From: word_chemist@hotmail.com   
      
   "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   news:B0gXf.62285$Jd.31648@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...   
   > ROBBIE wrote:   
   > > ...But don't you   
   > > think that your infallible reading of literature as wish   
   fullfillment/porn   
   > > is a bit fallible?   
   > >   
   >   
   > Huh?   
      
   Your critiques often include a suggestion that the whole text is a sort of   
   jack-off for the writer; take violence, if someone gets hit or one of the   
   characters goes to bed with, say, a certain type of woman, then you rapidly   
   come to the conclusion that the writer of the text is a connoissueur of a   
   certain type of woman and who, deep inside, would like to go around punching   
   people. Having considered this I think it's highly fallible. Take my book,   
   Death or Bongo, which you very kindly read (and thx again), after the   
   appearance of couple of dopehead Australian women you gathered I liked   
   dopehead Australian women 'who'll try anything once'.   
   OK, if I got talking to one in a bar and if she floats my boat, fair enough   
   BUT your reading and conlcusions made a talisman/fetish out of it which   
   wasn't the correct conclusion. I thought about this recently (just popped in   
   my head). The reason they were there was to a) drive the plot on and b) to   
   kind of show up the contorted, whey-faced lives the two protaganists were   
   living.   
   Looking at other writers' writing about their writing you often see how   
   infuriated they are about 'models' for characters and general motivation. I   
   suppose I could have saved the last paragraph by writing: sometimes a cigar   
   is just a cigar.   
      
   Cheers!   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)