[Milton-L] O Eve, in evil hour...

Richard Strier rastrier at uchicago.edu
Wed Nov 23 17:47:18 EST 2005

Responses (such as they are):

Good for Aers and Hodge's student-- a bit of real life honesty enters 
the world of literary studies!

Certainly there is a difference between a Degas and a photo in 
Hustler, but I don't think that there's a coherent formulation of the 
difference to be had.  My point is that nothing should censored 
because there is no adequate theory of censorship to be had.  I don't 
think that any legal formulation that would eliminate some 
representations wouldn't also eliminate some genuine art.   But I 
admit that the logic that leads me to think that nothing should be 
censored could also be taken to lead to the bizarre idea that almost 
everything should be.  However, I think that the "everything should 
be censored" view is more liable to absurd extremes-- certainly 
nudity (and nakedness, IF there's a difference), and then scanty 
clothing, and then revealing clothing, and then suggestive clothing, 
and then bright-colored clothing (suggesting passion), and then soft 
textures, and then exposed ankles, exposed arms, hair, faces ....

I must say that this topic is stirring things up nicely, and 
producing some interesting material.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20051123/7e02bb6e/attachment.htm

More information about the Milton-L mailing list