Replies

I read 'Fields of Fire', not his other books. But if I get the gist of your question, would there be any reason to include a disgusting, morally vile scene in a novel other than to titillate the reader in that despicable, time-tested de Sadean tradition? Sure. Nothing better illuminates a character than what he or she does. An author describing the way a couple makes love, for example, shows worlds about that couple's relationship--more so than any number of narrative paragraphs and pages telling the reader how much they care (or don't care) about each other. An author describing a character performing a horrific act on a child shows you that character's unadulterated propensity for evil, the depths of that evil. Personally, I wouldn't include such a scene in my own fiction. Writing about horrible people doing horrible things makes me feel like I need a bath afterward.

The key is intent. If the author wants you sexually aroused by that which is being described, then what you're reading is soft-or hard-core pornography. If the author wants you disgusted by the actions of a given character, or wants you to gain deeper insight into that character, then the scene is necessary, not gratuitous. One usually doesn't need to be a Literature major to tell the difference.

Well, then, you should read the chapter at least before defending it. There is no suggestion in the chapter of any "reprehension" you should have toward the character, no explanation of why he did what he did, why nobody thought it was odd, nothing at all. It's just there, as if Webb was thinking about doing it and thought it would be fun to write it.

Because, as a writer, you must understand that you can't write something down if you haven't imagined it first in your head. You can't write what you can't think about.

Sure, you could totally disagree with something a character does -- that's true a lot of times. But if I write about a child molester, i'm doing it based on what my brain has absorbed over the years about child molestation. I've read what they do in the papers, seen it on TV shows and in movies, and I can write about it.

Name me one place where Webb would have read about or otherwise been introduced to the concept that a father would pick up his naked son and perform a sex act on him in public. It makes no sense, it's not something I've ever heard of, which is why it seems to be revealing of something in Webb's brain that just isn't quite "right".

Because he was able to imagine that happening, thought it made sense for the character to do so, and didn't expect the reader to be grossed out or to gain a harshly negative view of the character as a result of it.

It sounds as if the scene --- with the non-reacting people -- was meant to titillate if not outright gratify.

There has been a whole rash of novels with pedophilic themes in them, to the point where it has become fashionable. It's called 'edgy', 'dark' and other cliches. White Oleander comes to mind, and for my money, Lolita goes inthe same category.

I can't imagine this scene being other than gratiuitous and aimged at pedophiles.

when a scene and characters don't make sense and seem highly improbable, when there are no consequences of such an act you're dealing with pornography.

Where are the consequences? Does the narrative follow the brutalized child and describe his/her terror, feeling of violation?

No? Porn fantasy.

I can understand all kinds of reasons for including all kinds of things in a book. I was asking if you read this book and if there was any reason.

BTW writing about the rules of ettiquette in a whore house might be fascinating, enlightening, entertaining and socially revealing. But voters might also decide the author isn't the one they want as a senator.