Harper Valley PTA Report

[ckaratnytsky at nypl.org]

     Provocative Mittelwerk:
     
     >no man enjoys the sight of spread-shots for their
     >putative content, but instead, sees in them the pleasing reflection 
     >of his own objectification--the recognition that he is not alone in 
     >being unhappy, that fulfillment is denied all (especially those who 
     >could make him happy and give him fulfillment:  women).  This is why 
     >it is destructive. 
     
     Hmm.  OK.  This is what I wanted to know about.  The viewing of the 
     pornographic image and the consequent jerk-off is not *only* about 
     getting one's rocks off, though the subtext may be more than most men 
     care to delve into.  Is that it?  Humankind cannot bear very much 
     reality, sez Mr. Eliot.  Deep longing and unfulfillment is masked by 
     male power.  Do I understand this correctly?  (But how did so much 
     unhappiness come to fuel an industry?  What happened to erotic art?  
     Why *isn't* feel supreme, as nice Paul Mackin sez?  A-and why aren't 
     we (women, real ones) enough?)
     
     Such good stuff on the aesthetic motives of porn and an excellent 
     connection drawn to Sade.  Very, very good.  But, why is the term 
     pornography obsolete?  What substitute would you use?
     
     >which brings us to GR:  these is no GR without ugliness
     
     That Pudding shit-eating scene made you horny, eh?  Sade makes me 
     horny.  And Blicero.  Does Pynchon *intend* to titillate us with this 
     "ugly" stuff?  Or is this our (perverted?) libidos taking over?
     
     Too many questions and not enough answers, as usual--
     
     That Chris