University literature courses containing material that could be triggering for rape and sexual assault survivors

I read Lolita aged 17 and found it titillating. I think I thought it made me look clever and sexy somehow.

I then wrote a dissertation on Nabokov's lectures on literature and Russian literature.

He calls a Dickens character "a dingy nymphet".

I had low self esteem I guess.

Now I agree with Sparrowhawk. I'm bored of studying how men feel about their violent behaviour.

That utter arsewipe Martin Amis commented some years ago that women enjoy being raped and his novels certainly reflect his utter contempt for women. I don't think women should have to read fiction from an author who hates them and thinks they deserve and enjoy sexual violence. Or if they do read his excrement it should be to examine the way in which 'literature' supports and encourages rapists.

'Literature' itself is largely a sham - it's men talking about men's experiences with utter conviction that that's the right way to view the world. Hence, rape is portrayed as a deserved punishment, something that can't be helped, a man's desire overwhelming him, an unremarkable occurrence with a faceless victim. When women do actually feature in depictions of rape they are peripheral - their voices aren't heard, their experiences are largely absent or described for them in terms that make it clear that the (male) writer has the first clue what he's on about. The female victim is either deserving of what she got or weak and fragile and broken by her experience. She isn't really a human being at all. These depictions are one of the sources of the rape myths that persist today - up until relatively recently society had no understanding (or any desire to have an understanding) of women's actual experiences and responses to rape - it was just assumed for example that a raped woman would fall to bits, when in fact a lot of victims have complex coping mechanisms that include befriending or even having a relationship with their attacker. The screaming crying victim is a male fiction - many rape victims are quiet and dissociated. The rape victim isn't doomed by her experiences - with help she can recover and just be the ordinary person she always was (rather than the fragile wronged flower or the fallen woman).

Male depictions of rape are so much nonsense - the only way in which they should be studied is to illustrate what utter tripe they are.

"Modules looking at how men and women write differently about rape would be an excellent class. "

Yes, absolutely. And relevant to literature in almost any language or historical context!

Broadly agree Sparrowhawk. But I would feel uncomfortable about banning or suppressing a book at university - not that this is what you are suggesting.

Also agree that nobody should be forced to read Lolita. Although this would be a big omission if you were studying 20 century Russian lit and wanted to be fully informed.

The subject matter shouldn't be allowed to stand alone or unchallenged by other authors if/when troubling classics are taught. I would feel the same about any Nazi literary appropriation of Jewish experience. Teach them if they're considered important in the technical/historical/literary context, but not without other perspectives on the subject matter. And not without allowing people to opt out.

The 'women's studies' and chicklit pigeonholing of female authors is horrifying, I agree. It's an absolute tragedy that half of human talent and experience has been ignored and wasted over the centuries.

Modules looking at how men and women write differently about rape would be an excellent class.

But it would be pretty impossible to have a lit degree without looking at how male authors write about female experiences, historicly men published much much more.

I studied a gender and language course- false name as never was the gendered language looked at, taught by a gender studies female professor, we looked at make and female authors. But it was a sorely dissapointing class. Didn't even look at Mary Shelley or any first women authors, those who published as men, or those who wrote what it was to be a women writing in a time of male writers. We looked at Scot not zelda. Compared Ted & Sylvia one week atleast. The head of course, who was also my tutor, was a disablist bitch so that didn't help- she refused to comply with the dsa instructions to give me lecture notes as that 'was using my disability to gain unfair advantage' and she claimed hormones were socially constructed and pcos was an 'epidemic' due to feminisms influence!! So that was a waste of time

Not only do women get to be raped in their millions but they also have to be quiet listen to 'great' men tell them about rape. Yippee.

Female authors are dismissed as 'chick lit' or dumped into 'women's studies.' Only men are allowed to make great pronouncements about rape and women have to accept it no matter how offensive it is. Would we insist that Holocaust survivors read 'literature' by Nazis about being a Jew in a concentration camp without having a reaction? Or would we say that, in fact, we would expect survivors to have an emotional reaction to a description of their suffering written by the cause of that suffering? Wouldn't we think that reaction is valuable and interesting?

But, women's understandable reaction to men's cold, misogynistic descriptions of rape is just annoying hysteria.

I'm inclined to agree with Sparrowhawk too. Nabokov was a misogynist who made no secret of his disdain for female authors. Lolita is utterly chilling as it is, but even more disturbing as the work of a misogynist.

I don't think that Lolita should be avoided or banned, although students should be allowed to opt out if the book is too distressing to work with. But surely there are female authors writing about rape who could be taught alongside for comparison?

I'm inclined to agree with sparrowhawk.

Lolita makes me feel physically ill, great work of literature or not. My abuser took me to see the movie. I still can't believe it but he did.

I'll listen to men's utter bollocks about rape when men bother to even read anything at all by women, never mind revere and study it.

The issue is that the vast majority of 'literature' was written by men who either couldn't give a fuck how rape victims feel or actively enjoyed writing about rape. So women have to sit there and listen to misogynists' utter tripe about women's experiences and then not only study it but revere and respect to it as a true representation of life.

Fuck that shit.

Having just watched it i think 13 Reasons why should be put on the high school curriculum. Two very difficult to watch rape scenes and a graphic suicide scene but every high school kid should see this.

You might want to include the Illiad, etc then

I think it's best to look at these things practically. If there are a large number of students dropping out because they couldn't cope with the source material then it should be addressed. If it's a small number, then it's not that those people aren't important, but their needs should be accommodated as special cases.

If someone suffers a bereavement during their degree, for example, I think they should be able to take some time off, a term, a year, and not be penalised. If someone can't deal with a book that looks at those issues, because they are too close to the subject matter to be objective, then there is a definite argument that they should be able to complete an alternative assignment.

I may deal with things differently from others, but the last thing I'd ever want is the assumption that I couldn't deal with something because of my experience. I feel it makes what someone else did define my life, and people who have been through these things are very much needed in the room when they're discussed. I hope that doesn't sound like I'm telling people to 'get over it', I don't intend that at all.

Lolita is def a difficult read but it's an important book. I agree that Nabakov shows how abusers operate and however uncomfortable it makes me feel, I am glad that the book was written and is read, than not.

Op that'd be that'd be the bible out then wouldn't it, has an 'allowed at the time' rape every other page or so

If people read it and are taken in its a sign that the writer succeeded, if they analysise it at uni and don't get it then there's a problem with the teaching. Nabakov's point is to show how abusers take people in/fool them/manipulate them. On analysising the txt it this becomes clear, which is why it needs analysising. Certainly it doesn't need to be read at uni, although most my modules were optional, but that's much better option than the misrepresentations of the films.

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

This refers to the article I mentioned about law students studying rape. I'll try to find the actual article.

It's a good read.

We can't start banning books because of upsetting scenes, universities are not the place for censorship.

I think Lolita is a rubbish book, the gratuitous descriptions of sex lower its literary quality in my view; it's trying to be titillating. Ugh.

I would not describe horrible things men do to women as "core human experiences".
That'd be a better word for things that just happen - such as death of a parent or a baby, or mental illness.

And sadly, sexual violence is much more common than most of the things you mentioned.

I don't think literature students should be forced to read books about sexual violence.

Those who study law or anything else where they have to know about sexual violence to do their job right, should have to learn about it, but with literature, I don't think so.

I don't think one has to read "Lolita". One does not have to understand how a child rapist talks to himself, surely? There's enough literature on how to spot an abuser that doesn't require you to read a whole book from such a disgusting perspective.

Such books have a place, which is to alert the general public to the fact that this is a thing that happens - but for those who already know, there's plenty of other books. (And I suppose the author failed somewhat, if so many people misunderstand the book)