> Look, when a lot of female readers have expressed discomfort with The Book of the New Sun, we need to at least take that into consideration and respect that viewpoint even if we ourselves like the book.
I do take it into consideration and I do respect the perspective that informs the viewpoint, even if I think the viewpoint is incorrect. I am not trying to argue with anyone's "expressed discomfort", I am disagreeing with your subtle suggestion that Wolfe is sexist because he wrote a sexist character.
> But that’s what Wolfe intended!" is just going to come across to those female readers as mansplaining.
I'm sorry but "mansplaining" is not an argument. I'm not saying that the phenomenon of mansplaining doesn't exist (a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman that she already understands), but a discussion of meaning in literature does not qualify as "mansplaining" just because I am a man who disagrees with a woman. Additionally, there are plenty of women who will make the same argument, so unless you're suggesting that my opinion is only invalid because I'm a man, I fail to see how mansplaining is at all relevant. I am happy to engage in specific examples of the text which someone might point to as evidence for a flaw in my reasoning, but summarizing my response with a flippant "mansplaining" dismissal is very disingenuous.
> And that is a pretty commonly encountered position in lit circles.
And also overwhelmingly rejected as an absurd way to view literature based on countless examples.
I do take it into consideration and I do respect the perspective that informs the viewpoint, even if I think the viewpoint is incorrect. I am not trying to argue with anyone's "expressed discomfort", I am disagreeing with your subtle suggestion that Wolfe is sexist because he wrote a sexist character.
> But that’s what Wolfe intended!" is just going to come across to those female readers as mansplaining.
I'm sorry but "mansplaining" is not an argument. I'm not saying that the phenomenon of mansplaining doesn't exist (a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman that she already understands), but a discussion of meaning in literature does not qualify as "mansplaining" just because I am a man who disagrees with a woman. Additionally, there are plenty of women who will make the same argument, so unless you're suggesting that my opinion is only invalid because I'm a man, I fail to see how mansplaining is at all relevant. I am happy to engage in specific examples of the text which someone might point to as evidence for a flaw in my reasoning, but summarizing my response with a flippant "mansplaining" dismissal is very disingenuous.
> And that is a pretty commonly encountered position in lit circles.
And also overwhelmingly rejected as an absurd way to view literature based on countless examples.