Strange writing

[chococomilk]

I haven't read any of LKH's books past Harlequin, as they were so trippy and orgy-tastic by that point that I felt ashamed to be seen reading them even by my family, but curiosity got the better of me and I went to read an excerpt on Amazon of the latest book, "Bullet", to see what it was like. Immediately, this two-sentence gem leapt out at me

Comments

[lerouxpapillion]

She's probably writing that he's not male yet to explain why Anita doesn't want to bone him. After all, it seems that everyone else who is male must submit to the doomcrotch.

See also Edward's 'son' (name escapes me at the moment) and the whole sexualization there.

ETA: I may be a little cranky/jaded here. Plz to be forgiving.

[chococomilk]

Why does Anita feel the need to comment on that she doesn't find a three year old boy "man enough"?

There's plenty of ways that could have been written to show, rather than tell, Anita's real inner thoughts. She could have used the scene of seeing Monica's son to comment on how she was glad she didn't have children, how she wanted to have children someday, on how she felt unsuited to be a mother and couldn't understand how other women knew what to do...any of those things. But she didn't. Instead, there's this odd comment on not finding a toddler to be "male", as if the idea of acknowledging that the toddler in question was male-gendered was dangerous somehow.

It creeps me out thinking about it.

Do we know Anita's opinions on child-rearing? She never seemed to go into it beyond the pregnancy scare, and then she was focused on berating Richard for wanting to do the right thing for his possible-offspring.

[roguetailkinker]

Maybe a bit jaded. I think it's just her awkward way of describing how children of that age tend to be somewhat androgynous. She needs a good editor to point out stuff like that.

[quizzicalsphinx]

"Monica's son was under five, so he didn't count as male yet. He was just a generic child."

Translation: If Anita can't have sex with it yet, it doesn't count.

[lerouxpapillion]

I'm so glad I'm not the only one thinking this.

[quizzicalsphinx]

We posted essentially the same thing at the same time. Check out the time-stamps.

[lerouxpapillion]

Dude that's kinda freaky but also awesome at the same time :D

[chococomilk]

Yes, he does come running up to her and even glomps her - although it's more describing as a frontal running hug, and Anita picks him up so as not to appear "churlish." She comments on how the boy feels (at three...) that he's too grown up for cheek kisses and kisses her on the mouth instead, getting himself covered in her lipstick in the process. Now, I have younger cousins and younger sisters, and toddlers do kiss on the lips but it's an innocent thing. They don't make quasi-sexual comments about wanting to be like "the big boys who kiss you" and you certainly don't think of it that way.

I can't recall her interacting with children before - now they find her enchanting? I think a three year old would find a scarred woman with a serious expression and a big gun on her hip (which she says she brought as a little girl saw it before she sees Monica's son) quite terrifying!

[magdalen77]

Yeah, I wouldn't think my darling nephew would find Anita charming. He's 5 and very much a male. So much for "generic children". The nephew has behaved differently than the niece from the very beginning.

Now, his is too adorable (in his besotted auntie's opinion) because he uses "y" instead of "l" in l-words. So, he "yikes" "yegos" and wants just a "yittle" cake. And he "yoves" Auntie Maggie.

[quizzicalsphinx]

Hee, that's adorable. I yove him already.

[bleedtoblue]

"but has anyone else been turned off by the lack of writing quality?"

Hasn't everyone?

[dwg]

To me, it's ten kinds of creepy and wrong that Matthew is described as "generic child/didn't count as male yet" while little girls are "estrogen rich."

Boys aren't really boys when they're under five, but girls will always be girls so keep your unrelated adult males away from them!

EUGH.

[chococomilk]

It also seems unfortunate coming from Anita, who as a woman (though who knows, really? Beyond loud proclamations?) also has a lot of estrogen. In fact, if she were alone in the room, it would still be "estrogen rich."

On the pragmatic side, until they hit puberty girls have a minimal amount of estrogen in their systems. It doesn't make sense in that respect for boys to "not count as male" but for girls to count as "female" if the deciding gender factor is age. Little girls are just as "generic" at that age.

[rodentfanatic]

Ew, wait, for real? She says that? That's....wtf ugh D: