Quipy "autobiographical" stories from Linda Lovelace in her post Deep Throat pre-Feminist period. Includes dozens of photographs & a full color mini-centerfold...
|Title||:||Inside Linda Lovelace|
|Number of Pages||:||191 Pages|
|Status||:||Available For Download|
|Last checked||:||21 Minutes ago!|
Inside Linda Lovelace Reviews
I got into a discussion with Elizabeth yesterday about the character of Edward in the Twilight series. I maintained that Edward came across as an amoral, controlling psychopath. Elizabeth, though not an Edward fan (she said at one point that she couldn't believe she was defending him) said I was exaggerating. For example, I strongly questioned Edward's claim that he'd never desired any woman but Bella. Elizabeth said Edward was very truthful. Throughout the four books, he's never caught out telling a lie: hence, since there is nothing in the text to contradict this claim, we should believe him. As I said then, I completely respect Elizabeth's interpretation, but it isn't one I can share. For me, Edward's too far-fetched. No person I have ever met could behave this way, so I am irresistibly drawn to the conclusion that someone is not telling the truth. Either Edward is lying to Bella, or Bella is an unreliable narrator, or Stephanie Meyer is lying to her audience. But I freely admit that I don't know which one it is, and, as Elizabeth says, there is nothing in the text that directly supports my point of view. I started wondering if I could come up with a similar case where new evidence had in fact forced a reevaluation of a character, and a couple of hours later a story on Yahoo News suggested one. Poor Lindsay Lohan has been dropped from Inferno, the movie of Linda Lovelace's book Ordeal, where Lovelace describes how she was raped, beaten and forced (literally) at gunpoint to perform in Deep Throat, the classic porno movie that made her famous. Before she wrote Ordeal, however, she wrote, or more probably ghost-wrote, two other books, of which this is one. I don't think I ever read the whole thing, but I'm pretty sure that, as a 15 year old, I browsed through at least a couple of chapters at my local bookstore. Linda recounts how she met wonderful, sexy Chuck Traynor (I shudder at the near-coincidence with my own surname), who opened her up to a world of orgasmic delights, all of which are described in juicy detail. At the time, I had no sexual experience at all, but I do recall feeling a tiny bit sceptical. It somehow seemed just a little too much. On the other hand, the text was quite consistent, and what did I know about it? Maybe it was exactly as Linda described.Well, it's now clear that Linda Lovelace was an unreliable narrator. Either she was lying in Inside Linda Lovelace, or she was lying in Ordeal, or, indeed, she was lying in both. Quite a few people have tried to make out that she was telling the truth in the first version, or at least that the second version, written after she became a born-again Christian, is also substantially inaccurate. I haven't researched it in any detail, but Ordeal rings true in a way that Inside Linda Lovelace simply doesn't. The first Chuck is an implausible fantasy. The second is an all-too-plausible monster. Along with most of the rest of the world, I believe Version 2.To go back to where we came in, I still don't know what's going on with Edward. Maybe the official story is all there is to it. But if a Bella's Ordeal ever appears, and Stephanie Meyer reveals that much of the first four books is inaccurate and that Edward is quite a different person from the one presented there, then I think I'll have the same reaction. At last, something that makes sense.