fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2461 ]

[ SECRET POST #2461 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2461 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 070 secrets from Secret Submission Post #352.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Please wait for the comments to collapse before posting walls of text. Or linking to a post with them is fine but this is gigantic scroll.

Here is your post for later.

<blockquote>'I'm not interested in teaching books by women. I've never found—Virginia Woolf is the only writer that interests me as a woman writer, so I do teach one short story from Virginia Woolf. But once again, when I was given this job I said I would teach only the people that I truly, truly love. And, unfortunately, none of those happen to be Chinese, or women. Um. Except for Virginia Woolf.' 'I'm a natural teacher, I have a natural aptitude [inaudible]. I was also trained in television for many years. So I knew how to talk to a camera, therefore I know how to talk to a room full of students. It's the same thing.' 'There's an even dirtier one that I teach, by Phillip Roth, called The Dying Animal. I save it 'til the very end—I save that 'til the very end of the year because by that point they've got fairly strong stomachs, and they're far more sophisticated than they are in the beginning. So they can understand what the difference between pornography and great literature is. Um, Philip Roth's a great piece of literature. There are men eating menstrual pads, and licking menstrual blood from [inaudible] and by the time my students get to that they're ready. Roth has the best understanding of middle-aged sexuality I've ever come across.'</blockquote> These are direct quotes from the transcript (http://www.randomhouse.ca/hazlitt/blog/gilmour-transcript) of the interview that started this wank. I've bolded a few sentences but otherwise the excerpts are copied and pasted from the transcript without changes. It was released after David Gilmour claimed his interview was taken "out of context" in the original article (http://www.randomhouse.ca/hazlitt/blog/david-gilmour-building-strong-stomachs). Quite a few people in the comments section asked if the article was an Onion spoof. Unfortunately, this is his real view on women writers. As one of his former students so aptly put (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1291693), '[David Gilmour is v]ery full of himself. Painfully obvious that he favours the guys in the class. When asked why there were no female authors on the syllabus said "I don't believe in 'good for you' literature". Some students love him, but I honestly think while he might be intelligent he hasn't matured past adolescence.' On the upside, his comments about Virginia Woolf spawned this brilliant snark biography, The Life of Virginia Woolf, Beloved Chinese Novelist (http://the-toast.net/2013/09/25/david-gilmour-on-virginia-woolf/). To address the wank, Gilmour released a Q & A rebuttal (“http://arts.nationalpost.com/2013/09/25/david-gilmour-there-isnt-a-racist-or-a-sexist-bone-in-my-body/”) with the National Post. He said, (emphasis mine) <blockquote>'[the author of the Random House article] is a young woman who kind of wanted to make a little name for herself, or something, because when I said "real heterosexual guys" I’m talking about Scott Fitzgerald [and] Scott Fitzgerald was not what you'd call a real guy's guy, a real heterosexual guy. Part of Scott Fitzgerald's charm is in his feminine sensibility. But then this noise happened. But I am sorry because some of the letters I've got from people they are genuinely offended, and that's not funny. That is a drag.' 'I’ve emailed them all back, and I said I apologize. It was a careless choice of words. I'm not a politician, I’m a writer.' 'I was speaking to a Frenchman, so I was more concerned with my French than I was with what I was saying to this young woman.' 'I think anybody who teaches Truman Capote cannot be attacked for being an anti-anything. The gist of some of these remarks is that I only teach these big macho guys. What I am is I'm a middle-aged writer and I'm very interested in the middle-aged writers experience. And a lot of these people on my list, from [Anton] Chekhov to Fitzgerald to Henry Miller to Philip Roth, these are all people who write not just about being middle-aged, but about middle-aged writers, and that's a subject I feel deeply and can speak passionately about.' 'I talked to Patrick Crean. He was concerned that this was going to affect the general climate around the book, that some women might not like the book if they think that that’s my policy. And that's one of the reasons that I'm apologizing. Normally I actually wouldn't.'</blockquote> To those who say, "what's wrong with teaching only what he's good at?" Well, he actually teaches a mandatory course for first years in the Vic ONE – Northrop Frye stream (http://www.vic.utoronto.ca/students/academics/vicone/Streams_of_Study/Northrop_Frye_Stream.htm) titled "Cultural Forms and their Meanings: Cinema, Literature & the Modern Mind" in addition to "Love, Sex and Death in Short Fiction" (http://www.vic.utoronto.ca/students/academics/othercourses.htm). His classes are general literature courses, not "great European male writers," and he casually dismisses non-European and female writers in class. Besides, great teachers are willing to go beyond their comfort zones and make even their most despised units interesting and engaging for their students. This, however, appears to be someone who is only comfortable playing in the same sandbox year after year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlWaTAZUxUQ

Case - Gigantor: 1-0

Oh thanks for deleting my comment case. I thought it was fine because it was going to collapse but I guess it didn't. I'll post it again now. Thank you for keeping the text version.

'I'm not interested in teaching books by women. I've never found—Virginia Woolf is the only writer that interests me as a woman writer, so I do teach one short story from Virginia Woolf. But once again, when I was given this job I said I would teach only the people that I truly, truly love. And, unfortunately, none of those happen to be Chinese, or women. Um. Except for Virginia Woolf.'

'I'm a natural teacher, I have a natural aptitude [inaudible]. I was also trained in television for many years. So I knew how to talk to a camera, therefore I know how to talk to a room full of students. It's the same thing.'

'There's an even dirtier one that I teach, by Phillip Roth, called The Dying Animal. I save it 'til the very end—I save that 'til the very end of the year because by that point they've got fairly strong stomachs, and they're far more sophisticated than they are in the beginning. So they can understand what the difference between pornography and great literature is. Um, Philip Roth's a great piece of literature. There are men eating menstrual pads, and licking menstrual blood from [inaudible] and by the time my students get to that they're ready. Roth has the best understanding of middle-aged sexuality I've ever come across.'

These are direct quotes from the transcript (http://www.randomhouse.ca/hazlitt/blog/gilmour-transcript) of the interview that started this wank. I've bolded a few sentences but otherwise the excerpts are copied and pasted from the transcript without changes. It was released after David Gilmour claimed his interview was taken "out of context" in the original article (http://www.randomhouse.ca/hazlitt/blog/david-gilmour-building-strong-stomachs).

Quite a few people in the comments section asked if the article was an Onion spoof. Unfortunately, this is his real view on women writers. As one of his former students so aptly put (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1291693), '[David Gilmour is v]ery full of himself. Painfully obvious that he favours the guys in the class. When asked why there were no female authors on the syllabus said "I don't believe in 'good for you' literature". Some students love him, but I honestly think while he might be intelligent he hasn't matured past adolescence.'

On the upside, his comments about Virginia Woolf spawned this brilliant snark biography, The Life of Virginia Woolf, Beloved Chinese Novelist (http://the-toast.net/2013/09/25/david-gilmour-on-virginia-woolf/).

To address the wank, Gilmour released a Q & A rebuttal (“http://arts.nationalpost.com/2013/09/25/david-gilmour-there-isnt-a-racist-or-a-sexist-bone-in-my-body/”) with the National Post. He said, (emphasis mine)

'[the author of the Random House article] is a young woman who kind of wanted to make a little name for herself, or something, because when I said "real heterosexual guys" I’m talking about Scott Fitzgerald [and] Scott Fitzgerald was not what you'd call a real guy's guy, a real heterosexual guy. Part of Scott Fitzgerald's charm is in his feminine sensibility. But then this noise happened. But I am sorry because some of the letters I've got from people they are genuinely offended, and that's not funny. That is a drag.'

'I’ve emailed them all back, and I said I apologize. It was a careless choice of words. I'm not a politician, I’m a writer.'

'I was speaking to a Frenchman, so I was more concerned with my French than I was with what I was saying to this young woman.'

'I think anybody who teaches Truman Capote cannot be attacked for being an anti-anything. The gist of some of these remarks is that I only teach these big macho guys. What I am is I'm a middle-aged writer and I'm very interested in the middle-aged writers experience. And a lot of these people on my list, from [Anton] Chekhov to Fitzgerald to Henry Miller to Philip Roth, these are all people who write not just about being middle-aged, but about middle-aged writers, and that's a subject I feel deeply and can speak passionately about.'

'I talked to Patrick Crean. He was concerned that this was going to affect the general climate around the book, that some women might not like the book if they think that that’s my policy. And that's one of the reasons that I'm apologizing. Normally I actually wouldn't.'

To those who say, "what's wrong with teaching only what he's good at?" Well, he actually teaches a mandatory course for first years in the Vic ONE – Northrop Frye stream (http://www.vic.utoronto.ca/students/academics/vicone/Streams_of_Study/Northrop_Frye_Stream.htm) titled "Cultural Forms and their Meanings: Cinema, Literature & the Modern Mind" in addition to "Love, Sex and Death in Short Fiction" (http://www.vic.utoronto.ca/students/academics/othercourses.htm). His classes are general literature courses, not "great European male writers," and he casually dismisses non-European and female writers in class.

Besides, great teachers are willing to go beyond their comfort zones and make even their most despised units interesting and engaging for their students. This, however, appears to be someone who is only comfortable playing in the same sandbox year after year.

Roth has the best understanding of middle-aged sexuality I've ever come across

Possibly true, but The Dying Animal isn't very good Roth. American Pastoral or The Human Stain would be better choices, especially as it might be the only Roth the students ever read since he's not exactly in fashion at the moment.

+1 The Human Stain

Wow. That's ... special, it is.

I am so glad I do have to work with a jerk like this. Uggggh.

It was a careless choice of words. I'm not a politician, I’m a writer.

This is so funny to me. Who'd expect a writer to be careful with words?

IKR. That was my reaction, too.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2461 ]

Re: Delicious author/prof wank!

Re: Delicious author/prof wank!

Re: Delicious author/prof wank!

Quotes from the man himself (resurrected)

Re: Quotes from the man himself (resurrected)

Re: Quotes from the man himself (resurrected)

Re: Quotes from the man himself (resurrected)

Re: Quotes from the man himself (resurrected)

Re: Quotes from the man himself (resurrected)