I think if they’re writing books with that kind of material, then yes - I’d fire nabakov immediately for example
If you think Lolita was condoning its subject matter then you completely misunderstood the entire message of the book. This is why we need media literacy.
Fans of that book, or the literati, always say that, and yet its very popular with child abusers. No doubt there are those who read it and were disgusted. Most people however don’t need an elaborate fantasy novel to tell them that kind of thing is very very bad.
If I’ve misunderstood the message, and others have too (it isn’t generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least ‘controversial’), then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn’t be a teacher, and certainly children shouldn’t be exposed to it - and the way communities work, children at such a teacher’s school would be well aware of any controversial publications they might have made. Personally, I think it is a literary trick (like the ‘poverty porn’ genre) to justify the promotion of dodgy material to a certain class for titilation, so I’d do a lot more than sack such an author.
If I’ve misunderstood the message, and others have too (it isn’t generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least ‘controversial’), then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn’t be a teacher, and certainly children shouldn’t be exposed to it
Um, what? This logic could be applied to critical race theory about as easily as you’ve applied it here to Lolita. Way to prove that you really are a puritan.
sure, if critical race theory were child abuse, and if the author were a Russian aristo who fled to the US when the commies won. I suppose any logic can be applied to anything if we ignore what’s actually being discussed.
It really isn’t puritan to dislike Lolita and I think if you think that connection you’ve made through you’ll see why.
So, writing anything that multiple people misunderstand and find offensive, especially if it can be called ‘controversial,’ is an automatic disqualification from teaching, got it. Makes perfect sense, and I’m not at all deeply disappointed to see multiple hexbears upvote this horrifically bad take.
it isn’t generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least ‘controversial’)
The only people who understand the book in that way are:
people who the book is about
people who haven’t read it but have read redditors talk about the book in the way those people would.
The only thing I can tell about Lolita is that there is a whole lot of people out there who definitely haven’t read but talk about it as if they had.
And if the writer was a teacher, I really wouldn’t care. Teachers write or say so much more fucked up stuff. Many are conservatives for instance. A whole lot.
then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn’t be a teacher,
Sorry but what. You can’t be held responsible for people not understanding what you’ve written due to cultural tropes that have developed from random idiots who didn’t get it in the first place.
I’m sorry, but understanding that Lolita is NOT pro-pedo is the easiest thing in the world. You can’t even say “subtext”. I genuinely can’t think how a semi-functional adult could possibly misunderstand the text in that way. I know it does happen, but it’s really hard to conceive. The whole thing is pretty clear about it. The fact that the protagonist is a horrible monster who shouldn’t be trusted is literally in the opening. In no uncertain terms.
If you think Lolita was condoning its subject matter then you completely misunderstood the entire message of the book. This is why we need media literacy.
Fans of that book, or the literati, always say that, and yet its very popular with child abusers. No doubt there are those who read it and were disgusted. Most people however don’t need an elaborate fantasy novel to tell them that kind of thing is very very bad.
If I’ve misunderstood the message, and others have too (it isn’t generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least ‘controversial’), then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn’t be a teacher, and certainly children shouldn’t be exposed to it - and the way communities work, children at such a teacher’s school would be well aware of any controversial publications they might have made. Personally, I think it is a literary trick (like the ‘poverty porn’ genre) to justify the promotion of dodgy material to a certain class for titilation, so I’d do a lot more than sack such an author.
Um, what? This logic could be applied to critical race theory about as easily as you’ve applied it here to Lolita. Way to prove that you really are a puritan.
sure, if critical race theory were child abuse, and if the author were a Russian aristo who fled to the US when the commies won. I suppose any logic can be applied to anything if we ignore what’s actually being discussed.
It really isn’t puritan to dislike Lolita and I think if you think that connection you’ve made through you’ll see why.
So, writing anything that multiple people misunderstand and find offensive, especially if it can be called ‘controversial,’ is an automatic disqualification from teaching, got it. Makes perfect sense, and I’m not at all deeply disappointed to see multiple hexbears upvote this horrifically bad take.
I am absolutely fucking disgusted with this shit
Removed by mod
So if someone says “child abuse is bad” they should be banned from teaching, because they said something about child abuse, do I have this right?
Removed by mod
Once again, Lolita is not a fantasy about child abuse. Please read the book.
The only people who understand the book in that way are:
people who the book is about
people who haven’t read it but have read redditors talk about the book in the way those people would.
The only thing I can tell about Lolita is that there is a whole lot of people out there who definitely haven’t read but talk about it as if they had.
And if the writer was a teacher, I really wouldn’t care. Teachers write or say so much more fucked up stuff. Many are conservatives for instance. A whole lot.
Sorry but what. You can’t be held responsible for people not understanding what you’ve written due to cultural tropes that have developed from random idiots who didn’t get it in the first place.
I’m sorry, but understanding that Lolita is NOT pro-pedo is the easiest thing in the world. You can’t even say “subtext”. I genuinely can’t think how a semi-functional adult could possibly misunderstand the text in that way. I know it does happen, but it’s really hard to conceive. The whole thing is pretty clear about it. The fact that the protagonist is a horrible monster who shouldn’t be trusted is literally in the opening. In no uncertain terms.
Removed by mod
THEY ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE TO BE ACCOMMODATED SHUT THE FUCK UP