Replies

If you read the books, was there a reason of any kind why the man put a boy's penis in his mouth? Just asking.

I read 'Fields of Fire', not his other books. But if I get the gist of your question, would there be any reason to include a disgusting, morally vile scene in a novel other than to titillate the reader in that despicable, time-tested de Sadean tradition? Sure. Nothing better illuminates a character than what he or she does. An author describing the way a couple makes love, for example, shows worlds about that couple's relationship--more so than any number of narrative paragraphs and pages telling the reader how much they care (or don't care) about each other. An author describing a character performing a horrific act on a child shows you that character's unadulterated propensity for evil, the depths of that evil. Personally, I wouldn't include such a scene in my own fiction. Writing about horrible people doing horrible things makes me feel like I need a bath afterward.

The key is intent. If the author wants you sexually aroused by that which is being described, then what you're reading is soft-or hard-core pornography. If the author wants you disgusted by the actions of a given character, or wants you to gain deeper insight into that character, then the scene is necessary, not gratuitous. One usually doesn't need to be a Literature major to tell the difference.

Kissing a son's penis is a very common tradition in Afghanistan, associated with showing love, but this book takes place in Vietnam, so I don't see the connection.