Rape in literature (warning may be triggering)

Yes, I agree.

This is why I think I don't want to soften what I'm saying to the OP with any tactful noises about her friend's writing. I might do that if I were reading a draft in another context. But I really don't want to help her help him write this novel, for the reasons we've all covered. I don't want to separate out the lit crit and the politics and the feminism in a nice, helpful way, because that might help him to write this better, and I don't want him to write it at all.

I was reminded of the Lolita thread too earlier.

Lolita would have been such a different book if it had been written from a female perspective. Just as The Handmaid's Tale would have been a rather different kettle of fish written from the male perspective.

There is an interesting discussion to be had here about the limitations of one's ability to explore certain themes with literary mechanisms, with regards to one's membership or not of the 'othered' group.

Which brings me back to entitlement - I think it is massively entitled to think one can write usefully about oppression one has never and will never experience. It feels co-opting. And oppressive. Ironically.

and utterly retained the humanity of the dehumanised - which was pretty much the point i think? whereas this is attempting to humanise the dehumaniser. i'm suddenly reminded of the lolita thread.

I think as well, the reason The Handmaid's Tale works is because Atwood is a brilliant writer. She knows how to write a story that is disturbing, and believable, and which makes you ask uncomfortable questions. It takes a lot of skill.

plus it screams of ignorance of the fact that the world he is describing is really not very different at all from our own.

something like a handsmaid tale written in the male voice would've been a wank story.

i do not agree that a man who feels the need to write a book humanising rapists and making out they do it because they want sex or feel rejected by their mates (diddums) is a feminist and i struggle to see how a feminist would support a man in doing that.

this is not meant as a criticism of you OP but i suspect your objectivity is obscured by your fondness and admiration for this man.

also - this man's own sister and mother have been raped and he wants to write humanising rapists and making excuses for their behaviour???? what kind of human being is that? how do you think his mother and sister would feel about that? does it not strike you as bizarre that this is what those experiences have motivated him to write about?

i think you have to question his psychological state.

ok. imho the only way a good dystopia of a world in which men rule and women are seen as sex objects and prizes (which of course would be satirical because it would simply be an exaggeration of our own culture) would be to have it written in the female voice. the rape scene likewise can only be written in the female voice.

anything other than this simply becomes a piece of wank fodder for misogynists.

the idea that you could write this dystopia from a male perspective with a male protagonist makes it a fantasy (and a dubious one) rather than a social critique.

females are dehumanised and objectified enough in reality that doing it in a book and concerning oneself with humanising the rapist is about as revolutionary and subversive as playboy.

I think getting feedback on something you're invested in can be horrible. In fact I know it can be! And also I know op isn't the author. but when you look for opinions you have to decide what you are going to take on board.
It's not a support thread, it's actively inviting criticism - if OP thinks it's not all constructive she will have to disregard those bits and just engage with the bits that have merit, even if she & the writer disagree.
lot of useful things have been said.
But when it comes to insinuations and implications, they're too subjective really to dismiss the whole thing out of hand.

There is a system for dealing with any post you feel is a personal attack. You report it. MN will remove them if need be.

Difficulttimes - I think you have every right to interpret some comments on here as personal attacks, and of course others have every right to disagree with you.
IF you think posters should have limited their comments to the writing itself and nothing else then you are either not understanding how MN works or you have a particularly stringent expectation of just this section of MN.
Its a discussion site, threads almost always involve discussion that veers from the exact question that was asked. Its how its supposed to be really., and particularly when the thread is about rape/rape myths and the people being specifically asked for their opinions are feminists.
Of course if you see personal attacks you should report and/or tackle the person you feel was abusive.

Eh? Who said she was a crazed pervert?

I have not seen this post.

You are starting to make things up now.

'I'm sorry but there is something about this that I find very disturbing. I also think you motives are questionable.'

wtf?? becuase obviously shes some crazed pervert who gets her kicks by posting stuff likev this on a fem board.

I don't understand why you are so concerned about posters 'implying very nasty things'.

As far as I can see, very little is being 'implied' at all. I'm being as direct as I can be. I was revolted by the piece of writing and found it deeply offensive. I said so. The OP herself said it was uncomfortable.

The 'very nasty thing' here is that rape is very nasty. And so is the idea of humanizing a rapist's thought process.

The OP herself was uncomfortable with it.

What on earth is being 'implied' here that could be nastier than that?

difficult - what's hysterical about asking someone if they want to be friends with someone who wants to humanize rapists?

I took that as a serious question - the OP has said she loves this guy. She has said he set out to write a story from the rapist's point of view.

What am I missing?

I saw what seemed like people attacking the OP rather than the lit. and yes its not rare on here.

'I find it disturbing that the only explanation you can think of for why several posters should all agree that a piece of writing presenting a rape fantasy is worth condemning, is 'gang mentality'.

You don't think it's normal for people to all agree rape fantasies are disgusting?'

This for one, of course I dont disagree with that.

I read one post saying 'Why do you want to be friends with someone who wants to humanise rapists'? which is hysterical and also in a very thinly vieled way being very bitchy and implying very nasty things.

I don't think carey is a rape apologist.

I think the piece of writing is rape apology. That's not up for debate is it?

The bloke may not be deliberately doing this and may well not be aware how his piece reads.

So I am aware there is a fair amount of room to make allowances for individuals here.

However, some people do very deliberately write rape apologies. And if and when they post, we should be able to say that. It's not a taboo term no-one is allowed to utter - it's just like calling someone when they've said something racist.

But you're the one twisting things difficulttimes. You're the one claiming that it's been insinuated that Carey is a rape apologist when nobody has said, implied or, as far as I know, thought any such thing.

difficult, I'm sorry, I've read the whole thread but I just can't understand your posts.

I've not seen personal attacks on the OP, but report them if you have.

If your words have been twisted (and, sorry, I myself just can't understand them), show me how? It may be you're not saying anything we disagree with, we're just misunderstanding?

Get angry at the author if you have too not the OP.

The latter as somone insinuated, but no-one jumped on that ??

seems a bit one sided.

Look he asked for feedback (by proxy, but still) by people whose opinions he claims to respect. He didn't hit the note he wanted to, for the reasons expressed above. He would do well to reflect, maybe agree or disagree after some thought.

What's the alternative, if beachcomber says y, I must say x in case people think there's a gang mentality? If thunders gets angry, I must swallow mine?

I've just said how in the above post sigh

'What I don't approve of is people becoming personally offensive to the OP, that is all.'

I also said that a few posts ago, but no-ones actually read and processed what I put and have just regurgitated shit from god knows where.

Sorry, posted too soon. Eg., this sentence, I don't understand what you're saying:

'So its okay for someone to say I think rape fantast literature is Okay?'

Are you asking if it is acceptable for a person to approve of rape fantasist literature, or are you asking if it's acceptable for someone to say that you, personally, think rape fantasist literature is acceptable?

How were your words twisted?

This is an argument I really find underhand. If it's true - say how. Don't just put it out there, that's just making a personal attack in a sly way.

We're all rational people, we can all sit here and work out what each other is trying to say without resorting to accusations like that.

So: personally, I don't follow what your 'simple, easy to grasp point' is. Can you help me?

This 'twisting' thing seems to come up fairly regularly in these sorts of conversations.

The point is not to twist things but to call a spade a spade. To take off the patriarchy blinkers. To shine a light on what things we blithely come out with actually mean. It can be an uncomfortable process, but the point isn't to do anything other than be clear and analytical about important things.