I would also love to hear chesterton’s “definition” of pornography. The usual definition has to do with an intent to create sexual arousal. I doubt that any reasonable person could seriously argue that Fun Home fits into that definition. If it’s showing nudity – or even two people in a position implying that they’re engaged in sexual activity – just how many works of art in museums around the world would constitute pornography? Perhaps, like John Ashcroft, he’d like to go around putting fig leaves in strategic positions on every statue. Or blur out body parts in famous paintings. And let’s not even mention some of the Greek vases I’ve seen, or Roman decorative arts.
“What’s the big worry?”
If you believe that lustful thoughts are morally wrong, it seems reasonable to avoid images that are overwhelmingly erotic. But your morals are pretty shaky if you’re much affected by the kind of stimulus in Fun Home. The Venus de Milo is way sexier.
Re pedophilia in the book, I understand that term to apply to attraction to pre-pubescent children. The victim of attentions in Fun Home is a physically mature high schooler who looks like an adult. A teacher having a relationship with such a student is wrong, abusive, and possibly illegal, but it’s not pedophilia.
The person who wrote these phrases has no business objecting to anyone else’s ignorance about the Bible or any other topic. There is no generally accepted legal or social definition of “pornography” that applies to the pictures in question, taken alone or (as they should be) in context.
“Pornography” generally refers to material in any medium the principal purpose of which (and its reasonable effect, since purpose alone is meaningless in this context) is to arouse sexual excitement in its intended audience. I don’t know of anyone – in or out of academia – who does not recognize that pornography exists. Billions of pixels and oceans of ink get devoted annually to debating the social, psychological, and moral merits and demerits of using art to arouse sexual excitement, but no one denies that a great deal of such art is produced.
“Pornography” alone tends not to be an important legal term, since lots of material that could qualify as pornography is clearly protected by the First Amendment, and in theory material that would not be considered pornography may nonetheless be outside First Amendment protection. (Such is the case with “child pornography,” which applies to many depictions of children that would not be considered pornographic in a classic sense.) The legal question in regulation of pornography (and non-pornography) is “obscenity.” The obscenity standard in Miller v. California, written by Chief Justice Burger – no liberal – is " (1) the work, taken as a whole by an average person applying contemporary community standards, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the work depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) the work, when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." That has stood for over 40 years.
A snowball has better chance of surviving long-term in hell than Fun Home has of being adjudicated “obscene” under the Miller test. But it’s not pornographic, either. If any part of it is intended to arouse sexual excitement in any subset of its intended audience . . . it is strikingly inept and completely unsuccessful. Seriously, whose sexual excitement is going to be aroused by these pictures? A 14-year-old boy’s, maybe, but he could get the same effect from looking at a picture of a goldfish or a doorknob, and he wouldn’t have to slog through over 100 pages of literary angst and family dysfunction before getting off. Yes, two people are shown having sex with no clothes on, but thanks to carefully chosen “camera” angles and strategically placed modesty panels, the reader sees no relevant body parts and practically nothing remotely sexy. And the text is . . . an awful lot about Homer (and not the sexy parts of Homer, either).
When I was in 8th grade – at an all-boys school snooty enough to call it “Second Form” – those of us with good enough grades were excused from study halls, and were free to hang out anywhere in the school building we wouldn’t be causing a nuisance. On a regular basis, we all brought in the most prurient material we could get our hands on to share with our friends. Fanny Hill, Lady Chatterley, Penthouse Forum, Portnoy’s Complaint, sex poetry of various Polynesian societies, Clockwork Orange, Last Exit To Brooklyn – oh, did we enjoy ourselves. Fun Home would not have come anywhere near making the cut.
@Chesterton "I am more offended by the ignorance demonstrated in this thread about the Bible and “conservative Christians.”
I am with @hanna. Posters here are much more likely to have read the Bible than conservative Christians. A very low percentage of them have actually read the whole thing. Even fewer have actually taken college level courses in it.
Conservatives want to tell you what it says, but they haven’t read it. They just cherry pick the verses that say what they mean.
@ Chesterton "Does this Duke student have the right to choose what books he reads, whether required or recommended?
I think so, as that is the mark of a truly free person - to decide what to open one’s mind to, and what to insert into that said mind."
I actually agree with that completely. What is perplexing is that this is not an unusual assignment. Students know or should know that if they attend Duke or any other top university, they will receive assignments like this. If they can’t deal with those assignments, then why attend Duke? These students are going to get more assignments like this, if they continue to refuse to read them, I suspect that they will not be at Duke very long.
I found the comments about ‘Great Books’ interesting. I attend Columbia, and as such, was required to read the first 12 books of the Illiad for my summer reading. It was a very hard book to read, personally, because it was so graphically violent and the female characters are miserably abused. I suppose, if you were Christian or a practitioner of another Semetic religion, you could also make a point about paganism.
It was obviously very much worth reading, and certain passages (Achilles Shield) are incredible. This last year, I also read many parts of the bible (both Jewish and Christian) as a Hindu, and it was also very enriching.
Why are those texts any more suitable than Fun Home? Fun Home is unique literarily and discusses issues pertinent to current Western civilization. You could argue that the choice to consciously prioritize the ‘Western canon’, which is written primarily by ‘old white men’ (the phrasing is not mine) is political and inappropriate in our globalized world (and a lot of people do). And further, if we do choose to study western literature, would posters on here object equally to Sappho? Is that also pushing an agenda, or is it only an agenda because certain demographics see it as one? Every choice can be made poliical.
I am not an English major, but people will find potentially ‘problematic’ elements in nearly all texts. Under the strict moral standards proposed by some, you could argue that Crime and Punishment tacitly supports pedophilia. With a good professor, discussion of these ‘problematic’ or controversial elements can be really, really interesting. I feel that art is meant to inspire discussion and internal reflection and Fun Home certainly accomplishes that.
I also think it’s worth thinking about this idea of the objector feeling “persecuted” - an idea picked up by a couple of posters here. The feeling that if you express bigoted views, that everyone jumps on you. (Though no one describes it that way when complaining about it 
)
So I was thinking about it - in fact, it’s probably true that on CC and in the intellectual elite communities that are heavily valued and over-represented on CC by its nature - that indeed a queer-positive ethos dominates.
But we know that in many other places (e.g. areas of Kentucky recently in the news, areas of Texas recently in the news, surely many more) - that the vocal majority is quite anti-gay.
I would gently suggest that anyone who feels “persecuted” when they express something anti-gay, should wonder about why they are so motivated to be a part of an intellectual community…and should rethink what seems to be a very unpopular view among people whom they really want to be identified with.
In short: if you really want to be in the Duke community because it’s intellectually stimulating, let yourself be intellectually stimulated and consider why open-minded views are the default there.
The assignment was given to stimulate conversation. It was obviously a great choice as it not only stimulated conversation among Duke students but also among the entire nation.
The right teachers will love the challenge of discussing the refusal to read a book and all that this encompasses.
Fun Home
It would be fascinating to me to read an analysis of the book by those on the thread, capable of clearly explaining in a few paragraphs what will take me forever to figure out myself. I am especially interested in how she structures her book using the Odyssey, Ulysses, and Remembrance of Things Past and perhaps other books I’m overlooking entirely. And I would be very grateful if anyone takes the time to do so.
Is there a fictional counterpoint (and perhaps more than one) for every character?
Several reviews I’ve read have called her literary allusions “pretentious” and “name dropping.” It didn’t strike me that way at all, but I wondered what others thought. Could she even tell the same story in this format without the allusions?
It has been decades since I’ve read most of the authors, except for Proust and James. When she mentions “invert” I immediately make a mental comparison of her father and Baron Charlus, but I know most of the allusions are going right over my head. I think Collette is probably really important. Claudine is at school, and so is the author. Both experience sexual awakenings. And obviously the fact her father gives her the book is major.
I love the stack of books on the nightstand: a short bibliography for anyone reading along who’s interested in such things.
For me, there are similar themes of daughters having to deal with the reality of less-than-perfect (and perhaps evil) fathers here and in Go Set a Watchman. Is it possible to be a good (enough) father without being a good man? It seems to me both women struggle with that question, but I often read too much into my readings.
I’ve never read any Joyce except The Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and of Proust only *Swann’s Way/i So am I going to miss important stuff, or all the allusions things you pretty much know anyway, even though you haven’t actually read the book?
^^That is sort of my question, too. I think it is a book possible to read and enjoy and benefit from, on many different levels. I rarely really understand anything I read, but am fortunate to have lots of extremely well-educated family members and friends willing to do a lot of patient explaining. That’s what I’m hoping for here.
One more thought: A young lesbian just starting Duke, raised in an anti-gay environment, could find a whole library of literary role models in Fun Home. I think that is wonderful.
Doesn’t homosexuality and its discovery seem trendy in our media these days? Isn’t this a topic that most everyone has been exposed to? Why not be more innovative in considering summer reading that would broaden thinking? Choosing this book seems an example of groupthink, not the opposite.
“Isn’t this a topic that most everyone has been exposed to?”
Everyone’s been exposed to the topic of revenge, too, but that doesn’t stop schools from assigning Hamlet. I think “topic that no one’s been exposed to” is an odd criterion for choosing a work of literature; different authors can have different things to say about the same theme.
I think that the choice of this book is not so much about groupthink on LGBT but using a graphic novel as literature. The “gay-ness” was nothing new to me or any of my book club peeps but the graphic novel part was. Just about everyone said “really? We’re reading a comic? Really?”
I don’t know, many there are dozens of excellent literary graphic novels the majority of CC’rs/Americans have been exposed to —but I bet not. This was a good book and an excellent example of a literary form I wasn’t familiar with.
"Posters here are much more likely to have read the Bible than conservative Christians. A very low percentage of them have actually read the whole thing. Even fewer have actually taken college level courses in it.
Conservatives want to tell you what it says, but they haven’t read it. They just cherry pick the verses that say what they mean."
This qualifies as the most ignorant, the most pompous, and the most theophobic comment of any made so far in this thread. You have no idea what you are talking about. Let me give you an exercise to help you branch out a bit.
First, somewhat geographically biased from me, but you can start with an evangelical seminary in my own backyard if you like. Here is the faculty page for the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY:
http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/.
Browse around and then do a little research on each one on your own regarding the volume of works the SBTS faculty have published.
Once you have a sense of this, here is another link for you that provides a list of evangelical seminaries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_evangelical_seminaries_and_theological_colleges#United_States
Observe the length of this list. Multiply it by what you gained in step one as far as your new sense of how much conservative Christian scholarship has been produced by the faculty at the SBTS alone. Take the product and multiply that by the number of students who have matriculated from these schools.
When you are done you can reconsider what you said in post #484.
@Hanna - from the comments preceding on the thread, I made the inference that the topic was chosen to broaden students. Specifically, comments were made implying that freshmen were “sheltered” and this was a bad thing. The idea that one of the objectives of the summer reading was to broaden horizons and reduce “sheltering” was not mine!
@fretfulmother “a queer-positive ethos dominates.”
I struggle with this phrase. I do not see myself as “queer-positive.” I just see myself as, if this is an acceptable phrase, “queer neutral.” I just want LGBTQ people to be treated like everyone else, to be able to get married like everyone else and have the same opportunities as everyone else. I am not advocating for everyone to be LGBTQ, of for LGBTQ people to get special privileges.
To me this is problematic because “Queer positive” sounds the opposite of homophobic, but it is not. Equality is not at the opposite end of the spectrum from discrimination. Discrimination in the opposite end from discrimination in the opposite direction. At the other extreme is the idea that only LBGTQ people should be able to get married, and straight rights should be limited.
What bothers me that certain conservatives try to characterize people in the middle of the spectrum and supporting equality as being at the opposite end. That is deceptive.
The same thing happens with the word feminist. I find it very troubling that “feminism” has the objective of ensuring that women and men are treated equally, and fairly. Some conservatives try to characterize this as an extreme view, as if feminism means taking all of a man’s rights away. In reality, feminists are working to move the balance to the middle of the spectrum.
"from the comments preceding on the thread, I made the inference that the topic was chosen to broaden students. "
Nobody here speaks for Duke. We can’t know what was on their minds. But if their goal in choosing the book was to broaden the literary experience of sheltered students, the controversy proved that this was pretty new material for some of the students.
I’m curious what you think would be a novel topic for freshmen, in contrast to the overworked theme of hiding or not hiding one’s homosexuality.
@LOUKYDAD: I generally agree with your reaction in #494, but given what you say there, could you maybe, just maybe, allow that not all Christians agree with your reading of the Bible, and that their interpretations don’t require one to have the same view of things as you’ve been presenting as What The Bible Says on this thread?
dfbdfb - if it really matters to you what I think, read 2 Peter 1:20 and tell me how you think I should respond to you.
@LOUKYDAD #499: With some evidence beyond an attempted proof by repeated assertion that your own interpretation is the correct one.
The problem, of course, is that it can’t be done.