Re: The Pornographic Imagination

I understand where you're coming from, but I can't say that I completely agree. 

Your argument that because we are enrolled in a banned books course studying texts that could be labeled as pornographic literature shows that most educated people understand the potential coexistence of these two topics (pornography and literature) makes little sense to me.

I think most of us can agree that the most explicit work that we have studied thus far is Blue Velvet. Based on what I gathered from discussions, more than a couple of students in our class found this work to be unnecessarily unsettling. While the characters in this movie clearly had motives for their actions that were not purely sexual, some of the scenes have been called out as dispensable, as they are difficult if not impossible to interpret correctly (i.e. Dorothy's nudity towards the end of the film). Some have even wagged their finger at this film, essentially deeming it "NOT art," as some of the content can be confusing, graphic and disengaging to the viewer. While the topic of pornography may not be the only justification for this label, it has certainly been a component, as Dorthoy's nudity has been discussed time and time again. Clearly, the topic of literature/pornography coexistence is still under the microscope, even for those enrolled in a banned books course. 

Also, Sontag's essay may arrive at a fairly simple conclusion, but I believe that the steps she took to get there, as well as her evidence backing it, are complex. For example, comparing the literary merit of pornography to that of science fiction is, in my opinion, a very clear argument that I think many people can relate to. While science fiction novels are not always socially relevant, their "originality, thoroughness, authenticity and power of the deranged consciousness" may allow them to be classified as literature. 

Drawing comparisons between pornography and humor also made Sontag's argument more clear to me. The idea that pornography works in a way that is similar to deadpan humor in that "incredible underreacting of the erotic agents to the situations in which they're placed" causes a release of emotion from the reader- be it laughter or sexual reaction, seemed to legitimize pornographic content. 

Comparing Sade's idea that people are inherently "things" or "objects" to O, a character who consciously decides to objectify herself in exchange for mystery and what she perceives to be happiness showed that Sontag believes there is a very distinct set of rules that determine which type of pornography can be deemed literary. 

A side note: I thought the part about how "Experiences aren't pornographic; only images and representations- structures of the imagination- are," seemed to tie in nicely to Reader Response Theory.