Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.motss
Subject: Re: book ads and sexual slant
Message-ID: <1662@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 8-Jan-86 10:28:46 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.1662
Posted: Wed Jan  8 10:28:46 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jan-86 03:04:03 EST
References: <4732@hlexa.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath net.books:2732 net.motss:2416

I know, I can't seem to shut up, but just a few words in reply to Henry
Friedman's reply:  I read even less-than-great fiction with either no 
erotic content or only the heterosexual kind.  "Only if it's great" sounds 
like "in spite of" to me.  Henry implies tedium or disinterest is the reason
why he'd rather not read descriptions of gay sex.  Many aspects of novels
can be uninteresting to a reader.  I've read fiction whose general subject
is of no interest to me, because the writing, ideas, characters, etc. were
interesting.  Henry's choices are perfectly OK, but I don't see why publi-
shers ought to take cognizance of them, any more than of what bores me in
a book.  

Finally, I think it's worth excepting homosexuality from a general policy
of disclosure of contents, given current attitudes.  Would a similar wish
for disclosure about the race or religion of a book's characters have any
validity?  The fact that you often can identify race and religion from the
cover is not a result of