Which brings me to Eros. Not a goddess, and not about love. Rather, a propaganda tool. A pastoral construct. The figurehead of the patriarchy. Britannia, Mother Earth, Marianne, Liberty. The book subverts such constructions. Male and female become biological terms, templates for experience and that variable "truth". The book has already created controversy in Australia where it was published last November. A friend recently emailed me to ask what my "intention" was behind one of the stories (one of the "milder" ones) - "The Throats of Foxes". This is my reply:
The story is actually based on a personal ad I read in a magazine called Sex News (research, honestly!) in which the advertiser was offering potions made from the urine of pregnant women to increase sex drive etc (pre-Viagra... ). It was also asking for pregnant women to write to a P.O. box if they were interested in becoming "donors". The ad also offered other witchcraft-related paraphernalia and often talked of "animal prowess" etc. Thus the fox connection. And it is true that the fox does scream like a human Ń and I've heard it many times. The connection between the pagan fertility ritual, death, and the "animal" comes together at the end. There's a kind of lycanthropic process taking place, a transformation not into something else, but an awakening of the latent.
A blurb, for me, is as much part of the book as the actual "text". I donŐt recognise the demarcation line between publisher/blurb writer and so called author of the authentic work. The blurb for Eros says:
The back cover has a list of names one might use as points of reference: Freud, de Sade, Sacher Masoch, Edgar Allan Poe, Lautréamont, Emily Bront‘, Bataille. One might also add Elizabeth Grosz, Donna Haraway, Julia Kristeva, Derrida, Deleuze and Guattari, and children's nursery rhymes. The demarcation between what is seen in the catalogues and what is worn is inadmissible.