Take a photo of a barcode or cover
2.95 AVERAGE
2.95 AVERAGE
If I could go back in time and track Cleland down for a nice chat, I'd smack him in the face with a clipboard and watch him like a hawk till he'd read through the list clipped there in its entirety. Better yet, I'd take a woman and a man back with me, both of them less concerned with feminism issues to an unholy extent than I, and let the conversings about the genders commence. Maybe then, perhaps, I'd figure this author out.
The list? An abridged version of the following.
If you've seen my review of [b:Delta of Venus|11041|Delta of Venus|Anaïs Nin|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1388793271s/11041.jpg|1369571], you know I take erotica seriously. That whole spiel about increasing respect and social justice and all that jazz? Still relevant, sadly so when considering this piece appeared in 1749. That's 265 years ago, 18th century stuff alongside the likes of Voltaire and Swift and we're still mucking around in slut shaming. Seriously! This is a classic written by a dead white male two and a half centuries ago, and it's chock full of feminism! Second wave feminism at that! Where are the feminist scholars and, more importantly, where are the rest of those classics/elitist/whatever your name for those in the literature "know" who are reading this without taking a single smidgen away from it besides the fact that it's bad erotica?
Yes, bad erotica. While it may have done the job more than 250 years ago, these days people like their porn with a little more...well. Now that I think about it, a great deal of today's Fifty Shades of Grey readers don't actually mind if the biology's a little off so long as there's plenty of writhing and fingering and whipping, which this work has in full. The only difference really is Cleland's constant hitting home the fact that, while women have different equipment, they have the same need for pleasure and more importantly respectful pleasure, whomever the companion they happen to be with. Now that's something that could put modern readers off.
Also, the synonyms for penis. I'm not even going to go into that. If you want a list, the book's been around for a while. Spoilers abound and may even be carefully categorized.
Besides all that, not only does Fanny Hill like sex so long as her partner's not an asshole, she likes educating herself! Behold.
While I'm at it, have some more breakdowns of female stereotypes:
The list? An abridged version of the following.
If you've seen my review of [b:Delta of Venus|11041|Delta of Venus|Anaïs Nin|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1388793271s/11041.jpg|1369571], you know I take erotica seriously. That whole spiel about increasing respect and social justice and all that jazz? Still relevant, sadly so when considering this piece appeared in 1749. That's 265 years ago, 18th century stuff alongside the likes of Voltaire and Swift and we're still mucking around in slut shaming. Seriously! This is a classic written by a dead white male two and a half centuries ago, and it's chock full of feminism! Second wave feminism at that! Where are the feminist scholars and, more importantly, where are the rest of those classics/elitist/whatever your name for those in the literature "know" who are reading this without taking a single smidgen away from it besides the fact that it's bad erotica?
Yes, bad erotica. While it may have done the job more than 250 years ago, these days people like their porn with a little more...well. Now that I think about it, a great deal of today's Fifty Shades of Grey readers don't actually mind if the biology's a little off so long as there's plenty of writhing and fingering and whipping, which this work has in full. The only difference really is Cleland's constant hitting home the fact that, while women have different equipment, they have the same need for pleasure and more importantly respectful pleasure, whomever the companion they happen to be with. Now that's something that could put modern readers off.
Men know not in general how much they destroy of their own pleasure when they break through the respect and tenderness due to our sex, and even to those of it who live only by pleasing them.Of course, there are problematic aspects, namely the homophobia, the pretense of sex only being successful when dick thrusting is involved and resulting invalidation of female pleasure, the multiple instances of sexual assault rapid fire forgiven because the assaulter was attractive/pitiful/remorseful/what have you. Less problematic and more absurd were the multiple male orgasms business: so sorry, men, but your refractory period averages a half hour and can even go on for days, whereas women, you're good to go.
Also, the synonyms for penis. I'm not even going to go into that. If you want a list, the book's been around for a while. Spoilers abound and may even be carefully categorized.
Besides all that, not only does Fanny Hill like sex so long as her partner's not an asshole, she likes educating herself! Behold.
...he it was who first taught me to be sensible that the pleasures of the mind were superior to those of the body; at the same time, that they were so far from obnoxious to or incompatible with each other that, besides the sweetness in the variety and transition, the one serv'd to exalt and perfect the taste of the other to a degree that the senses alone can never arrive at.No wonder the unabridged version's been taken to trial as recently as 1963, as god forbid a woman reconcile body and mind so ardently. Yeesh.
While I'm at it, have some more breakdowns of female stereotypes:
Silks, laces, earrings, pearl necklace, gold watch, in short, all the trinkets and articles of dress were lavishly heap'd upon me; the sense of which, if it did not create turns of love, forc'd a kind of grateful fondness, something like love; a distinction it would be spoiling the pleasure of nine tenths of the keepers in the town to make, and is, I suppose, the very good reason why so few of them ever do make it.You're welcome.
...all my looks and gestures ever breathing nothing but that innocence which the men so ardently require in us, for no other end than to feast themselves with the pleasures of destroying it, and which they are so greviously, with all their skill, subject to mistakes to.
I find it important to read a classic every now and then, and this certainly was one that should be read, at least by anyone writing explicit fanfic today. For starters, it has a rather beautiful 164 word sentence describing the nether regions of a gentleman, and that in itself is an accomplishment. There's a lot of sex, and oddly enough it doesn't get as monotonous as you'd think. The main character goes through men and decadence with such ease that you end up feeling breathless. And then, just as you've gotten lulled up in the endless penetration and debauchery, the main character witnesses two homosexuals and embarks on an absolutely livid rant on their disgusting and illegal abnormality. It was jarring, but then again I'd perhaps momentarily forgotten that the book was written by a man in the 18th century. Took me a long time to get back to the book and finish it, and whatever little was left was thoroughly tainted by that one sudden rant.
Very explicit, which is good. Very dull, which is bad.
I'm left feeling completely unchanged, but it at least entertained me enough to finish.
I'm left feeling completely unchanged, but it at least entertained me enough to finish.
Interesante lectura, en su momento fue provocador, para mí en este tiempo se me hace hasta algo moralista.
funny
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
emotional
lighthearted
fast-paced
Für einen Erotik Roman zu züchtig
The steamiest of steams. Modern erotica has nothing on this.
Amusing and entertaining, with tons of euphemisms. More direct than I initially thought, but it never gets tacky, because the language is poetic and beautiful (which people who are focused too much on getting shocked by the steamy porn scenes may miss). I will never again think that 18th century literature is dry.
Thanks Martinborough op shop.
One of the stars just had to be given because I got through the whole thing (morbid curiosity?)
The other comes from my surprise that it didn't have a moralistic ending
One of the stars just had to be given because I got through the whole thing (morbid curiosity?)
The other comes from my surprise that it didn't have a moralistic ending
The number of stars is related not to the quality of the book but to this being a fascinating piece of literature and history that I could write essays on both from a literature perspective and from a feminist perspective. But mostly I just thought it was unintentionally pretty hilarious at times. Decently written for 18th century literature.