tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post1725735048782011851..comments2024-03-18T00:59:28.260+00:00Comments on Teach Me Tonight: The Spectacle of Masculine Honor: Louise Allen's Virgin Slave, Barbarian KingE. M. Selingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-43834404359299501782008-06-24T09:03:00.000+01:002008-06-24T09:03:00.000+01:00B, you seem to have misunderstood the purpose and ...B, you seem to have misunderstood the purpose and meaning of this blog post. It was Julie Bindel <A HREF="http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,2222083,00.html" REL="nofollow">who used the term</A> "new man" but she didn't define it. Sarah Frantz outlined what she thought was being presented as an ideal of masculinity in one particular novel by Louise Allen, but that ideal does not seem to be identical to that of the "new men" mentioned by Bindel. <BR/><BR/>This post was a work of literary criticism, looking at one particular text and at no point did Sarah offer her own opinion on either set of ideals.<BR/><BR/>As we are literary critics, not medically trained doctors or psychologists, we are not qualified to offer any opinion on whether or not you are "ill" but I do think you have misread this post if you think it implies "that men are somehow sub-human without female influence."Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-69999402594594606992008-06-24T05:51:00.000+01:002008-06-24T05:51:00.000+01:00Why should I, or any other man, wish to become one...Why should I, or any other man, wish to become one of these "new men"? <BR/><BR/>I have nothing to be ashamed of. I have never harmed, nor given any woman cause to fear me. You infer that men are somehow sub-human without female influence. That sounds like a ver insidious form of "dominance" to me.<BR/><BR/>I may be ill. <BR/><BR/>For HONOUR! Your "sensitivity" would rob me of my vitality.<BR/><BR/>-B.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-51942326858509320122008-01-06T02:13:00.000+00:002008-01-06T02:13:00.000+00:00Eric, I retract my surrender. I just looked it up...Eric, I retract my surrender. I just looked it up, and De Pauw was St. Vincent's <B>CAT!!!</B><BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/yt9eu9talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-80665652304555131962008-01-06T01:51:00.000+00:002008-01-06T01:51:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-8299386869979759002008-01-06T01:26:00.000+00:002008-01-06T01:26:00.000+00:00You win, Eric.You win, Eric.talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-22506470584360902242008-01-05T18:28:00.000+00:002008-01-05T18:28:00.000+00:00Wasn't "De Pauw" St. Vincent's dog?Wasn't "De Pauw" St. Vincent's dog?E. M. Selingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-3192849128708185682008-01-03T02:49:00.000+00:002008-01-03T02:49:00.000+00:00DePaul? Isn't that an inferior imitation of my ow...DePaul? Isn't that an inferior imitation of my own <I>alma mater,</I> De Pauw?talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-74540574325493403092008-01-03T01:34:00.000+00:002008-01-03T01:34:00.000+00:00I'll weigh in at length on Friday, I reckon. DePa...I'll weigh in at length on Friday, I reckon. DePaul classes start tomorrow, and tonight my long, manly hair is still snarled in syllabi and class preparation. <BR/><BR/>Superb work from both of you, Laura and Sarah! I'm eager to join the fun--E. M. Selingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-9746856590091196872008-01-03T00:51:00.000+00:002008-01-03T00:51:00.000+00:00May I recommend, on this point, L. Sprague de Camp...May I recommend, on this point, L. Sprague de Camp's time-travel novel <B>Lest Darkness Fall?</B> It opens in Rome, on the verge of World War II; an American archaeologist visiting the Pantheon somehow falls back in time to the sixth century A.D., where he takes actions that result in preventing the Dark Ages. It is primarily action/adventure with a great deal of humor, but it shows an educated 20th century man interacting with people of that age and doing quite well at it. And it's a fun read. The only thing I don't like about it is its depiction of Cassiodorus as a villain.<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lest_Darkness_Falltalpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-46689043901009696282008-01-03T00:12:00.000+00:002008-01-03T00:12:00.000+00:00I think Laura makes some important comments above....I think Laura makes some important comments above. One of the central tasks of trying to understand the past is to try to work out the ways in which humans in past cultures were <I>like</I> ourselves and the ways in which they were <I>unlike</I> us. Of course, we can never get it right, but it is absolutely fundamental to realise that there were elements in chronologically fairly remote periods that may have been more like 'today' than elements in more recent ones.<BR/>In general, I should say that most of us would find it a lot easier to fit into early Roman society (late-Antique is more problematic) than we would into, say, the 12th-13th century in Europe. The changing parameters are very complex, and mere chronological distance is but one of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-64074997561684576562008-01-03T00:01:00.000+00:002008-01-03T00:01:00.000+00:00Ah, yes, Pacatrue. Sorry--it took me months in gr...Ah, yes, Pacatrue. Sorry--it took me months in grad school to figure out what they were saying when they talked about subjectivity. Now it just assume it! I guess most simply it's the state of valuing oneself as a subject, not in the imperialist sense of being a subject of another or being subject to another's rule, but as the subject of a sentence--the doer, the actor, the one who is primary. One's subjectivity is one's understanding of oneself as a person with the ability to act.<BR/><BR/>And Laura, not necessarily linearly progressive, but I think that Roman/Visigoth culture is still completely alien to us, especially in relation to marriage and love. That doesn't mean we can't come to understand it, but I think Allen gives us a much more modern version of the sensibility of the culture, even if her depiction of the actions in the life of a Visigoth is accurate. Kinsale, for example, did a fabulous job of making the unfamiliar explainable in <I>For My Lady's Heart</I>, but it's obviously a completely different way of being in love. Allen doesn't show that.Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-62665300036859648202008-01-02T23:42:00.000+00:002008-01-02T23:42:00.000+00:00Sorry, I started off by being picky, rather than s...Sorry, I started off by being picky, rather than saying that I completely agree with this:<BR/><BR/><I>Bindel could hardly have made a more ironic choice than Allen's novel when condemning popular romances as "misogynistic hate speech" that perpetuates violence against women.</I><BR/><BR/>As you pointed out, it could hardly be made clearer in the novel that Wulfric is anti-rape.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-6032343447922596692008-01-02T23:38:00.000+00:002008-01-02T23:38:00.000+00:00Very interesting review, Sarah. I do have one ques...Very interesting review, Sarah. I do have one question. Can you explain the term "subjectivity" as you are using it here. It seems to have a different meaning in the field of literary analysis than I am used to.pacatruehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04125048243775811714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-71622530556195184562008-01-02T23:19:00.000+00:002008-01-02T23:19:00.000+00:00The honor projected in this novel was a particular...<I>The honor projected in this novel was a particularly masculine honor</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not so sure, possibly because I read the book as being about the differences and similarities between the Romans and the Visigoths. To me the Visigothic concept of honour, as depicted in this novel, recalled the concept of honour as embodied in some earlier Roman heroes of myth/legend. The Romans in Allen's novel, however, are depicted as having become "over-civilized." In other words, I have a feeling that Allen is portraying the Visigoths as having the good qualities of earlier mythical/legendary Romans, such as Aeneas (known for his adherence to duty to family). One might also think of <A HREF="http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/yonge/deeds/regulus.html" REL="nofollow">Regulus</A>, who returned to captivity and certain death, rather than break his word.<BR/><BR/><I>her depiction of Wulfric and of the Romans represent a completely modern representation of ideal masculinity. [...] Ideal masculinity, then, is embodied in a man who is a natural leader, but unambitious, a fighter and warrior who just wants a home where he can farm</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, I'm not sure that this is "completely modern." The description in this quotation would also fit <A HREF="http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/mmarkowski/H112/Cincinnatus.htm" REL="nofollow">Cincinnatus</A>, another early Roman hero.<BR/><BR/><I>accurate depictions of life before the eighteenth century would, in my opinion, be almost incomprehensible to modern readers because what it means to be human has changed so much</I><BR/><BR/>Again, I'm not so sure. I can see that an accurate depiction might not seem romantic to some modern readers but I think you're underestimating modern readers if you think we can't understand what life was like before the eighteenth century. Certainly as a medievalist by training, I have to hope that I do understand, at least a little, the attitudes held by the elite of 15th-century Castilian society.<BR/><BR/><I>Take that back 1600 years to 410 AD, and my concerns are multiplied ten-fold. </I><BR/><BR/>This seems to imply there's a linear progression, whereby the further back from the Enlightenment one looks, the more different life and attitudes become. There are a couple of problems with this:<BR/><BR/>1) it feels as though there's some assumption being made about the homogeneity of "modern readers." Yet it may be that some modern cultures are actually as different, or more different, from yours than the culture of the late Roman Empire. I suspect that you were simplifying, so that your post didn't get as horrendously long as mine did ;-)<BR/><BR/>2) without wanting to depict the early Middle Ages as a "dark age" of barbarism and total lack of civilisation (because it wasn't), I do think there was a certain amount of discontinuity and so an approach which seems to imply that there's a direct relationship between chronological distance and cultural difference is a little problematic.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.com