[Milton-L] Re: Fallen vs. Unfallen Sex

Watt, James jwatt at butler.edu
Wed Jul 27 10:45:34 EDT 2011


Jim & Carrol:

I should think it depends less on the physical response (with which we are all familiar I trust) than on the soul's; it the motion is towards invitation and sharing I think 'erotic' is as 'natural' in Paradise as in Desmoines (sorry can't resist), but if it's a motion towards grabbing & taking it is, helas!, more suited to Pandaemonium the Moulin Rouge or South Bank.

jim watt
________________________________________
From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] on behalf of Carrol Cox [cbcox at ilstu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 11:59 PM
To: John Milton Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Re: Fallen vs. Unfallen Sex

On 7/25/2011 3:25 PM, James Rovira wrote:

" I don't see how PL and Debbie Does Dallas can be said
to be attempting to achieve the same effect.  I don't see this claim
as supporting any kind of dogmatism, but rather trying to avoid
reductionism in literary treatments of the erotic."

This raises problems with what we mean by "erotic." If it (text,
painting, what have you) elicits no 'erotic' response from the
reader/viewer, can it be called erotic? And if it _does_ elicit an
erotic response, then there may still be a line between Debbie & Eve --
but it's getting a bit iffy.

Carrol

_______________________________________________
Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
Manage your list membership and access list archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l

Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/



More information about the Milton-L mailing list