Oh no! My color is bad! And my gaze is not direct!
The Times, how you break my bloody heart. You promise me a delicious, interesting article with a title like, “The Mad Scientist of Smut,” and then you deliver… this?
Nicholson Baker does not look like a dirty-book writer. His color is good. His gaze is direct, with none of the sidelong furtiveness of the compulsive masturbator.
Seriously?! Author Charles McGrath couldn’t come up with a better opening line that something that is clearly derogatory, insulting, condescending and perhaps worst of all, uninformed?
Premise 1: In order to be a sex writer, your color must be bad.
Premise 2: In order to be a sex writer, you cannot have good eye contact.
Premise 3: In order to be a sex writer, you must be a compulsive masturbator.
Premise 4: Being a compulsive masturbator is bad.
Premise 5: Being a compulsive masturbator makes you look at everything with sidelong, furtive glances.
The amount of anger and disappointment I feel over something like this bypassing any editorial stopgaps and actually being published is immeasurable for the moment. So, in the meantime, I say let’s compile a group of sex-writers, erotica-penners, smut-peddlers who have color in their faces and directness in their gazes. If you post a blog with a photo (or even a reaction to this post/the article), let me know and I’ll add the link below.
Kiss kiss bang bang, s.
For Your Viewing Pleasure: The Mad Scientists of Smut!
- The pale- and paper-faced Jeremy Edwards!
- The cocked brow of Nobilis Reed!
- The gorgeous-eyed Donna George Storey!
- The straight forward sorta sidelong glance of T. Harrison!
- Darth Vader sandwiches with Alessio Brio!
- The greenish glow of Kristina Lloyd!
- The glacier-glow glare of Janine Ashbless!
- Emerald’s nuanced gaze!
- Margaret Killjoy with a furtive glance!