I am writing a paper on opposing viewpoints on the basis of is Pornography Harmful to Women or is it not harmful to women. I would love it if you could give me a little more information on where you are from and who you work for so I can include it in my beginning statement.

Thank You, Andy

I agree with you on 90% of your points, but I would stand up for a kind of postmodern theory that is a powerful analytical tool, especially in feminist literary studies. To make the barest of beginnings I would recommend the work of Naomi Schor, Nancy K Miller, Jane Gallop, and Eve Sedgwick. Or look at Jane Marcus’s writing on women and empire.

One would hope that academics who suffered through the kind of classroom situation we’re discussing (which I fully agree is horrid and stultifying!) had also been exposed to inspiring professors and had read works of “rigorous academic discourse” which they respected and responded to, like those I’ve cited above. Otherwise, why are said academics in the academy?

I think you’re referring to the Sokal hoax when you bring in science, no? That’s often used as a way of attacking postmodern (or “French”) theory, and it certainly is the most easily distillable version of postmodern thought, but it’s taking il n’y a pas de hors texte a little too far. I think the kind of work that attempts to reduce science to just one kind of text is pretty marginal to literary criticism, which is more concerned (though not always, alas) with language and markedly literary texts.

Finally, yes, we are all feminist comrades-in-arms, you, me, Crispin, and Cleveland. The discussion is very cool. I’m just relieved Cleveland hasn’t come after me in the comments for calling my blog “Maitresse.”

I’ve emerged from the PhD department at the University of Iowa not “non-academic,” but certainly disgusted with what passes for “rigorous scholarly discourse” in the current world of literary academia. What’s more, I consider the jargon-spouting tow-the-line mentality I encounter with certain (obviously not all) trendy academics to be in and of itself “anti-academic” – - where everything is a “text” and art and science are devalued as simply other, equal texts. (To me it feels like the liberal version of the Creationist v Evolution “debate.” Both may be “texts,” but there is a difference in value that has to do with more than who is reading it or what it means to them or what the “cultural context” is.)

And yes, this is an environment where people like me were considered “conservative” because, um, I believe in science. (And we’re talking Darwinian, feminist science, to boot. You know, academic science.) In my experience, the academic jargon of English Lit grad school did in fact contribute to what I believe IS a corruption of feminism – - and art and deeply felt plain-spoken reasoning.

And to be fair, don’t you think that Cleveland is right to predict that a lot of us, including “postmodernists will probably argue all this is [just Cleveland's] personal, individual, unsophisticated interpretation of Bookslut, that, if other women writers and readers like being called slut, [Cleveland] should celebrate their choices, because anything any woman consents to . . . is inherently feminist . . .”

I mean, some of us here in the comments section, postmodernists or not, clearly feel that way.

What’s more, in a discussion of literature and the culture of lit blogging, language is obviously an obsession to all of us . . .

And just as it’s fascinating to debate the meaning of slut or nigger, or the meaning of reclaiming those words, it’s fascinating, too, to look at the way that modern trendy academia uses jargon to obfuscate (and in some cases literally make meaningless) these discussions. Which Cleveland touches on in a way that feels really true to me.

Part of the reason Cleveland’s writing resonates is because she speaks plainly, and speaks truth to power – - be it academic leftist power (where anything any woman does can by definition be argued as feminist) or popular real-world female power (Jessa Crispin herself) or the same old fuck-you power of the reining status quo patriarchy.

I do believe that Cleveland and Crispin are ultimately allies – - and allies with me, too! – - and I ultimately consider myself an intellectual in the same way that I see Crispin as an intellectual: since I was a kid, I couldn’t wait to get my hands on every book all time. And I still have all the old Christopher Pike ones, just like Crispin!

And I ultimately do believe that Crispin’s actions and context ARE feminist, in an inclusive, proud, smart, funny female-centric way. But the discussion is still pretty cool, don’t you think?

I do think you unnecessarily weaken your point by vaguely referencing some shadowy threat of academic criticism and postmodern theory. I think the worst crime postmodernists have committed is sharing it with impressionable undergraduates (and even some grad students still suffering from an undergrad inferiority complex) who turn it into nonsense. The sad result is that non-academics who’ve suffered through an English class with their peers spouting nonsense have emerged with a strong anti-academic streak that is entirely ignorant of rigorous scholarly discourse.

Any academic worth his or her salt is not going to have an a priori opinion on the subject of language and its use, and most would agree, with Foucault, that it is an instrument of power. Who has the power is another question.

“Postmodernists will probably argue all this is my personal, individual, unsophisticated interpretation of Bookslut, that, if other women writers and readers like being called slut, I should celebrate their choices, because anything any woman consents to in this patriarchal world is inherently feminist, right?”

Wrong, obviously. But blaming postmodernism for the popular corruption of feminism is only confusing your argument.

But then you went ahead and used the language of “the patriarchy” to slur Jessa Crispin (paragraph that starts: A male poet…). I get you are going to the extreme here, I get that you are trying to present are great and terrible overlords as slathering monsters who look at every woman as so much ripe fruit and expect th fruit to not look back. But really it sounds very much like you are calling her a slut. It sounds an awful lot like the hateful girls I knew in highschool who used words like “slut” to punish the sexually adventurous and to enforce societal norms of virginity. (BTW, we had a word for boys who fooled around, we called them slutpuppies, and considered them worse than girls.) And I don’t think you want to be enforcing those societal norms.

Now, I’m a big fan of the separation between concepts like “author,” “authorial persona,” and “narrator.” It’s reasonable to assume, no matter what you think of the word “slut,” Jessa is a complex person who projects a tiny portion of her life into the internet. (For instance, I doubt you are solely the dour feminist still reeling from an early trauma and lousy sex, as this post my lead one to believe. I bet you are even “fun-loving.”) Talking about how a male might perceive her use of a word or her use of a cartoon that she picked out herself as the only way to discuss her not only reduces her to a single dimension, takes away any power she could derive from a choice and gives it to a male reviewee, but also disregards the actual structure and content of the website.

You also assume a male poet who was reviewed by bookslut 1) is a douche, 2) was reviewed by Crispin instead of someone else, 3) is so much of an egotistical jerk that he assumes the approbation of a single internet reviewer equals a license to fuck all women.

I get you don’t like hearing the word slut. I’ve never been called that myself (flat chested girls with glasses get called bitch). I even get why you don’t like the site’s existence as you must hear the word. I’ve never recommended the site to my mom who is a fourth grade teacher and would probably love the children’s book reviews, it would be awkward and she wouldn’t like the word slut.

I also get that men are “evil” and women never ever do bad things like drown their five children or beat their spouses or encourage honor killings against their “slutty” daughters or commit sexual assault. Going on and on about the “patriarchy” and other women’s stupid (yes you didn’t say that, yes you meant it) use of language ignores the real problems in the world, not ruling men, but ruling class; not words, but violence; not websites about books, but are freedom to choose our words.

Something bad happened to you, and that’s awful, but I can use whatever words I want. Some women have miscarriages but other women are still allowed to get abortions, no matter how sad the first group of women are.

I know I will not, nor anyone will change your mind, but I will say, it’s a great website that reviews lots of books by women and reviews lots of books ignored by the mainstream press. If you don’t like the word slut save it as a tab in your toolbar with another name, like “Jessa Crispin’s website about books” and then always reference it as such. End of story.

Sincerely,
Monty ( again, i come to this argument as a guy, and a longtime fan of Bookslut)

The email from this site’s editor is below—-

“Hello all

First, I want to thank you all for reading and commenting on Stephanie Cleveland’s essay “Why I’ll Never Be a Bookslut” that was featured in Gently Read Literature’s June issue. The discussion inspired by the essay has been for the most part fruitful.
But as the editor of the site, I felt the need to come to the aid of one of my contributors if only to re-contextualize things (there have been a surprising number of rather insipid and down right hateful comments submitted that I have felt had no place in the discussion, although none from any of you and I thank you).
Cleveland’s essay comes out of the radical feminist tradition (i.e Dworkin, et al) and while not representative of the whole of feminist thought (nor was it ever meant to be) it does raise some valid questions/concerns that need to be addressed–specifically the social construction of language. And this was the reason I chose to put the essay in the issue, because it raises a vital critical, aesthetic concern. The discussion that has ensued has been, as I’ve said before, mostly positive. But it’s important to realize that though not at all a mere exercise in opinion the essay is by no mean prescriptive, proscriptive, or normative; it is speculative, meaning it’s an attempt to figure out just what exactly we, all of us, mean to say and what that entails both connotatively and denotatively.
There is no comment that is currently on the site that does not in some way contribute to the discussion nor is there any sentiment expressed that does not have legitimate critical value. But it is vital that we do not fall into the easy confusion of muddled thought (Cleveland is not personally attacking Crispin), rather Cleveland is trying to reason from subjective experience to objective knowledge.
I hope that you all will give the current issue of Gently Read Literature a thorough reading and continue to return to GRL in the future.

Take Care<

With much thanks

Daniel Sumrall, editor

Gently Read Literature”

I’m making essentially the same argument as Monty and others above, that is the content of Bookslut is so interesting and valuable it far outweighs what I consider to be a superficial objection to its name.

I have far more problems with the widely accepted and “polite” label “chicklit.”

Just because you think Jessa Crispin becomes a “slut” to the male authors profiled in her magazine does not make it so. I’m sure she feels completely differently about the word. Why must her language be contoured to your world experience? Are you not taking away her humanity by asking her to first conform to the movement for women as you define it, as opposed to following the artistic inclinations of Jessa Crispin the human being? In your view she is a woman first, a human agent second, a woman who is to be fucked by the words of a man, not a human being who exalts in the milieu of words on bound paper.

A book is not gendered. A reader is not gendered. Reading, and the absolute ecstasy one can feel in the throes of prose, a feeling that might be jocundly characterized as ’slutty’, is a transcendent experience apart. There is no man, no woman, no author, no consumer, there is no fucking, subjugating, or marginalizing, there is only mind. Pure mind. That is the truest joy of reading, really the sole joy of consciousness.

What’s in a name? The magazine by any other would still rock my socks. And it features the work of so many wonderful women writers – both as contributors and subjects.

I like the logo. I think it is pretty. It’s not porn or even Maxim. It’s an illustration and a sketchy one at that. Is the art I contain in my home also a problem? Perhaps we should shut the museums and galleries too?

I know visual art can be sexist and offensive, but at what point can it also just be art?

At what point are we allowed to enjoy the beauty of the naked human form without loosing our feminist cred?