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

[GlitteringTree]

I have NC for this
A lot of great literature contains descriptions of rape or allusions to it.
Statistically, many students who will be required to study it are likely to have experienced sexual assault or rape, but will be expected to respond to it analytically in essays and exams.

I was wondering how people think universities should deal with the difficulties that might arise from this in a sensitive way that would not require courses devoid of the literature in question?

I realise I was using the term far too narrowly. I have a great love for many unreliable narrators.

Lucy Snowe in Villette was a good one. Was it not one of the first?

Do you mean Vanity Fair Lass - I don't think Becky Sharpe was the narrator in that...?

It's been a long time since I read The Turn of the Screw, but I don't remember it as having an unreliable narrator...? (Highly possible I have an unreliable memory though!)

Sorry yes, I meant Vanity Fair.

The Turn of the Screw is unreliable as the events are viewed from the governess's point of view. An unamed narrator reads her account we never know if any of it was true or her delusions.

I also really liked Simon Silber's Works for Solo Piano which is similar to Pale Fire

I always wonder in these debates why sexual violence/child abuse is the only trauma that the discussion focuses on. Yes it's absolutely horrible, but there are lots of other grim experiences students may have been through - death of a parent, emotional abuse by a parent, homelessness, gruesome parental divorce, mental illness (self or others), being treated like shit by a partner, being a refugee, losing a baby, suicide of a friend/family member etc.

All these experiences might 'trigger' students' - and of course it's really important there is good counselling services available if they do - but they are also core human experiences, and hence lots of great works of literature describe them, because great literature is about the human condition.

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)

Thank you for your answers.
I would like to say how sorry I am to posters here who have suffered sexual violence themselves

Thank you for all your answers.

After reading peoples posts here, I was thinking that there is the extra difficulty that some core literature, which involves rape and sexual assault, is unlike Lolita in that it is not from (or close to) our own era. When it is from our time it is more likely the writer will be judging it to have been wrong which is some help, as the way in which it is shown to be wrong is part of the class discussion and part of the analysis. So a survivor of rape will feel supported to some extent.

The problem could be when the literature is from an era where rape was accepted as normal within the context of the time it was written.

The course in question might require the student to write about the subject analytically from the point of view of literary style and history alone, and therefore leave the student feeling there was no place for their instinctive reaction to the literature which might lack analytical attack as a result.

Another example I had not thought which venusinscorpio brought up was of a student studying rape law: the student needs to put all personal emotion aside to concentrate on points of law. Similarly, a student doctor who might be a rape survivor might need to study the physical effects of rape on a child/other needs to put emotion aside to note every physical detail.

In these cases the troubled student might even have to take an exam in the possibly personally distressing subject as part of their degree.

The standard of analysis expected is what is being examined and will not be change to accommodate an individual's experience. If the subject is absolutely core, it cannot be removed to solve the problem

I think it is a difficult question. I was prompted to think about it because of this article, which though I think it goes to far and is too unsympathetic, made me think about the difficulty.
newrepublic.com/article/121790/life-triggering-best-literature-should-be-too

It is unlikely lecturers receive any special training, and even if they did, they would be unlikely to be expert enough to know how to help a troubled student effectively.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Yes, the bible would be a good example.
Classical studies, including in very important texts, are full of rapes too.

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.

You might want to include the Illiad, etc then

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.

Yes, The Illiad would be an example of a core text, without which any Classical studies would be rather pointless, but which some students might find difficult.

I do not think it should be removed from any course, but recognise some students might find it difficult to write about purely analytically. Hence the dilemma and the reason for asking for opinions about it on this thread.

Probably the best thing would be that counselling should be available alongside any given course like that, so the student gets a chance to talk about events in the text, privately, from their own experience, if they choose.

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.

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.

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'm inclined to agree with sparrowhawk.

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?

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.

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.

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