From: ketter@mdd.comm.mot.com (Cindy Ketterling)
Subject: Re: Barker and sex 
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:30:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.090301.1823@bvc.edu> frantz@bvc.edu writes:
>
>All flames aside, I'm interested in this line of discussion about Clive 
>Barker's use of sex in his works.  I've read most (maybe all, I don't know) 
>of the Books of Blood, the Inhuman Condition, Weaveworld, and am just 
>finishing Imajica.  I agree that Barker employs a good deal of sex in his 
>work--some of it is also anything but "mainstream."  But I think I've 
>developed a pretty healthy appreciation for Barker's unabashed examination 
>of sexuality being an integral part of the human condition, something we 
>shouldn't be squeemish to discuss. I think he does it well, mostly because 
>he's an exceptional writer, but also because he's willing to take risks.  
>For example, in Imajica he creates an androgynous character whose sexuality 
>helps define it and make it one of the most likeable characters in the book 
>(keep in mind I'm not done with it yet--as I've learned with a lot of 
>Barker's stuff, I suppose that last statement is certainly open to change). 
>I like the fact that Pie can have equally good sex as both a man and a 
>woman because I think Barker's saying, hey, sex is what you make it and 
>it's a part of us we simply can't deny.
>
>Also0, I'm impressed with the fact that Barker is unafraid to employ sex (
>and, I might add, I have yet to find anything gratuitous in any of the sex 
>scenes I've read) and he's an English.  This is *absolutely* not a flame 
>against English writers.  I have read and loved a great many.  It's just 
>that few of them tend to write a great deal about sex.  I think Barker 
>breaks down some stereotypes.
>
>Andrea @ BVC

Bravo.

I have to say, one of the most annoying things, to me, is the way
sex is used in modern horror fiction.  Too many authors fall into
two traps:  a) throwing in several sex scenes out of context because
sex sells books or  b) not dealing with the subject at all, or 
through euphemisms that indicate that the author is not comfortable
with the subject.  One thing that always amuses me is when an author
can throw in a blow-by-blow description of a disembowelment, then
three pages later skim completely over a sex scene in one sentence.
On the other hand, whereas I have to admit that Barker's treatment
of sex in his work isn't always what I would call "normal" (that is
to say, if one of the parties involved was your next-door neighbor,
your response would probobly be anything from raising an eyebrow to
actually attending the funeral), you certainly can't accuse him of  
either over- OR under-doing it.  He just writes about it in the  
same matter-of-fact style that he writes about anything else, so it  
never seems out of place.  I have to say I admire that, even though 
I must admit the mental images conjured by some of these scenes do 
make me cringe ... the bit with the sort-of-dead ex-military guy   
and the wound-ridden corpse from "The Damnation Game" had me wincing
for a while ... or the end of "Jacqeline Ess" ... ouch.  However, 
it always makes sense in the story.   
 
I have to admit, there are some authors whose work does not suffer
through the use of euphemisms.  Chelsea Quinn Yarbro springs to 
mind.  This has to do with the style she's writing in, though.  Her 
books are basically historical romances, with a few vampires thrown 
in.  Her milder sort of style encourages it.  A harsher style needs  
a more up-front and honest treatment of the subject, and I don't
think enough writers are comfortable with that. 
 
Anyway, it's time to step down off my soapbox and get back to work.

- the Cypherkat

(geez, I've GOT to get a new hobby ...)
Newsgroups: alt.horror