Mr. Dark:

Good Grief.
And I have the paperback right here by the computer. Since I feel like typing a bit, here's the beginning of the story for those who are not acquainted with this wonderful minor masterpiece....

"The Illustrated Woman"

When a new patient wanders into the office and stretches out to stutter forth a compendious ticker tape of free association, it is up to the psychiatrist immediately beyond, behind and above to decide at just which points of the anatomy the client is in touch with the couch.
In other words, where does the patient make contact with reality?
Some people seem to float half an inch above any surface whatsoever. They have not seen earth in so long, they have become somewhat airsick.
Still others so firmly weight themselves down, clutch, thrust, heave their bodies toward reality, that long after they are gone you find their tiger shapes and claw marks in the upholstery.
In the case of Emma Fleet, Dr. George C. George was a long time deciding which was furniture and which was woman and where what touched which.
For, to begin with, Emma Fleet resembled a couch.
"Mrs. Emma Fleet, Doctor," announced his receptionist.
Dr. George C. George gasped.
For it was a traumatic experience, seeing this woman shunt herself through the door without benefit of railroad switchman or the ground crews who rush about under Macy's Easter balloons, heaving on lines, guiding the massive images to some eternal hangar off beyond.
In came Emma Fleet, as quick as her name, the floor shifting like a huge scales under her weight.
Dr. George must have gasped again, guessing her at four hundred on the hoof, for Emma Fleet smiled as if reading his mind.
"Four hundred two and half pounds, to be exact," she said.
He found himself staring at his furniture.
"Oh, it'll hold all right," said Mrs. Fleet intuitively.
She sat down.
The couch yelped like a cur.
Dr. George cleared his throat. "Before you make yourself comfortable," he said, "I feel I should say immediately and honestly that we in the psychiatrical field have had little success in inhibiting appetites. The whole problem of weight and food has so far eluded our ability for coping. A strange admission, perhaps, but unless we put our frailities forth, we might be in danger of fooling ourselves and thus taking money under false pretenses. So, if you are here seeking help for your figure, I must list myself among the nonplussed."
"Thank you for your honesty, Doctor," said Emma Fleet. "However, I don't wish to lose. I'd prefer your helping me 'gain' another one hundred or two hundred pounds."

(continued at your local paperback of 'The Machineries of Joy')

Nard, you redeemed yourself a bit. How ironic that you easily reference a Playboy issue from the 60's instead of drawing from the actual Bradbury works. Does that item sit next to your computer also?

I do posses a copy of "Machineries of Joy" and will read the rest later. I got the impression there was an actual illustration or painting to accompany the story from one of your earlier posts. But perhaps seeing an illustration of a 400 pound woman would make one reach for a Playboy magazine, any year would do.

I also would recommend "A House Divided", from Ray's collection, DRIVING BLIND. It's gentle depiction of sexual awakening in adolescence is in refreshing contrast to most of the graphic junk you see in today's films, TV and literature.

Very funny, Celestial:

Actually looked it up in a Bradbury search, and found a list and place of original publication and dating of all his works....

Nard: Can you post the url of that site? I'd love to bookmark it and get a print-out.

What do I do with that quote from the Bible?

I say that the Bible is not the end all authority on everything nor is it the final word on what is immoral. It is also not believed in by everyone and the Judeo Christian God is not the only God who is worshiped nor has the concept of this God been around as long as other, older religeons. It's a big world, Nard, and not everyone thinks like you. As for not knowing what I'm talking about, I was the son of a Methodist preacher man, who married a Catholic girl and I was raised in a Lutheran school from Kindergarten through my freshman year of high school. I spent the first half of my life studying and memorizing the Bible, I have read the Apocrypha (which states that the pleasures of the earth and of being human are to be enjoyed) and then started to think for myself and study other religeons and spiritualities and was set free by thinking for myself and seeing the world as it truly is. So, when you speak about what I know about or don't know about, you are speaking about something you truly don't know about.

Pterran, no you did not offend me(neither did you, Nard), I am enjoying this discussion very much and I think we are all making some good points and sharing good thoughts with each other. Drinking and not wanting to watch people drink is a strange analogy - try this one.

There is a healthy fantasy element to pornography. For instance- a couple can look at porn, be turned on by it and integrate it into their healthy sex lives together, while remaining monogamous and happy. It's fanatasy and entertainment and its harmless. It's like watching a James Bond film - it's fantasy, entertainment it's fun but do I really want to be being chased by someone with a gun who could shoot me and cripple me or end my life, do I really want to be in a high speed car chase in which I could run over a child crossing the street - No. Do action movies damage the viewer - no. Does pornography harm the viewer - no.

Greentown:
Wow! Are you ever messed up. You sound like the guy I looked at in the mirror every mornin a number of years ago. Hope you get around to reality. I had to.

(By the way, Hugh Hefner was a preacher's kid. So much for religion,eh?)

Hi Nard,
I just checked out the SA website. I'm sorry but I chuckled at what you must think of me or others who are comfortable with their nature. Took the test and hope your happy to hear that I came out squeaky clean. I know that there are people for whom it is an addiction and it is a problem - the problem is the addiction not the sex. It's that way with any addiction alcohol, television, food, ect.

Who was the guy in the mirror?

Greentown,

Touche on my analogy about drinking! Strange, indeed! But that was exactly my point, to make it seem strange. Anway, let�s visit your analogy of action movies (Talk about strange analogies! Then again, any analogy we choose might shed some unfortunate light on our attitudes towards this subject. ) and see what we can come up with.

There are probably a few people on the fringe that are harmed by action movies but, for the most part, I�d agree that they�re escapist fantasy and essentially harmless. While I�m a big fan of the genre, for me, if the action and violence get too outlandish, my suspension of disbelief is interrupted and I�m suddenly aware that I�m watching a series of special effects and stunts strung together to make a movie. I�m snapped out of the narrative dream. The elements no longer do what they�re intended to do in that they take away from the narrative rather than add to it.

The same thing can be said about porn: the graphic nature of what�s being depicted takes the viewer out of the fantasy onscreen and propels them into their own. And isn�t that the very purpose of porn? I mean, not having much experience in this area, my understanding of the genre is that consumption of this �art form� is usually, um, a solitary experience. Something not really meant to be shared.

Which leads me to how porn can be harmful. Porn harms the individual in much the same way that alcohol (There�s that analogy again.) harms the alcohol abuser. Besides the physical harm that alcohol can do, in order to be a �successful� alcoholic, you have to put everything else second. Family, friends, work. It�s a solitary and lonely pursuit; though you may consume alcohol in the presence of others, you�re really all alone in the game. That�s not a problem if you don�t have family or friends or a job or, in other words, you�re not a functioning member of society. You�re just harming yourself. But even then, your behavior puts a burden on the rest of society that chooses a lifestyle different from your own. While no physical harm comes from viewing porn, it�s the damage that the individual inflicts on those around him while he pursues this passion. Suddenly, his wife can no longer live up to the images flickering on the screen or those spread out in a glossy magazine or pixilated on a computer screen before him. Like the alcoholic, the porn user leaves the comforts of family, of friends, of society to pursue his solitary passion.

And it�s not a passion that�s constructive. The world depicted in porn is purposefully different than that of the mainstream. I mean, I don�t think the storylines involve people in monogamous relationships. That�s part of its allure, isn�t it? That it�s forbidden, that it goes against the grain? If it were more accepted, where would the fun be?

You cite an example in that a couple might view porn and use it in a healthy way. Surely you�d agree that�s not likely the intent of the porn creator is that it should be used solely as a �marital aid.� I�d argue that there are plenty of other activities in which a couple might share. (Watching action movies comes immediately to mind. Or reading Bradbury stories out loud to one another! (Got the Bradbury tie in, didn�t I?)) And a healthy sex life doesn�t really need help, does it?

Finally, and for a better tie-in to Bradbury, I notice that pornography isn�t really mentioned in F-451. In another post, you mention reading the play version of F-451 and I�d guess that Bradbury pretty much ignores the subject there as well. There must be a reason why Bradbury seemed to stick to the �classics� in his story of book-burning and didn�t venture into the dark swamp of pornography. As Mr. Dark has mentioned before, F-451 is a story about the suppression of ideas. The suppression is made manifest by the burning of books. As Beatty says, (and I think it�s in the play version) it was no crime to own books but, rather, it was a crime to read them. No one says your idea that pornography is dangerous. It�s when the practice of allowing pornography to invade our every day lives, to become mainstream and undermine our values, that it becomes harmful.

Sorry for the length of this post. I�ll try to keep it shorter next time.

Pete

Yes for someone who abuses porn, it's a problem Anything can be abused. I would like to make something clear, I am not talking about porn as a passion but as a recreational for of entertainment that can be integrated into the sexuality that is our very nature. Discussing, the current topic of discussion on a discussion board and having an opinion about it does not mean that one is addicted or messed up - it means that they are discussing. And are clear (not messed up) in their opinion. Anyway were going in circles now and I will shake hands, say good discussion and agree to disagree with the utmost of respect for everyone here. It's been fun and enlightening.

Greentown:

Porn IS passion.
It's like the film director said, the people in porn are not really doing anything but acting...how is 'that' illegal? Acting? Duh?

Once your values are shifted away from truth...then anything goes.
What is truth?
Jesus Christ said I am the Way, the Life and the Truth. And that's where I leave all this.

By the way, this afternoon, the Supreme Court said they will not stand in the way of the removal of The Ten Commandments in, what is it, the Montgomery, Alabama state house rotunda? It has nothing to do with seperation of church and state, but that it offends some people. Originally the state was not to interfere in church matters. How did this ever get turned around?

The books in 'Fahrenehit 451' are burned because the say things that trouble people, that bother people, that make them cry, that make them think too much.... It's the same story deep inside everyone. You repress, hide and sneak under the 'rug' many things, ignore many truths, and try to make do in life.....

That's human nature. And it runs amoke often...



[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 08-21-2003).]

Greentown,

Okie doke. I agree, it's been fun. I look forward to your future posts on other topics.

Pete

�House Divided� and �The Illustrated Woman�

People have brought up two stories in this thread that I hadn�t read for a long time (The Illustrated Woman) or ever (Divided House). I re-read and read them.

�The Illustrated Woman� seemed to fall into the category of �The Next in Line� in reference to the RB and pornography question. Mr. Bradbury has no problem in either of these stories with nudity. What he does not do in either story is provide any titillating, gratuitous or graphic depiction of that nudity. The nudity is an element that is important to both stories and so it is not ignored in a kind of puritanical conservatism. In �The Illustrated Woman� she obviously has to �get nude� (essentially flash the psychiatrist by opening her coat) in order to show her illustrations to him. We have to �see� her nude in order to get the point of the story � which is that there ARE no illustrations on her. This point is why the opening scene to this story (typed in by Nard, above) is so important. The story is about figuring out the line between illusion and reality. Where is she floating and where is she in grounded contact with the couch? She and her husband think they are living in a world of reality, but they are not. We assume the psychiatrist is the one with the rational world view. Nevertheless, the woman and her husband�s emotions are dependent on their illusions, so the illusions have to be dealt with at some level. In �The Nest in Line� I believe Mr. Bradbury emphasizes the nudity of the wife because it shows her status of feeling very vulnerable in the face of the death she has seen. In this story, the nudity equates to vulnerability (well, that�s my take on it, anyway).

In �House Divided� the point is to show us an instance of a young boy (Chris) having his kind of sexual epiphany in discovering the joy/reality/potential of his own body/sexuality and the power of a woman�s body. Bradbury makes no negative moral judgment of this. He does not condemn their petting. He does not have them die at the end (like the slasher films, which love to kill of horny and mean teenagers). The awakening is a good thing.

The only specifically graphic scene (pretty harmless) is in her unbuttoning the buttons of his pants. Even this act is there because it ties to the suspense build-up in the horror stories the kids are telling each other in the dark. The sexual build-up, the build-up to adolescent maturing, the build-up to the uncle�s death, the build-up in the horror stories all serve as parallel examples of the sexual experience. There is a build-up and a climax. Chris�s feelings are compared to a pendulum:

�It was funny finding his body under him so suddenly. For twelve years it had never been there. It was a pendulum under a clock, that body, and now Vivian was setting it in motion, touching, urging, rocking it to and fro, until it swung in dizzy warm arcs under the machinery of the head. The clock was now running. A clock cannot run until the pendulum moves. The clock can be whole, ready, and intact and healthy, but until that pendulum is thrust into motion, there is nothing but machinery without use.�

This is very sexual writing. But it is not graphic. But look at the words and images:

�finding his body under him suddenly��
�Vivian was setting it in motion (touching, urging, rocking to and fro)�
��until that pendulum is THRUST into motion ��

Again. Mr. Bradbury is no prude. But he writes about nudity and human sexuality in a way that is both honest and natural. It is neither prudish nor pornographic.

Great writing.

(Without giving out details, this brought back all kinds of high school �discoveries� for me. The sign of great writing.)

I really oughtta let sleeping dogs lie but my wife and I just saw Seabiscuit this afternoon, which was written and directed by the same writer/director of Pleasantville. I have to say, he redeems himself quite well with this new movie. I've never said the gentleman was without talent and Seabiscuit proves he has an abundance of it. (Yeah, I know: You can't go wrong with good source material.) If you haven't had a chance, treat yourself.

What does this have to do with Ray? Er, nothing I guess. But he does like good movies and Seabiscuit is a good movie.

Pete