indeed Nobokov became a US citizen.
And Dostoevsky made his child molester a charming benevolent figure. But no less a monster.
Tremendous writers, those Russians.
2 Likes
And here’s the point that comes from your paper (and prof loving it) as well as giving credit to Russian authors; and the point comes from a different branch of great literature:
Your insight comes from your now-specialized knowledge as a horsewoman (which I presume your prof did not have); perhaps it came, too, from your perspective and lived experience as a woman. Jane Austen’s novels were taught to me as early “feminist literature”-- that is to say that the issues and points of view were all about women rather than the “everyman reader” which typically assumes one is male. So while I think those deliciously complicated, dark and universally human themes explored in Russian literature ought to be appreciated as human (read: gender-neutral and of interest to all of us), I think most people, most of the time don’t include women in the Everyreader category. So give as much credit to the modern reader who has the unusual, shared knowledge of horses with the 19th-century author, as to that undeniably great author.
And this matters for the purposes of this discussion because, if I may yell: IF MORE PEOPLE, MORE OFTEN COULD TAKE ON THE EXPERIENCE OR PERSPECTIVE OF A VICTIM OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR ASSAULT, WE WOULDN’T BE HAVING THIS DEBATE.
And similar has happened in other branches of literature, history-writing, policy-making even car design-- when things are assumed to fit the, say, 5’10" middle class white male (American, British or European, please)-- we build in injustice to the way we order the world. This is not my idea, of course, but it’s worth repeating.
So everyone, on all sides of the SafeSport debate should know better than to inflate their experience to that of some shared, universal human experience. Thank God not everyone has been sexually abused; but I do think it’s a major moral falling to not see why one should make an effort to take that experience or the point of view it generates seriously.
8 Likes
Nah… this is not an impeachable offense (pun intended since we all collectively seem to be in the business of wanting to know for ourselves if the crime was “bad enough” by our standards). Rather, I think it makes the USEF and the horsey set at large look like a set of rich buffoons when we don’t leap to defend the value of SafeSport. Remember that the USEF is just one among the NGBs subject to SafeSport. Those all have to produce public responses to that agency and its sometimes embarrassing findings. To the public, our sport is already rather peripheral and now we just suck at assenting to the venerable mission of protecting children.
4 Likes
I think his curt statement was the right thing to do. The investigation and ban are 100% SS, and the role of USEF is simply to accept and enforce the ban.
By gratuitously embellishing on how much USEF agrees with SS on the GM issue, or whatever you want them to say to burnish their moral creds, they would just direct the Hobsteter, Navin, Carney outrage onto themselves.
USEF was relieved of the responsibility of weeding out abusers and harassers (after demonstrating that they failed utterly to stand up to power pedophiles like JW and GM).
It’s better to make it clear in the minds of the ISWG types that SS is the new sheriff in town, not USEF.
By successfully taking on GM, and having the ban upheld on appeal, and generally doing its job, SS is building its own credibility.
16 Likes
I have always admired Russian
- writers of literature
- chess players
- statisticians, and
- ballet dancers
2 Likes
But how is that scenario even relevant to Safe Sport? Unless the minor is so young he / she is below the age of consent? If they engage in a consensual relationship, and if the trainer is not in a position of authority over the minor (ie his/ her trainer, employer, judge, etc) then nobody has grounds to make a complaint to SS in the first place. DC is simply stirring the pot and making up scenarios that don’t apply, in order to stoke fear.
5 Likes
Ok can we please stop with saying people who haven’t read “Lolita” are ignorant, illiterate etc? I have never read it nor seen the movie, and I do not believe that makes me somehow less of a person. It’s just never been something I’ve read or desire to read! I consider myself to be well-read and just graduated from a very tough nursing program so I am definitely not an idiot!
Tongue firmly in cheek, but kind of :rolleyes: at the comments that "ermagerd yer derdernt rerd ther berk yerd dermb!
7 Likes
It certainly doesn’t make you dumb, illiterate, etc. But it is definitely cannon and it would surprise me to learn that someone who received a liberal arts education in the US had absolutely NO familiarity with it (as in had never heard of it and had no general sense of what the story was about).
1 Like
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, nothing from Mr. Murray Kessler, esteemed president of USEF. Guess he was too busy with his high profile wedding and getting pictures of his new house published to deal with something as unsavory as molested kids.
9 Likes
I have a BA in Anthropology and no, I never read it. Never needed to, never wanted to. Have heard of the gist of it but never read it. I still have no desire to read it. Basically all I’ve heard about it was a younger girl and older guy and some sort of seduction going on. So, I guess you can be surprised that not every college educated person in the US has read every book that is considered “canon.”
I HAVE read 100 years of solitude and would like those hours of my life back…
7 Likes
Forget Lolita. I would like people who drag up the Constitution to actually know what the heck it means.
21 Likes
I would also like the hours I spent reading 100 years… back. Unfortunately, had to finish it bc it was for a class. Fortunately The Corrections wasn’t for a class.
2 Likes
I loved 100 years of solitude. Read it over the span of four days. I skipped sleeping in order to keep on reading it. The whole experience was very delirious and dreamlike.
As for these people continually referencing the constitution? Yes. Rather irritating. They seem to lack much in the way of reading comprehension skills.
But I am being a jerk. After all, DC gets on the phone with 80 BRILLIANT people a week (or something like that). And plans on rewriting the Safe Sport law. The best legal minds out there. Etc etc. one can only assume she’s referring to Bonnie Navin. :rolleyes:
eta - You didn’t like it either Peggy? :sadsmile: What about Russian lit? Although I’ll admit to not having read Lolita, and feeling like making my way through Crime & Punishment was Punishment.
4 Likes
Guess you skipped reading comprehension too 
3 Likes
Hold up!
The whole “illiteracy” remark was mine and it was used in the literal sense-- to refer to people who didn’t read Nabokov’s novel (for whatever reason) but could merely view the same story in movie form.
If you want to extend that limited and actual meaning of the term “illiterate” as it was used in my post to mean “dumb,” and pull over from the topic of this thread to get butt-hurt about that, you can. But that’s not what my post and the term in it requires of you.
BTW, I think I have seen the movie, too. I barely remember the movie in and of itself. It’s a 1955 or so movie so it implies a lot rather than shows a lot. I remember thinking all that innuendo was even creepier because I had read the novel.
3 Likes
Yes, please.
Can we just require that people either read and understand the documents they cite or STFU about them? Either one would be fine.
11 Likes
Capall
I don’t think the people referencing Lolita are trying to make those who didn’t read the book feel illiterate .
Lolita is written from Humbert’s (the pedophile) (or however he is classified) point of view. Because if this, the reader tends to see him as a bit less of a monster because he gets to put his spin on the events that occurred.
Lolita was a little girl (12?) when she met him. Her normal 12 year old behavior was viewed as seductive from someone with a proclivity towards towards being sexually attracted to children.
I believe what mvp is trying to explain is that any normal adult would read the book and be disgusted and appalled by the writers narrative. Being sexually attracted to children and acting on it is just wrong, no matter how sympathetic the narrator may seem.
Humbert puts the spin that Lolita seduced him and ruined his life, when in fact it was he who stole her innocence and ruined hers.
It is all about perspective. Blaming the victims (as what happens in Lolita) is what we are seeing with the ISWG group.
No matter how persuasive a narrator may be, it never makes the act of violating children or teens acceptable. Period.
8 Likes
And with that, I think we can all move right along to the topic of using irony as a literary device.
5 Likes
Yeah, it’s way easier when these people just stick to calling the survivors of childhood sexual abuse “junior whores”. No literary analysis needed there.
13 Likes
Alright guys, sorry. It has been a whirlwind last few months for me with my last quarter of nursing school (and well, two years of nursing school and two years of pre-reqs) eating my brain alive. I was 99% joking 
100 years of solitude though… I am NOT joking about that. I salute anyone who found that enjoyable, but I did get an A on the paper I had to write about it :lol:
2 Likes
