Thursday, April 13, 2006

Lessons I have learnt about writing novels - Sex

Today is not my day in so many ways. However, I did say I would blog about sex and I did write most of this already, so here I am. Today, this blog contains very strong language and sexual references.

So about sex, or more precisely, writing about sex. I don’t just mean writing about the act. There isn’t a lot of actual sex books anyway. For example, it occurred to me that I cannot remember reading a single book that involved the act of oral sex. If you can think of an instance, I bet no-one got a pubic hair between their teeth. Fact is that many actual "sex scenes" are superfluous to the narrative.

Occasionally you feel short-changed w
hen after two hundred pages of increasing sexual tension, especially when you too have fallen in love with one or other or perhaps both of the characters and finally their eyes meet and finally, finally after two hundred pages they both understand that the feeling, this deep ache, this knot in the stomach, this throbbing tension, is entirely mutual and then – suddenly it’s the next morning, the sun comes up and they’re drinking coffee together.

But most of the time, we can happily fill in the blanks and are only embarrassed by the authors' attempts at erotica. At least I am. Sex in novels shouldn’t need to be at all titillating to the reader, but authors start using slang words for anatomy where there hasn’t been a single slang word in the prose of the book so far, the urgent and spiky language of pornography; [no see, I did put it in here, but then I got scared].

They also resort to terrible clichés, the same uniform version of heterosexual sex we see in films where the male partner always initiates, they always end up on or in a bed, always in a state of complete undress and usually with the female partner on top. This is because in films, we can then see as much as we are allowed to see within a 15 certificate, i.e the breasts. In books this device is entirely pointless, and yet they still do it.

Nobody ever laughs to utters a word at any time between initiation and orgasm. Everyone is beautiful and sex is almost always mutually mind-blowing. Unless they're married, in which case it is awful and the whole affair takes place in the dark.


I know. There are notable exceptions to the rule. I guess I have read a lot of trash. So why is the case? I mean this problem with sex, not my shameful reading habits.

Well, I reckon, that almost every one of us thinks that we are personally, a complete and utter pervert. Either that or we’re a complete freak because we don’t know what the hell other people are going on about. Because nobody’s experience and observation of sex and sexual behaviour is exactly as it is the movies or the books or anywhere else except in real life. And the main reason that this sort of sex, this presumably ordinary experience of sex and sexual behaviour, rarely exists anywhere else is that we’re all too afraid to be seen as complete and utter perverts or frigid or whatever.

And like I say, this just isn’t about the act. This is about everything between the amount of eye contact made between strangers on a bus right through to the actual business. Our awareness of each other as sexual beings even in the absence of any real attraction; casual flirting, intimidation, the games we play with that stuff, the rules we must adhere to all the time with everyone, all this complicated signalling malarkey.

When I write, I find myself feeling extremely self-conscious about all of this, anything vaguely sexual or sensual. Is it normal to think about this or react like that? Would someone feel this way or am I the only person in the whole wide world who ever had that thought? I don’t want to write anything which my readers will find unconvincing. And I certainly don’t want to write anything which is going to deeply offend or disgust anyone, if it turns out I am really wide of the mark.

Lessons I have learnt? Hmm. To be honest, I’m still struggling. In my editing process this is coming up time and time again as an area of difficulty; these bits are either very stilted or they are fine, but so honest and explicit and make me very nervous. I’m not talking about the most bizarre sexual act I can bring to mind, but just ordinary imperfect things going on between ordinary imperfect people. There’s really very little sex in this book.

However, as I have written about before, I very much believe that being honest, truly honest is the most important thing in fiction (rephrase that sentence until it makes sense. There? No, never mind). It is an almost moral responsibility, as well as an artistic one.

My golden rule is not to write these things within twenty-four hours of speaking to one’s mother, one’s grandmother or one’s good friend who is a novice nun. That is perhaps half the battle. It can help to write this stuff when you are tired or perhaps slightly drunk and to try and write it all at once without going over it too many times. Even turning off the computer monitor so one cannot see one's own words until it is all down.


Another thing that helps is to read really good brave fiction. Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita is one of the best books ever written at all and is unflinching and at times very beautiful about the most inappropriate sexual attraction and obsession one could think of. D H Lawrence does pretty well, although some of his language is very dated now. Sarah Walters also writes very sexy books. I guess one should avoid pornography and erotic literature which is a means to an end, thus not too concerned with realism.

And even now I’m thinking, nah, I should cut those bits out and write it all the way it happens in the movies.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Tomorrow I will blog all about sex

Well, looks like Blogging Against Disablism day may have been a mistake. I almost wrote Blogging Against Shakespeare Day which I suspect might prove more popular (I have been listening to The Reduced Shakespeare Company Radio Show which can be listened to via the BBC Radio Player). Is there any reason why you haven’t signed up yet? Do you think it is a bad idea? Do I need to spell out what the thinking was here? Okay.

Thing is that there are an awful lot of people reading blogs on a regular basis; many more people than leave comments. Naturally discourse about disablism and disability issues are never going to gain the popularity of, for example, people writing about sexism. Blogs like I Blame The Patriarchy (radical feminism) and Bitch PhD (sex positive feminism) are huge. Disability just isn’t that sexy, we are a minority and indeed, disablism does not impact even on the lives of disabled people quite as much as sexism.

So we humble little blogs talk about these issues from time to time in our quiet corners of the Internet. Usually it is written about from a personal, individual perspective and those folks who didn’t know much about it may pass through and think, “Oh, life isn’t so fair for disabled people,” but actually they don’t think twice about it. And we don’t blog to change the world, so it doesn’t matter.

However, it occurred to me, following these other highly successful Blogging Against days and Carnivals and so on, that if enough people did this on one day, and effectively linked to one another through a central point, then anybody passing through any of our sites, any of them, would (a) get to read something about disablism, perhaps from someone who had never written about such things and (b) find themselves at a gateway to several other people doing the same thing. The collective effort, we thought, could reach potentially hundreds of people in the blogosphere and show that this matters. To more than three of us, which is where it stands just now and I’m
the only crip among them. Come on, there are more than two people reading this. I can see you. Yes, you.

I do of course realise this is not everyone's cup of tea, not by a long shot. So now I'll shut up about it and tomorrow we'll forget all this happened, k?

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Blogging Against Disablism Day - 1st May 2006

To read or contribute anything further to Blogging Against Disablism Day click here.



Blogging Against DisablismInspired by Blogging Against Sexism Day, Blogging Against Racism Day, Blogging Against Heteronormativity
Day and others, I had the idea of having a Blogging Against Disablism day.

Many of us blog regularly on subjects surrounding disablism and disability issues, but the idea is to see how powerful disabled people and the supporters of equality can be as a combined voice in the blogosphere. Are there as many people prepared to put their two pennies’ worth in on this subject as there are on sexier subjects such as Race and Gender?

If you'd like to take part, all you have to do is to leave a comment, including a link or URL to your website. I shall then add it to the list of participating bloggers, which I will put up on the sidebar. I have taken off Word Verification on my comment facility so hopefully everyone can take part. Do take a note of the date: Monday 1st May. If you are regular visitor here I shall remind you, but if not you’ll have to remember - although do check back here on the day to read other blogs against disablism.

Please also comment with any questions or suggestions.

Meanwhile, it would be great if you can link back to this post on your own blogs to spread the word as far as possible. You can do this the usual way providing a link to this post as follows;



or you can copy the following code to include our picture designed by Anon. using the following code:



Participating blogs can be about anything to do with disablism.

You can write about personal experiences or observations. About disablism at work, in education, within bureaucracies and health care systems. About disablism in history and in different cultures around the world or about how disablism interacts with issues of race, gender, age and sexuality. You can write about how disablism effects the social, sexual and family life of disabled people, or how disablism impacts on our Human Rights. You can write disablist language and portrayals in the media, on film or television or in literature.

You can write about some small aspect of disablism which you feel is neglected in mainstream discourse or write about something as large as what disablism is, its causes and what we can do about it.

Whatever you like so long as it is about the prejudice and discrimination faced by disabled people, the institutional and social barriers which put us at a disadvantage.

Please Note: Language Amnesty

Language is very important in the struggle against disablism, but there is far from any sort of international consensus on what language is and is not appropriate. By all means, blog about the language of disability, but as you’re visiting other blogs on the day do be prepared to read the odd word or phrase which may grate with your own sensibilities. I have prepared this short post explaining some of the different terms that are used to describe disabled people.



Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

19/ 04/ 06 : Update to answer some of your questions.
21/ 04/ 06: The One in Seven post over at The Perorations of Lady Bracknell

A brief guide to The Language of Disability

This is designed to very briefly explain some of the words used to describe people who experience disability.


Disabled People


In the UK, we are usually referred to as disabled people. Many people feel this makes most sense within the context of The Social Model of Disability, which differentiates between impairment (our physical, intellectual, cognitive or psychological limitations) and disability, which we understand to be the practical, political and social barriers which stop us doing what we would otherwise be able to do.

We believe that disability is a societal experience that we are subject to, therefore we are disabled people.


People with Disabilities

In the US and Canada, it seems we are usually referred to as people with disabilities. The idea behind this is to put the people first and the disability second. In this context,
disability and impairment are essentially synonymous; disability is understood as a fundamentally medical or physical phenomenon.

So it makes sense to described say people with disabilities as opposed to disabled people in the same way a person with depression is far more dignifying than a depressive person. A medical condition ought not to define a person.


Handicapped People/ People with Handicaps

This word has been demonised among the disabled community in the UK, but some individuals prefer it because of its etymology; the idea that their limitations are necessary in order to make it fair for everybody else. People may also prefer it to disabled because of the way that disabled is used in other contexts. For example, in computer programming disabled means “off”, not currently functioning. Others prefer it because they wish to defy what they perceive as over-sensitivity on the part of some disabled activists.


Differently-Abled


I struggle to argue for this. I guess it is an attempt to neutralise difference or disadvantage; we are after all, all differently-abled in some way. Which poses the question, what is normally-abled? as it were.

However, I can’t help thinking of The Gospel of Disability Language According to Turtle that defines Differently-Abled as

“You can shoot milk through your nose, or lift weights with your todger. Or something. All those of you who walk a bit weird, like, aren't differently abled, you're crappily abled until someone SORTS THE BLOODY PAVEMENTS.”


Anything with the word “Challenged” or “Special” in it

I have never heard any disabled people refer to themselves as Challenged or Special. Fully prepared to be corrected, I would think that most disabled people find this sort of language patronising. Special, for example, was voted the 5th worst word in Ouch’s Worst Words survey.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

What do you think about my new blogroll?

I have been shuffling round my blogroll and would appreciate feedback. I have long had a serious disability-bias to my blogroll, partly because most of my on-line friends are crips and partly because I am interested in what other disabled people have to say whether they are my friends or not. However, recently I have been thinking that I perhaps I ought to spell this out.

Not that I want my blog to be any sort of platform for disability issues particularly, but I wanted to draw attention to the quantity and quality of disabled bloggers, as disabled people. As far as the blog itself is concerned, this is my soapbox, nothing more and after a year of miscellany you are not about to find any sense or order to the things I decide to write about.

However, I would like your opinions as it is your blogs on the blogroll. Can I use the word crip? Do people get that? And I must say that in some cases I have identified people as disabled even though they haven’t explicitly said they are. But they are. In other cases, I may have wrongly assumed that folks were non-disabled.
I also think I have made Melbamae and Bloggine Mone honoury disabled people - I say think because I don't actually know if Mone is disabled or not.

And do non-disabled bloggers mind being singled out and shoved at the bottom? I can't see Bitch PhD putting on a limp to try and get a higher spot up my sidebar, but these are by no means lesser bloggers for the fact they wound up at the bottom. In fact, given the disability-bias to my browsing, they have to have impressed me some.

And I've made the rash move of naming my favourite disabled bloggers. I thought of saying blogpals because these are folks who are either my actual factual friends or people I am fairly friendly with, but blogpals sounds really childish. I don't actually think that any disabled bloggers who aren't writers or artists or one of my favourites ever comes here, so they'll never know that I put them second place in the hierarchy, but I still feel a bit guilty about this - the others are well worth reading, a mixed bag but well worth it.

What do you think about all this?

And if you want to move your own position on this blogroll, do let me know - chances are there will be brain fog mistakes as well as wrong decisions.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Desiccated Follower of Fashion

I am going to have to buy some more clothes for summer on account of things falling apart beyond repair. I find this a truly miserable task, as I have little money, I am a rather odd shape and I am generally rubbish at this stuff. However, since I have to suffer through the ordeal of clothes shopping, you're coming along with me. One will have to excuse the British and feminine bias to the following, as well as the general dullness. There is however a picture of the sexiest hat in the entire universe to follow.

There’s bad news this season, as the Boho look is apparently out. I liked this Boho look. I had dressed in a certain way for years, and all of a sudden I found myself at the height of fashion. No longer, alas. There now seems to be a fad for wearing braces to hold up one’s trousers and shirts with ties. Now in my own gender exploration phase, I regularly wore a bow-tie and on occasion, a silk cravat. But I never wore an ordinary neck-tie; that would have been plain weird.


Colours that don’t suit us Celtic types, especially my own complexion comme la mort réchauffée, are also coming to the fore as well. Cream is the new ivory, baby pink the new carnation and nude is the new... full-dressed? I really don't understand this stuff.

Of course the Goldfish makes her own fashion and will still be covering up her shapeless legs and avoiding all pale and pastel shades which make her blotchy bits look blotchier and her pale bits look blue. She did however fall take a fancy to this dress from Dorothy Perkins for some reason, until [...] said it would make her look like Aunt Sally. She doesn’t know who Aunt Sally is, but this didn't sound like an endorsement.


There are many disadvantages to shopping for clothes on-line. Postage and general expense, obviously; there are no dirt cheap shops on-line. Colour, texture and fit is not always obvious from a photograph. Whilst we have all had a laugh at how some items have been photographed by ordinary folks auctioning their wares on eBay (Lady Bracknell gives a good example), many professional attempts leave a lot to be desired when you are more interested in the garment than the model's face, legs or décolletage.

Take this item on the left from La Redoute. I reckon that this is a clingy fabric which is unflattering on the midriff of even this slender model. However, since the eye is drawn down the front of the blouse rather than to the blouse, one isn't quite sure.

Catalogue shopping was ever thus, but La Redoute is by far the best mainstream clothing catalogue available in the UK. They can cope with the idea that women who do wish to exercise some modesty in their dress don't necessary wish to do so in calf-length pleated skirts and twin-sets all in a seductive shade of beige. They also have a sale on just now, as do Debenhams if anyone's into that.

For the top-heavy among us, Bravissimo offer a really excellent if limited range of clothes designed to fit bosoms from a D to an H cup. These include really smashing strappy tops like this one with integral bras as well as a fitted shirt and a suit available in varying degrees of curviness. I wish I could afford some of that stuff but it is somewhat of a revolution.

One great advantage of on-line shopping is that it is possible to visit more Fair Trade shops on-line that one could ever find in any ordinary town. I am not about to get sanctimonious about Fair Trade; some items are not available or affordable as Fair Trade goods, but where you can do it, well, it is better value for everyone.

My favourite clothes shop has to be Nomads, which sells
extremely groovy Fair-Trade clothing, most of which is very reasonably priced. It's funky stuff, but not that sort of cosmic hipppy festival ware which makes one look as if the colour-bunny had an accident on one.

Lots of nice long freesize skirts in natural fibres, dyed using vegetables (some very interesting coloured vegetables, but we'll take their word for it). Very good for the summer. And the winter. And the bits in between.

If you hate this sort of thing, The Green Apple sell less eccentric things which are Fair Trade, jeans and t-shirts as well as other bits and bobs, although the best bit is their soaps named after Beatles songs.

I also found an interesting shop called American Apparel (I can give you the US store front too). They make clothes in Downtown Los Angeles and describe themselves as vertically intergrated. They try to look after their employees and the stuff is simple cotton t-shirts and things but in a very good range of colours for both chaps and chapesses. On the dear side, but then I like to be careful with my hardly-earned cash.

On the accessories front, Nomads do loads of lovely bags and sarongs as well as the clothing. The India Shop and TradeCraft have some nice bits and pieces of jewellery as well as other stuff.

Pachauti sell Fair Trade hats and they are not too dear, not really. They sell this on the right; the sexiest hat in the entire universe for just £20. If I were a man, or the sort of woman who could pull it off, and if I wasn't a wheelchair-user who has to look up at people's faces a lot, I would definitely buy such a hat. And wear it. All the time. Probably have to dye my trenchcoat black. In fact I can imagine a whole new and sexier life I might have if only I possessed such a hat.

A few other curiosities on the accessories front.
Romp sells, would you believe, ethically-produced fur. No, me neither, but I thought it was an interesting concept. Smart Tart is a Fair-Trade handbag shop which made me giggle somewhat for a number of reasons; the style, the price of the things and the entry in the guestbook which reads Thank goodness it's washable - it survived a litre of cranberry juice being poured into it!

Attractive shoes are a must for wheelchair-users because everyone looks at our feet. Guess they're looking to see if we have any feet or something. I'm on the look out for also some ridiculous impractical sandals to shoe off my painted toe-nails. I consider my feet to be all right, it's just where my legs begin that it all goes horribly wrong.

Most Fair Trade shoes are expensive and generally quite ugly. There is also the problem that following ethical shopping links, you get shoes which may be suitable for vegetarians but not necessarily those of us concerned with human exploitation. Beyond Skin covers all bases and makes beautiful footwear, Terra Plana doesn’t do the vegetarian bit but does all right otherwise (including the shoe pictured). Unfortunately in both cases the shoes cost an absolute fortune. Vegetarian Shoes sell very ethical shoes at not ridiculous prices, but there are all really rather sensible.

United Nude sell weird shoes. They are just weird. Like this on the left here. Obviously they cost a bomb too but they are interesting to look at. Well, I think I like them.

At this point I was obviously getting a bit bored of the whole shopping malarky and started investigating how patent leather comes to be patent. Apparently they used to use a linseed-oil based lacquer but these days it is usually a plastic coating. So there you go.

As with most real-life shopping trips, I have given up and come away empty-handed. You weren't a whole lot of help, I have to say. And another disadvantage of on-line shopping is the distinct lack of anywhere to get a cup of tea and a slice of carrot cake as a reward for our efforts.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

The Social Model of Disability

There are several reasons why I wanted to write about The Social Model. One is that very shortly we’re going to announce a Blogging Against Disablism day and The Social Model does clear up some cross-Atlantic confusion about the language we use around disability. Also because various reading and discussions have been making me think about what it means to be disabled. I tried to do something like this yesterday, when I was less awake. I was so unawake that rather than thinking better of it, removing it and putting it to one side, I managed to delete everything I had written. Woops.

The Social Model of Disability is a way of understanding what disability is, as opposed to what it ought to be, or the way it should be approached. However, The Social Model does lead to various conclusions about the way forward. First of all, let’s start with a bit from The Serenity Prayer by Reinhold Niebhur;

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.


You’ll see why in a minute.

In the past, disability was seen as an entirely biological or physical phenomenon. The difference between me and a non-disabled person is that I have various things medically wrong with me. Indeed, many disabled Americans describe medical conditions as disabilities as in Cerebral palsy is my disability. And quite sensibly, given the usage, they use people-first-language, describing themselves as people with disabilities as opposed to disabled people in the same way they would describe themselves as people with cerebral palsy rather than cerebral palsy people.

In the UK, since the 1970s, disabled people have begun to acknowledge that the obstacles in their lives are not exclusively to do with some biological quirk or condition. Some of them are, some of them aren’t. Thus we differentiate between impairment (our particular set of cognitive, physical or psychological limitations) and disability, which encompasses the social, political, attitudinal and practical obstacles which limit our opportunities.

Impairment is a fact of life. Although many of us would very much welcome some medical advance to remove or alleviate our situation, most people who self-identify as disabled anticipate having their impairments for the rest of their lives.

However, disability is movable. Rather like gender, disability using this definition, is a largely cultural construct, which varies in perception and meaning between cultures and projects certain roles and expectations upon those people who are perceived as being not as they should be.

A necessary example. My condition results in pain which limits the distance I can walk. Before I got a wheelchair, I couldn’t leave the house. Before I got an electric wheelchair, I couldn’t leave the house alone. Before adjustments were made, ramps put in and doorways widened, there were various buildings which I couldn’t get into and certain personal errands which I could not run myself.

Thus, my experience of disability has very greatly decreased over time, despite no significant improvement in my health. When it comes to wheelchair-use and other mobility impairments, it is relatively easy to notice practical steps which can remove unnecessary disadvantage for disabled people. With other sorts of impairments, it gets more far complicated.

The Social Model does not suggest that all the disadvantages experienced by disabled people come from society. There are many disadvantages I experience which nobody can do anything about; I am not employable, in the conventional sense, and there is no number of ramps, flexible hours and positive attitudes which can help with that one. Similarly, disabled people do not demand that lifts be put into medieval castles or that National Parks be flattened or that businesses go bust trying to make adjustments.

However, the implications of the Social Model go far far deeper than the familiar issues of physical access and equal opportunities in employment. Whilst impairment can happen in an instant, the experience of living with impairments in a disabling society is as complex and dynamic as belonging in any other marginalised group. For example, dissecting the causes of low socio-economic status among disabled people is at least as complicated as dissecting why Black Americans are far more likely to experience poverty than White Americans. It isn’t just to do with whether a firm is prepared to hire us for any given position, but it is a range of subtle restricting factors which exist in all areas of social and political experience from media representation and political rhetoric, through health care systems and education, to families and peer-groups and the individual themselves.

I think the mention of the individual is very important, because we are part of society; both products of a disabling society and participants in it. I resisted both my manual and electric wheelchairs because I was depressed by the implications (implications which quickly faded into insignificance when I finally gave in). We are also capable of perpetuating disablism against one another; people with physical impairments can be derisory about those with cognitive, learning or mental health impairments and vice versa. It is not as if we are a group of blameless unfortunates waiting for the world to get better for us.

But applying the Social Model means that the world can get better. If disability is understood as a purely medical phenomenon then our position must remain the same, and the only strategy must be to attempt to normalise ourselves as much as possible, to accept manmade boundaries and prejudices as natural and somehow come to terms with the tragedy of such an existence.

The Social Model means we can look at our lives, and decide for ourselves what is and is not possible and demand the right to fulfil our real potential as opposed to the low expectations we may have had dumped on us.

Do let me know if that makes sense, as it is something I am so familiar with, it would be easy to write it down and make some serious error.

After I wrote this I remembered a few words the great Lady B said on the subject.