Dual Level Writing

[Carnal_Flower]

Not. At. All.

Like I said: "erotic."

Erotic, to me, is way more than "Tab A in Slot B."

Granted, it's subjective.

But too often, people have the viewpoint, when they're trying to say what makes theirs more than "Tab A in Slot B" is: but I have a STORY.

Well porn has a story: the secretary goes into an office. The dental hygienist bends over. The plumber shows up at the door. There's always a story in porn, too, good and bad. That's not the distinguishing difference.

What people actually mean by "story" is "emotion." Through my story, I generate emotion. Ok.

My point being, your story (and thus your erotica) is only going to be as good as a.) the emotion you generate with your story, and b.) how well you express those emotions through sex acts. (Or perhaps not, I'm not saying there aren't erotic stories with no Tabs or Slots at all.)

Does ANYONE find Tab and Slot stories hot????? Even porn has some sort of narrative. I suspect that's part of the Big Myth of the Insta-O "stroker" which is all too easy to evoke, denigrate, and use as some sort of counter-example. Does it even exist?

Quite often, frankly, I run into really really good tales, awesome plots and characters, yet when it gets to the sex, it nevertheless reads like Tab A in Slot B. Its not automatic that the sex part works no matter how good the story. Conversely, someone can generate incredible eroticism with an extremely simple and merely adequately written yet EFFECTIVE tale.

Besides that, there's just something creepy about a bunch of writers critiquing each other's porn/smut/erotica as if it's a writing exercise like any other. The genre is its own thing.

I edit for someone who writes mom/son, a genre I have zero feeling for. I can edit the writing, help with the flow, structure, blah blah blah, but when it comes right down to it, is it hot? I have no idea. Can't help you. It demands a different audience than me.

I don't share or write every fetish under the sun, or assume that I'm in any sort of real place to appreciate them all, just because I write erotica. If in your writing you are pulling on a genuine fetish, the ultimate audience and test for it is people who understand that fetish inside and out, at least in my opinion. And just because they read from the viewpoint of a fetish, does not mean they only understand "Tab A in Slot B." Unless, of course, they have a writing fetish. . .

In your examples of the strip club here? I'd visit neither of them. Well crafted but not hot is as bad as hot elements but terrible framework.

"Penthouse Letters" are fine. They can be arousing. And sure that's all that's "needed". But likewise, there's only so much tab A and slot B can do before it slips into the sea of mediocrity.

I agree with some of what you say, but I don't think it's finite. For example keep that logic going. You don't 'need' deeper meaning to write something hot, or to write people fucking. Keep going though. Why develop the characters? We don't need to know who they are, do we? The acts they commit are hot enough right? Why build setting? A generic bedroom "is enough" is it not? Hell, do they need to even talk? Why bother crafting dialogue?

You can work this backwards all the way to a simple "this girl I banged" story told at a bar, and because taste is in the eye of the beholder, someone will still find it hot.

So why use these writing tools to make it taste better and better?

Why not?

 

[SecondCircle]

Not. At. All.

Like I said: "erotic."

Erotic, to me, is way more than "Tab A in Slot B."

Granted, it's subjective.

But too often, people have the viewpoint, when they're trying to say what makes theirs more than "Tab A in Slot B" is: but I have a STORY.

Well porn has a story: the secretary goes into an office. The dental hygienist bends over. The plumber shows up at the door. There's always a story in porn, too, good and bad. That's not the distinguishing difference.

What people actually mean by "story" is "emotion." Through my story, I generate emotion. Ok.

My point being, your story (and thus your erotica) is only going to be as good as a.) the emotion you generate with your story, and b.) how well you express those emotions through sex acts. (Or perhaps not, I'm not saying there aren't erotic stories with no Tabs or Slots at all.)

Does ANYONE find Tab and Slot stories hot????? Even porn has some sort of narrative. I suspect that's part of the Big Myth of the Insta-O "stroker" which is all too easy to evoke, denigrate, and use as some sort of counter-example. Does it even exist?

Quite often, frankly, I run into really really good tales, awesome plots and characters, yet when it gets to the sex, it nevertheless reads like Tab A in Slot B. Its not automatic that the sex part works no matter how good the story. Conversely, someone can generate incredible eroticism with an extremely simple and merely adequately written yet EFFECTIVE tale.

Besides that, there's just something creepy about a bunch of writers critiquing each other's porn/smut/erotica as if it's a writing exercise like any other. The genre is its own thing.

I edit for someone who writes mom/son, a genre I have zero feeling for. I can edit the writing, help with the flow, structure, blah blah blah, but when it comes right down to it, is it hot? I have no idea. Can't help you. It demands a different audience than me.

I don't share or write every fetish under the sun, or assume that I'm in any sort of real place to appreciate them all, just because I write erotica. If in your writing you are pulling on a genuine fetish, the ultimate audience and test for it is people who understand that fetish inside and out, at least in my opinion. And just because they read from the viewpoint of a fetish, does not mean they only understand "Tab A in Slot B." Unless, of course, they have a writing fetish. . .

Hmm. Lot of what you're trying to say is lost on me. Forgive me. This was a little wayward and confusing. (A laughable observation coming from me, one that talks and muses so much I confuse myself). I get the idea of what you're trying to say, the details of why are still obscure to me from this post.

Eh, porn doesn't necessarily need story at all to be porn. You don't even need a plumber to show up. Just start writing a scene where participants are making out, then take it from there. You can even describe how it makes them feel, how something shocks them, etc. It could still arouse someone. Especially if the sex is hawt amd raunchy. For the purposes of this site, a mere scene of sex is all that may be needed.

It'd be like video porn. Absolutely no story is needed in the filmed porn either. There's plenty of "here's a porn star in lingerie. Now she's sucking two cocks". NO narrative at all, just straight to visual stimulation. You could do that with the written form and never need a pool boy or a plumber. And if the writer is crafty with description or building a mood or poetic with words, it could still bypass the intellectual parts of the mind and go straight to stimulating.

Now to me, that's not really a story. Because it doesn't tell much of a story. The story there might just be "two people fucked". Many would read it. I personally just don't consider it a story because it's just a scene not a narrative. But on a free platform like Lit, that'll do.

The other bit you included is what puzzles me. The bit about people "critiquing" erotic stories as a "writing exercise like any other".

THAT is the part that puzzles me. This thread was started with thoughts toward "deeper" erotic writing. You say there's something creepy about all that. Why? What makes "deeper" erotica different from "any other writing exercise"? Because people are fucking?

That was my point earlier with "deeper" level war stories. Some tell stories about the heroes that gave all. Others tell stories about the horror of war. Along the way there can be these deeper moralistic ideals hidden there, intentionally or not. But when you strip all the strategy and modern sophistication away... war is just humans murdering other humans. War up close is blood and piss and tears and hate. Why is it perfectly acceptable that deeper interwoven tales can be told of killing but not about people's sexual lives?

This is the thing I'm not sure about.

I can understand LC's earlier answer about how some just don't see it that seriously. About the only answer that makes sense is just taste (of course).

If you answered that in the rest of your response it was lost on me. Why is it particularly creepy?

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Hmm. Lot of what you're trying to say is lost on me. Forgive me. This was a little wayward and confusing. (A laughable observation coming from me, one that talks and muses so much I confuse myself). I get the idea of what you're trying to say, the details of why are still obscure to me from this post.

Eh, porn doesn't necessarily need story at all to be porn. You don't even need a plumber to show up. Just start writing a scene where participants are making out, then take it from there. You can even describe how it makes them feel, how something shocks them, etc. It could still arouse someone. Especially if the sex is hawt amd raunchy. For the purposes of this site, a mere scene of sex is all that may be needed.

It'd be like video porn. Absolutely no story is needed in the filmed porn either. There's plenty of "here's a porn star in lingerie. Now she's sucking two cocks". NO narrative at all, just straight to visual stimulation. You could do that with the written form and never need a pool boy or a plumber. And if the writer is crafty with description or building a mood or poetic with words, it could still bypass the intellectual parts of the mind and go straight to stimulating.

Now to me, that's not really a story. Because it doesn't tell much of a story. The story there might just be "two people fucked". Many would read it. I personally just don't consider it a story because it's just a scene not a narrative. But on a free platform like Lit, that'll do.

The other bit you included is what puzzles me. The bit about people "critiquing" erotic stories as a "writing exercise like any other".

THAT is the part that puzzles me. This thread was started with thoughts toward "deeper" erotic writing. You say there's something creepy about all that. Why? What makes "deeper" erotica different from "any other writing exercise"? Because people are fucking?

That was my point earlier with "deeper" level war stories. Some tell stories about the heroes that gave all. Others tell stories about the horror of war. Along the way there can be these deeper moralistic ideals hidden there, intentionally or not. But when you strip all the strategy and modern sophistication away... war is just humans murdering other humans. War up close is blood and piss and tears and hate. Why is it perfectly acceptable that deeper interwoven tales can be told of killing but not about people's sexual lives?

This is the thing I'm not sure about.

I can understand LC's earlier answer about how some just don't see it that seriously. About the only answer that makes sense is just taste (of course).

If you answered that in the rest of your response it was lost on me. Why is it particularly creepy?

Mostly war is boring and floods of chicken shit from the asses of dolts. Much of the time warriors want action, to end the chicken shit for a while.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

"The Gift of the Magi" was published in 1905. Here's how Major-General Smedley Butler described US foreign policy of that era:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

There's a lot to be said for high culture, but I haven't seen any sign that it's effective at creating peace. If anything, culture can fuel war by providing casum bellum: "our culture is more advanced than theirs, so we have the moral duty to spread it, by force if necessary". It's not an accident that the Nazis paid so much attention to historic German culture.

Interesting points. I respect Smedley Butler; he blew the whistle in 1934 on a plot to launch a fascist coup in the US, similar to the ones which were sweeping Europe. We owe him a lot.

The history of the US has been a tug of war between those who, like Butler and FDR, supported the ideals of the American Revolution, and those who opposed it. O Henry's story was written 4 years after the assassination of one of our more American presidents, William McKinley. The thirty years that followed saw the US descend into a British-style morass of financial speculation and "free trade" social Darwinism. (It was very much like the US has been from the 1990s up to the present.) We might have easily followed Europe into fascism if it were not for men like Roosevelt and Butler.

The Nazis paid plenty of attention to historic German culture, because they intended to destroy it. They banned Heine's writings and destroyed his statue, while promoting the anti-classicism of Wagner.

It is not possible, however, to map the decline of culture directly on to political events, and I'm sorry if I gave anyone that impression.

The O Henry piece was not hard to grasp because it was too deep. It was unreadable to me because it was a different language. Same with Shakespeare. The message is there, but the curve to learn the new language is steeper than many people choose to endure to be able to understand the message.

Well, it's not actually a different language. It's English. But English has been simplified over time and has lost much of its expressive power, IMHO. You can see it even by watching Hollywood films from the 1940s; the scripts and actors speak better, more expressively and eloquently than in a typical film from today. There was a steady decline in the use of English throughout the 20th century.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

If you wanna understand American culture focus on George Washington and Al Capone, Valley Forge and Gettysburg.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Eh, you're mostly right. I can just spout off sometimes.

There's definitely some misunderstandings here.

Of course writing about sex can be deep and meaningful.

Then again, if you call what you write Erotica, I personally feel you do have an onus to be arousing.

Pulling both off at the same time is the goal. Hot and Meaningful, porny and well-written, are slightly different things, but they don't cancel each other out. The more you bring them together, the more erotic it becomes.

I'm more likely to be critical of non-arousing good writing than I am of Tabs and Slots, if that makes sense.

Hmm. Lot of what you're trying to say is lost on me. Forgive me. This was a little wayward and confusing. (A laughable observation coming from me, one that talks and muses so much I confuse myself). I get the idea of what you're trying to say, the details of why are still obscure to me from this post.

Eh, porn doesn't necessarily need story at all to be porn. You don't even need a plumber to show up. Just start writing a scene where participants are making out, then take it from there. You can even describe how it makes them feel, how something shocks them, etc. It could still arouse someone. Especially if the sex is hawt amd raunchy. For the purposes of this site, a mere scene of sex is all that may be needed.

It'd be like video porn. Absolutely no story is needed in the filmed porn either. There's plenty of "here's a porn star in lingerie. Now she's sucking two cocks". NO narrative at all, just straight to visual stimulation. You could do that with the written form and never need a pool boy or a plumber. And if the writer is crafty with description or building a mood or poetic with words, it could still bypass the intellectual parts of the mind and go straight to stimulating.

Now to me, that's not really a story. Because it doesn't tell much of a story. The story there might just be "two people fucked". Many would read it. I personally just don't consider it a story because it's just a scene not a narrative. But on a free platform like Lit, that'll do.

The other bit you included is what puzzles me. The bit about people "critiquing" erotic stories as a "writing exercise like any other".

THAT is the part that puzzles me. This thread was started with thoughts toward "deeper" erotic writing. You say there's something creepy about all that. Why? What makes "deeper" erotica different from "any other writing exercise"? Because people are fucking?

That was my point earlier with "deeper" level war stories. Some tell stories about the heroes that gave all. Others tell stories about the horror of war. Along the way there can be these deeper moralistic ideals hidden there, intentionally or not. But when you strip all the strategy and modern sophistication away... war is just humans murdering other humans. War up close is blood and piss and tears and hate. Why is it perfectly acceptable that deeper interwoven tales can be told of killing but not about people's sexual lives?

This is the thing I'm not sure about.

I can understand LC's earlier answer about how some just don't see it that seriously. About the only answer that makes sense is just taste (of course).

If you answered that in the rest of your response it was lost on me. Why is it particularly creepy?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Interesting points. I respect Smedley Butler; he blew the whistle in 1934 on a plot to launch a fascist coup in the US, similar to the ones which were sweeping Europe. We owe him a lot.

He's a fascinating figure. Reminds me of Siegfried Sassoon, another highly-decorated soldier who became an anti-war activist.

The Nazis paid plenty of attention to historic German culture, because they intended to destroy it. They banned Heine's writings and destroyed his statue, while promoting the anti-classicism of Wagner.

I'll defer to you on that; I'm more familiar with Nazi "science", where they certainly invested a lot of effort but were more interested in developing a convenient fiction than in discovering truth, so I can believe their cultural efforts were in the same direction.

I live in Australia, where unfortunately the alleged superiority of British culture has been used as justification for taking people's land and their children for the last 200+ years. People were able to convince themselves that they were doing fair-skinned Aboriginal children a favour by taking them from their parents and teaching them to deny their ancestry, and it did untold damage.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I'll defer to you on that; I'm more familiar with Nazi "science", where they certainly invested a lot of effort but were more interested in developing a convenient fiction than in discovering truth, so I can believe their cultural efforts were in the same direction.

I live in Australia, where unfortunately the alleged superiority of British culture has been used as justification for taking people's land and their children for the last 200+ years. People were able to convince themselves that they were doing fair-skinned Aboriginal children a favour by taking them from their parents and teaching them to deny their ancestry, and it did untold damage.

Yes, love me some POMEs. Nazi pseudo-science, specifically eugenics, was also a British import.

 

[Handley_Page]

I live in Australia, where unfortunately the alleged superiority of British culture has been used as justification for taking people's land and their children for the last 200+ years. People were able to convince themselves that they were doing fair-skinned Aboriginal children a favour by taking them from their parents and teaching them to deny their ancestry, and it did untold damage.

1] This isn't /wasn't just the British.
If what I read is even half-true, what the white man did to the Red man in the USA is just as bad ("Oh look, there's good arable land there; let's farm it. We can chuck the natives off it easily.")

As to whether one can read Shakespeare or O Henry (how about James Fenimore Cooper?), I always felt that the Shakespeare I was taught at school (in the late 50s) made no sense whatever.
Then one day I read that "Agincourt" speech and I realised that with a more modern rhythm to the words, it was possible to see real enjoyment in it. [Don't get me wrong, there's lots of him I have not yet tried to read]

My point is that, a little thought will find more to enjoy.

2] As to the idea of "Dual level" writing? Round here, I think it's a non-starter. There may be stories with a lesson or similar, but let's face it most of us are going to be considered 'purveyors of Literature', are we ?
We do it for fun & practice.
We ain't trying to write the Great American Novel - are we ?


.

 

[rjordan]

If you wanna understand American culture focus on George Washington and Al Capone, Valley Forge and Gettysburg.

If you wanna understand American culture focus on slavery and genocide beginning a century before Washington.

rj

 

[AlwaysHungry]

If you wanna understand American culture focus on slavery and genocide a century before Washington.

If you want to understand American culture, you must learn to tell the difference between those who came here to get away from the Brits, and those who stayed British once they got here. The entire history of the US is the battle for supremacy between those two factions.

 

[Bramblethorn]

1] This isn't /wasn't just the British.
If what I read is even half-true, what the white man did to the Red man in the USA is just as bad ("Oh look, there's good arable land there; let's farm it. We can chuck the natives off it easily.")

Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to imply that the British were the only ones, and my apologies if that's how I came across. Just about every colonial power has done something similar. Leopold of Belgium ought to be up there with Hitler in historical infamy for the things done in the Congo.

As to whether one can read Shakespeare or O Henry (how about James Fenimore Cooper?), I always felt that the Shakespeare I was taught at school (in the late 50s) made no sense whatever.

I found it helpful to have an annotated copy that explained obsolete words and expressions. I don't mind going to the dictionary now and then, but if I need to do it often then it becomes a distraction from the story. Seeing it acted instead of just reading the script also makes a big difference.

 

[NotWise]

If you wanna understand American culture focus on slavery and genocide beginning a century before Washington.

And not just slavery and genocide perpetrated by British settlers. The Spanish did it as well. Coronado's men burned Native American men alive in front of the fortified Arenal Pueblo to demonstrate dominance. During the Reconquista Onate severed the feet from the men of Acoma. The Spanish and later Mexican occupants had a regular habit of stealing Native American children -- even after the Treaty of Guadalupe when the southwest became part of the US.

Fast forward to Wounded Knee. The 300-years in between was a genocidal spree.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

And not just slavery and genocide perpetrated by British settlers. The Spanish did it as well.

Everyone's done it. Human history is a litany of tribalism - meant in the negative sense of "they look or speak different, so they are not us and they can be subjected or killed to make room for us."

Recent western civ likes to think it's risen above it, but in the US, abusive white cops and a bizarre backlash against muslim refugees gives a clear indication that tribalism may be diminished a little but it's surely not gone.

No group is innocent of this crime; it's hardwired into our genomes. Some groups have just had more time or better technology to demonstrate it.

 

[lovecraft68]

Everyone's done it. Human history is a litany of tribalism - meant in the negative sense of "they look or speak different, so they are not us and they can be subjected or killed to make room for us."

Recent western civ likes to think it's risen above it, but in the US, abusive white cops and a bizarre backlash against muslim refugees gives a clear indication that tribalism may be diminished a little but it's surely not gone.

No group is innocent of this crime; it's hardwired into our genomes. Some groups have just had more time or better technology to demonstrate it.

I don't think the back lash against the average Muslim living here is fair, but its not bizarre. When a certain race-or in this case a splinter group of it- is responsible for death all over the world including here recently, its natural for people to be wary of them.

And the abusive white cop thing is a very small, I mean very small sampling of the police force, but the the race baiting media along with people like Sharpton have blown those incidents totally out of proportion.

Speaking of media and social media plays huge roles in all this shit and rarely for the better.

 

[NotWise]

Hmmm. This is totally not about writing.

I don't think the back lash against the average Muslim living here is fair, but its not bizarre. When a certain race-or in this case a splinter group of it- is responsible for death all over the world including here recently, its natural for people to be wary of them.

"Muslim" is not a race. It's a religion. Islam is normally interpreted as a peaceful religion, as is Christianity. In both religions we have our splinter groups who can find justification within their religious tradition. It is important for those religious groups to recognize and control their splinters. I say that from the point of view of someone who is philosophically Christian and aghast at what some of my fellow "Christians" want to do. I think that ultimately it is Islam who must control what Islamic people do.

Barring control within Islam, then blow the offenders off the face of the earth. Daisy Cutters have to be good for something.

And the abusive white cop thing is a very small, I mean very small sampling of the police force, but the the race baiting media along with people like Sharpton have blown those incidents totally out of proportion.

Where I live we have problems. The problems are not necessarily racial, but seem to be related to dominance issues and probably to poor training. The defence and denial we have going on now blames the victim for the crime, and that's usually wrong.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

"Muslim" is not a race. It's a religion. Islam is normally interpreted as a peaceful religion, as is Christianity. In both religions we have our splinter groups who can find justification within their religious tradition. It is important for those religious groups to recognize and control their splinters. I say that from the point of view of someone who is philosophically Christian and aghast at what some of my fellow "Christians" want to do. I think that ultimately it is Islam who must control what Islamic people do.

Sorry, but I must call Bullshit on this one. Terrorists are enraged people, driven into an infantile state by economic desperation and festering injustice. They are then manipulated by intelligence agencies, both state-controlled and private, and sent as Manchurian Candidates to create chaos. In Syria, there are at least 81 different nationalities (by the Washington Post's estimate) represented among the al Qaeda/al Nusra/ISIS groupings that have been nurtured by the Anglo-Americans and their proxies such as Saudi Arabia. This is pure politics, and the role of religion is simply as a mechanism to manipulate the poor deranged souls that become combatants. Islam as a religion has zero responsibility for what is going on.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It is important for those religious groups to recognize and control their splinters. I say that from the point of view of someone who is philosophically Christian and aghast at what some of my fellow "Christians" want to do. I think that ultimately it is Islam who must control what Islamic people do.

Perhaps I'm misconstruing your words, but it sounds like you're holding Muslims to a tougher standard than yourself. When a self-identified Christian extremist decides to go shoot up a Planned Parenthood clinic or a mosque, egged on by other self-identified Christians who are smart enough to stay just this side of the law, your being aghast won't stop him. Plenty of Muslims are equally aghast about ISIS and al-Qaeda, but that doesn't seem to be enough.

So, beyond expressing disapproval, how far do you think that responsibility extends? If a Muslim was looking at the things you do to keep violent splinters of Christianity in check, what would they learn from your actions about their responsibilities?

also: when talking about Muslims' responsibility to keep their own under control, important to remember that the West (and other powers) have spent the last 100+ years doing our utmost to prevent Middle-Eastern folk from controlling their own affairs. It's like breaking into somebody's place, shitting on everything, and then chiding them for bad housekeeping.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Mod, can we get this thread back on topic please.

If people want to debate politics, isn't there another place for that?

 

[NOIRTRASH]

He's right.

I wanna know how come the Ozzies never produced one world-class author?

 

[ElectricBlue]

Patrick White? Nobel Prize for Literature 1973

edit not Spike Milligan edit. Bramblethorn is right (see below). Spike lived here for a while but was born in India and later had Irish citizenship.

Come on, the whole of fucking Oz Magazine from the 1960s. The clue's in the title...

Germaine Greer... lol

 

[Gorza]

Not to mention some great Aussie poets, who are refreshingly not as up their own arses as their European or North American partners in verse.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Patrick White? Nobel Prize for Literature 1973
Spike Milligan? Some of the best writing about soldiers in WW2 - and never forget The Goon Show (oh, you're a septic, that one might not compute...) did you find Beevor btw?

Come on, the whole of fucking Oz Magazine from the 1960s. The clue's in the title...

Germaine Greer... lol

Spike wasn't Australian, though he did visit often in later life, and several of his relatives emigrated here. To replace him I'd suggest Clive James; his The Book Of My Enemy is a thing of beauty and could have been written about some of the Literotica regulars.

I read a couple of White's books; I have to admit I found them painfully dreary. Whatever it was that the Nobel committee saw in him, I missed it.

And then of course there's Ern Malley...

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Spike wasn't Australian, though he did visit often in later life, and several of his relatives emigrated here. To replace him I'd suggest Clive James; his The Book Of My Enemy is a thing of beauty and could have been written about some of the Literotica regulars.

I read a couple of White's books; I have to admit I found them painfully dreary. Whatever it was that the Nobel committee saw in him, I missed it.

And then of course there's Ern Malley...

The Nobel is now the Affirmative Action Consolation Prize.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Sorry, but I must call Bullshit on this one. Terrorists are enraged people, driven into an infantile state by economic desperation and festering injustice. They are then manipulated by intelligence agencies, both state-controlled and private, and sent as Manchurian Candidates to create chaos. In Syria, there are at least 81 different nationalities (by the Washington Post's estimate) represented among the al Qaeda/al Nusra/ISIS groupings that have been nurtured by the Anglo-Americans and their proxies such as Saudi Arabia. This is pure politics, and the role of religion is simply as a mechanism to manipulate the poor deranged souls that become combatants. Islam as a religion has zero responsibility for what is going on.

I was ok with this until the last sentence.

Radicalization may occur online here, but overseas it's occurring in mosques among other places. Islamic teachers should be serving as the last line of defense against radicalization for the simple reason that they have the authority to do that, and if they fail to stop the extremism the world should find them culpable. They have a hard job. Islam itself doesn't decry what we call extremism; it foments it. The Quran (2:191 et al) justifies and requires killing under clearly described circumstances, and it does it without limit or historical context, which makes it unique among major world religions. If you are a nonbeliever and you foment discord by openly rejecting Allah, Islam clearly and without restriction teaches you are to be killed, wherever you are, which is why the murders at Charlie Hebdo were nothing more or less than correct Islamic practice. It is up to the imans to moderate that message; they are the only ones that CAN.

You're right that the problem is political. But if the imans don't step up, there is no counterbalance to radicalization from anywhere else within Islam, including their own writing.