The first part of answering this question is to ask with another
question: what is pornography? If the direct definition of pornography
is "a printed or visual material containing the explicit description
or display of sexual organs or activity" then firstly, there is a more
porn on television, in magazines and in movies than just what the porn
industry creates. This question based on the straight definition of
pornography does indeed qualify Mercy as such because it does very
explicitly describe sexual organs AND activities. Andrea Dworkin, being
a writer, was probably aware of this definition of porn. I think she
wrote the book knowing some would see it as pornographic. Whether or not
she did actually do this intentionally, it certainly drew more attention
to the novel. At first glance it seems very ironic that this woman who
abhors pornography and reprimands it in the novel, naming it as one of
the big contributors to sexual violence. I believe that by making Mercy
rather pornographic she paints a picture of the way she sees pornography
– a violence inducing industry contributing to the treatment of women
like Andrea.
I can understand where people are coming from when they assert that Mercy is pornographic. However, unlike trashy romance novels found on the shelves of Barnes and Noble or in the pages of Cosmo, the word choices, while still graphic, are not what I would consider sexualized. They are either clinical terms (whereas in romance novels the authors use descriptive adjectives and almost humorous words to describe sexual organs) or words that invoke violence.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are people in the world who find violence "hot," those that I know do not take it to that extreme. Andrea's stories are horrifying, and if someone somewhere is getting off on them because they consider it pornography, I completely understand why that would upset Andrea, it upsets me.
While people may find this book "hot" and pornographic, I sincerely doubt that Andrea meant it to be taken that way. She wanted the graphic details to shock readers into action, not incite their lust. I'm fairly certain she'd be horrified to know that her book has been viewed as the very thing she hates.
ReplyDelete