Obscenity in Literature

[lupercal]

Dear all,

I am currently about to write an undergraduate paper on the role of obscenity in literary texts. As part of my research process, I'd be really interested to hear some other reader's experiences and opinions on the topic.

The main question I'd like to put out there is: In your experience of reading literature, what do you consider to be the function of obscene content (in relation to the overall work or novel)? How does it shape meaning, or the way that you relate the the text?

Please share your thoughts! I'd love to hear from you. :)

[TacoButt]

I am not sure what the definition of obscene content is, but it sounds like a potentially wide range of things.

The consideration of its role, function or ability to provide shape or structure to meaning is equally ambiguous.

Can you narrow the scope of your question or clarify further? Sounds like you are on an interesting course of exploration.

[B. Laumness]

The etymology is intellectually interesting: obscenus means "sinister, of bad omen", therefore "what it must be avoided, hidden", because it’s "awful, indecent, immoral", and in the common usage obscene means "offensive generally in a sexual way". Why what is awful is immoral? Why sex has not to be shown on the scaena, on the scene, on the stage? Why the instincts, the manifestations of the body have to be hidden? See the critics towards the realist painters and writers in the 19th century: “It’s disgusting and immoral, those people don’t care about Art, Good, and Soul, etc.”

[Seasider]

Lord Campbell's Act of 1857 dealing with obscenity in the printed word said:

The book must "have a tendency to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to immoral influences"… and later, "a book is obscene if it suggests to the minds of the young of either sex, or even persons of more advanced years, thoughts of a libidinous or impure nature ..."

[lupercal]

Thank you everyone for presenting some extremely interesting issues regarding obscenity!

TacoButt: Yes, sorry for being ambiguous! I must admit I intended to be vague, as I wanted to leave the definition of 'obscenity' open to question and to see what kind of subjects readers generally associate with the term. However, to answer your question, I'm mainly exploring the role of sex, imagery that might be considered 'graphic', and other such things that might be considered a "taboo" subject from the early twentieth-century onwards. I realise that terms such as 'obscenity' and 'taboo' are problematic, which I will definitely make reference to in my analysis. I'm exploring obscenity as a theme in the works of James Joyce. Hope this answers your question, and feel free to bat back any other comments or suggestions (or experiences of your own reading!) :)

[arrytus]

lolita, ulysses, and tropic of cancer all were considered obscene. now their plots are like pretty much any day time soap opera.

i guess you could consider 'obscene' to be a word for the tastes of a future generation.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

lolita,

I think Lolita is still considered pretty taboo...not really the stuff of typical soap operas.

[arrytus]

I think Lolita is still considered pretty taboo...not really the stuff of typical soap operas.


ok I shall revise my gnome to 'anachronistic' rather than strictly 'futural', then we can recall marriages by 12 year olds in pretty much every society [and still in a few], or pederasty in ancient greece

[TacoButt]

Speaking pretty generally, I think that the Victorian Romantics were repressed in their expression of sexuality. This is a reflection of the culture and perhaps of the personality of Queen Victoria herself.

When Freud came on the scene in Vienna, the good doctor started to stare directly into the heart of unconscious sexual and repressed base desires and seemed to suggest that these urges were the very seat of human behavior and motivation.

However, it is sometimes pointed out that Freud's psychoanalysis was a PRODUCT of the 19th century sensibilities regarding sexuality. Because these urges and desires were repressed, they were eventually seen at the root of all civilization itself.

I think in 20th Century literature, these psychoanalytical themes and influences crept in. It's certainly true of film too. At the end of WWI, the encounter with the unconscious horrors hidden in the depths of men's souls was impossible to ignore. The arts were particularly good at peering into the verboten void of the human experience to bring us face-to-face with it.

But after WWII, I think that themes of brutality, taboos, sexuality and other depravity existed in literature quite comfortably next to the nobler aspects of man. Our culture gradually become more commonly accepting that "yes, human lives are both wonderful and awful."

Maybe we're going back to ancient Greece view of obscenity. Aristotle pointed out that man, as a rational member of the polis is capable of the best acheivements and made him next to (but not quite) the gods. But in the absence of reason, the polis and good education, he is the most savage and barbaric of ALL animals.

When I encounter evil, barbarity, sexuality, and other dark aspects of humanity in contemporary literature, it is usually part of a complex tapestry of the human condition. Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was a master of weaving that tapestry in my opinion. Here, the best and the worst of humanity was presented plainly, unapologetically and without explanation. I find this quite enlightened.

I don't know if this helps. I re-read what I wrote and it sounds like a load of crap to me. :-)

[arrytus]

I don't know if this helps. I re-read what I wrote and it sounds like a load of crap to me. :-)

I have this diffidence with everything I compose. But would I feel better if what I descried were veracious? It would yet lead to a paradox to wish to be more nescient in my judgments, nathless then my original pronouncements are likely in error and only the reflection is correct.

[And now for the final flourish:] "I re-read what I wrote and it sounds like a load of crap to me."

[TacoButt]

[And now for the final flourish:] "I re-read what I wrote and it sounds like a load of crap to me."

I really like to read your posts. If they are crap, I say, "back up the crap wagon right into my driveway." :)

[jocky]

You have bowled a beauty there Lupercal. It calls into question ideas of morality, language, personality. It is worth a whole thesis on it's own. Is the Maquis De Sade classic literature or pure filth ? Can modern day literature be classified with the writing of a different era ? Who defines what obscenity is ? I don't pretend that I could give a definitive answer, who could ? The question you pose is worth an 'A' as it will give the academics a nightmare. Well done.

[kelby_lake]

I'd definitely look into Lady Chatterley's Lover.

It was put on trial in Britain in 1960 as a breach of the Obscene Publications Act, which had been passed a year earlier. Many authors of the time came to the novel's defence. Not all of them said that the novel was a masterpiece but they disagreed with the principle.

The case was essentially won when the chief prosecutor said: "Is this the kind of book you would wish your wife or servants to read?" Whether Chatterley was a literary masterpiece or not, it called into question the conservative and outdated values of that society.

And I think Tropic of Cancer is still regarded as obscene.

[lupercal]

When I encounter evil, barbarity, sexuality, and other dark aspects of humanity in contemporary literature, it is usually part of a complex tapestry of the human condition. Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was a master of weaving that tapestry in my opinion. Here, the best and the worst of humanity was presented plainly, unapologetically and without explanation. I find this quite enlightened.

Brilliantly put! I feel exactly the same, but couldn't have articulated what I meant as well. That's why I am so fascinated by twentieth-century literature - it's marvellously bold and unapologetic for its trueness of form...

Thank you to everyone; there have been some really insightful and intelligent discussions here. :-)

[hazelk]

I have just a short story in Colm Toibin's "The Empty Family" that I class as obscene.

[stlukesguild]

Interestingly enough, we are currently engaged in a dialog on a similar topic on the art forum that I frequent. I must say that I am amused that "obscenity" is repeatedly associated with sexuality:

"a book is obscene if it suggests to the minds of the young of either sex, or even persons of more advanced years, thoughts of a libidinous or impure nature ..."

"...after WWII, I think that themes of brutality, taboos, sexuality and other depravity existed in literature quite comfortably next to the nobler aspects of man..."

"When I encounter evil, barbarity, sexuality, and other dark aspects of humanity..."

"Sexuality and other depravity?!" Sexuality is something we ought to think of as "depraved"?!:confused:

"Sexuality and other darker aspects of humanity...?" Sexuality is one of the darker aspects of human existence?

How is something like this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5288/5318221011_1008551ea8_b.jpg

or this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5284/5301889487_f646795b49_z.jpg

or this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5128/5302482700_10f83e033c_b.jpg

... can be seen by many as "obscene"... but not this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5205/5352623939_7f0cda94f1_z.jpg

this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5290/5353235238_185e07fa7f_z.jpg

or this?

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5353235270_cf4c8f33e8.jpg

Personally, I'm continually puzzled at just how it is that the human body (something each and every one of us owns) and sex (something our parents obviously engaged in, and that most of us also engage in an embrace as one of the highest possible human experiences) can shock... disturb... offend so many (even the well educated... or artists) to the point that they would define it as something "not art" but "pornographic", "obscene", "vulgar", etc... I question how it is that something like the human body and sex can be deemed pornographic or obscene while images of extreme violence are not.

Speaking solely for myself, I fully agree with the great art historian, Sir Kenneth Clark, who wrote:

"The human body is rich in associations, and when it is turned into art these associations are not entirely lost... It is ourselves and arouses memories of all the things we wish to do with ourselves; and first of all we wish to perpetuate ourselves.

This is an aspect of the (nude) that is so obvious that I barely need to dwell on it; and yet some wise men have tried to close their eyes to it. "If the nude," says Professor Alexander, "is so treated that it raises in the spectator ideas or desires appropriate to the material subject, it is false art and bad morals." This high-minded theory is contrary to experience. In the mixture of memories and sensations aroused by Ruben's Andromeda...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5353253778_434575c650_b.jpg

(or his St. Sebastian, I might add:)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5201/5353253844_9ff3e4085f_b.jpg

or Renoir's Bathers...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5353253886_6b3318d24f.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5041/5352642803_1b008faf22.jpg

... are many that are "appropriate to the material subject". And since these words of a famous philosopher are often quoted, it is necessary to labor the obvious and say that no nude, however abstract, should fail to arouse, in the spectator, some vestige of erotic feeling, even though it be only the faintest shadow- and if it does not do so, it is bad art and false morals. The desire to grasp and be united with another human body is so fundamental a part of our nature that our judgment of what is known as "pure form" is inevitably influenced by it... The amount of erotic content a work of art can hold... is very high. The temple sculptures of tenth-century India are an undisguised exaltation of physical desire; yet they are great works of art."

Sir Kenneth Clark, The Nude

[TacoButt]

That's true. Sexuality isn't obscene. Come to think about it, I'm not sure what obscenity is to me. I like literature that seems liberated from static conceptions of "appropriate" and "obscenity."

[Sulla]

Unfortunately, I think sex is still obscene in America.

Henry Miller seems to be one of the best examples of this. Many agree that he is one of the greatest writers in a very long time yet he's generally ignored due to the subject matter that he uses. His language is beautiful and unique yet he's not discussed very openly in intellectual communities because of what he represents (an openness to sexual desire).

[kelby_lake]

I think obscenity relies a lot on intention. If the sexual/violent content is included purely for the purpose of arousing or shocking, it could be classified as obscene. Also, context is a big part. Were two partners in a loving relationship to have sex in a bedroom, even if it is portrayed quite explicitly, it is not obscene. If it was two strangers having sex in an odd place, that ventures into the obscene because it questions normal behaviour. Something assumed to be private is made public.

[sandy14]

Since you are looking at the twentieth century, as well as Lady Chatterley, you may wish to take a look at the trial of the Unicorn bookshop for selling, amongst other things J G Ballard's The Atrocity Exhibition. J G Ballard refused to defend the short story that was accused of being obscene because he said it was supposed to be obscene.

In addition books like Lady Chatterley & Ulysses were published in France and imported to the UK. This meant that the publishers were not tried for publishing (I'm not sure if the French law prosecuted books not written in French) and the books could be seized by customs as obscene. This meant that some artists & travellers owned copies.

The Olympia Press did the same. Maurice Girodias commissioned pornographic books from writers & artists in Paris and published them in France. So you got School for Sin (by Alexander Trocchi under the pen name Frances Lengel) which featured Dublin ladies being lead astray and Young Adam, which was written as an existentialist novel which had sex scenes added at the publisher's request.

[Whosis]

This may be a bit late, but J. D. Salinger should not be forgot in The Catcher in the Rye, which if you're still interested, you should investigate for yourself. I don't want to spoil anything, but obscenity is a bit of a turning point for Holden in the novel as he is distraught by this graffiti impacting one like his sister.