aletheiafelinea (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
aletheiafelinea) wrote2013-01-06 10:28 pm
aletheiafelinea) wrote2013-01-06 10:28 pm
Entry tags:
Indecent studies, muddy history, and the role of families in crime
December also wasn’t bad.
Lech M. Nijakowski, Pornografia: historia, znaczenie, gatunki (Pornography: history, meaning, genres)
The author warns that the book is not a monograph, but it reads very close to it. Certainly it is an appeal and invitation to researches; a review of theories, bibliography, and a word or two on methodology included.
The work proposes regarding and explaining pornography not from the traditional moral stand, as a crime, a dark side of society, but as a social mirror (also in its criminal forms), and therefore a treasure for a social scientist. In this approach, pornography is defined not as much by eroticism as by social taboo and condemnation. The book asks to have Wisława Szymborska's poem Głos w sprawie pornografii ('no debauchery compares with thinking') cited, but it wasn't mentioned there. Pity... (Here or here you can read the poem in English, different translations.) This way, it's not 'pornography is pornographic due of its eroticism', but 'eroticism is taboo, and that's why eroticism is pornographic'. That's why the author doesn't agree with classifying ancient art as pornography, since eroticism wasn't taboo that time, as he points. As long as it was a picture of some anonymous fellow with some lass, and not patrician X with matrona Y, all was OK, he says. Well, I can't say I'm convinced, when it's argumented this way. If eroticism really wasn't taboo at all, no one should have given a damn also in the latter case, don't you think? Look, no one says “Drinking coffee may be shown in public, as long as it's not Barack Obama who's drinking this coffee”. In the moment when coffee begins to be regarded as risky for someone's image, it's not really 'innocent' anymore, right? Therefore, my own interpretation is not 'Greeks and Romans had no porn', but rather 'Greeks and Romans was more at ease about porn than we are' (I suspect that one of reasons could be the different approach to childhood; the tension born from 'protecting our innocent ones' certainly had to be much smaller that time, what made less limits and bounds to break and pass, less forbidden fruits to pick. That's why porn's 'shock power' was smaller, I think). It's interesting to observe these changes in the course of ages. It's popular to blame Christianity for making human sexuality dirty, but I think it's only half of the truth. Anyway, Christianity isn't some plague brought by invaders from Mars, is it? It has influenced and keeps influencing our minds, but it also is a product of our minds in the first place, so there's nothing to blame except the collective mind of the society, all ideologies being just its manifestations, I think. The book's perspective gives some curious notions. Like: it's an interesting coincidence that BDSM as a highly theatrical make-believe play flourishes just when the society becomes more and more peaceful and opposed against real violence. The author points that looking this way, the genre of gore is also sort of pornography, non-sexual one (or rather not-so-directly-sexual). Another significant coincidence: in the Enlightenment and earlier, when political and social satire was risky in the criminal way, pornography was used as a publicist tool, unlike now. In general, pornography is the social subconscious, the room and vent for politically incorrect and commonly banned yet still vivid needs, thoughts, and emotions. And the clash on the line 'correct vs. banned' brings sometimes less expected results, like in the case of the pedophile paranoia, which began as 'be aware of the danger and harm' and step by step, on our eyes and in our minds, has transformed into 'there's no such thing like a harmless picture of a child'. One of interesting notices was also a mention that homophobia (as a social phenomenon, a widespread view/emotion, not the law) turns out one of younger 'eternal traditions', its nowadays form being no more than two centuries old. This matter was only mentioned in passing, though.
Bernard Cornwell, Azincourt
I was curious about Cornwell in a non-Sharpe territory, but after previous experiences with the messy massacre which passes for Sharpe's translation here, I'm going round and eying any next like a cat goes round a mangy and ill-mannered mongrel. Azincourt has come from an older and relatively decent publisher though, so I decided to risk. I was much relieved finding the edition quite acceptable.
As for the book itself, I find it more than acceptable. As long as you don't mind that Cornwell apparently cuts protagonists from one cloth (seriously, Nick Hook is Richard Sharpe with other name and somewhat better breed), it's a piece of good read. So far, in my private classification Cornwell gets a label “good style, not bad characters, gift for single scenes, sometimes recalls about some plot; bloody fine historical literature”. With stress on 'bloody'... Admittedly it's mostly military history, but I don't mind in the least. I much prefer a good military over a poor whatever else. And the point is that he makes the theme attractive. He makes it enjoyable even if you don't fancy it at other times. And as for plots... well, looks like Cornwell takes the history for the plot. And coming to think of it, why should I lay claims for it, as long as the result works?
Don't take my 'not bad characters' for grumpy. Even though main heroes (and maybe not only they) are baked in one form, it's at least well done form; they feel real even if not always lovable, same as secondary ones. Should be also noted that Cornwell does care for setting his characters’ mentality in the epoch (any given epoch, be it XIXth age or XVth). Of course it inevitably raises another difficulty – how to avoid making them totally alien for readers? In my opinion the author manages to balance the both, and I admire it. In Azincourt's case I love sir John Cornewaille, I quite like Melisande (this time Cornwell happened to make a good female character; she has a story, background, own ideas and decisions), and I wish Henry V some particularly painful pox (and he's not even a villain).
What contributes much (if unpleasantly) to the 'bloody fine historical etc.' is Cornwell's trademark: lives are cheap, and death is always surprising. On the other hand, survivings are surprising as well. It gives some interesting originality in the least expected place. *g* Another (and more pleasant) element is the perspective of 'camera' and the way details are handled. Usually when you read about a battle it's more or less written as “people were fighting all around, and there was a lot of noise, fuss and commotion”. How fascinating... Cornwell's take is different. How does it feel to walk through a knee-deep mud in a plate armour? What's the view through the helmet's visor? What is the sound made by two thousands released bowstrings?
All this makes good historical literature, but what makes it very good is breaking stereotypes (with reason!). In this particular case, it goes contrary to the popular image of archer, an elvish willowy creaturein tights and with a feather on his hat, when the real archer had to be a huge fellow. Not 'happened' to be, but 'had' to be. Drawing a hundred-and-fifty pounds bow dozen times a minute demands even more muscles than wearing a plate armour... (I hope that I won't get duel challenges from LotR fans? On your place I'd take this sorrowful fact rather as inspiration. How about: “elvish bows are of a mysterious tree [put some name here], giving back thrice as much tension as it gets”? ;)
Lindsey Davis, Shadows in Bronze, Venus in Copper, The Iron Hand of Mars, Poseidon’s Gold, Last Act in Palmyra
As I expected or at least hoped, it's better as a series than as one part, especially if it was only the first part. And so far it gets better with every next one, especially nice in small details, just like I fancy. What’s more, the series turned out quite good not only in the historical, but also in the crime department. What I didn't expected though, that it'll be so strictly tied together, I mean the main leading plot of the series over the plots of single parts. Though it's very simple, just Falco, Helena and their hopes for marriage, yet it demands reading in the order, in case you're wondering.
A curious thing is though it's a first person narration, Falco's POV, one not always shares his opinions and it's still possible to see beyond his eyes and mind (including a growl when he overlooks something in his inquiries or commits some idiocy in relationships). It's not so often thing and quite a literary achievement, don't you think?
I love Helena Justina and her family, all of them being quite a unique collection of figures who somehow manage to be (mostly) nice and not naive, righteous and not puffed up. Falco's family is less lovable, yet big and motley enough to have nice specimens (grandma Flora) between less nice ones (Falco's monumental Mommy with a monumental skill of makingFalco others feel guilty). Nice or not, characters usually are distinct. I think there's a fine evading line between cases when a character's doings are incredibly stupid, and you take it as a gap in its construction, and cases when you take it as the character's feature, the former being a literary fail and the latter a literary merit. This series places at the latter side of the line, in my opinion. Say, the sculptor Orontes Mediolanus, who turns out not only a lousy mongrel in place of an artist, but also an idiot in place of a business-minded swindler. SPOILER ALERT An artist would never damaged a really good art, and a clever swindler would never made enemies of Didius family when he could have get out with a clean record. And what for reason did he do the contrary? Due of laziness, to spare himself hours of work. Cause a lifetime of escapes is so much better. *facepalm* END OF SPOILER ALERT It's so stupid idea, that it makes him real and believable in some incomprehensible way...
I can't say I'm always happy and satisfied; the all thing with Veleda and German tribes in The Iron Hand of Mars turned out rather disappointing after the great expectations the book gives first, and SPOILER ALERT the aurochs END OF SPOILER ALERT feels very deus ex machina, IMHO. Still, all these things are just like weaker (not much weaker) parts of a generally fine work, being just reasons for an undersatisfied fan's pout, not fails that matter. Currently the fan is pissed only for that it’ll take more time to get the next parts…
Lech M. Nijakowski, Pornografia: historia, znaczenie, gatunki (Pornography: history, meaning, genres)The author warns that the book is not a monograph, but it reads very close to it. Certainly it is an appeal and invitation to researches; a review of theories, bibliography, and a word or two on methodology included.
The work proposes regarding and explaining pornography not from the traditional moral stand, as a crime, a dark side of society, but as a social mirror (also in its criminal forms), and therefore a treasure for a social scientist. In this approach, pornography is defined not as much by eroticism as by social taboo and condemnation. The book asks to have Wisława Szymborska's poem Głos w sprawie pornografii ('no debauchery compares with thinking') cited, but it wasn't mentioned there. Pity... (Here or here you can read the poem in English, different translations.) This way, it's not 'pornography is pornographic due of its eroticism', but 'eroticism is taboo, and that's why eroticism is pornographic'. That's why the author doesn't agree with classifying ancient art as pornography, since eroticism wasn't taboo that time, as he points. As long as it was a picture of some anonymous fellow with some lass, and not patrician X with matrona Y, all was OK, he says. Well, I can't say I'm convinced, when it's argumented this way. If eroticism really wasn't taboo at all, no one should have given a damn also in the latter case, don't you think? Look, no one says “Drinking coffee may be shown in public, as long as it's not Barack Obama who's drinking this coffee”. In the moment when coffee begins to be regarded as risky for someone's image, it's not really 'innocent' anymore, right? Therefore, my own interpretation is not 'Greeks and Romans had no porn', but rather 'Greeks and Romans was more at ease about porn than we are' (I suspect that one of reasons could be the different approach to childhood; the tension born from 'protecting our innocent ones' certainly had to be much smaller that time, what made less limits and bounds to break and pass, less forbidden fruits to pick. That's why porn's 'shock power' was smaller, I think). It's interesting to observe these changes in the course of ages. It's popular to blame Christianity for making human sexuality dirty, but I think it's only half of the truth. Anyway, Christianity isn't some plague brought by invaders from Mars, is it? It has influenced and keeps influencing our minds, but it also is a product of our minds in the first place, so there's nothing to blame except the collective mind of the society, all ideologies being just its manifestations, I think. The book's perspective gives some curious notions. Like: it's an interesting coincidence that BDSM as a highly theatrical make-believe play flourishes just when the society becomes more and more peaceful and opposed against real violence. The author points that looking this way, the genre of gore is also sort of pornography, non-sexual one (or rather not-so-directly-sexual). Another significant coincidence: in the Enlightenment and earlier, when political and social satire was risky in the criminal way, pornography was used as a publicist tool, unlike now. In general, pornography is the social subconscious, the room and vent for politically incorrect and commonly banned yet still vivid needs, thoughts, and emotions. And the clash on the line 'correct vs. banned' brings sometimes less expected results, like in the case of the pedophile paranoia, which began as 'be aware of the danger and harm' and step by step, on our eyes and in our minds, has transformed into 'there's no such thing like a harmless picture of a child'. One of interesting notices was also a mention that homophobia (as a social phenomenon, a widespread view/emotion, not the law) turns out one of younger 'eternal traditions', its nowadays form being no more than two centuries old. This matter was only mentioned in passing, though.
Bernard Cornwell, AzincourtI was curious about Cornwell in a non-Sharpe territory, but after previous experiences with the messy massacre which passes for Sharpe's translation here, I'm going round and eying any next like a cat goes round a mangy and ill-mannered mongrel. Azincourt has come from an older and relatively decent publisher though, so I decided to risk. I was much relieved finding the edition quite acceptable.
As for the book itself, I find it more than acceptable. As long as you don't mind that Cornwell apparently cuts protagonists from one cloth (seriously, Nick Hook is Richard Sharpe with other name and somewhat better breed), it's a piece of good read. So far, in my private classification Cornwell gets a label “good style, not bad characters, gift for single scenes, sometimes recalls about some plot; bloody fine historical literature”. With stress on 'bloody'... Admittedly it's mostly military history, but I don't mind in the least. I much prefer a good military over a poor whatever else. And the point is that he makes the theme attractive. He makes it enjoyable even if you don't fancy it at other times. And as for plots... well, looks like Cornwell takes the history for the plot. And coming to think of it, why should I lay claims for it, as long as the result works?
Don't take my 'not bad characters' for grumpy. Even though main heroes (and maybe not only they) are baked in one form, it's at least well done form; they feel real even if not always lovable, same as secondary ones. Should be also noted that Cornwell does care for setting his characters’ mentality in the epoch (any given epoch, be it XIXth age or XVth). Of course it inevitably raises another difficulty – how to avoid making them totally alien for readers? In my opinion the author manages to balance the both, and I admire it. In Azincourt's case I love sir John Cornewaille, I quite like Melisande (this time Cornwell happened to make a good female character; she has a story, background, own ideas and decisions), and I wish Henry V some particularly painful pox (and he's not even a villain).
What contributes much (if unpleasantly) to the 'bloody fine historical etc.' is Cornwell's trademark: lives are cheap, and death is always surprising. On the other hand, survivings are surprising as well. It gives some interesting originality in the least expected place. *g* Another (and more pleasant) element is the perspective of 'camera' and the way details are handled. Usually when you read about a battle it's more or less written as “people were fighting all around, and there was a lot of noise, fuss and commotion”. How fascinating... Cornwell's take is different. How does it feel to walk through a knee-deep mud in a plate armour? What's the view through the helmet's visor? What is the sound made by two thousands released bowstrings?
All this makes good historical literature, but what makes it very good is breaking stereotypes (with reason!). In this particular case, it goes contrary to the popular image of archer, an elvish willowy creature
Lindsey Davis, Shadows in Bronze, Venus in Copper, The Iron Hand of Mars, Poseidon’s Gold, Last Act in Palmyra
As I expected or at least hoped, it's better as a series than as one part, especially if it was only the first part. And so far it gets better with every next one, especially nice in small details, just like I fancy. What’s more, the series turned out quite good not only in the historical, but also in the crime department. What I didn't expected though, that it'll be so strictly tied together, I mean the main leading plot of the series over the plots of single parts. Though it's very simple, just Falco, Helena and their hopes for marriage, yet it demands reading in the order, in case you're wondering.
A curious thing is though it's a first person narration, Falco's POV, one not always shares his opinions and it's still possible to see beyond his eyes and mind (including a growl when he overlooks something in his inquiries or commits some idiocy in relationships). It's not so often thing and quite a literary achievement, don't you think?
I love Helena Justina and her family, all of them being quite a unique collection of figures who somehow manage to be (mostly) nice and not naive, righteous and not puffed up. Falco's family is less lovable, yet big and motley enough to have nice specimens (grandma Flora) between less nice ones (Falco's monumental Mommy with a monumental skill of making
I can't say I'm always happy and satisfied; the all thing with Veleda and German tribes in The Iron Hand of Mars turned out rather disappointing after the great expectations the book gives first, and SPOILER ALERT the aurochs END OF SPOILER ALERT feels very deus ex machina, IMHO. Still, all these things are just like weaker (not much weaker) parts of a generally fine work, being just reasons for an undersatisfied fan's pout, not fails that matter. Currently the fan is pissed only for that it’ll take more time to get the next parts…