Most disappointing book

[mummymonkey]

What book were you most disappointed with when you read it and why? I was disappointed with Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. Clearly an important book in many ways, but tiresomely dull. I have The Descent of Man here, dare I read it?

[Glory]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
What book were you most disappointed with when you read it and why? I was disappointed with Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. Clearly an important book in many ways, but tiresomely dull. I have The Descent of Man here, dare I read it?

I don't know about the Descent of Man but Trials Of the Monkey by Mathew Chapman, the great great grandson of Charles Darwin, is a great read. It focuses on Chapman's ill fated attempt to cover the anual reenactment of the Scopes Trial in Dayton Tennessee. I couldn't imagine it being interesting but I loved it.

Glory

[Bikewer]

Delaney's "Dhalgren" (spelling?...lazy) was always listed as one of the great SciFi classics, so I was happy to find a copy in a used book store cheap.
Very dissapointing. My first reaction on finishing the thing was, "so what?"

[roger]

Originally posted by Glory

I don't know about the Descent of Man but Trials Of the Monkey by Mathew Chapman, the great great grandson of Charles Darwin, is a great read. It focuses on Chapman's ill fated attempt to cover the anual reenactment of the Scopes Trial in Dayton Tennessee. I couldn't imagine it being interesting but I loved it.

Glory

I just got done reading that, and was thinking about starting a thread about it. I shared your enthusiasm for it, but sometimes found myself thinking "so what" when the author divulved too much about his personal life. For example, he seemed terribly eager to tell us all the details of his losing of his virginity. It didn't add anything to the book IMO.

All in all, the book covered just about every topic we debate in these forums, yes, including pedophilia. It's a very good intellectual tour guised as a write up of the author's incompetence at covering the Scopes trial reenactment (after getting a book deal, he showed up in town a week late).

[Brown]

I'm still slogging my way through it, but I'd say "Lord of the Rings" is rather disappointing.

Yes, I know, some consider this to be blasphemy.

So many people have gone so ga-ga over this series of books that I had to see the cause of all the excitement for myself. The books are pretty well-written in some places, but I can't quite understand why so many people are so crazy about them.

(For the record, I've finished "Hobbit" and "Fellowship" and am more than halfway through "Towers.")

[Glory]

Originally posted by Brown
I'm still slogging my way through it, but I'd say "Lord of the Rings" is rather disappointing.

Yes, I know, some consider this to be blasphemy.

So many people have gone so ga-ga over this series of books that I had to see the cause of all the excitement for myself. The books are pretty well-written in some places, but I can't quite understand why so many people are so crazy about them.

(For the record, I've finished "Hobbit" and "Fellowship" and am more than halfway through "Towers.")

The good news is that The Two Towers is the hardest to get through. I agree that "Rings" is a tough one to get through. For me, it's kind of like watching Casablanca. I can see how ground breaking it was and I know that it is the source of a lot of great devices but I can't help feeling steeped in cliches. By the time I read it I had already come across a thousand rip offs and I was bored. Also, I find it self important and wordy. I did enjoy it. I just didn't enjoy as much as had wanted to.

Glory

[Nyarlathotep]

The most disapointing book I ever read was "House Atreides". I am a big Dune fan and when I saw tht Frank Herberts son had written a prequel, I was really excited. I realize quite well that a different author meant it was going to have a slightly different feel than the original "Dune" books, but this was a complete let down. It read more like a "Star Wars" novel to which someone had tacked a bunch of familiar "Dune" names than part of the "Dune' universe. This is probably because the co-author wrote the "Jedi Academy" series. Oh well.

Another contender is "Ringworld Throne". I really liked the first two "Ringworld" books , but "Ringworld Throne" was dull, dull, dull. This one I can't even blame on it being written by a different author too.

[Nefertiti]

Erasure by Percival Everett.
'Everett's subject is serious, but his tone, social observations and stylistic inventiveness reach for the bleakest comedy. Erasure is a sly work, not easily described, though what it's for and what it's against are always clear. The narrative is allusive, thickly ironic and includes different texts, various textures. It is a novel that builds and then surprises.'

[Chaos]

The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, by Stephen Donaldson(? - I can´t remember, and I don´t want to)

I sounded quite interesting, but the more I read, the more dull it got. Have you ever read a book - a series of six books, actually, of which I read the first three - whose protagonist is actually completely gratuitious? He does nothing but complain about his fate. No, wait, at about page 150 of the first book he rapes a girl - and that´s the book´s "hero"! The author could have left this guy out without taking anything substantial away from the book. Would have the trilogy down to about 2 volumes of 400 pages each, I guess, instead of 3 of 800 pages each.


But then, perhaps I am only jealous because he managed to sell this crap.

[Bikewer]

Hehe- yer right on the Dune "prequels". I shoulda been warned when I say the co-writer was involved with graphic novels....

I read the first book of the Rings trilogy sitting on a mountainside in Norway, on a NATO maneuver. Absolutely the perfect setting; Norway could easily have been Middle-Earth.
Have re-read the whole thing many times.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Chaos
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, by Stephen Donaldson(? - I can´t remember, and I don´t want to)

I sounded quite interesting, but the more I read, the more dull it got. Have you ever read a book - a series of six books, actually, of which I read the first three - whose protagonist is actually completely gratuitious? He does nothing but complain about his fate. No, wait, at about page 150 of the first book he rapes a girl - and that´s the book´s "hero"! The author could have left this guy out without taking anything substantial away from the book. Would have the trilogy down to about 2 volumes of 400 pages each, I guess, instead of 3 of 800 pages each.


But then, perhaps I am only jealous because he managed to sell this crap.

I agree, although I thought the fictional setting was quite fascinating, as were many of the sub characters. But I read the whole 6 book series hoping Covenant would get more interesting. He never did.

[Bikewer]

Hehe- be warned, I see Herr Covenant is coming back.....

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Hehe- be warned, I see Herr Covenant is coming back.....

Is that a publisher´s announcement or a horror vision?

Anyway, I don´t have to buy any more books by him.

[Dinonychus]

Originally posted by Brown
I'm still slogging my way through it, but I'd say "Lord of the Rings" is rather disappointing.
(For the record, I've finished "Hobbit" and "Fellowship" and am more than halfway through "Towers.")

I'm glad I'm not alone in my assessment of LotR. I'm stuck in the middle of T2T and I haven't even tried to move in a few months.

I suppose I could try again... one night when I'm having trouble falling asleep.

It is good to hear that it gets better, if only slightly...

[Ed]

My most dissapointing book was Childhoods End: The Short Version. It had 2 readers.

Sigh.

But I'm not bitter.:(

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by Chaos
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, by Stephen Donaldson(? - I can´t remember, and I don´t want to)



Hear Hear! Though, I must confess that I only got four chapters into the blasted thing (book One), before flinging it across the room in disgust. That lead character, what a freaking WHINER!!!! I wanted to climb inside the story and smack him for being such a baby!

The most disappointing book(s) for me was every sequel after Dune. The book was a hugely important reading experience for me, single-handedly creating my passion for science fiction, and bringing me back to voracious reading at a time when Hormones were threatening (I was fourteen! ;) ) Messiah was a big letdown for me; Children was worse.

But at least they were penned by Herbert himself, and not his son or any co-authors (that I'm aware of). There was a sort of continuation of Paul's story. But they were not the tremendous pleasure that Dune was.

As for the prequels, and the rest of the series? Blech!

[Chaos]

Dune was good, but not particularly breath-taking. I read about ten pages of Messiah before I quit.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Dinonychus



I'm glad I'm not alone in my assessment of LotR. I'm stuck in the middle of T2T and I haven't even tried to move in a few months.

I suppose I could try again... one night when I'm having trouble falling asleep.

It is good to hear that it gets better, if only slightly...

It gets way better. It's just that The Two Towers drags on forever so that's not saying much. Seriously, it does get better and the Return Of the King is the shortest of them. Things do get going at the end. It's worth it to finish it.

Glory

[HarryKeogh]

memnoch the devil by anne rice

i was a big fan of the vampire chronicles up to that point, (good fun, light reading) but when she got all metaphysical on us i got bored to tears.

[Glory]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
memnoch the devil by anne rice

i was a big fan of the vampire chronicles up to that point, (good fun, light reading) but when she got all metaphysical on us i got bored to tears.

Ugh! Anne Rice is a bad writer who one great idea. I liked that series, with a few caveats, until The Tale Of the Body Thief. She has fallen in love with her own creation and has completely moved away from the things which made the series interesting. Like so many before her, she doesn't seem to know what was the most compelling thing in her own story. The conflict of good and evil in the protagonist has given way to a spoiled blond peterpan complex. Personally, I never want to see the word "preternatural" again.

Glory

[Piltdown13]

"Interview with the Vampire." I had read Rice's "The Mummy" and really liked it, and had also heard really positive comments about "Interview." Unfortunately, it was completely not to my taste at all -- the characters just didn't do anything for me.

[epepke]

Hmmm...

Lord of the Rings and associated works like The Silmarilion, which is even more opaque, seem disappointing today because they worked. Tolkien's whole point in writing them was to gather together a mythology for England and, by extension, for English-speaking people. This had never been done before. Although there were plenty of Continental European mythologies, and there were snatches of mythology in England, the Roman occupation and later the Norman Conquest shattered any coherent English mythology. Because Tolkien's attempt works, we're now steeped in it and take it for granted.

The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is a bit of a different story. It is burlesque, a kind of indirect speech that many find difficult or undesirable to approach. The writing is, I admit, terrible, but the fact that the "hero" is a complete waste of skin, lacking even the minor sympathetic elements of the antihero of the 50s and 60s, is the central point. There's no :shrug: smilie, but it would be appropriate here. Some people get into that kind of thing; some people don't.

[Chaos]

Here is a shrug smiley, by the way: :con2:

Hope this helps ;)

[Hannibal]

I love LOTR and always will, but I am painfullt aware of the shortcomings in possesses. Yes it is wordy and is essentially a very straightforward plot. Yes it does seem to drag in places. But it was such a trailblazer it still has impact today. The films are great - I love the take on Gollum and his internal dialouge in T2T. The film lends a great deal of sympaty to the character that was slightly absent from the book.

I also find it hilarious that anybody would name a child "Grimer Wormtongue" and expect them to lead a rich and fulfilling life:roll:

[Mark]

Originally posted by Hannibal
I love LOTR and always will, but I am painfullt aware of the shortcomings in possesses. Yes it is wordy and is essentially a very straightforward plot. Yes it does seem to drag in places. But it was such a trailblazer it still has impact today. The films are great - I love the take on Gollum and his internal dialouge in T2T. The film lends a great deal of sympaty to the character that was slightly absent from the book.

I also find it hilarious that anybody would name a child "Grimer Wormtongue" and expect them to lead a rich and fulfilling life:roll:

Grima was his name. Wormtongue was a derogatory name given to him by the people. Straightforward plot? It meanders all over the place! The barrow wights are a perfect example. The Pukel Men are another. Herbs and stewed rabbit. Denethor. Theoden. Eowyn and Faramir. Tom Bombadil. Sub-plots galore!

I love it. I have read the book over and over again; I can't understand how anyone could not love it. And yes, I have actually kissed a girl. :D

[Hannibal]

Easy Tiger! lol

It is quite simple as far as most plots go. The flavour of the sub-plots add to the book, but even in themselves they are not especially convoluted. The narrative switches lots, but that's not the same thing. Tolkien was a man with a vision of creating a mythos and LOTR is but one episode from within that mythos. A bloody long one I grant you, but still only one tale. A bit like Star Wars...

Like I said before though, I love it and I always will.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Hannibal
Easy Tiger! lol

It is quite simple as far as most plots go. The flavour of the sub-plots add to the book, but even in themselves they are not especially convoluted. The narrative switches lots, but that's not the same thing. Tolkien was a man with a vision of creating a mythos and LOTR is but one episode from within that mythos. A bloody long one I grant you, but still only one tale. A bit like Star Wars...

Like I said before though, I love it and I always will.

I admit I am confused (it's early and I haven't had my caffeine). Maybe if you give me an example of something that you feel does have a complicated plot (compared to LOTR) I'll understand your point better. The most common complaint I have heard about the book is that it is too complicated. So much so, if they ever make a movie of it, it'll probably take 3 films to do it...with a lot of details left out entirely! :D

Btw, I am enjoying this discussion very much.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Hannibal
Easy Tiger! lol

It is quite simple as far as most plots go. The flavour of the sub-plots add to the book, but even in themselves they are not especially convoluted. The narrative switches lots, but that's not the same thing. Tolkien was a man with a vision of creating a mythos and LOTR is but one episode from within that mythos. A bloody long one I grant you, but still only one tale. A bit like Star Wars...

Like I said before though, I love it and I always will.

I think I know what you mean. Regardless of the side trips and scale of the adventure, the story is actually a very straightforward good versus evil, stop the bad guys kind of tale. We know who is good and who is bad. We know that if the heroes prevail, the world will be a better place and if they fail, the world will suck. Wer even know exactly what must be done in order for the heroes to win. There aren't any grey areas here. The most confusing characters are the various nonhumans because they are alien to the reader. We don't always fully understand their motives because they have different priorities but, ultimately, they are all either on our side or they aren't and which is which is always crystal clear.

Glory

[Mark]

Originally posted by Glory


I think I know what you mean. Regardless of the side trips and scale of the adventure, the story is actually a very straightforward good versus evil, stop the bad guys kind of tale. We know who is good and who is bad. We know that if the heroes prevail, the world will be a better place and if they fail, the world will suck. Wer even know exactly what must be done in order for the heroes to win.
Glory

This is a common complaint, but, really, it is only true if you ignore:

Denethor: A wise and benevolent leader for decades until---at the very end of his life---he gave into fear and failed.

Saruman: Also started off as good.

Boromir: A good man who only gave in to evil briefly, and immediately and deeply regreted it (and died, indirectly, as a result).

Gollum/Smeagol: who very clearly still retained a bit of goodness in him, as evidenced by his internal debate regarding Shelob. In fact, the "good" Smeagol would have won the debate, had not Sam woken up and verbally attacked him.

Sam, and, in fact, most Hobbits in general, who, while "good" are also shown to be quite often arrogantly ignorant and proud of it.

Not as black and white as people think.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Mark


This is a common complaint, but, really, it is only true if you ignore:

Denethor: A wise and benevolent leader for decades until---at the very end of his life---he gave into fear and failed.

Saruman: Also started off as good.

Boromir: A good man who only gave in to evil briefly, and immediately and deeply regreted it (and died, indirectly, as a result).

Gollum/Smeagol: who very clearly still retained a bit of goodness in him, as evidenced by his internal debate regarding Shelob. In fact, the "good" Smeagol would have won the debate, had not Sam woken up and verbally attacked him.

Sam, and, in fact, most Hobbits in general, who, while "good" are also shown to be quite often arrogantly ignorant and proud of it.

Not as black and white as people think.

First off, I don't offer the observation as a complaint nor as praise. Just an observation about the type of story it is.

Second, good men becoming corrupt is one of the central themes of the stories. Also, good men can have faults and bad men can have virtues. Tolkien did not write simplistic characters. That does not change the straighforward nature of the story. Each character is pretty much what he appears, to the reader, to be including all the ones you mention.

Third, I never took Gollum for an evil character. He is not evil, he is a victim. He pursues the ring and his own survival to the exclusion of all else. Pathetic and pittiful and even menacing and dangerous are not synonomous with evil.

I don't think the books are simplistic. The story is simple, however. Will Frodo get the ring into the volcano or won't he? That is the central question. Everything else serves as window dressing or a as distraction for Sauron to buy Frodo time.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Glory


First off, I don't offer the observation as a complaint nor as praise. Just an observation about the type of story it is.

Second, good men becoming corrupt is one of the central themes of the stories. Also, good men can have faults and bad men can have virtues. Tolkien did not write simplistic characters. That does not change the straighforward nature of the story. Each character is pretty much what he appears, to the reader, to be including all the ones you mention.

Third, I never took Gollum for an evil character. He is not evil, he is a victim. He pursues the ring and his own survival to the exclusion of all else. Pathetic and pittiful and even menacing and dangerous are not synonomous with evil.

I don't think the books are simplistic. The story is simple, however. Will Frodo get the ring into the volcano or won't he? That is the central question. Everything else serves as window dressing or a as distraction for Sauron to buy Frodo time.

Well, I disagree. Except for Gollum. Interesting discussion, though.

Cheers.

[Rosencrantz]

I don't think Lord of the Rings is disappointing. However, I freely admit that I skim large parts of it every time I read it. I think Tolkien could have left large parts of his story in the appendices and perhaps in footnotes -- that's how I read aloud, anyway. I skip huge sections and summarize what happened, because the audience gets bored otherwise. :(

I've never been able to get through The Silmarillion, though. I wouldn't say it's disappointing, just not my cup of tea.

I'm struggling to think of a disappointing book, actually. I don't usually read something I'm not already interested in. How about Orson Scott Card's First Meetings? I enjoyed it, but it seemed pitifully short afterward. I was sad there wasn't more. I guess that's disappointing.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Mark


Well, I disagree. Except for Gollum. Interesting discussion, though.

Cheers.

Okay. Yeah.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by Rosencrantz
I don't think Lord of the Rings is disappointing. However, I freely admit that I skim large parts of it every time I read it. I think Tolkien could have left large parts of his story in the appendices and perhaps in footnotes -- that's how I read aloud, anyway. I skip huge sections and summarize what happened, because the audience gets bored otherwise. :(

I've never been able to get through The Silmarillion, though. I wouldn't say it's disappointing, just not my cup of tea.

That's putting it mildly. I think there are only five people in the world who have actually read the Silmarillion cover to cover and one of them was charged with finishing it.

I'm struggling to think of a disappointing book, actually. I don't usually read something I'm not already interested in. How about Orson Scott Card's First Meetings? I enjoyed it, but it seemed pitifully short afterward. I was sad there wasn't more. I guess that's disappointing.

I am having problems with Card lately. The Mormon thing is starting to really grate on me. He can't seem to imagine characters that don't want to get married. His protagonist is always a romantic virgin who dutifully falls in love and marries and never has even a thought of fornication. Any sexual attraction leads to a desire to marry rather than just desire. There is always some convenient reason they don't have sex and this just doesn't resonate with me. His writing is to wholesome for a slut like me. ;)

Glory

[Rosencrantz]

Originally posted by Glory
I am having problems with Card lately. The Mormon thing is starting to really grate on me. He can't seem to imagine characters that don't want to get married. His protagonist is always a romantic virgin who dutifully falls in love and marries and never has even a thought of fornication. Any sexual attraction leads to a desire to marry rather than just desire. There is always some convenient reason they don't have sex and this just doesn't resonate with me. His writing is to wholesome for a slut like me. ;)Interesting. In counterpoint, who/what would you recommend? I like sex in literature, but I prefer if it seems realistic and contributes to the story in some way. With Card, perhaps the reason sex is written that way is that from a story perspective, it's as a means to children (like Ender's parents). Are there a few less wholesome authors you would suggest that treat sex as you describe? (Please don't say Piers Anthony! ;))

[Glory]

Originally posted by Rosencrantz
Interesting. In counterpoint, who/what would you recommend? I like sex in literature, but I prefer if it seems realistic and contributes to the story in some way. With Card, perhaps the reason sex is written that way is that from a story perspective, it's as a means to children (like Ender's parents). Are there a few less wholesome authors you would suggest that treat sex as you describe? (Please don't say Piers Anthony! ;))

Funny you should mention Ender's parents as I am currently reading Shadow Puppets, the third in the Bean series. It starts off with a Petra wanting to marry Bean and bear his children. These characters are teenagers now! Hormones raging and all Petra is thinking about is having Bean's children, legitimately. It's always love and marraige instead of the lust that we all know is far more common. He is idealizng these kids as perfectly in line with his morality. They aren't believable to me any more as a result. I now find Harry Potter and his cronies more believable.

I honestly can't think of a single author who handles sex well, as rule, IMHO. Anthony has the sensibilities of a horny teenager. Heinlein put way too much incest in his books although the sexual freedom he espouses is very appealing to me. There are various authors who are glorified romance novelists which I find fun but boring after a short time. Oddly, I like Stephen King's use of sex in The Stand. Some of the scenes are hot yet sweet and some of them are really yucky. It's a fascinating juxtaposition artfully presented.

I don't need a book to brimming with sex in order to enjoy it but I find that if I don't know anything about the sexual desires of a character, I don't feel as though I really know them. It is just such a huge part of who we are as people. A lot of this is connected to my theory that sex is the driving force behiond all human achievment.

Glory

[Rosencrantz]

Hmm. I've been considering your reply, and trying to think of an example where the characters are more like you suggest, and I can't think of one. It's led me to ponder something I'll try to put into words.

Perhaps authors can't describe how characters think about sex because it seems too puerile? Like, for example, in Shadow Puppets, Card describes Petra thinking about sex in terms of legitimacy and having children as you describe, and doesn't describe Bean thinking about sex at all (that I can recall), because Card thought their internal monologues would read something like "Wow, he's hot." "Wow, she's hot. I'd hit her." "Wow, I wish we could fool around. But we probably can't. We've got too much to do." "Wow. Okay, back to work."? I mean, really, aren't those the kind of thoughts that just sort of flit in and out, but don't really contribute to a story?

Also, it's complicated by the fact that Card's characters started out as children. I haven't read enough of them to start thinking of them as adults yet. I mean, it's like how I keep reading about how Harry Potter's going to get more "sexy" in the next movie. These are still kids! We're fighting some rather firm cultural taboos when we start writing about people under the age of 18 -- or 14 -- thinking about sex.

In fact, I wonder if that's why Card has found most of his success with children? Because he isn't expected to deal with sex when his protagonists are as smart as adults but haven't reached puberty yet? I admit, I can't think of any authors that describe sex realistically, even with adults. At least, who describe sex in a way that I think is realistic. I mean, it's either fantasy/romance over the top down to the choreography, or it's something like "so we went and, um, did stuff, and I'm not going to tell you about that part." Am I just not reading the right authors? Yet you can't seem to think of any either. Hmm.

What about movies that properly capture characters' sexual desires? Do you think any art form ever does it justice?

[Brian]

Originally posted by Glory


Heinlein put way too much incest in his books although the sexual freedom he espouses is very appealing to me.

Glory

I've seen this complaint from time to time. I don't understand. R.H. spells it out several times. There is no logic in an inate dread of having sex with a close relative. When Lazarus Long humps his mom, who knows that he's related in some way, she says that the only reason incest is bad is when it could harm a baby. She's already got one in the oven from her swinger husband, so no chance of pregnancy, no problem. What's left is just a taboo.
He also says that the "families" of the longevity experiment would approve a brother and sister to marry before some unrelated couples, based entirely on their genes.
He did the same with cannablism. Dead is dead, meat is meat. Why the revulsion of the practice, as long as you don't commit murder to get the meat. Just another taboo.
Same with multiple spouse arrangments. If everyone agrees and no jealously erupts, there is no need for public scorn. Just a taboo.
Of course, this stuff wouldn't fly in the real world. But I liked that aspect of his writing. Many of these taboos are codified by religon.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Brian


I've seen this complaint from time to time. I don't understand. R.H. spells it out several times. There is no logic in an inate dread of having sex with a close relative. When Lazarus Long humps his mom, who knows that he's related in some way, she says that the only reason incest is bad is when it could harm a baby. She's already got one in the oven from her swinger husband, so no chance of pregnancy, no problem. What's left is just a taboo.
He also says that the "families" of the longevity experiment would approve a brother and sister to marry before some unrelated couples, based entirely on their genes.
He did the same with cannablism. Dead is dead, meat is meat. Why the revulsion of the practice, as long as you don't commit murder to get the meat. Just another taboo.
Same with multiple spouse arrangments. If everyone agrees and no jealously erupts, there is no need for public scorn. Just a taboo.
Of course, this stuff wouldn't fly in the real world. But I liked that aspect of his writing. Many of these taboos are codified by religon.

Well, my feelings may very well be dictated by the taboos and rules of the society in which I was raised but my main issue with the incest is that I can't relate to it. I do not want hop into bed with my dad. I don't want to hop into bed with any of the women in my family either, for that matter. (Funny that Heinlein never explored homosexuality in that Long family clusterf**k, at least not that I recall.) I am not sexually interested in my father so I can't really relate to someone who is sexually interested in hers.

Heinlein has put his favourite family into a utopian bubble that is free of all the things which make it not a good idea to have sex with your parents and siblings. He not only accounts for the bad baby threat, but has created characters that are free from all the power dynamics that are part and parcel of the parent/child relationship. Parents and children are truly equals and everyone in the family is a bonafide genius. Have you ever noticed that all the stories are about people falling in love with one or more of the Longs and never about one them being rejected? I can't remember a single instance of a Long's love being unrequited. Must be nice but it ain't anywhere close to my experiences with my family.

I enjoyed reading about them but as far as finding a good and somewhat realistic portrayal of sexuality, the story of the Long family doesn't count.

Glory

[Brian]

Originally posted by Glory


Well, my feelings may very well be dictated by the taboos and rules of the society in which I was raised but my main issue with the incest is that I can't relate to it. I do not want hop into bed with my dad. I don't want to hop into bed with any of the women in my family either, for that matter. (Funny that Heinlein never explored homosexuality in that Long family clusterf**k, at least not that I recall.) I am not sexually interested in my father so I can't really relate to someone who is sexually interested in hers.

Heinlein has put his favourite family into a utopian bubble that is free of all the things which make it not a good idea to have sex with your parents and siblings. He not only accounts for the bad baby threat, but has created characters that are free from all the power dynamics that are part and parcel of the parent/child relationship. Parents and children are truly equals and everyone in the family is a bonafide genius. Have you ever noticed that all the stories are about people falling in love with one or more of the Longs and never about one them being rejected? I can't remember a single instance of a Long's love being unrequited. Must be nice but it ain't anywhere close to my experiences with my family.

I enjoyed reading about them but as far as finding a good and somewhat realistic portrayal of sexuality, the story of the Long family doesn't count.

Glory
I agree with you %100. Al HR's heros are supermen and superwomen. They don't exist in the real world. He was using it as a device to comment on taboo. That's all, I think.
I remember in Friday at the end, Friday's daughter gets knocked up at 14 (and 16 and 18) the family doesn't even come close to freaking out. They see it as natural and are not only supportive but enthusiasitc about the children coming into the world. It's an idealistic portrayal of sexuality and human nature.
He lived in a real world where you could get sneared at for living with a person of the opposite sex and not be married.
He also looked forward to a time when humans got over jealousy. And maybe all "animal" instincts.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Chaos
Here is a shrug smiley, by the way: :con2:

Hope this helps ;)

WAY COOL! Thanks!

[Glory]

Originally posted by Brian

I agree with you %100. Al HR's heros are supermen and superwomen. They don't exist in the real world. He was using it as a device to comment on taboo. That's all, I think.
I remember in Friday at the end, Friday's daughter gets knocked up at 14 (and 16 and 18) the family doesn't even come close to freaking out. They see it as natural and are not only supportive but enthusiasitc about the children coming into the world. It's an idealistic portrayal of sexuality and human nature.
He lived in a real world where you could get sneared at for living with a person of the opposite sex and not be married.
He also looked forward to a time when humans got over jealousy. And maybe all "animal" instincts.

Well, I like the idea of a sexually permissive society and I love the idea of that sexual utopia he envisioned. I also think, though, that he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. You can't change the family dynamic so profoundly and still have a recognizable family unit, even an extended and somewhat synthetic one. That just isn't how humans are, imho. The synthetic family thing was great. I actually think that is a great idea. The whole idea of allowing individuals to define marraige as they see fit, I think, is the future of the institution.
I still loved the books. I just take them with a grain of salt these days.

Glory

[epepke]

Originally posted by Brian
I remember in Friday at the end, Friday's daughter gets knocked up at 14 (and 16 and 18) the family doesn't even come close to freaking out. They see it as natural and are not only supportive but enthusiasitc about the children coming into the world. It's an idealistic portrayal of sexuality and human nature.

I don't know how much time you've spent in the Deep South, but around here (north Florida, south Georgia) 17-year-olds are practically considered old maids. This point was driven home not too long ago when I sat in a physician's waiting room with a mother and her just-turned-15-year-old daughter, gravid as a guppy. OK, I'm pretty liberal sexually, so not a big deal. What I wasn't prepared for were the older, unrelated cracker women who came in and were just gushing over her. Furthermore, when the pair left, there was no, and I mean zero cattiness about how she was too young. If you know anything about Southern women, you know that they can become catty about the size of the lump of fat in a can of pork and beans.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Rosencrantz
Hmm. I've been considering your reply, and trying to think of an example where the characters are more like you suggest, and I can't think of one. It's led me to ponder something I'll try to put into words.

I'm having simmilar trouble giving voice to thoughts that up 'till now have been primarily fleeting and abstract.

Perhaps authors can't describe how characters think about sex because it seems too puerile? Like, for example, in Shadow Puppets, Card describes Petra thinking about sex in terms of legitimacy and having children as you describe, and doesn't describe Bean thinking about sex at all (that I can recall), because Card thought their internal monologues would read something like "Wow, he's hot." "Wow, she's hot. I'd hit her." "Wow, I wish we could fool around. But we probably can't. We've got too much to do." "Wow. Okay, back to work."? I mean, really, aren't those the kind of thoughts that just sort of flit in and out, but don't really contribute to a story?

You have a good point. It occurrs to me that I don't really want reality. I want art, not to be confused with fantasy. Art involves the depiction of sex in such a way as provoke a feeling. I want a realistic feeling which does not come from reality. "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" has a good scene as does "The Big Easy". Funny that two such disparate films should have such simmilar scenes. Neither scene is realistic but neither is unrealistic. It's art. The scenes in question involve a couple in bed. With no nudity and nothing obvious, they both make it quite clear to the audience that the male is touching the female in way that she really likes. Its hot, it definitely adds to and advances the story, and provides insight into the characters that is vital to understanding their actions. Believe me, women like knowing that a man knows how to provide pleasure without taking his pants off.;) It sounds like I am being coy but I am not. It really makes a difference in how we respond to the characters. After those scenes, the characters can do stupid, rotten things and we understand because we know how stupid and reckless one can become after having and in pursuit of a great orgasm.

Also, it's complicated by the fact that Card's characters started out as children. I haven't read enough of them to start thinking of them as adults yet. I mean, it's like how I keep reading about how Harry Potter's going to get more "sexy" in the next movie. These are still kids! We're fighting some rather firm cultural taboos when we start writing about people under the age of 18 -- or 14 -- thinking about sex.

I personally don't have a problem with this. I have no trouble accepting the fact that they aren't little kids anymore and that as adolescents they are overwhelmed with sexual feelings. I actually am quite fascinated with the idea that they are so intelligent that they have a full intellectual understanding of their feelings but don't have the emotional maturity to match that understanding. Indeed, their lack of childhood makes them even more inept at dealing with those feelings than muindane teens. Sex brings the contradictions of their being tiny adults out in bass relief.

In fact, I wonder if that's why Card has found most of his success with children? Because he isn't expected to deal with sex when his protagonists are as smart as adults but haven't reached puberty yet? I admit, I can't think of any authors that describe sex realistically, even with adults. At least, who describe sex in a way that I think is realistic. I mean, it's either fantasy/romance over the top down to the choreography, or it's something like "so we went and, um, did stuff, and I'm not going to tell you about that part." Am I just not reading the right authors? Yet you can't seem to think of any either. Hmm.

What about movies that properly capture characters' sexual desires? Do you think any art form ever does it justice?

I don't think any artform does it justice by itself. It's the great pursuit of art isn't it? Trying to capture the ineffable and enigmatic. Also, the great contradiction. In order to work it has to be realistic but if it's too realistic it becomes something else entirely. I have seen real sex and I don't care to again.

By the way, "The Eye of the Needle" by Ken Follet has a good sex scene or two. That was one of the first books I read that was a real turn on without that being the main purpose of the book. I mean, citing "Tropic Of Cancer" is cheating for the purposes of this discussion isn't it?

I seem to have gotten off on a tangent. I want Card's characters to be more real and yet I don't know how I want him to accomplish this realism. Maybe if Bean could just check out Petra's *ss once in a while.:D That's it! She thinks about marraige and having babies but never of the methods by which this will be achieved. That's what I dislike. That's what doesn't ring true to me. I find it hard to believe that Card himself has never found his eye irrevocably drawn to a bustline or shapely rear end at some point. He knows about sexual desire but refuses to write about it. Instead he skips to the end result. He should realize that there is a reason we call them the "good parts" of movies and books.;)

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by epepke


I don't know how much time you've spent in the Deep South, but around here (north Florida, south Georgia) 17-year-olds are practically considered old maids. This point was driven home not too long ago when I sat in a physician's waiting room with a mother and her just-turned-15-year-old daughter, gravid as a guppy. OK, I'm pretty liberal sexually, so not a big deal. What I wasn't prepared for were the older, unrelated cracker women who came in and were just gushing over her. Furthermore, when the pair left, there was no, and I mean zero cattiness about how she was too young. If you know anything about Southern women, you know that they can become catty about the size of the lump of fat in a can of pork and beans.

Interesting point. I would have thought the stereotypical Southern women would be concerned about marrital status when it comes to young pregnant ladies.

BTW, does anyone know if Heinlein was southern? That would bring a different perspective to his work, for me at any rate.

Glory

[Mark]

Originally posted by Glory


Interesting point. I would have thought the stereotypical Southern women would be concerned about marrital status when it comes to young pregnant ladies.

BTW, does anyone know if Heinlein was southern? That would bring a different perspective to his work, for me at any rate.

Glory

He was born in 1907 in Missouri.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Glory

Interesting point. I would have thought the stereotypical Southern women would be concerned about marrital status when it comes to young pregnant ladies.

Crikey, no! The South is profoundly based on the matriarchal extended family. Probably nowhere else are women more contemptuous of men than in the Deep South. Possibly Hollywood comes close, but not very close.

[Brian]

Originally posted by epepke


I don't know how much time you've spent in the Deep South, but around here (north Florida, south Georgia) 17-year-olds are practically considered old maids. This point was driven home not too long ago when I sat in a physician's waiting room with a mother and her just-turned-15-year-old daughter, gravid as a guppy. OK, I'm pretty liberal sexually, so not a big deal. What I wasn't prepared for were the older, unrelated cracker women who came in and were just gushing over her. Furthermore, when the pair left, there was no, and I mean zero cattiness about how she was too young. If you know anything about Southern women, you know that they can become catty about the size of the lump of fat in a can of pork and beans.

See, now all they need is to be super intellgent, long lived, interplanetary covert agents and this would jive in the real world.