The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

...

I don't read other books that have sex scenes. Just not the type of books I enjoy.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I do yes. I've read up to #49 and will read #50 soon.

Since you have enjoyed 49 books with sex scenes, doesn't it seem a little strange to say "Just not the type of books I enjoy"?

[John F]

I sometimes read books with sex scenes. They are seldom very graphic.

And I don't skip/skim parts of a book (other then reviews, raves, copyright notices, other books by this author, ...).

[Sirtel]

Sex scenes don't bother me either, but they're not necessary for me to enjoy the book.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by John F

Since you have enjoyed 49 books with sex scenes, doesn't it seem a little strange to say "Just not the type of books I enjoy"?

I'm talking the type of books where there are a number of sex scenes and they are the primary focus of the book. With the In Death books, the murder mystery is the focus of the plot and the characters. The sex is secondary and it's only one short scene.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'm talking the type of books where there are a number of sex scenes and they are the primary focus of the book. With the In Death books, the murder mystery is the focus of the plot and the characters. The sex is secondary and it's only one short scene.

Yeah--I'm reading an historical murder mystery series, which I have found surprisingly enjoyable (I thought it was going to degenerate into a romance, which they so often do, but huzzah, they didn't) and the involved couple eventually marry, yadda. And they have sex a few times, maybe...IDK, twice (?) per book but it's perfectly suitable to the storyline and feels natural and organic to the story.

With something like (sorry to keep harping on this one) HBO's GOT, it felt quite honestly like prurient, titillating, puerile PLOT replacement and film stretcher.

I really hated it when in discussions online, someone (or, I must be honest, seemed like the majority of the GOT-lovers) would rant at me that "the sex is crucial to the plot!!!" And I would always ask, "oh, well, if you need to know that A slept with B, exactly what--exactly--is conveyed in a graphic sex scene that you wouldn't get if you saw A and B in a bed, post-coitus? What incredibly important plot information?

If you're going to say that someone is a sexual sadist, okay, I can see good reasons to include more detail than two people in bed (in ye olden days, smoking a ciggie, but whatever today).

And, if that's so damned important, SO crucial, such an imperative, then why is it it's 99% all the lady parts that are exposed, and almost NEVER the boy toy's wedding tackle? I mean, what, it's so bloody crucial to understanding the plot, but somehow, your plot understanding drips out of your brain, if you see wedding tackle instead of lady bits?

What a bunch of bloody nonsense. You wanna be prurient? Knock yourself out. Seeing other people going at it fires up yor engine? Then just flipping admit it. Don't try to sell me illogical drivel about how it's "crucial to the plot" to include explicit sex. I can see it on occasion and I can see it done well, but it just seems as though over the last 25 years, it's nothing more than, as I said, filler and cheap filler at that.

Geeze, for the love of God, look at what happened to Laurell K. Hamilton, who almost created a publishing niche all by herself, had 4-5 terrific ABVH books and then...to this day, other than divorcing the guy that MUST have been the brains behind the actual murder mystery plots, (as those disappeaRed the moment he did, I mean, THE MOMENT), and marrying some boy toy (speaking of boy toy parts), I have no idea what happened to her. Yes, yes, I get it; she laughed all the way to the bank, her books went to #1 hardcovers (that should tell you everything you ever wanted to know about the American "reading" public), but damn, I really enjoyed those early books and finally stopped reading her. I mean, talk about sex in lieu of plot! Ugh. Millions or not, I still think it's a shame.

Hitch

[Sirtel]

I loved the first 4 or 5 seasons of GoT, but I agree the sex was overdone, and yep, that old hypocrisy of naked women vs naked men was also in full bloom there.

Still, even GoT with graphic and unnecessary sex scenes was miles better than many series with no sex scenes. The plot, characterization and dialogue of the first 4 seasons was brilliant.

[issybird]

Point made and that’s fine, but let’s not veer into a full-blown discussion of television or film. Thanks.

[Luffy]

Someone on Goodreads tried to make the case that P&P was chicklit. He basically said that Austen's novel was chicklit elevated a high level of artform. I felt like he was baiting me. I think it is just labels. What do you think?

[issybird]

I think by definition chicklit isn’t high art. And yes, there was probably an element of baiting as well as misogyny in the opinion, so no need to rise to it.

And on the (misapplied) appellation of Austen as chicklit, the more I read her, the more I think it’s not about the romance, it’s about class and money. She’s got serious things to say on both topics; the romance is just dressing.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

I think by definition chicklit isn’t high art. And yes, there was probably an element of baiting as well as misogyny in the opinion, so no need to rise to it.

And on the (misapplied) appellation of Austen as chicklit, the more I read her, the more I think it’s not about the romance, it’s about class and money. She’s got serious things to say on both topics; the romance is just dressing.

I would agree with that (your comment about Austen's work/class & money). Vis: chicklit, that term, which started out derogatorily, has more or less come to mean more-humorous (than less, I mean) LitFic aimed at women. Yes, it can have situational humor or comedy, even slapstick if done remarkably well, but it's still MOSTLY LitFic (a woman managing her life, navigating life's obstacles, and working on her interior development) primarily targeted to/at women readers.

So...happily, I think that Austen would find the entire discussion pretty funny. :-)

Hitch

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I would agree with that (your comment about Austen's work/class & money). Vis: chicklit, that term, which started out derogatorily, has more or less come to mean more-humorous (than less, I mean) LitFic aimed at women. Yes, it can have situational humor or comedy, even slapstick if done remarkably well, but it's still MOSTLY LitFic (a woman managing her life, navigating life's obstacles, and working on her interior development) primarily targeted to/at women readers.

So...happily, I think that Austen would find the entire discussion pretty funny. :-)

Hitch

This occasions a mini-rant of my own. It may just be me, but I dislike how the term litfic, as short for literary fiction, has been corrupted altered, seemingly, to mean any kind of fiction that’s not genre fiction. What was a useful, descriptive term is now so all-embracing as to mean nothing at all. What would you call “serious fiction, the kind that’s reviewed in the NYRB etc., what Hemingway and Wharton wrote before it turned classic”? That’s what used to be literary fiction. Now it’s absolutely useless as a sieve.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

This occasions a mini-rant of my own. It may just be me, but I dislike how the term litfic, as short for literary fiction, has been corrupted altered, seemingly, to mean any kind of fiction that’s not genre fiction. What was a useful, descriptive term is now so all-embracing as to mean nothing at all. What would you call “serious fiction, the kind that’s reviewed in the NYRB etc., what Hemingway and Wharton wrote before it turned classic”? That’s what used to be literary fiction. Now it’s absolutely useless as a sieve.

LOL, it's funny--I just had a discussion about this elsewhere. How, as you've rightly said, if it ain't immediately identifiable as Genre Fic, ooops, it's LitFic, as if LitFic has become the Ort Barrel, where everything uncategorized goes to die.

Myself--for whatever that's worth--I tend to categorize books as LitFic if the "action" is primarily internal to the character(s). The conflicts and challenges are character-driven and emotional/mental, rather than fighting external problems. (Fighting Evil Empires, finding Murderers and all that).

That's not to say that LitFic is plotless. It's just that I view the goals of the characters as being decidedly different. In Genre, the characters change and develop, in service of fighting some external problem. In LitFic, they change and develop in service of fighting some internal problem, challenge or personal issue.

{Shrug}. But that's just me.

Hitch

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Myself--for whatever that's worth--I tend to categorize books as LitFic if the "action" is primarily internal to the character(s). The conflicts and challenges are character-driven and emotional/mental, rather than fighting external problems. (Fighting Evil Empires, finding Murderers and all that).

That's not to say that LitFic is plotless. It's just that I view the goals of the characters as being decidedly different. In Genre, the characters change and develop, in service of fighting some external problem. In LitFic, they change and develop in service of fighting some internal problem, challenge or personal issue.

{Shrug}. But that's just me.

Hitch

That is a very useful definition of Litfic. I always thought literary fiction books were of the type hosted by the 2nd book club on mobilread - which technically might be the truth. Your take on it irons out a lot of confusion that I had.

[ownedbycats]

I kind of despise how Kindle Unlimited forces authors to go exclusive. Another book disappeared from my Kobo wishlist because the author switched to KU.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

I kind of despise how Kindle Unlimited forces authors to go exclusive. Another book disappeared from my Kobo wishlist because the author switched to KU.

This! One thousand times, THIS! It's been increasing in recent months too, even a couple of pre-orders disappeared for this reason.