[root_axis]

> 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.

[Mediterraneo10]

> I am disagreeing with your subtle suggestion that Wolfe is sexist because he wrote a sexist character.

I didn’t suggest that at all. Again, I myself am a fan of the book. I only wished to point out that The Book of the New Sun has been so problematic for many female readers, and today with more awareness of the female perspective it may increasingly strike audiences in general as problematic. So, when we want to consider what is Wolfe’s best work, it might be better to point to his other 1970s works, as those may have aged better.

> a discussion of meaning in literature does not qualify as "mansplaining" just because I am a man who disagrees with a woman.

For a man to tell a woman that her discomfort with a book is based on her supposed misunderstanding of it, is definitely going to be seen by many women as offensive and mansplaining. If it is indeed the case that that female reader misunderstands the book, it would be better for a male fan of the book to just hold his tongue and not try to deny that female reader’s experience.

> Additionally, there are plenty of women who will make the same argument

If you actually look at discussions about The Book of the New Sun and sexism on book fora, you tend to find that women who like the book are not eager to jump in and defend Wolfe when another woman feels that Wolfe is misogynist. Those female fans of Wolfe tend to be more accepting of another woman’s viewpoint. It is almost always male readers who post to tell the female reader that she is wrong.

> And also overwhelmingly rejected as an absurd way to view literature based on countless examples.

No, that Lolita represents a dark element in Nabokov’s own psyche is frequently argued in scholarship. Not all critics agree with that position, of course, but it is one of the mainstream views.

[th0br0]

> it would be better for a male fan of the book to just hold his tongue and not try to deny that female reader’s experience

This argument is at odds with the core idea of feminism of equality between genders. You are insinuating that a female reader would not be equipped to judge herself the "male fan's" comment.

[root_axis]

"it is that the author seems oddly bent on making his protagonist use women for sex time after time, and that says something about the author."

You say you didn't suggest it at all, but those words read to me like a subtle accusation of sexism by the author. Use of the term "oddly bent" as if to suggest there is no literary meaning behind the character's behavior and that it is perhaps better explained as a manifestation of the author's own sexist viewpoints projected onto his characters. Additionally the follow up of "that says something about the author" seems to suggest that "the thing being said" is a reflection of the author's personal views on women.

> today with more awareness of the female perspective it may increasingly strike audiences in general as problematic. So, when we want to consider what is Wolfe’s best work, it might be better to point to his other 1970s works, as those may have aged better.

Like I said, I am willing to discuss specifics about the story and I'm open to the idea that there might be a flaw in my reasoning, but I am not willing to concede the argument that the book is "problematic" or of diminished literary merit based solely on the idea that it makes some people feel uncomfortable.

> For a man to tell a woman that her discomfort with a book is based on her supposed misunderstanding of it

I would not attempt to argue the rationale that underpins an individual's discomfort; nobody needs to justify their own discomfort, but they do need to justify why their own discomfort translates into substantive criticism of artistic merit (in the context of a literary discussion).

> If it indeed the case that that female reader misunderstands the book, it would be better for a male fan of the book to just hold his tongue and not try to deny that female reader’s experience.

I want to emphasize again that I don't think "denying an experience" is necessary for a discussion, but frankly I think the outcome you describe would be worse. I know some people would disagree, but it seems intellectually insulting to presume that it is better to hold one's tongue rather than engage with a woman who has expressed criticism of literary work (of course, within the appropriate context; forcing a woman into a discussion she doesn't want to have is certainly wrong). This, in my view, would be a kind of "reverse mansplaining" and smacks of sexist undertones that suggest a woman is beneath explanation and is better served by having men defer to her emotions. I know you aren't suggesting that, my intention is only to point out how that outcome could be perceived.

> you tend to find that women who like the book are not eager to jump in and defend Wolfe when another woman feels that Wolfe is misogynis

I have seen both perspectives expressed from both sexes and while I have read plenty of thoughtful Wolfe criticism, in my experience, the most aggressive brand of criticism always comes from men. It's true that I don't often find women having it out in a debate about Wolfe's misogyny, but I think this is more a consequence of the relative dearth of women in online sci-fi and fantasy (a problem that is thankfully changing with modern ideas around inclusiveness in sci-fi and fantasy) discussions rather than a statement about Wolfe's misogyny.

> lolita represents a dark element in Nabokov’s own psyche is frequently argued in scholarship

True, but a discussion of a "dark element" within Nabokov's psyche is different from suggesting that the work is flawed because the author was driven by a desire to write pedophile smut.