On Wednesday, February 4, 2004, at 03:05 AM, joanna bujes wrote:
> "does anyone seriously think of the decameron as porn, except in the
> hands of a lame-ass film-maker? and why not chaucer? didn't pasolini
> do a softporn version of the canterbury tales, too? likewise ovid,
> although pasolini i think never got to that one."
>
> Hold on now, "The Miller's Tale" is pretty damn hot!
but is it "porn"? i would argue that any definition of porn that includes chaucer is probably too broad to be useful, at least without major subdivisions that distinguish, say, chaucer from, say, debbie does dallas 3 (or 1 or 2, for that matter. and not on the basis of how "literary" they are, but as "genres".
j