Emmanuelle's Lies

[VerbalAbuse]

The classical story of Emmanuelle has parallels in the life of an actual character, supposedly the hero(ine) and the writer! of the book. The parallels are real enough, and they are uncontested. As for their meaning, that's a different story all together. Something happened, and superficially, it resembled the story. And yet, we can't know what the real persons involved were feeling, and whether they were anything like the characters in the book.

The lie started from the authorship of the book -- it had not been written by "Emmanuelle." If it only were! Alas, it wasn't. I'm not saying that women can't write books like that, but, well, can they? For starters, the story smacks of male arousal. The book had not been written by "Emmanuelle," but by her husband. Indeed, the work is not different from that of many writers on lit -- imagine a man with a slutty wife, one of those men that are very keen to share the stories. And that's exactly how it was.

Today, there are hundreds, if not thousands of men like that on lit alone. Back when Emmanuelle was published... there were many men keen to share the story, too, but the publishing environment was different.

But the lie! The lie! The lie that the story was real, that it had been written by its protagonist! That it was written by a woman! Sure, there had existed a real life Emmanuelle, but she wasn't inclined to write stories. And I very much doubt she felt anything like the character in the book when she was doing all of that -- whatever it was. The "heroine" in the book claims to have a pussy, yet "she" stinks of cooked balls and testosterone.

 

[mark_j]

If you enjoyed the story, does it really matter who wrote it?

 

[VerbalAbuse]

Quite. It does, indeed.

I think my point is made many times in many different places -- for an instance, in the movie "The Last Duel."
When Jacques le Gris tells his story, it's hot, consensual sex. He believes that. In his mind, Marguerite wanted it.
What if he told the story as Marguerite? What would the readers learn from reading it? That women are eager to be taken by horny, violent men, especially when these have entered their homes on false pretenses? Jacques le Gris believes that.

The story would become even more problematic if the readers believed Marguerite shared Jacques le Gris perspective. A naive reader, reading "Marguerite'"s story as told by Jacques le Gris could leave having learned the wrong lessons.

 

[Saint_Ann]

The classical story of Emmanuelle has parallels in the life of an actual character, supposedly the hero(ine) and the writer! of the book. The parallels are real enough, and they are uncontested. As for their meaning, that's a different story all together. Something happened, and superficially, it resembled the story. And yet, we can't know what the real persons involved were feeling, and whether they were anything like the characters in the book.

The lie started from the authorship of the book -- it had not been written by "Emmanuelle." If it only were! Alas, it wasn't. I'm not saying that women can't write books like that, but, well, can they? For starters, the story smacks of male arousal. The book had not been written by "Emmanuelle," but by her husband. Indeed, the work is not different from that of many writers on lit -- imagine a man with a slutty wife, one of those men that are very keen to share the stories. And that's exactly how it was.

Today, there are hundreds, if not thousands of men like that on lit alone. Back when Emmanuelle was published... there were many men keen to share the story, too, but the publishing environment was different.

But the lie! The lie! The lie that the story was real, that it had been written by its protagonist! That it was written by a woman! Sure, there had existed a real life Emmanuelle, but she wasn't inclined to write stories. And I very much doubt she felt anything like the character in the book when she was doing all of that -- whatever it was. The "heroine" in the book claims to have a pussy, yet "she" stinks of cooked balls and testosterone.

That's the risk you take with virtual sex.

 

[mark_j]

The classical story of Emmanuelle has parallels in the life of an actual character, supposedly the hero(ine) and the writer! of the book. The parallels are real enough, and they are uncontested. As for their meaning, that's a different story all together. Something happened, and superficially, it resembled the story. And yet, we can't know what the real persons involved were feeling, and whether they were anything like the characters in the book.

And you would know this from any other book written in the same manner?

The lie started from the authorship of the book -- it had not been written by "Emmanuelle." If it only were! Alas, it wasn't. I'm not saying that women can't write books like that, but, well, can they? For starters, the story smacks of male arousal. The book had not been written by "Emmanuelle," but by her husband. Indeed, the work is not different from that of many writers on lit -- imagine a man with a slutty wife, one of those men that are very keen to share the stories. And that's exactly how it was.

So what? A male author wrote a story and told it from the female perspective. Is that any different from female authors writing under male pseudonyms?

Today, there are hundreds, if not thousands of men like that on lit alone. Back when Emmanuelle was published... there were many men keen to share the story, too, but the publishing environment was different.

But the lie! The lie! The lie that the story was real, that it had been written by its protagonist! That it was written by a woman! Sure, there had existed a real life Emmanuelle, but she wasn't inclined to write stories. And I very much doubt she felt anything like the character in the book when she was doing all of that -- whatever it was. The "heroine" in the book claims to have a pussy, yet "she" stinks of cooked balls and testosterone.

Again, so what?