Message-ID: <3AD1B5A0.8722B954@csi.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 09:14:08 -0400
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
Organization: No Conspiracy Here...
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr,ru,es,it,ga,de,ja,gd,eu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: Heroine's Mantle again (was: Nudity in IF)
References: <9aije0$uq$1@news.lth.se> <3ACDC7FE.9249F8E4@csi.com> <9akkre$nc6$1@news.lth.se> <3ACF08A6.21EC8677@csi.com> <9anfll$eq4$1@news.lth.se> <3AD05ECD.36CC3892@csi.com> <9aqdab$2r0t$1@murrow.murrow.it.wsu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.34.37.104
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.34.37.104
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 986822039 208.34.37.104 (9 Apr 2001 09:13:59 EST)
Lines: 28
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!news-reader.ntrnet.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!arb.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:85304

Gabe McKean wrote:

> John Colagioia wrote in message <3AD05ECD.36CC3892@csi.com>...
> >Again, this could just be my reading of it, but I don't typically give it a
> second
> >thought when I take my wallet or keys out of my pocket or replace, so it
> seemed like an
> >awkward commentary to bring up their location at all.  The fact that the
> location
> >happened to be womens' undergarments (for a body part of rather excessive
> focus in the
> >U.S.) made it seem as if it was intended to attract my focus to the
> protagonist's
> >breasts.
> Hmmm.  I didn't happen to interpret that way.  I thought of it more as part
> of the characterization of the PC; i.e.. as a resourceful person who would
> make use of whatever she had.

Oh, I'm positive that was the intention of the scene.  The "implementation"
seemed to convey additional meanings, however, which I didn't really find
appropriate.

Which I guess was part of the original question:  How much to people "read into"
certain descriptions.  And I guess the answer is that, the more the narrator
focuses on the details, the more likely it will be misinterpreted, just because
more time is spent there.


