184
SUSAN SONTAG
English and American critics-a view which in excluding pornographic
writings
by definition
from the precincts of literature excludes much
else besides.
Of course, no one denies that pornography constitutes a branch
of literature in the sense that it can take the form of printed books
of fiction. But beyond that trivial correspondence, no more is allowed.
The way most critics construe the "nature" of prose literature, no less
than their view of the "nature" of pornography, must put por–
nography in an adverse relation to literature. A pornographic book is
defined as one not belonging to literature (and vice versa), which
suggests there's no need to examine the books.
One common charge
is
that the utterly singleminded way in
which works of pornography address the reader, proposing to arouse
him sexually, is antithetical to the complex function of literature. It
may then be argued that pornography's aim, that of inducing
sexual excitement, is at odds with the tranquil, detached involvement
evoked by genuine art. But this seems particularly unconvincing, in
view of the much admired appeal to the reader's moral feelings that
"realistic" writing generally intends. It's more plausible to emphasize
just the very singleness of pornography's aim, while acknowledging
that some certified masterpieces (from Chaucer to Lawrence) do
properly excite readers sexually in certain passages or sections. Never–
theless, the argument goes, pornography still possesses only one
"intention," while any genuinely valuable work of literature has
many.
Another common argument, offered by Adorno among others, is
that works of pornography lack the beginning-middle-and-end fonn
characteristic of literature. A piece of pornographic fiction concocts
no better than a crude excuse for a beginning; and once having
begun, it goes on and on and ends nowhere.
Another argument is that pornographic writing can't evidence
any care for its means of expression as such (the concern of literature),
since the aim of pornography is to inspire a set of nonverbal fantasies
in which language plays a debased, merely instrumental role.
Last and most weighty is the following argument. The subject of
literature
is
something called "the human," that is, the relation of
human beings to each other, their complex feelings and emotions;
pornography, in contrast, disdains fully formed persons (psychology
and social portrayal), is oblivious to the question of motives and their
