their subsequent actions.
That area of human behavior was so taboo, especially in the romantic era, that authors hardly ever allowed their heros and heroines to experiance lusty sexual attraction. So you get Darcy admiring Miss Bennet's fine eyes, when the fashion of that era was revealingly decollete`,and Jane finding Bingley merely agreeable.

[Manchegan]

I don't see many of the better writers describing graphic sex. They focus on the mental effects of pervasive sex in today's world more than they focus on the sex itself. I think they are aware of the fact that they risk being viewed as trashy if they don't handle it correctly and with purpose.

I've noticed more of a problem with music. Today's bands don't have to hint at everything so they write clever lyrics such as, "hey. you're a crazy b**** but you f*** so good I'm on top of it...You're crazy but I like the way you f*** me."

Oh and, "what do I have to do to get inside of you?"

Artists will always seek to create art. It's the rockstars you have to watch out for.

[MANICHAEAN]

I presume prendrelemick that "decollete" was the French word for what the English nobility used to express & appreciate in a woman of the 18th/19th century as "a fine neck" ?

[Annamariah]

I too prefer the sensual sugestive approach, but sometimes in order to make sense of the plot you really need to know if they are "at it" or not. I don't mean with graphic discriptions, but just to know, in order to make sense of their subsequent actions.
That area of human behavior was so taboo, especially in the romantic era, that authors hardly ever allowed their heros and heroines to experiance lusty sexual attraction. So you get Darcy admiring Miss Bennet's fine eyes, when the fashion of that era was revealingly decollete`,and Jane finding Bingley merely agreeable.
There are so many ways to make it absolutely clear whether they were "at it" or not without using any graphic descriptions or coarse language, and yeah, sometimes it's essential to know for sure.

I admit that one must respect Mr Darcy for being able to keep his eyes from wandering from Elizabeth's face to her chest :lol: If it wasn't written, it never happened, right? :lol:


I've noticed more of a problem with music. Today's bands don't have to hint at everything so they write clever lyrics such as, "hey. you're a crazy b**** but you f*** so good I'm on top of it...You're crazy but I like the way you f*** me."

Oh and, "what do I have to do to get inside of you?"

Artists will always seek to create art. It's the rockstars you have to watch out for.
:D The music must be really poor where you come from. I think you should change the radio channels you're listening to, for you've clearly chosen the wrong ones if that's all you keep hearing :D

[prendrelemick]

Your avatar has just completely undermined my arguement! That lady really has the most engaging eyes (or eye.)

[Annamariah]

Your avatar has just completely undermined my arguement! That lady really has the most engaging eyes (or eye.)
This lady thanks you for your kind words, as it happens to be my eye in the picture, and hides her blush modestly behind her fan :lol:

[prendrelemick]

I presume prendrelemick that "decollete" was the French word for what the English nobility used to express & appreciate in a woman of the 18th/19th century as "a fine neck" ?

As shakespeare almost wrote. you must gaze a little lower, to where the pleasant fountains lie. :eek2:


This lady thanks you for your kind words, as it happens to be my eye in the picture, and hides her blush modestly behind her fan :lol:


Really! they're a beautiful colour. very striking

[genji]

Well, I didn't think so. I found them to be bizarre and irrelevant.

Henry and Clare even discuss whether it's normal to have so much sex.

It wasn't erotic, and I don't think it was intended to be. Henry tries to control his energy levels by running and f*cking in an effort to minimise his travelling. It's not a sentimental or sensual depiction of sex in their relationship - it serves a narrative function.

Although Henry is only 43 when he dies, his progression towards death reflects anyone else's. The links between being oversexed and having a vasectomy, and his dependence on being able to run and having his feet amputated, without being literal about it, connect to anyone else's experiences in old age of reducing libido or fertility and not being as fit as they once were.

There's enough in the book for the reader to understand Clare's sexual appetite, having remained chaste for an awfully long time. The often criticised sequence about her being beaten up by Jason and exacting her revenge through Henry is a consequence of her pent-up desire.

I generally don't enjoy reading sex in books because it always seems gauche and tacky, and I was ready to dismiss Niffenegger's attempts but instead found them to be in keeping with both the style and purpose of the narrative, and not at all awkward or irrelevant.

[kelby_lake]

It wasn't erotic, and I don't think it was intended to be. Henry tries to control his energy levels by running and f*cking in an effort to minimise his travelling. It's not a sentimental or sensual depiction of sex in their relationship - it serves a narrative function.

Although Henry is only 43 when he dies, his progression towards death reflects anyone else's. The links between being oversexed and having a vasectomy, and his dependence on being able to run and having his feet amputated, without being literal about it, connect to anyone else's experiences in old age of reducing libido or fertility and not being as fit as they once were.


So he has a vasectomy so he can lower his libido to fit in with old people? And he screws to waste energy so he doesn't accidentally flick back in time?

I didn't finish the book and that isn't much of an incentive. The sex scenes were boring but in that sort of literary writer way- 'Look, you lap this stuff up. I couldn't care less how I write this scene.'
Read 'On Chesil Beach' if you would like an example.

[Silas Thorne]

John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester, was as direct and blunt about sex in his time, the late 1600s, as some writers are nowadays. I cite the 'Imperfect Enjoyment' as one example, which is still rather offensive to many people today (which is why I'd rather not print it here) . Many words in it, 'swiving' for example, would have been very crude and blunt words for sex in his time. It is here, if anyone is interested: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/imperfect.html .

[Nax]

I am of the belief that it has taken alot of the romance out of romance, and the passion out of passion. I personally tend to get more enjoyment (and yes in some cases arousal) from suggestion, rather then blatent sexuality or nudity. Having everything laid out for you doesnt enhance an experience, but rather cheapen it. To write good romantic prose, I believe you must follow the same course of love, seeking, discovering, anticipating (very important) and eventually culmination. The latter is if anything the LEAST important part.

I like it when a writer lets me know that two people are having sex, or about to, but this doesnt tend to need more then a line or two, a paragraph maximum. Unless your reading the book in a pornographic sense, or a particular act happens during sex which drastically effects the plotline (I personally would have it come to light after the act to help twist the plot) I dont see excessive descriptions and dirty talk neccisary. If I wanted porn I would go to google, not to the library.

Its the same in almost every industry, music, film, books, and even artwork. The problem with modern society is that there are a great deal of us, and a great many of that lot are not particularily bright, or have any interest in skill and art, and rather want to be entertained. In order to make as much money possible (which is of course the cancer of our current society and is destroying our lovely arts) people will try to apply to the lowest common denominator, and will in most cases make doing so as simple as possible. God forbid someone pay money and not have everything spelled out for them 100%, we dont want these people doing any thinking now do we!

As composers, be it art, music, writing, etc. try to push the boundries more and more to get noticed, and try to entertain the masses rather then stimulate and inspire the few, we will continue to be bombarded with more and more voilent, sexual, and simple concepts.

In this way we have lost so much of the art involved in the arts, and instead have a great deal of it replaced with lowbrow perversion. It is a shame really, but thats life.

[Silas Thorne]

The problem with modern society is that there are a great deal of us, and a great many of that lot are not particularily bright, or have any interest in skill and art, and rather want to be entertained.

Is this true, or are you just working from a general assumption? 'Bright' in what way? I feel the vast majority of people have a great interest in skill and art, just maybe not the sort of arts or skills that you are interested in, but then I would probably be working from a general assumption too. :)


As composers, be it art, music, writing, etc. try to push the boundries more and more to get noticed, and try to entertain the masses rather then stimulate and inspire the few, we will continue to be bombarded with more and more voilent, sexual, and simple concepts.

In this way we have lost so much of the art involved in the arts, and instead have a great deal of it replaced with lowbrow perversion. It is a shame really, but thats life.

Why should anybody only want to stimulate and inspire 'the few', or go and speak only to the ' ivory tower specialists' who appreciate these things you are interested in? Are you in any way apart from these 'masses' you talk about, as a human being? And are you talking of the Emo masses, or the watchers of spectacular disaster film masses, or the 'I only watch French art film masses'?

And isn't 'lowbrow perversion' another word for: 'these things kids like nowadays'? ;) A 'perversion' is just a change, and change is natural.

I think some writers write with sensuality, some describe things in detail. There are masses that will like one, or the other, or both.