Gary’s comment > Likes and Comments
Like
You're welcome. Thanks for the question, BTW.
And, yeah, it's hard to get past that raw image. She does appear, physically, to be a child. We find out that (view spoiler). In the short run, of course, "it's just a book" and all that, But it does—and I think should—evoke the kind of objection you raise in the long run.
Ahhh, gotcha - too bad - I just bought this book. I was hoping to take a deep dive into Octavia Butler but I guess I just got pulled up short. "it's just a book" doesn't translate to say, the very active child sex trade going on today, or say, the folks who do sexually assault children and think, well, they liked it, they asked for it, and they're "mature enough" mentally - it's actually a pretty scary tactic that is used IRL.
However, thank you - I may try to read this more, but really not sure I can if this does keep cropping up.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance, Jenny. One of my favorite books is Lolita by Nabokov. I've read it maybe eight or ten times. Much of its contents are horrific. The charm for me is the author's absolute skill in expressing that horror in a way that slips right past a lot of readers. However, it doesn't slip past a lot of other readers, and they can't get past that horror. And I wouldn't argue the point with them. It's simply too evocative of real world violence to dismiss with the "it's just a book" rationalization. So, if that doesn't work for you personally I say go with your instincts on the matter. There's certainly an educational value to reading, but unless you've got some sort of assignment for some school or work-related project, there's no reason why anyone should read something that is, on balance, more disturbing than enlightening.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
You're welcome. Thanks for the question, BTW.And, yeah, it's hard to get past that raw image. She does appear, physically, to be a child. We find out that (view spoiler). In the short run, of course, "it's just a book" and all that, But it does—and I think should—evoke the kind of objection you raise in the long run.
Ahhh, gotcha - too bad - I just bought this book. I was hoping to take a deep dive into Octavia Butler but I guess I just got pulled up short. "it's just a book" doesn't translate to say, the very active child sex trade going on today, or say, the folks who do sexually assault children and think, well, they liked it, they asked for it, and they're "mature enough" mentally - it's actually a pretty scary tactic that is used IRL. However, thank you - I may try to read this more, but really not sure I can if this does keep cropping up.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance, Jenny. One of my favorite books is Lolita by Nabokov. I've read it maybe eight or ten times. Much of its contents are horrific. The charm for me is the author's absolute skill in expressing that horror in a way that slips right past a lot of readers. However, it doesn't slip past a lot of other readers, and they can't get past that horror. And I wouldn't argue the point with them. It's simply too evocative of real world violence to dismiss with the "it's just a book" rationalization. So, if that doesn't work for you personally I say go with your instincts on the matter. There's certainly an educational value to reading, but unless you've got some sort of assignment for some school or work-related project, there's no reason why anyone should read something that is, on balance, more disturbing than enlightening.
But is it in the body of a child? That's the part that skeeves me - it's not two adult bodies - it's a sexualized child body. Do I have to slog through more of that in the novel?
Also - thank you for the response!