It has been a while since I read Faerie Tale. What sexual content is there in that story that made you think?
Sent from my iPad On 16/04/2012, at 5:43 PM, [email protected] wrote: > I know I started this because I wanted to see midkemia on tv .... But with > people talking about sexual content it made me think ... What about Faerie > Tale as a movie? It could blow all other movies out of the water!! > > James > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Raymond E. Feist" <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:57:06 > To: feistfans-l<[email protected]> > Reply-To: "feistfans-l" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Game of Thrones Was: Re: Midkemia on tv > > > On Apr 15, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Parks White wrote: > >> I like AGT too....will watch episode 3 from season 2 tonight. (recorded). re >> Midkemia on TV. There is plenty of wars, magic, political intrigue, violence >> and sex and nudity too in Midkemia enough for many seasons on TV. My >> question is about the writing of the love/ sex scenes in the books. It is >> seems to me rather perfunctory, quick and behind closed doors. Is this a >> genre specific rule, regarded as a distraction to the main plot, or to allow >> the books to appeal to a younger readership? Bringing in more erotic >> descriptions without being too lurid may broaden the fan base particularly >> among female readers? ( it may also translate well to a TV series/ movie) >> with a few hot love scenes after battle? >> > > > There's no hard and fast rule. It's different with each writer. I got taken > to task after Prince of the Blood for my portrayal of the Keshian Purebloods > as very sexually unselfconscious by a librarian because I wrote "books for > young adults." I rarely respond to criticism but this time I did, writing > back to her to point out that my books were not categorized YA by my > publisher nor did I consider myself writing YA. > > Best, R.E.F. > ---- > www.crydee.com > > Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by > stupidity. > > > > > > >
