Realism in Art

[ffreak]

We all know that realism lends mightily to a story. Realism in the surroundings, events, time, obstacles and reactions are necessary to making the reader accept what is happening in a story as real-like. It is even important in most story lines to keep the actions of the characters realistic.

But how far can an author go in the use of realism in their story
and still maintain it as art form?

Does the mere inclusion of graphic violence in a story remove
the artistic value of the writing? How, if it is possible at all, can such violence exist in a story and resolve into something that would make a reader glad they spent their time reading it?

Let's examine this and see if it makes us better writers.

First, a couple of hopeful rules:
1) Try to keep this a civil and abstract discussion. It has been
opened it in the hopes to teach us something about writing. Academic argument is encouraged - personal attacks are not.

2) Try to stay away from dissecting specific stories and vilifying
the author involved. On the other hand, references to titles
and/or authors as an example of what you do or don't like as it
relates to this subject are OK - as long as it does not degenerate
into venom directed at others.

OK, everyone, roll up your sleeves and take out your pens (this
includes the guys; penis' are not the same thing).

I will weigh in shortly with my blunt opinions.

 

[SlaveMasterUK]

I have written some very graphically violent scenes, not necessarily erotic stories but still what I consider an art form. The violence happens because it is necessary to portray what happens in the story. OK so I could skip past it and say "they had a fight and the good guy won and there was lots of blood but I won't tell you that because you might be squeamish." I think the people who might read my stories are adult and intelligent enough to understand that violence will happen, and will be capable of reading what I think is a good violent scene.

Have I turned violent scenes into an art form? No. Plenty of others have done this before me. But I consider my fight scenes to be art, the same as any other fictional scene.

ax

 

[Guest]

1. Does the mere inclusion of graphic violence in a story remove
the artistic value of the writing?
2. How, if it is possible at all, can such violence exist in a story and resolve into something that would make a reader glad they spent their time reading it?

Jumping in and out as quickly as possible.

1. I cannot think of any particular graphic violence I've read in literature. So to the above the first thing that came to mind was the graphic violence in some of Kurosawa's films and at least the first two Godfather films. Of course they are still art.

2. How does the existance of violence in these works resolve into my being glad I saw them? No resolution necessary; the graphic violence was part of the artist's technique in presenting his story, i.e., NOT the point of the story.

 

[ffreak]

OK, good points.

I agree that there are scenes of violence that are necessary to provide a legitimate motivation for follow-up reaction. And I think that glossing-over the violence reduces its value - to the point that I feel it becomes gratuitous in the negative sense.

But I think necessity is the measure of how much to show in the violence. To go on for two pages with a single act of violence becomes disgusting and boring. As we read a violent scene I still think in the back of our minds we are waiting for that guy on the white horse to ride in and save the day. If he takes too long we give-up on redemption and on the story.

For an example of violence that included rape as a key scene in the story look at The Accused starring Jodie Foster. She is raped at a bar and portrayed as causing the act to happen. All throughout the trial of the negligent onlookers she is the subject of character assassination. As the story unfolds the viewer is led to a point of almost agreeing with the defense. Only then do we see a flashback of the actual rape and see first hand how she was in fact the victim of an attack with the encouragement of the onlookers. This brief scene changes her into a sympathetic character and makes the audience (at least part of it) cheer at the conviction of the defendants and the implied upholding of her honor.

Can that be done in a story that also has erotic sex scenes (as opposed to the violence of rape)?

I think so, especially in a story about an individual who cares deeply for their lover and wants to reassure them that what happened will not lessen their love.

 

[bridgeburner]

Does the mere inclusion of graphic violence in a story remove the artistic value of the writing?

No.

Art is not synonymous with beauty or tranquility. Some of the greatest art in creation is neither beautiful nor tranquil. Art is meant to be evocative. Art arouses our passions both good and bad.

Have you ever seen any of the paintings of St. Sebatian by the great masters? They're horrifying and brutal. A near-naked man bound and pierced by arrows, bleeding, suffering, dying for the glory of God. You can't look at Titian or El Grecco or Caravaggio and say that because the subject matter is gruesome, the paintings are consequently not art.

Shakespeare, Edgar Alan Poe, John Steinbeck, are their works not art and great art, at that?

I don't believe that there is any topic sprung from the mind of man that falls outside the realm of artistic representation or expression. I've seen plenty of badly executed art or trite art or pulp art, but each work must be judged on its own merit often according to its own genre or niche.



-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Can that be done in a story that also has erotic sex scenes (as opposed to the violence of rape)?

Can what be done? I'm not sure I follow you. Are you intending to discuss violence in general or specifically an aspect of non-consent stories?


-B

 

[Quint]

Art is meant to be evocative. Art arouses our passions both good and bad.

Yes.

 

[ffreak]

Can that be done in a story that also has erotic sex scenes (as opposed to the violence of rape)?

Let me clarify. I meant: can a story that shows an act of violence, sexual or not, be worked into a story and still bring in the white knight to save the day (either vanquishing the perpetrator violently or psychologially), thereby making the reader still feel good about the story?

Of course, I agree with the art comments which therefore opens the door to: can a story be artistic and still not resolve into happily every after?

BTW: with the paintings you mention, as gruesome as they may depict the scene, we still get those positive feelings because the subjects are glorified afterwards, even if the artist or history only tell us so, and I would submit that such knowledge affects the viewer.

Anyone want to use The Fixer as a rebuttal?

 

[destinie21]

Does the mere inclusion of graphic violence in a story remove
the artistic value of the writing? How, if it is possible at all, can such violence exist in a story and resolve into something that would make a reader glad they spent their time reading it?

No, just as the inclusion of violence doesn't make the story art.
If you have a story whose whole focal point is violence I wouldn't call it art. If you have a story showing motivation and the subsequent violence that ensues then maybe. You cant paint a picture with just one hue.

 

[bridgeburner]

can a story that shows an act of violence, sexual or not, be worked into a story and still bring in the white knight to save the day (either vanquishing the perpetrator violently or psychologially), thereby making the reader still feel good about the story?

Yes, of course. I've read several stories like this. At the moment I'm drawing a blank on the author, but that's probably just as well since we're not trying to single anyone out. At any rate, there's an author here at literotica who writes some very powerful non-consent stories that are quite graphic and don't involve the woman suddenly having blissful orgasms because she's a closeted submissive or masochist. I walked away from these stories satisfied, but without revealing the endings I can't tell you why.

I've also read a few "white knight to the rescue" stories whether it be during or immediately after the fact.

can a story be artistic and still not resolve into happily every after?

I'll assume you're still talking about non-consent stories since there's plenty of melancholy fiction in the world which is great art. Have you read Alice Sebold's Lucky? I'd say it's a prime example of how things can resolve even the right way and still not be happily ever after.

Sometimes there is no possible justice. That's life and, so, it's also art.

with the paintings you mention, as gruesome as they may depict the scene, we still get those positive feelings because the subjects are glorified afterwards, even if the artist or history only tell us so, and I would submit that such knowledge affects the viewer.

I get positive feelings because the paintings are well-executed. Even an atheist can appreciate sacred art. I personally find martyrdom unattractive and generally self-indulgent --unless the only way to forward one's cause is to die, in which case I concede it as a shrewed tactical action. ;->

I think maybe you're looking for "redeeming" qualities. I don't know that they can be pegged down. Much of art is in the execution. The same picture painted by Van Gogh and then painted by...say, me, for instance, will not result in two pieces of art. You'll get art and a bird-cage liner. It's nothing to do with the subject matter. By the same token, one person can tell you about an evening at dinner with his family and it's just some guy telling you his wife made meatloaf. Steinbeck could tell it and you would weep.

--B

 

[ffreak]

I agree absolutely that it is the genius of the artist and not the tools that they use that separates the unforgettable from the non-memorable.

I intentionally avoided redemption because I think it is a different aspect - especially in characters.

OK, it seems that everyone is basically in agreement that it is not necessary to have a happy ending in literature to make it art.

Look at Butch Cassidy and the Sundace Kid. Here we have two guys who rob and kill and they die in the end. Yet we so love them that we willingly go along with the legend and belive that there must have been some way they got out of it to live another day (done by leaving the bloody proof out of the story).

What about 'monster' stories? Why do so many people find Vampires erotic when they kill left and right? In Ann Rice's books the undead being is cold to the touch and unable or uninterested in the sex act. In Whitley Strieber's variations the vampire is capable of using sex to lure their helpers and their victims. Does that acheive erotica?

I guess part of what I am going for is a concise definition of what makes a story erotic without judgement of the trappings. The Romance Writers of America define their genre this simply:
a romance is a book wherein the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying.

Meaning that Titanic[/] and Bridges of Madison County are NOT romances according the RWA (unhappy endings) nor is Dune (a relationship is not the central part of the story). Also meaning, by the way, that Literotica's definition of romance stories stands. In fact many of the categories of fiction here qualify as romance in that the 'relationship', be it love or lust, is the central story and in most cases the characters are definiately happy at the end.

Likewize, not all stories that have love or sex in them are erotica.


(p.s. The Fixer by Bernard Malamud won a pulitzer for fiction - it is a downer from page 1 to the end).

 

[Guest]

We become that on which we focus

ff-

love those tetrahedrons!

A movie that disturbed me greatly was Shawshank Redemption. The violence, both implied and explicit, shook me. Yes, I know that rape and beatings happens in prisons. The movie was as compelling as a train wreck for me. I couldn't stop watching it, even though it was making me physically ill.

Obviously the bizarre and the extreme are compelling for people, otherwise there wouldn't be a market for them. That Freddy and Jason are meeting in the movie theaters now is insane.

I don't read violent novels or watch violent movies anymore. They sear my soul. Novels are easier.. I skim past the sections that disturb me. I was desperate to watch Paradise Road, but had to wait until my husband could watch it with me so he could ff through the violence while I didn't watch. That was a movie that had carefully drawn violence (burning a woman to death, torture, hacking) that moved the plot and character development.

I choose not to fill my mind with violent images because they haunt me. I prefer be haunted by things that lift my heart, rather than weigh it down.

Can it be art? Absolutely. Would I immerse myself in it? Nope.

b

 

[ffreak]

A perfectly valid answer - art is always in the eye of the beholder.

 

[jfinn]

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the RWA's definition of Romance. After all they don't say the story must have a happy ending, only that it must have an emotionally satisfying ending, not, I think, the same thing at all. In fact tragic romance is a time worn tradition and often it includes violence. Romeo and Juliet springs to mind and certainly Titanic and The Bridges of Madison County fit that criteria if not that level of artistic perfection.

Realistic violence whether related to the sexual elements or not has often played a part in erotica, especially in longer works. One of the best known on the net is Al Steiner's Aftermath. It is a post apocalyptic look at the world after a comet has destroyed 90% if the population leaving an imbalance of 10 women to every man. Yes it's a sex story, but it's also a story of the new dark ages, of fiefdoms and power struggles, of hunger and fear of the unknown. The violence is graphic and those images stay with you providing a contrast to the survivor's struggles to retain their humanity.

There are plenty of other examples where it works too. I remember the Betsy series a few years ago where a group of writers all used a common theme of 'Finding Betsy' a hooker and having a male character bring her into his home. The stories were all different and spanned romance to snuff, but all of them featured a gritty look at a violent lifestyle and all of them thoughtful and literate.

But whether I could do that myself is debatable. I do try to keep my work within the realm of possiblity and I have had bad things happen in my stories, but most of my work is softer and to add in graphic violence would seem out of place in most of it. I do have a rape in a story and a car accident in another, but the violence of both of those events takes place mainly off the page and is inferred rather than described. This is just personal preference though and stems from my own preference with dealing with the after effects rather than the acts themselves. It's always been more interesting to me to find out how people deal with life changing events rather than writing about how they simply survive them.

I don't like violence on it's own. I don't want to watch the race car drivers crash or the tight rope walkers fall. But violence is unfortunately a big factor in many of our lives and to deny it in art would be to ignore something that can often be a pivotal moment in life.

Jayne

 

[Pure]

Hi ff,
I want to link the inclusion of graphic violence in an intended work of art, how and how much, to the inclusion of graphic sex.

Until a few decades ago, I think it was a pretty accepted 'rule' that the work of 'literature' (story, play) would NOT primarily devote itself to either. I think one is hard pressed to think of a major novelist or short story writer before 1960 who did so. The extreme violence "in" some Shakespeare plays, as where the girl gets her hands cut off and her tongue cut out, as off stage; the beheading of MacBeth also.

We're now in a time where the 'opposite' view is common. I posted in the other thread, a living author's statement that a novel can depict anything, child being murdered in graphic detail, anything, *so long as it's done 'artistically'.* Some at literotica agree with that. Maybe it's true.

But here's some evidence against it. Look at the stories awash in sexual detail, here or elsewhere. Almost all are crap. Almost no story primarily sex achieves 'art', and to a lesser extent this holds of violence: in other words, the pure sex stuff is 'porn'; the pure violence is 'horror' and the mixture, sex violence is, at literotica. "extreme' (pornographic horror). 99% could not be 'literature' or 'artistic writing'.

Here is the reason: It's usually goddamn boring. Esp. porn, and pornographically detailed alleged erotica. The art problem is this.
The insertion of prick into cunt is pretty straightforward. The half inch increments, the in and outs are too, and deadly to read.

Dicing presents similar problems. The knife can go into the belly, blood can gurgle out, pool on the floor, etc.

It's almost impossible to do sex or violence in detail, artistically.
(Where there's success, it's usually a page or two in a larger work.) Almost all major novelists and 'artists' eschew it, and many say that detailed sex is just too daunting. This isn't to say that porn doesn't get the guys up, or that extreme doesn't shock, but a re-read is torturous for the reader.

So this is a partial plea for the old view that artistic writing normally eschews a predominance of sex, violence, or sexualized violence. The 'genres' like porn erotica and horror, do not, and the result is that most of those writers 90% of them, just aren't that good. Most general writers aren't geniuses either, of course.

Anyway, those are some of my aberrant and idiosyncratic views.

J.

 

[Guest]

Sh'rean clarification

Shakespeare did not write romances, he would not have called his works romantic. R&J is not a romance. It is not quite a full tragedy, as Lear or Macbeth, as it has a good proportion of comical content, but it does have a tragic ending.

Romanticism originated in the late 18th c., some common English examples are:

Blake (painting, engraving, poetry); Byron (poetry); Coleridge (poetry, criticism); Constable (painting); Keats {poetry); Shelley (poetry); William Wordsworth (poetry).

An aside: The Germans tried to make Sh're over into a romantic by translating his work and declaring it better in German!

My point: romance or romantic as we loosely use it today is about as meaningful as 'romance' novels.

Perdita

Edit for Pure: It is not relevant to disucss Shakespeare's violence here and in too many discussions like this. People in Elizabethan Englad had their tongues cut our for slander, hands cut off for theft, and all manner of torture was common. The daughter's rape and torture in "Titus Andronicus" shocks our modern sensibilties, but for Sh're's audience the shock was attuned to her emblematic status in relation to her 'troubled' father and the 'evil' boys who abused her for revenge. At any rate, don't discuss Sh're merely superficially; please.

 

[ffreak]

Wow, OK here goes...

Jayne, the item about Titanic and Bridges of... is from RWA's own website. However, I agree with you that they are still romances. I guess I deduced the happily based on their dissing of those movies. Like you, I tend to prefer violence to be off-stage as it was in the wonderfully written movies of the 30's-50's. I think cinema today generally spends too much time depicting graphic violence that they leave too little time for story.

In fact, off-staging any violence is a requirement for 'cozy' mysteries.

Pure, what about seduction against the better judgment of the other party (arguably still a form of rape)? Perhaps the real 'eroticism' is in the lead-up to denouement and not the involuntary takeover by instinct to perpetuate. Umberto Eco defines pornography as any written piece of work that simply goes from setting the goal to achieving it without obstacles. His examples:
Pornographic - A man calls a woman, tells her he wants her, goes to her house and has sex with her, numerous times with no particular thought for the ramifications that might affect their lives.
Story - man calls woman, tells her he wants her, goes out and his car won't start. So he catches the bus, but it is taken over by escaping prisoners. They drive across town, chased by the police until they crash. After being taken to the hospital and questioned by the police, he catches a cab to the womans house. She isn't there. But she left a note to tell him she would wait at his house. He goes home and catches her just before she gets on the bus. They go back to his place, have sex and he falls into an exhausted sleep.
In other words, porn is just the sex, ma'am, just the sex.

I like where you're going with your cut at concise definitions. I think my version would be porn (as defined above), erotica - where there is the dance of emotion between the characters (both of which would appear in almost any category and it would take reading the story to determine which it is), mild (?) violence in non-consent, graphic violence in extreme. I have my own opinions on horror vs non-human. Note that these are awful close to how stories are already being classified here. The only real difference I would advocate is the separation of porn vs seductive erotica. But that is not the real point of this discussion.

Perdita, dear, yes the Bard did follow the older definitions of Tragedy and Comedy rather than romance. But your description actually reminded me of an older story - the Rape of Dinah and the vengeful murders committed by her brothers (and the marginalization by Jacob in his concern about what the neighbors might think).

whew - should I have made that three posts?

 

[ffreak]

Thanks for the info ref the avatar title, Pure.

So I am doomed to broken fingers before I can get to 1000. Or overloading the forums with parcel posts.

Dang, and Quasimodem gave me such a good one to use:
Singular trademarks having an orgy.

or maybe 'crics á trois'

 

[destinie21]

We're now in a time where the 'opposite' view is common. I posted in the other thread, a living author's statement that a novel can depict anything, child being murdered in graphic detail, anything, *so long as it's done 'artistically'.* Some at literotica agree with that. Maybe it's true.

But here's some evidence against it. Look at the stories awash in sexual detail, here or elsewhere. Almost all are crap. Almost no story primarily sex achieves 'art', and to a lesser extent this holds of violence: in other words, the pure sex stuff is 'porn'; the pure violence is 'horror' and the mixture, sex violence is, at literotica. "extreme' (pornographic horror). 99% could not be 'literature' or 'artistic writing'.

Here is the reason: It's usually goddamn boring. Esp. porn, and pornographically detailed alleged erotica. The art problem is this.
The insertion of prick into cunt is pretty straightforward. The half inch increments, the in and outs are too, and deadly to read.




Dicing presents similar problems. The knife can go into the belly, blood can gurgle out, pool on the floor, etc.

It's almost impossible to do sex or violence in detail, artistically.
(Where there's success, it's usually a page or two in a larger work.) Almost all major novelists and 'artists' eschew it, and many say that detailed sex is just too daunting. This isn't to say that porn doesn't get the guys up, or that extreme doesn't shock, but a re-read is torturous for the reader.

So this is a partial plea for the old view that artistic writing normally eschews a predominance of sex, violence, or sexualized violence. The 'genres' like porn erotica and horror, do not, and the result is that most of those writers 90% of them, just aren't that good. Most general writers aren't geniuses either, of course.

Anyway, those are some of my aberrant and idiosyncratic views.

J.

Normalcy comes with the times. I said it on the are we mormal thread and I'll reiterarte here: Nomalcy really depends on the social milieu in which one operates, and often changes in order to conform to the needs of the culture and time in which it is found. The results are not natural, but man-made, not objective but highly subjective and relative, not constant but changing to fit the current needs of a society.
As an artist I can't even paint a picture of a naked cherub let alone a mother nursing her naked baby without the very real fear of leglal action. Certainly if I did paint such images I could never get them shown at a gallery. Does that mean that they're not art?

You said in the above quote : Look at the stories awash in sexual detail, here or elsewhere. Almost all are crap. Almost no story primarily sex achieves 'art', and to a lesser extent this holds of violence: in other words, the pure sex stuff is 'porn'; the pure violence is 'horror' and the mixture, sex violence is, at literotica. "extreme' (pornographic horror). 99% could not be 'literature' or 'artistic writing'.


I can agree that the majority of stories on the lit and on other like sites are not litrary genius. But why would you expect to find the next literary masterpiece here anymore than you'd expect to find the next artistic mastermind in a elementary school art class. As I commented on the thread regarding AD and as I've echoed and albeit in some cases pontificated on, Violence as the focal point of a story will never work. although now as we are discussing a different mutation of the same thread or idea I will get back on my soap box and state my opinions. Using any one theme as the motivation and reaction in a story is going to make the story boring. (Don't mistake outrage with interest}. For instance some of the "erotica" is dull because the author hasn't formed a story there's no plausible explanation for the so sex and in most cases those without literary acumen will "laundry list" the sex act making it tedious if not unbarable to read. But this is a literary site and few people looking to get off will say hey there's no story. Or "Based on the lack of character development I don't see the motivation"

Meanwhile some of the most erotic stories I've read had minimal sex. Eroticism doesn't equate to sex.

 

[Parklife]

Are you only discussing realism in the sense of violence or realism as a whole? Reason I ask is that the first post deals with realism and it's effects on the artistic value but most replies have dealt with violence and sex shown in graphic lights.

A few thoughts:

Does graphic violence or sex for that matter even equal realism?? If realism is the accurate picture or portrayal of events, is the dissection of those events any more 'realistic' than other forms of idealization (if we take idealization to mean the opposite of realism). Perhaps the graphic depiction (a la Deniro's last stand in Taxi Driver) of violence is as much a distortion of reality as anything. The details are too vivid, too prominent.

Also, since movies seem to be used much in the thread, I'm reminded of movies like Milos Forman's "Loves of a Blonde" or Trauffaut's "400 Blows" and Godard's "Breathless". All attempts at 'realism' in their depictions of lives and life but none which resolve into anything 'happy' or heart-warming. Yet all three are classics of the New Wave film movement and looked upon as some of the best movies put to film. So, even without the resolution of much they are satisfying in their own right.

To move toward the writen word, Camus' "The Stranger" is much the same way in it's realism and depiction of life of Meursault yet there isn't much in the way of happy endings. Again, the work is immensely satisfying (at least personally) yet lacks that positive ending as well.

I think that rather than creating conflict, resolution, happy ending, it's much more important to create connection, growth and relation (all with the reader). If you achieve that, you achieve the emotionally satisfying all other aspects of your story be damned.

P~

 

[Guest]

Thank you, Parklife. That's the most concise and articulate heart of the matter I've read.

Perdita

 

[Madame Manga]

Violence as the focal point of a story will never work.

Hasn't anyone on this thread seen a John Woo film? Not the Hollywood stuff; his original 1980s Hong Kong work. Watch The Killer or Hard Boiled. Then tell me that violence cannot be an artistic end in and of itself. Twenty years ago, plenty of people could have said the same about Sergio Leone or Sam Peckinpah.

MM

 

[SlaveMasterUK]

For an example of violence that included rape as a key scene in the story look at The Accused starring Jodie Foster. She is raped at a bar and portrayed as causing the act to happen. All throughout the trial of the negligent onlookers she is the subject of character assassination. As the story unfolds the viewer is led to a point of almost agreeing with the defense. Only then do we see a flashback of the actual rape and see first hand how she was in fact the victim of an attack with the encouragement of the onlookers. This brief scene changes her into a sympathetic character and makes the audience (at least part of it) cheer at the conviction of the defendants and the implied upholding of her honor.

Can that be done in a story that also has erotic sex scenes (as opposed to the violence of rape)?

I think so, especially in a story about an individual who cares deeply for their lover and wants to reassure them that what happened will not lessen their love.

I think I've done something similar to this with Rhiana. Perhaps you should give it a read (shameless plug). It is not violent as such, but revolves around enforced slavery, non-consentual sex and denial to an extent that the main character (the slave) begins to lose her mind. The story follows the gradual change in her mindset through the pain that she endures, however the story has a twist ending which switches to the perspective of the dominating character, and goes some way to explaining why she behaves the way she does.

If it can be done with a film, why not in an erotic story too? I think my story contains a lot of brutality, yet is still erotic.

ax

 

[Guest]

Madame, I don't know Woo but I know Peckinpah and others 'known' for their depiction of violence. I think perhaps Dest. meant violence as "the thing itself" (das Ding an sich, as in Kant's noumenon, not Wallace Stevens' poem). Well, at least I do.

Even if an artist is focusing on a point deeply related to or instilled in violence, the point is not the violence, it cannot be (except in a distorted mind, or in abstraction). I truly cannot imagine violence being an artistic end in itself.

Perdita

 

[destinie21]

Can realism even be put in such terms anymore?

With the birth of socialist realism around 1932 "realism" as it pretains to reality was all but buried.

Now in the artistic world we have Magic Realism which in and of itself seems like a paradox.
and Photo Realism


Lets just say for the sake of aurgument that a story does have realism as defined by the dictionary (1 : concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary
2 a : a doctrine that universals exist outside the mind; specifically : the conception that an abstract term names an independent and unitary reality).

The story (if based in realism) then has no room for Idealism or anything that wouldn't equate with Nominalistic sensibilities.


Furthermore In George Eliot's great novel "Middlemarch," young Dorothea Brooke, "brought up in English and Swiss Puritanism," is stunned by the grandeur and decay of 19th-century Rome, where the "red drapery" of St. Peter's basilica spreads itself "like a disease of the retina." In America, with its residual Puritanism, the mass media operate as the lurid id from which erupt the repressions of establishment ideology. The seductive, obsessively repeated explosions of violence seem to have taken over the nation's television screens like Eliot's "disease of the retina." Yet the hysteria over violent influences (ie. video games and music ect...)that peaked in America in the early 1990s transmogrified first into fascist surveillance of marketers for suspected propaganda and then into a shrill political crusade to crack down on Internet "indecency," lest it contaminate the family home and infant brain. (now everything has a warning still none take heed) So your kids can’t play video games but sure they can as shit watch superman ,batman, X-men and such where violence is fine because the good guys always win. The view of the pure, saintly child is a national cult in America, which gushes over pet cherubs in order to avoid dealing with the blatant aggressions of its own bloody past. It’s become a strange meditation device for American sentimentalists who can't let go of the pre-Freudian idea of childhood as a sexless paradise garden befouled by serpent adults.


okay enough with my rant
as you were