"The Sex-Files" - a topical new story
MATTHEWS-SIMMONS KELLIE
"smut" as he refers to it. It is truly unfortunate that he cannot
differentiate between the two genres, and that sex is somehow a bad and
dirty thing. I excerpted the following material from the Preface of
Erotica by Anais Nin. I thought you might find it interesting. To make a
livin, she wrote erotica for a mysterious client of a collector, who acted
as an agent.
When Henry [Miller] asked what the patron's reaction to his
writing was, the collector said: "Oh, he likes everthing. It is all
wonderful. But he likes it better when it is a narrative, just
storytelling, no analysis, no philosophy."
.....
I never met the collector. He was to read my pages and to let me
know what he thought. Today I received a telephone call. A voice said,
"It is fine. But leave out the poetry and descriptions of anything but
sex. Concentrate on sex."
So I began to write tongue-in-cheek, to become outlandish,
inventive, and so exaggerated that I thought he would realize I was
caricaturing sexuality. But there was no protest. I spent days in the
library studying the Kama Sutra, listened to friends' most extreme
adventures.
"Less poetry," said the voice over the telephone. "Be specific."
But did anyone ever experience pleasure from reading a clinical
description? Didn't the old man know how words carry colors and sounds
into the flesh?
Every morning after breakfast I sad down to write my allotment of
erotica. One morning I typed: "There was a Hungarian adventurer..." I gave
him many advantages: beauty, elegance, grace, charm, the talents of an
actor, knowledge of many tongues, a genius for intrigue, a genius for
extricating himself from difficulties, and a genius for avoiding
permanence and responsibility.
Another telephone call: "The old man is pleased. Concentrate on
sex. Leave out the poetry."
.....[snip]
I was sure the old man know nothing about the beatitudes,
ecstasies, dazzling reverberations of sexual encounters. Cut out the
poetry was his messages. Clinical sex, deprived of all warmth of love--
the orchestration of all the senses, touch, hearing, sight, palate; all
the euphoric accompaniments, background music, moods, atmosphere,
variations--forced him to resort to literary aphrodisiacs.
We could have bottled better secrets to tell him, but such secrets
he would be deaf to. But one day when he reached saturation, I would tell
him how he almost made us lose interest in passion by his obsession with
the gestures empty of their emotions, and how we reviled him, because he
almost caused us to take vows of chastity, because what he wanted us to
exclude was our own aphrodisiac--- poetry.
.....[snip]
I had a feeling that Pandora's box contained the mysteries of
woman's sensuality, so different from man's and for which man's language
was inadequate. The language of sex had yet to be invented. The language
of the senses was yet to be explored. D. H. Lawrence began to give
instinct a language, he tried to escape the clinical, the scientific,
which only captures what the body feels.
....[snip]
I gathered poets around me and we all wrote beautiful erotica. As
we were condemned to focus only on sensuality, we had violent explosions
of poetry. Writing erotica became a road to sainthood rather than to
debauchery.
....[snip]
The homosexuals wrote as if they were women. The timid ones wrote
about orgies. The frigid ones about frenzied fulfillments. The most
poetic ones indulged in pure bestiality and the purest ones in
perversions. We were haunted by the marvelous tales we could not tell. We
sat around, imagined this old man, talked of how much we hated him,
because he would not allow us to make a fusion of sexuality and feeling,
sensuality and emotion.
[snip]
....I decided to write to him, address his directly, tell him about
our feelings.
"Dear Collector. We hate you. Sex loses all its power and magic
when it becomes explicit, mechanical, overdone, when it becomes a
mechanistic obsession. It becomes a bore. You have taught us more than
anyone I know how wrong it is not to mix it with emotion, hunger, desire,
lust, whims, caprices, personal ties, deeper relationships that change its
color, rhythms, intensities.
"You do not know what you are missing by your microscopic
examination of sexual activity to the exclusion of aspects which are the
fuel that ignites it. Intellectual, imaginative, romantic, emotional.
This is what gives sex its surprising textures, its subtle
transformations, its aphrodisiac elements. You are shrinking your world of
sensations. You are withering it, starving it, draining its blood.
"If you nourished your sexual life with all the excitements and
adventures which love injects into sensuality, you would be the most
potent man in the world. The source of sexual power is curiousity,
passion. You are watching its little flame die of asphyxiation. Sex does
not thrive on monotony. Without feeling, inventions, moods, no surprises
in bed. Sex must be mixed with tears, laughter, words, promises, scenes,
jealousy, envy, all the spices of fear, foreign travel, new faces, novels,
stroies, dreams, fantasies, music, dancing, wine.
"How much do you lose by this periscope at the tip of your sex,
when you could enjoy a harem of distinct and never-repeated wonders? No
two hairs alike, but you will not let us waste words on a description of
hair; no two odors, but if we expand on this you cry Cut the poetry. No
two skins with the same texture, and never the same light, temperature,
shadows, never the same gesture; for a lover, when he aroused by true
love, can run the gamut of centuries of love lore. What a range, what
changes of age, what variations of maturity and innocence, perversity and
art.
"We have sat around for hours and wondered how you look. If you
have closed your senses upon silk, light, color, odor, character,
temperment, you must be bynow completely shriveled up. There are so many
minor senses, all running like tributaries into the mainstream of sex,
nourishing it. Only the united beat of sex and heart together can create
ecstasy."
Excerpt from The Diary of Anais Nin, Volume III
======================
I think you should aspire to higher levels of "smut."
--
Kellie Matthews-Simmons//matt...@ucsu.colorado.edu
Member: SFLA&EBS, PSEB, DDEB, X-phile "ego eum in calido puncto egi"
"Sometimes the need to mess with their heads outweighs the millstone of
humiliation." --Fox Mulder, X-Files "Squeeze"
Steven Han
most creative criticisms (flames?) I've ever received. I'm quite
honored, actually, that you would take the time to look up such a perfect
and fitting passage. I hope you had all this text on-line; I'd hate to
think you typed it all in just for moi... :^)
Seriously, I was wondering how long it would take before you attacked my
story (nearly a week!). I thought you'd be angry at my using a likeness
of one of your characters, but instead, you criticize me for my alleged
confusion of erotica and smut, and my lack of aspiration to write "true"
erotica instead of just smut...
And to that, I'd say, whoa, Kellie - chill. If you'd read my story, and
if you'd read any of my other stories, you'd realize that I do not
aspire to any great literary heights, whether in erotica or otherwise.
Rather, I seek only to provide an injection of humor. And in this case,
remember the raging debate over erotica in the .creative forum, which you
also voiced your opinion upon. I simply felt that the whole debate was
ridiculous, as I agreed with whomever it was that said, "If you don't
like it, don't read it!"
I agreed with those who feel that people should be allowed to post anything
they want, as long as it involves M&S, without having to endure criticism
about the story's content, as long as the proper warnings are provided.
Therefore, I felt that the situation could use a dose of humor, which was
why I wrote the silly story. And I think anyone with a high school
education can differentiate between erotica and smut, at least in the way
you differentiated them. It should also be apparent, therefore, that I
was spoofing erotica with the use of exaggerated, stilted smut. If you
took personal offense at this, well that's unfortunate, as it wasn't
intended. (and warnings *were* provided in the story).
In addition, I don't think I treated sex as a dirty thing in my story -
rather, I treated it with humor. Just because it wasn't surrounded by a
sweeping, romantic saga or imaginative poetry doesn't make it "dirty" in
my book. I suppose your objection to my treatment of the subject is not
unlike certain people being offended at seeing Mulder or Scully engaging
in any "encounters" in stories. It just doesn't fit their perceptions of
how an X-Files creative story, erotic or otherwise, should be written.
Personally, I find it curious when people take offense at a story like
this, or any story in which M&S are seen as being out of character. They
seem personally offended, even wounded in a way, as if to say, "how dare
you write that! now, after reading that story, I can never look at M&S the
same way again! I'll be emotionally scarred for life!" Puh-leeze..
In conclusion, Kellie, I think you're taking all this stuff much too
seriously. I say that people should be free to write whatever they're
confortable with - whether straight stories, humor, erotica, or even smut -
without being prodded to provide cleaner or more spiritually fulfilling
contexts. Methinks that instead of thumbing your nose and criticizing
me for writing a lower form of fiction, your time would be better spent
in other, more noble pursuits. Maybe you could write another story
for us, perhaps?
The last thing I'd want to see in this group is a flood of arguments
about story types, generated by those who seek to establish an X-files
creative intellectual hegemony, drowning out those creative efforts they see
as being base, shallow, or otherwise not up to their personal standards.
That sort of activity sounds suspiciously like censorship and book burning
to me.
--
Steven Han - sh...@nyx.cs.du.edu - finger for PGP key
Insert whimsical comments by dead philosophers you never read here
Magrathea
>Seriously, I was wondering how long it would take before you attacked my
>story (nearly a week!). I thought you'd be angry at my using a likeness
>of one of your characters, but instead, you criticize me for my alleged
>confusion of erotica and smut, and my lack of aspiration to write "true"
>erotica instead of just smut...
>And to that, I'd say, whoa, Kellie - chill. If you'd read my story, and
>if you'd read any of my other stories, you'd realize that I do not
>aspire to any great literary heights, whether in erotica or otherwise.
>Rather, I seek only to provide an injection of humor. And in this case,
>remember the raging debate over erotica in the .creative forum, which you
>also voiced your opinion upon. I simply felt that the whole debate was
>ridiculous, as I agreed with whomever it was that said, "If you don't
>like it, don't read it!"
Mr. Han, in your preface to your story you described it as
erotica. I define erotica as a literary genre, which does require
aspiration to great artistic heights. Although you describe your previous
work as parody, you do not describe this particular story as one. In
future, I wish writers here would categorize their works so unfamiliar
readers will be able to better choose what to read. Calling your story
erotica is like calling "Gemma" an Adventure or Crime-Drama.
>I agreed with those who feel that people should be allowed to post anything
>they want, as long as it involves M&S, without having to endure criticism
>about the story's content, as long as the proper warnings are provided.
Mr. Han, please consider writing the proper warnings in your
works. If I had seen your story immediately as parody (although it
became obvious by it's extremities of metaphor! :> ) I would have been
more prepared to enjoy it as such. But forewarned that it was erotica, I
did not expect flat characters (oxymoron) behaving like horny,
indiscriminating animals.
>Therefore, I felt that the situation could use a dose of humor, which was
>why I wrote the silly story. And I think anyone with a high school
>education can differentiate between erotica and smut, at least in the way
>you differentiated them. It should also be apparent, therefore, that I
>was spoofing erotica with the use of exaggerated, stilted smut. If you
>took personal offense at this, well that's unfortunate, as it wasn't
>intended. (and warnings *were* provided in the story).
See above.
>my book. I suppose your objection to my treatment of the subject is not
>unlike certain people being offended at seeing Mulder or Scully engaging
>in any "encounters" in stories. It just doesn't fit their perceptions of
>how an X-Files creative story, erotic or otherwise, should be written.
I think that the comment about aspiring to a higher level of
"smut" is rather tongue-in-cheek, though I may be wrong. "Smut" in your
preface is a word interchangeable in meaning with "erotica." Kellie, as a
serious writer, must see that you were writing parody, and seems to be
merely chiding your for claming your work as erotica, compared to her own
extensive efforts.
>In conclusion, Kellie, I think you're taking all this stuff much too
>seriously.
I agree that this topic should not be taken too seriously.
However, it was kind of interesting to read what Anais Nin's definition
of erotica was.
I say that people should be free to write whatever they're
>confortable with - whether straight stories, humor, erotica, or even smut -
>without being prodded to provide cleaner or more spiritually fulfilling
>contexts. Methinks that instead of thumbing your nose and criticizing
>me for writing a lower form of fiction, your time would be better spent
>in other, more noble pursuits. Maybe you could write another story
>for us, perhaps?
Parody and satire ARE high forms of fiction. Again, the
definition of your story as erotica.
>The last thing I'd want to see in this group is a flood of arguments
>about story types, generated by those who seek to establish an X-files
>creative intellectual hegemony, drowning out those creative efforts they see
>as being base, shallow, or otherwise not up to their personal standards.
>That sort of activity sounds suspiciously like censorship and book burning
>to me.
If people want to argue, perhaps they should start their own
group. Then this group could be kept only for stories. Then again, you
could just kill threads you aren't interested in. Freedom of speech woiks
both wayz! :)
Magrathea
Steven Han
this when we could all be doing better things, like reading or writing new
stories (which was a point I made in my previous post). But as long as
people want to discuss such matters...
In article <tracyjenC...@netcom.com>,
Magrathea <trac...@netcom.com> wrote:
>sh...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Steven Han) writes:
>
>> [....]
>
> Mr. Han, in your preface to your story you described it as
>erotica. I define erotica as a literary genre, which does require
>aspiration to great artistic heights. Although you describe your previous
>work as parody, you do not describe this particular story as one. In
>future, I wish writers here would categorize their works so unfamiliar
>readers will be able to better choose what to read. Calling your story
>erotica is like calling "Gemma" an Adventure or Crime-Drama.
>
As someone else has said, one person's erotica is another person's smut.
It all depends upon your perspective. Some people are comfortable with
the subject, and others are not. One person's erotic art is another
person's pornography. Perhaps I'm not as literary minded as you are, but
to *me*, "erotica" means erotic story. Nothing more, nothing less.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines "erotica" as the following:
"literary or artistic works having an erotic theme or quality."
Note that it says nothing about the height of such literary or artistic
endeavors. Now if the steep requirements for great literary or artistic
heights for erotica is an understanding between literary scholars, well,
let's just say I'm not a literary scholar. I simply take my definitions
straight from the dictionary. Perhaps in the future, we should separate
all "erotica" into two categories - high literary erotica vs.
quick-n-dirty smut. :^)
>>I agreed with those who feel that people should be allowed to post anything
>>they want, as long as it involves M&S, without having to endure criticism
>>about the story's content, as long as the proper warnings are provided.
>
> Mr. Han, please consider writing the proper warnings in your
>works. If I had seen your story immediately as parody (although it
>became obvious by it's extremities of metaphor! :> ) I would have been
>more prepared to enjoy it as such. But forewarned that it was erotica, I
>did not expect flat characters (oxymoron) behaving like horny,
>indiscriminating animals.
>
Well, you answered for yourself why I wasn't more explicit. Much of the
humor lies in discovering the pardoy aspect for yourself. Besides, I
thought I had given plenty of hints in the foreward that the story was
not to be taken seriously. Perhaps in the future I should bang it into
the reader's heads - "THIS IS A PARODY!!!!"
> [....]
>
> I think that the comment about aspiring to a higher level of
>"smut" is rather tongue-in-cheek, though I may be wrong. "Smut" in your
>preface is a word interchangeable in meaning with "erotica." Kellie, as a
>serious writer, must see that you were writing parody, and seems to be
>merely chiding your for claming your work as erotica, compared to her own
>extensive efforts.
>
As I've noted, different people can have different definitions for words
like "erotica" and "smut." Therefore, one person's usage of the terms
may be different from another person's, but that doesn't make it any less
valid. In my case, it should have been apparent that I was using the
term "smut" as a tongue-in-cheek, semi-derisive term for erotica. And
in any case, why chide a person for their particular use of the lexicon?
No one has an exclusive license on the term "erotica."
Here's the passage in question from my article's prologue - which, by the
way, was the only place I used the word "smut":
[Another reason I'm writing this story is that up till this time,
I've noticed that only the ladies were writing X-Files erotica. I
wondered why this was the case, since men are just as capable of
generating smut as the ladies (perhaps even more so). Therefore,
I've decided to try my hand at erotica, giving the subject my own
spin on things (Uh oh!).]
If you can't see from the above passage how I'm playing with the terms
"erotica" and "smut", well then, I guess I've failed in my efforts.
But on a deeper level, I see three distinct (but related) contentions in
your article and Kellie's original article that I think I should address.
Point #1) I don't know the difference between "erotica" and "smut".
I've addressed this issue above and in my previous article. Basically,
for me, erotica and smut are whatever you make them out to be. If this
makes me ignorant in your literary eyes, then fine. In my case, I
interchanged them for comic effect, something which you didn't appreciate.
That's unfortunate, but as I said, people have different interpretations
of things all the time.
Point #2) I shouldn't write smut, but rather, aspire to write high,
literary erotica.
This point, if it was meant in this way, sounds like so much snobbery and
superior literary posturing to me, and it's appalling that anyone would
make such a statement. Would you go into a greasy spoon restaraunt and
suggest they stop serving greasy hamburgers, and instead switch to a
menu of fine French cuisine? Of course not; everything has its place in
the greater order of things - greasy spoons and French restaraunts alike.
The same goes with stories, whether high literary erotica or cheap "smut."
And as so many people have stated, "if you don't like it, don't read it."
Point #3) I'm passing off cheap smut as high erotica.
If you've read my prologue, you'd know that I was "putting my own spin on
things." And besides, why should it bother people if I were passing off
cheap smut as fine erotica? Caveat Lector, as someone said. It's not
like I'm making money by selling substandard stories to unsuspecting
consumers. It's not like I'm selling you a lemon. Perhaps you feel
cheated because you were expecting something on the level of "Gemma,"
and found a cheap spoof instead. Well, sometimes life is disappointing
that way. :(
But is that any reason to complain? What if someone were to post a story
labeled as "Comedy/Spoof", but it wasn't terribly funny - perhaps it was
just a collection of inane cliches (like the ones I often use :^) ) and
flat jokes. Should I then complain(in public, no less - not via e-mail)?
Should I say that it demeans the fine comedy of Shakespeare or Mel Brooks
to call this lame piece a comedy? Perhaps these writers are confusing
inanity with comedy. How offensive!
Or what if someone wrote a story labeled "Suspense/thriller", but it was
neither suspenseful nor thrilling? Should I post an article complaining
that the author doesn't know the meaning of suspense? That they can't
tell the difference between suspense and cheap hooks? that they should
aspire to the suspense of Shelley and Hitchcock? why, the nerve of those
writers, passing off their cheap crudity as suspense! How dare they!
I seriously doubt that people would take any such actions, if simply out
of politeness. And yet they feel free to attack my piece as a stain on the
pure white gown of high literary erotica. Perhaps they see me as a street
peddler taking up shop inside Tiffany's, hawking cheap costume jewelry.
Methinks that some people are taking this genre far too seriously, trying
to ward off the heathens who would desecrate their fine art form. I smell
a sacred cow here, folks.
>>In conclusion, Kellie, I think you're taking all this stuff much too
>>seriously.
>
> I agree that this topic should not be taken too seriously.
>However, it was kind of interesting to read what Anais Nin's definition
>of erotica was.
>
So if you agree that the topic should not be taken so seriously, why
are you doing exactly that?
> I say that people should be free to write whatever they're
>>confortable with - whether straight stories, humor, erotica, or even smut -
>>without being prodded to provide cleaner or more spiritually fulfilling
>>contexts. Methinks that instead of thumbing your nose and criticizing
>>me for writing a lower form of fiction, your time would be better spent
>>in other, more noble pursuits. Maybe you could write another story
>>for us, perhaps?
>
> Parody and satire ARE high forms of fiction. Again, the
>definition of your story as erotica.
So are you saying that it's simply a labeling issue, that you're ticked
because I labeled "smut" as "erotica"? See my comments above.
>
>>The last thing I'd want to see in this group is a flood of arguments
>>about story types, generated by those who seek to establish an X-files
>>creative intellectual hegemony, drowning out those creative efforts they see
>>as being base, shallow, or otherwise not up to their personal standards.
>>That sort of activity sounds suspiciously like censorship and book burning
>>to me.
>
> If people want to argue, perhaps they should start their own
>group. Then this group could be kept only for stories. Then again, you
>could just kill threads you aren't interested in. Freedom of speech woiks
>both wayz! :)
>
Better yet, why not let people just write whatever they want, and call it
whatever they want, without bogging down the group with microscopic
criticism? Live and let live , I say - that would be the best solution
of all.
Folks let me assure you, I'm not upset with this bruhaha; rather, I'm just
puzzled as to why people are bothering to argue about this nonsense. These
are just harmless stories, after all. If anyone wants to continue this
silly thread, I think we can do the readers a service and take it to e-mail.
--
Steven Han - sh...@nyx.cs.du.edu - finger for PGP key
Insert tired old PC slogan here to protect yourself from the PC police
Alan Sawyer
>Wow, Kellie - I have to give you credit. This has got to be one of the
>most creative criticisms (flames?) I've ever received. I'm quite
>honored, actually, that you would take the time to look up such a perfect
>and fitting passage. I hope you had all this text on-line; I'd hate to
>think you typed it all in just for moi... :^)
>That sort of activity sounds suspiciously like censorship and book burning
>to me.
Cmon lets all lighten up. I love both of your stories and would hate to
see a fight break out. Now even though my sense of self-preservations
says I should shut up, I just wanted to say, (how do I do this without
pissing someone off I think to myself....??) even though
I didnt like Sex Files plot that much , mainly because I like the
Gemma character, and messes with my mind to imagine M or S doing that
kind of thing, it was a parody and meant in humour, and we were all warned,
and I guess if I wasnt as fond of the characters as I am, how they are,
and didnt `know' them as well it would probably have been funny.
I hope that all came out right... Even though I have 0 writing experience
and dont claim to I though Id just get that out. Anyway...
--- Alan Sawyer
Member of OZ XF fan club and proud member of the GATB.
For Email replys please use mul...@melbourne.dialix.oz.au| An X-Phile.
---They're heeeeeeeere!!!! * D.Scully.<Shadows>
MATTHEWS-SIMMONS KELLIE
Okay, I KNOW I have a sense of humor somewhere. Maybe it's here, buried
under this stack of e-mail messages...
How's about we just agree to live and let live? No more of this
silliness. My previous post on this topic was not meant as a flame, just
as information that might be enlightening.
Enough is enough. This group is for _creative_ work and there's nothing
particularly creative about this thread, or group of threads. A lot of
people have posted some new stories, so lets go read and forget about
this, okay?
Michael A. Chary
Folks, this group is for fan fiction using the characters
from the FOX tv show the X-Files. When the group was created
there was no standard of quality or "aspirations to artistic
heights" or anything like that. There can't be without
a moderator. The simple fAct of the matter is that
*any* fiction using characters or situations from "The X-Files."
belongs here. Or at least does not *not* belong here. Oh,
and for the record Anais Nin once called D. H. Lawrence's
collected works "filth." And that's in her diary as well...
--
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys
who are undecided." -- Casey Stengel
" "--Steve Carlton
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." --Roger Bacon