I wasn't going to post anything today. I just wanted to catch up on things and prepare a post I'm doing tomorrow about something interesting I did with my next gay erotic romance release, "Chase of a Dream."
But when I opened a ridiculous e-mail this afternoon, I had to wonder what kind of WTF-ery this is. And then I wondered how much audacity it takes to send something like this to someone who has been writing erotic romance and erotica for almost twenty years.
Here's the notification, without names...but verbatim:
erotic poetry lovers looking for pornography here will be disappointed: on many, many occasions, i have taken and used erotic to mean primarily sensuous and passionate. this site contains some frank and even bawdy poems; a few of the poems are witty and funny; others are general poetry or have double meanings; but the emphasis of XXXX XX XXXXX is on Eros (as the god of physical love, not the mere patron of genital conjunctions).
First strike, no caps. If you're an author at least send out a notification with proper grammar.
And where, I would like to know, does this person get off defining what is and what isn't "pornography." As far as I know, no one has yet been able to define pornography and it's something different for everyone. I wrote a post about Levi Johnston's photos in Playgirl once and how I was shocked to see that Sarah Palin thought his photos were pornography. What Levi did was tame as far as I could see. But this only proved to me even more that the definition of pornography isn't the same for everyone.
In other words, trying to define pornography is like trying to define good fiction: it's not possible.
When I see an unknown author I've never even met personally spamming me with unsolicited facebook notifications about what she does or does not consider pornography, I get a little ticked off. When it is established that she is the ultimate authority on the definition of pornography, then I might listen. Right now I don't care what she thinks.
The irony in all this is that this presumptuous author of poetry never even took into consideration that there are, indeed, people out there who would consider "Eros the god of physical love," to be just as pornographic as "the mere patron of genital conjunctions." Trust me on that one.