On Wednesday, February 4, 2004, at 10:24 AM, BklynMagus wrote:
> Dear List:
>
>> "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."
>
> I do not think Pasolini rates as a lame-ass director. Salo is a great
> movie. If porn is what arouses you, then his version of The Decameron
> gets both my mind and my body hard. He also did The Canterbury Tales
> and The Arabian Nights (his Trilogy of Life).
i misspoke: he is not a lame-ass director (mel gibson could have take some pointers from his "gospel according to matthew"), but i still contend that his versions of those stories are lame-ass. ymmv.
>
> Maybe porn is just the name for sexual material offered for sale which
> is condemned by society. For me the most pornographic thing I ever
> read was Burroughs' Naked Lunch. Fed my youthful fantasies for years
> LOL.
:-) have you read "crash"?
>
> Once society accepts the material it becomes erotica.
i'm not sure this definition will work, and i haven't looked ahead to see if anyone has responded to it. my first question about the definition is what "accepted" means. IF the market for porn is any indication of its acceptance, then the numbers SUGGEST acceptance. conversely, do you see erotica put front and center on display at the barnes & noble? i'm not saying that constitutes acceptance, i'm saying i'm not sure we've gotten rid of the various ambiguities in this definition.
j