# If SF/F books had MPAA ratings, what would be your taste: R? PG-13? PG? NC-17?



## apokalypsis (Jan 4, 2007)

In another thread, Dustinzgirl (I think) commented that she won't read books that describe "that nasty transfer of bodily fluids - yuck!" (or something to that effect). I recently got some close friends of mine reading the first draft of an SF novel I wrote, and they were shocked and dismayed by the graphic sexuality in some portions. I thought I was just writing commensurate to the genre. So I was curious what people's tastes are. (I have another friend who sticks to YA SF/F in order to avoid objectionable material.)

When it comes to rating movies, I prefer to treat sexuality, violence/gore, and language separately. (I think it's absurd that a movie can have an R for language, so that's why I split them up.)

As for my taste in SF/F novels, using an adapted MPAA rating:

sexuality: R
violence/gore: R
language: R


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 4, 2007)

Ummm.... well, let me see....

Again, I'd have to say it depends on what the story demands. I've read some extremely graphic sf (both/either sexuality and violence), and I've read a lot that doesn't have it. Sex is certainly more accepted in "mainstream" fiction than in most genres, and I think that's a long-standing tradition (about which I suggest reading "Love Among the Mannequins: Sex and Science Fiction", a chapter in Colin Greenland's *The Entropy Exhibition: Michael Moorcock and the British 'New Wave' in Science Fiction*, for an interesting examination of the subject). 

While I think that, in a lot of "classical" sf -- that is, following the classic models, not necessarily sf "classics" -- sex is largely superfluous, there are stories in which it plays a vital role, and even the graphic descriptions are integral to different layers metaphorically, as well as literally (characters' emotions, development, etc.). If it's "tacked on", then it's as unnecessary as any other verbiage. If it adds to the story and makes it better, more richly textured, then by all means keep it.

So... I don't really have a preference on that. I don't like unnecessary gore, in horror, fantasy, sf, what-have-you, because that's a cheap way to get a reaction; but, again, if it serves a purpose within the story -- let 'er rip. (Er, you should pardon the expression.)

Language simply doesn't bother me, unless it gets _reeeaallly_ extreme... Though I prefer for even profanity to serve a purpose; the words should be chosen for the appropriate effect at the point they occur, not simply thrown out there until they become nothing but sound. But that, I believe, should be the case with all words, not merely profanity....


----------



## Nikitta (Jan 4, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Language simply doesn't bother me, unless it gets _reeeaallly_ extreme... Though I prefer for even profanity to serve a purpose; the words should be chosen for the appropriate effect at the point they occur, not simply thrown out there until they become nothing but sound. But that, I believe, should be the case with all words, not merely profanity....


 
I agree very strongly with that. Especially with the words "love" and "hate" which I think is being used too casually a lot of the time. It kind of waters out the mening of an expression to be used too much.

Sometimes I wish I could go back to a time when words really meant something, but maybe that age never existed or maybe they still really mean something? I just think that a lot of words are being watered out from being used too much - especially "love" and "hate". I even sometimes do it, myself, even though I try not to.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 4, 2007)

Nikitta: Agreed. That's why I very, very seldom use those words, unless I use "hate" jokingly. ("Love" I almost never use that way, either.) When I say those words, I tend to mean them; and "love" with me is very intense, and "hate" ... head for the hills!


----------



## Locksmith (Jan 4, 2007)

As a paid-up member of the MTV Generation, none of these things bother me. Reading only YA fiction to avoid being offended is an okay choice if you are easily offended I suppose, but your friend is missing a whole world of good quality writing out there. 

I think like most people, as a reader I abhor bad writing and that includes the gratuitous use of sex, violence or bad language simply to paper over an author's technical deficiencies. So, I can't say I have a preference, in the same way that I can enjoy movies from Toy Story to The Passion of the Christ if they are well made, and the extremes are narratively relevant.

What is quite interesting in SFF is that the author has created their own world, with their own set of rules and morals. Unlike mainstream fiction set amongst poor gangs of drug dealers, where bad language and violence help to give a sense of authenticity, it is up to the author to set their own rules of behaviour for their protagonists at the start. For example, if swearing is necessary, I like to see inventive swearing - why would a created race swear in the same way as us?


----------



## Nikitta (Jan 4, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Nikitta: Agreed. That's why I very, very seldom use those words, unless I use "hate" jokingly. ("Love" I almost never use that way, either.) When I say those words, I tend to mean them; and "love" with me is very intense, and "hate" ... head for the hills!


 
Come to think of it - when I speak English, I sometimes catch myself doing it, but speaking my native language (Danish), I am naturally inclined to not do it because it means so much more to me when I say it in my native language, so it would feel wrong for me to do that.


----------



## Alurny (Jan 4, 2007)

I think I read the whole spectrum really. I have read some rather violent and explicit novels but then I'll go and read Redwall or Harry Potter. I don't mind as long as I enjoy the story!


----------



## Sibeling (Jan 4, 2007)

Alurny said:


> I think I read the whole spectrum really. I have read some rather violent and explicit novels but then I'll go and read Redwall or Harry Potter. I don't mind as long as I enjoy the story!


 
 Same here. The rating is not so important, as long as the story is good. And even with NC-17 it is possible to make good stories. It would be silly if a violent battle would be described in a children-friendly way.


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Jan 5, 2007)

I can't say I have specific tastes, either. I've enjoyed Heinlein's juveniles, I've enjoyed some of the most graphic Clive Barker novels. I'll read anything, and in a certain respect, nothing really bothers me... However...

My problem is when the gore/sex/language doesn't serve the story/characters. Many writers seem to forget this as they thrill to the bliss of putting words on a page. Just because that section reads well -- those three paragraphs could be hot enough to light your eyeballs on fire -- doesn't mean that it makes the book any better. 

Gore usually gets of easy -- a character's death might be messy, might be the result of torture, and sometimes a graphic description helps create a dark and brutal tone. Maybe the interstellar killer fires a ray gun at his enemy's head. It blasts out the back of his skull, and blood and brain ruin the victims nice white curtains. Doesn't seem too brutal to me... It says what happened and indicates the level of violence involved. On the other hand, I'm sure it could be written with much more gore -- dangling eyeballs, charred spinal columns -- or with much less: "The killer fired his gun at his target's head, with the expected results."

It depends on the tone an author wants to set. But it's not too tough to justify piling on the body parts in the pursuit of a particular mood or vibe.

Sex is a bit trickier. I'm no prude by any stretch of the imagination. I've got friends who're dominatrixes, I've interviewed and hung out (ahem) with porn stars, I've visited strange -- _strange_ -- Icelandic strip clubs. Very little phases me. However, I've yet to see any non-erotic literature -- sf/f or otherwise -- that actually benefitted from graphic sex scenes.

Even when the sex drives the plot, all I generally need to know is that one character had sex with another. Maybe it's important that I know it was rough sex, kinky sex, romantic sex, acrobatic sex; and perhaps knowing some of the actual acts, or how the characters feel during sex -- their thoughts and stuff -- could come in handy. The information might tell me a bit more about the characters and their relationship to each other. Or, perhaps the plot somehow hinges on one character's willingness to do something with another character, but not with a third character. Whatever -- the point is, some details serve the story.

But unless you're trying to get me aroused, the blow-by-blow description (okay, pun intended) isn't all that important. I'm not reading sf/f for arousal. I'm reading it for the story, and as far as I'm concerned, graphic sex scenes _stall the story_. They're as bad as having the scientist take four pages to explain to a niece or nephew how the flying car works. In most cases, the reader doesn't _care_ how it works; the reader just wants the characters to climb into the darned thing and do whatever it was they were about to do.

Keep in mind -- there's a place for erotic sf. But in those instances, the dual purpose is plot and arousal...

As for language, nothing bothers me. Again, as long as it serves the character, I'm fine with dialogue being as vibrantly dirty as it can get. But writers need to understand that this _does_ shape the character. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to curse, and if a writer is having a character do so just so the character appears tough, that writer should also keep in mind that the character will also come across as sort of dumb, or at least extremely rough around the edges. Remember, Bogart never cursed in any of his noir flicks, but you knew he'd mess you up if he felt like it.

Also, too much cursing causes the words to lose their power. Having a character who prefaces everything with his favorite four letter word robs him of appropriately powerful vocabulary choices when something _really_ sets him off. On the other hand, if a refined character, one who doesn't speak in words under six syllables and who never raises his voice above a whisper suddenly drops an F-bomb, you _know_ it's a big deal.

Anyway, just my thoughts. None of the above means I'd ever stop reading something I was otherwise enjoying -- it's not _that_ big a deal to me. And I'd never advocate anything as extreme as censorship or anything like that.


----------



## apokalypsis (Jan 5, 2007)

Nikitta said:


> Sometimes I wish I could go back to a time when words really meant something, but maybe that age never existed or maybe they still really mean something? I just think that a lot of words are being watered out from being used too much - especially "love" and "hate". I even sometimes do it, myself, even though I try not to.


 
Darn. I just wrote this great thing about how language changes, and I wasn't allowed to post it because of the smiley that looked like a link... (I'm still too new.) Okay, let's try again:

As for language, I think a writer should do their best to make the language of their characters sound like the way real people talk (or the way people in the invented world would talk). So if a character uses superfluous, unmeaningful profanity (or emotive language), that might be perfect -- if it fits them. It would be annoying, yes, but accurate.

If I'm writing a speech or essay, I would lean much more toward the side of every word being meaningful and specifically chosen for its power.

My weird idea was that since language is always changing, and taboo words of the past are now common (I believe that includes the word 'leg' in English, or 'pants' in American English), perhaps the shocking profanities of today will be boring, normal, or even cozy terms by the time this century is over. (Look at the direction hip-hop culture is pushing the language, not that I'm overly fond of it.)

I'm with Locksmith on the authenticity and tone of conversation thing.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 5, 2007)

Dr. Atomic said:


> Sex is a bit trickier.... I've yet to see any non-erotic literature -- sf/f or otherwise -- that actually benefitted from graphic sex scenes.
> 
> Even when the sex drives the plot, all I generally need to know is that one character had sex with another. Maybe it's important that I know it was rough sex, kinky sex, romantic sex, acrobatic sex; and perhaps knowing some of the actual acts, or how the characters feel during sex -- their thoughts and stuff -- could come in handy. The information might tell me a bit more about the characters and their relationship to each other. Or, perhaps the plot somehow hinges on one character's willingness to do something with another character, but not with a third character. Whatever -- the point is, some details serve the story.
> 
> ...


 
Doc, I can think of several instances where it was absolutely necessary, and where the story would have been much poorer without it -- meaning it wouldn't have had the emotional impact or the philosophical depth or the metaphorical richness it had without it. Here are some of them:

"Catman" and "A Prowler in the City at the Edge of the World" by Harlan Ellison. In each case, the sex (or sexual violence, as one deals with Jack the Ripper) is there to play many roles: to arouse, to shock, to disturb, to alienate, to build character, to make a point about both the characters' (plural) society and our own... Had he not been explicit in either case, it would have been a very flat story without near the impact, nor have made its point nearly so well....

*The Female Man*, by Joanna Russ. The sexual scene involving a literal "boy (or, more properly, adult? male) toy" is very explicit, very arousing, and intensely disturbing and troubling, as she's pulling a complex reversal on several stereotypes here. It's Swiftian satire at its most multilayered and savage best, and absolutely necessary to the story and its meaning and logical development.

"Riders of the Purple Wage", by Philip Jose Farmer. While not quite the _normal _"exchange of bodily fluids" (as the scene is almost like a bawdy Mack Sennett film), the rather explicit scene involving Chib in this is also absolutely necessary for many purposes; it's also funny, outrageous, and scandalizing ... and adds to the warmth and emotional complexity of the denouement of the story later. Farmer, in general, dealt quite a lot with the subject of sex, often quite explicitly, as in Strange Relations, The Lovers, etc., where he uses it also for its searching examination of alienation, human emotions and psychology, and the complexes of meaning we assign to even the most basic acts; and all while keeping a very entertaining, and intellectually-stimulating story rolling forward.

*The Brothel in Rosenstrasse*, by Michael Moorcock. While technically not sff, it's certainly closely allied to it, as it's not only one of his Von Bek books, but is very concerned with the same themes that power so much of his other writing. And here the sex (which is indeed meant to arouse, but also to cause the reader to examine the reasons for that arousal) plays both a literal and a metaphorical role, as the more complex and artificial Rickie's sexual fantasies become within the sheltered enclave of the brothel, the more they reflect the political and social fantasies being forced on the real world outside, and the disjuncture within the brothel and the destruction of the city's integrity and beauty go hand in hand, and for much the same reasons: forcing a fantasy on reality, rather than celebrating the reality's richness of possibilities.

There are others, but this will give an idea. As I said before, I think it needs to be integral to the story, to play a genuine role, not to be tagged on. It must be something which grows out of the story naturally, and which in turn feeds more back into the story, makes it a more powerful work than it would have been without it. The same is true for me of either violence or language, as well. (In the latter case I think, in particular, of Ellison's use of profanity in *Spider Kiss* and David Schow's precise -- while seemingly casual -- use of it in much of his work.)


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Jan 5, 2007)

Interesting -- I'll have to check those out. From your descriptions, the sex -- in all its detailed glory -- definitely sounds integral to the stories.

(Okay... just re-read what I wrote below, and I really hope you understand what I'm trying to get at... I'm really not sure I've expressed it well...)

One of the things I notice throughout your descriptions, though, is that the sex is used in a sort of meta way... That is, it's not always integral to the plot, even though it's integral to the "experience" of the book. The sex is part of the author's attempts to shock or arouse the reader, or, in the case of the Moorcock story, to cause the reader to examine the cause of his or her arousal. In these instances, you say, the sex helps the author make a point, one which -- in terms of the Ellison story -- would not be made nearly as well were it rendered chaste. 

So the sex scenes, in those books, are part of the author's _direct_ communication with the reader. As opposed to the author telling the reader a story, and communicating via the characters and events. It even strips away the "narrative voice." In many ways, it's communicating through visuals -- even if the visuals are formed in the reader's mind. It's a direct injection of mood or emotion or tone.

They help shape the way the reader experiences the plot. If removed, the plot still unfolds with clarity, but not impact. (I'm going by your descriptions, not having read the books myself...)

Obviously, this is nothing new -- it does tend to separate the men from the boys (and women from the girls) when it comes to "literary" writing, I think. Perhaps that's a different topic, though...

You've convinced me -- this is an aspect of writing I failed to take into account of as I made my comments. I was thinking more in terms of graphic sex being in the service of straight-forward story-telling... that is, the conveyance of plot. I'm not saying this can't be done -- and maybe some of your examples do this -- but in my experience, it can fall flat.

Regardless, I was taking a narrow view of what goes into creating a story, and what it means to be a story, and to what end a story is created. 

I think part of the problem is that I tend to gravitate more towards hard sf. And even the best writers in this area of the field often fail to take full advantage of the tools at their disposal -- I'm thinking specifically of the whole "communicating with the reader in direct ways by means of certain scenese, images, modes of language, or even layout and graphic design" that reigned (for good and ill) during sf's New Wave. Some hard sf writers can pull it off -- I'm thinking of Gregory Benford, Walter Miller, Jr., and A. C. Clarke, at the moment -- but many others might dabble in symbolism or metaphore, but otherwise tend to stick to the traditional means of story telling. Which isn't always bad, but can be sort of restrictive (in a certain sense...).

I REALLY hope that all made some sort of sense... I think I'd make my point better if this was a vocal conversation, not written. 

I'm curious... J.D., can you -- or anyone else, for that matter -- think of instances where the hardcore sex works in hard sf?


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 6, 2007)

Dr. Atomic said:


> One of the things I notice throughout your descriptions, though, is that the sex is used in a sort of meta way... That is, it's not always integral to the plot, even though it's integral to the "experience" of the book. The sex is part of the author's attempts to shock or arouse the reader, or, in the case of the Moorcock story, to cause the reader to examine the cause of his or her arousal. In these instances, you say, the sex helps the author make a point, one which -- in terms of the Ellison story -- would not be made nearly as well were it rendered chaste.
> 
> So the sex scenes, in those books, are part of the author's _direct_ communication with the reader. As opposed to the author telling the reader a story, and communicating via the characters and events. It even strips away the "narrative voice." In many ways, it's communicating through visuals -- even if the visuals are formed in the reader's mind. It's a direct injection of mood or emotion or tone.
> 
> They help shape the way the reader experiences the plot. If removed, the plot still unfolds with clarity, but not impact. (I'm going by your descriptions, not having read the books myself...)


 
Close... but not quite. And I didn't want to get into too much description of the way it's used, because that might spoil the story for anyone wanting to read it. No, they are integral to the plot, as well... in "Catman" the interrelationships between the various characters hinge on their views of each other as sexual objects, as well as in other ways, and their inability (for one reason or another) to connect to each other (husband-wife, father-son, lover-lover, son-mother, etc.), even to the degree that the sterility of the society drives some to sex with the machine... the ultimate joy for them, as it allows them to truly become products of their society ... yet it is ultimately dehumanizing and destructively addictive. The same with the Russ story: it is absolutely necessary to develop the conflicts that are are the heart of the story; is, in fact, an excellent metaphor for those very conflicts that lie at the heart of the book. Moorcock's ... I chose those elements to emphasize because, of all the books, that is the one that is perhaps most centered on sexuality ... yet it is treated as an aspect of relationships that looms greater and greater, and is itself a very strong metaphor for what is happening not only to them, but to the greater world around them ... the two reflect each other, and each helps you to understand the other, and why this society is fragmenting the way it is. The book simply wouldn't be, if it weren't for the sex in it, any more than it would without the location (which itself, both the city and the brothel, become major characters), or the violence of the civil strife outside the brothel's walls (yet which invades their lives in many ways, both subtle and overt). It's a complex and rich book, deceptively simple if read hastily, and definitely worth reading and re-reading. The Farmer story ... again, the sex tells you mountains about the character(s) involved, and is closely tied to one of the major pivots of the entire story; it also helps toward understanding the society depicted, and its effects on the individuals. "Prowler", on the other hand, uses its sexual violence (which, again, is absolutely pivotal to the story), to assault the reader's senses (just as it does the character, even though he is only being made to relive his own actions --this is Springheeled Jack, remember), but it also starkly underlines the society depicted, and without it the society simply would lack an enormous depth it is given thereby; as would the characters, and the points Ellison's making.

In none of these could you remove the sexual element and still have a story. It would be like removing large portions of each reel of a film, cutting it down from 2-1/2 hours to 45 minutes to an hour, and then still expecting the story (already extremely tight) to flow.

There are, as I said, plenty of other examples of good use of this element within stories, which is why I have no problem with sex, no matter how graphic, if it serves the purposes of the story and what the writer is saying (a lot of these stories, while excellent _as stories_, are also quite intentionally allegorical, and some of the best written allegories I've encountered, frankly).



> I'm curious... J.D., can you -- or anyone else, for that matter -- think of instances where the hardcore sex works in hard sf?


 
That one... I'm going to have to think about. I can't think of any right off the top of my head, as most "hard" sf is more centered on the theories, gadgetry, and the physical sciences, and their effects on the people, rather than about the "softer", sociological sciences, which are more open to exploring emotion. Perhaps the one that comes to mind is the New Wave take on Godwin's "The Cold Equations", "X", a verse by D. M. Thomas. I'll briefly quote Greenland's description of it (I no longer have a copy of the original to refer to, I'm afraid, it having disappeared -- along with quite a few other things -- during a move). In the verse, Thomas introduces sex to the mix as well, increasing the pathos of the situation where both characters are concerned. But:



> Down the left-hand margin of the poem figures tick off the minutes to her ejection, and, as a kind of commentary on the story, another column sets out words spoken by a schizophrenic, Julie, as recorded by R. D. Laing --
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
As you can see, the imagery, even from Julie, is chosen to enhance the emotional complexity of the situation and crank up the impact of Godwin's original (quite excellent) story to an almost unbearable point, yet is done in such a way as to both pull the reader into what is happening, and distance them at the same time....

However, as that is from _New Worlds_, and is a verse, you may not include that in your criteria. Beyond that one... as I said, I'll have to think about it; but I think it's less likely, for the reasons stated above.


----------



## Nikitta (Jan 6, 2007)

apokalypsis said:


> Darn. I just wrote this great thing about how language changes, and I wasn't allowed to post it because of the smiley that looked like a link... (I'm still too new.) Okay, let's try again:
> 
> As for language, I think a writer should do their best to make the language of their characters sound like the way real people talk (or the way people in the invented world would talk). So if a character uses superfluous, unmeaningful profanity (or emotive language), that might be perfect -- if it fits them. It would be annoying, yes, but accurate.
> 
> ...




I agree. I just got side-tracked and went slightly off topic. Sorry about that  It's just a pet peeve of mine, in reality 

As far as the topic goes, I agree with what most people have said that if it fits into the story, the mood and the characters, it won't bother me the least. This also includes superfluous, unmeaningful profanity, or other similar things, as long as it fits the character.


----------



## Dr. Atomic (Jan 6, 2007)

Just because I want to make sure I'm clear on the subject - I've never had a problem with sex in stories, and I've read numerous books where sex itself is integral to the plot. And, in many cases, so was a bit of graphic description, especially when it helps the reader learn more about the characters. I've just yet to encounter a plot -- particularly a hard sf story -- that benefited from really graphic descriptions of sex. As in, whole scenes that drift towards erotica in their levels of graphic description. They always seemed like, "And now we take a moment to watch the characters get laid! We'll return to the story after this voyeuristic break!"

...Clearly, I just haven't read the right books.

This has become a really stimulating discussion. (Sorry, had to say it...)


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 6, 2007)

Dr. Atomic said:


> This has become a really stimulating discussion. (Sorry, had to say it...)


 
No, you didn't _have_ to say it... but it's a darned good line... 

As I said: I can't think of any "hard" sf right off the top of my head that makes use of it in this way, but I'll see if I can pull anything out of that chaotic jumble that my memory has become. If I do, I'll pass it on. And if anyone else has any ideas... I'd like to hear 'em.


----------



## Blue Tyson (Jan 8, 2007)

The whole range, because there would be books of interest in all of them.


----------



## apokalypsis (Jan 9, 2007)

In the evolution of my thought process of how to edit certain scenes in my manuscript, I stumbled across a 1908 essay by Bram Stoker on the need for censorship of novels. It was kind of odd reading it, and then thinking that this was written by the author of _Dracula_. Stoker argued that 'reticence,' which I might rephrase as 'restraint,' is the hallmark of fine art. Don't make it all blatant -- evoke feelings, rather than just showing or telling everything.

I'm not sure if I agree with all of Stoker's points, but it did make me think about my task as a would-be author: Good writers seduce the reader, rather than propositioning them; they flirt, with hints and subtle cues that lead us on, rather than exposing themselves.

Even if it's valuable to shock people at times, it benefits from a well-crafted set up.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 9, 2007)

Agreed. Again, it depends on the needs of the story in question. I'm a very big fan of hints, ambiguity, and subtlety (as evinced by the fact that my favorite writers in the "horror" genre are such people as Blackwood, Machen, Benson, Radcliffe -- yes, that Radcliffe -- etc., and I think the quintessential Edwardian ghostly tale would have to be "Thurnley Abbey", which almost unbelievably restrained). However ... as the man says, "for every thing there is a season", and there are times when being explicit to the point of assaulting the reader really _is_ the best approach. As a writer, the challenge is to learn when to use what in this area; and the more versatile your arsenal, the better a writer you'll be.


----------



## HappyHippo (Jan 13, 2007)

Dr. Atomic said:


> Just because I want to make sure I'm clear on the subject - I've never had a problem with sex in stories, and I've read numerous books where sex itself is integral to the plot. And, in many cases, so was a bit of graphic description, especially when it helps the reader learn more about the characters. I've just yet to encounter a plot -- particularly a hard sf story -- that benefited from really graphic descriptions of sex. As in, whole scenes that drift towards erotica in their levels of graphic description. They always seemed like, "And now we take a moment to watch the characters get laid! We'll return to the story after this voyeuristic break!"
> 
> ...Clearly, I just haven't read the right books.
> 
> This has become a really stimulating discussion. (Sorry, had to say it...)


 
I agree! I've just posted this as one of my book turn-offs (pun unintended) in another thread. It's really intensely annoying to suddenly veer off the thread of a story just because today's audience seem to want more sex, more violence, or whatever.

With books, as with my taste in films, I'm a PG, maybe 12A kind of person. I don't mind reading books with sex, violence or bad language in them, but it never enhances the book for me. Example: Clive Barker. I've read three of his books, and given up on them now because I find them TOO disturbing - the sex is weird, the language foul, and the violence is sometimes horrific. I appreciate this is the genre he writes in, but I, personally, cannot handle it. Therefore, I now self-censor, and rarely read anything outside my comfort zone.

(I did pick up a fantasy book by Anne Rice at the library which said it was about sleeping beauty. The insides didn't really match the blurb on the back    ... I suppose it's the other kind of 'fantasy'!)


----------

