On Wednesday, February 4, 2004, at 08:29 AM, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>
> 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".
and btw, this is not the same thing as saying you couldn't make a movie version of chaucer or do a rewrite of a chaucer story that might actually fit a useful definition of porn (even if it's really silly). see the above-mentioned pasolini.
j