I don’t consider it pornographic either. I love her books, but as you warned Hamilton’s books are explicit. Both in terms of violence and sexuality. And the fact that you liked them did surprise me, maybe it shouldn’t have since I don’t “know” you. It’s just from the posts that I have read of yours I would have thought the books a bit too explicit for your tastes. I was wrong. No offense intended and I hope none was taken.

A for porn, when I typed pornography into my handy little Wordweb the definition given is:

Creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.

I would have to say I pretty much agree with that.

Laurell K. Hamilton’s books aren’t pornographic, erotic yes, but not porn. Scenes in the books can be arousing but the story isn’t about a character having sex in hopes the reader will get off while reading it. There is a reason for the sex and that reason that fits the plot.

The difference between what is erotic art/writing and porn is subjective. It seems to me one person’s art can be another’s porn.

You can go to an art exhibit and see nude photos or paintings that while are artistic are also sexually stimulating. I’m going to be a bit hypothetical here so bear with me, eh? Say at said show there is an incredible photo of a woman modeling in the amazon with the spray of a natural waterfall falling over her nude body. To the photographer the intent of taking the photo may have been to capture the beauty of the human form combined with the wondrous beauty of nature, and as such you could say there is an artistic value to the photo. I could look at it and be aroused by it but that wasn’t the intent of the photo. It’s not porn its art. Now if another photographer had taken the exact same picture instead, and that photographer’s reason was to publish it in say Hustler Then, by definition, it loses its artistic value. It becomes porn because the artist created it for the purpose of getting a sexual response from the people viewing it. Same picture, nothing has changed, except the intent of the artist.

I have no problems with porn, I watch/read porn occasionally, but I can’t say I see any artistic value in the photos I see on porn sites, or in films like say Shaving Ryan’s Privets or Debbie does Dallas. Maybe someone else can see something artistically redeeming in it, maybe the writer or photographer meant it to be artistic, but I don’t see it. Like I said its subjective. At least to me it is


¢£uë£ë$$
Rebel Without A Clue