It seems like I always have nothing to blog about or two much to blog about. And of course when there's too much to blog about there's also no time to write lengthy posts. And then suddenly you're a week behind. Is it so much to ask for a happy medium? Anyway, Friday evening, before I went to the ballet, I attended a panel on writing about sex and sexuality that was part of the PEN World Voices festival. The panelists were Catherine Millet, who used a translator, Anja Sicking, Amanda Michalopoulou, and Yael Hedaya. Millet was the only one I had heard of before. Also, Michalopoulou was wearing this rather fabulous outfit with orange tights. The panel was moderated by Rakesh Saytal.
Saytal began by asking the writers to talk about books that had influenced them regarding sex and sexuality. Hedaya said she was most influenced by Lady Chatterley's Lover and other books she wasn't allowed to read. Michalopoulou talked about a book she had read about Aphrodite and also Portnoy's Complaint and explained that she prefers sexuality full of humor. Sicking said that when she was younger she was interested in any book about sex and now it's not so important if a writer writes about sex or not. Millet didn't remember any books being influential for her but instead talked about the rather pornographic films in the 60s.
This comment about films led to a question about other forms of media usurping the book in terms of influencing young people. Hedaya said that books have less and less influence because fewer people read, particularly young people. She thinks it's disappointing because there was a thrill to the imagination required when reading but does think that TV is better, and safer, than the internet. (Personally, I think they function in a different and not entirely comparable manner.) Michalopoulou expressed hope that books remain influential because there are so many ways to express things through books. She also said that movies are a totally different form and you can't compare them. Sicking pointed out that what books can do, that other forms of media cannot, is express the inner world of experience when having sex.
Continuing with the theme of media, Saytal then asked Millet about dialogue in media. She first returned to the previous question and said that she feels new media has killed erotic literature. She then talked a bit about the publication of her book and said that she attempted to present slices of dialogue as though recorded and transcribed into the book.
Saytal then left the subject of other media behind (for which I was grateful as I find the whole idea of the death of the book to be quite overhyped) and asked about being female writers and writing about the inner lives of male characters. Sicking said that one of the great things about writing is that you can be someone you could never be in real life and that if you're going to write about sex you should be able to convey the feelings of both characters. I think that rather depends on the voice and focus of the book, personally. Hedaya said that while she doesn't devote a lot of thought to it, it was a challenge to write from the perspective of a man, particularly a middle-aged man. Answering a question from Saytal, she said that she did not do research. Millet said that if one imagined what readers' reactions might be one wouldn't write. It would be inhibitive. Michalopoulou then told a story about how her first job as a journalist was to translate Dr. Ruth columns. In writing novels one shouldn't use the sort of rhetorics used there but should go with the flow of the story. She also said that she doesn't like the idea of fantasies but prefers to describe things as though they really happened.
Saytal then asked about the idea that Europeans are freer than Americans when it comes to sexuality. Michalopoulou said that these are human issues and one can't think in terms of nationality. We can only imagine how other people feel and act, not know. Sicking said that it is the cliche that Americans are more prudish but she doesn't know if it's true because it's her first time in the US and she hasn't talked to anyone about it. Millet spoke about her own experience as a writer in that she wrote a very French book but it was translated into many languages. She agreed with Michalopoulou that we shouldn't get hung up on cliches of nationality or borders. One of the cliches she mentioned is that Catholic cultures are freer about sexuality than Protestant cultures. Her book sold very well in America but not nearly as well in Italy, which would seem to contradict that.
Turning the question of women writing about men on its head, Saytal then asked them to talk about what they think of men writing about women in terms of sexuality. He also made mention of the fact that the panel was made up of four women with a flamboyant gay man as interlocutor. Sicking said that men sometimes seem to exaggerate when writing about women. Michalopoulou talked about the predominance in Southern European writing of a kind of macho perspective and said that it wasn't always like this and what matters is good writers, regardless of gender. Hedaya thought it was an interesting question to which she hadn't given much thought and that sometimes male writers seem to over-romanticize how women feel about sex. Millet said that she thought it was significant that the panel was made up entirely of women and that it seems to her that it is women who have something to say about sexuality today for two reasons: 1) Women speak up more frequently now and 2) Women have a certain distance men do not have. She further said that she doesn't consider herself a feminist but does think that women have work to do in describing sexuality.
Saytal's final question was whether the panelists felt, as female writers, an obligation to be feminist, transgressive, etc. Sicking said that she does not because art should supersede obligation.
Hedaya left the questions behind for a moment to address the makeup of the panel, saying that she found it upsetting that there were no male writers. It was something that seemed to her (and I agree) to be the opposite of feministic because it puts women back in the ghetto of feelings and emotionality being the domain of women. Given the amount that men write about sex and sexuality I was glad that someone addressed this.
The floor was then opened to questions, which I'll post about later today.
No comments:
Post a Comment