Talk:Fear of Flying (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

_ _ The article says

its then-controversial attitudes towards feminism and female sexuality.

I note here that IMO it's appropriate to write stubs based on very light original research, i.e., documenting what you've heard or what you (think you) learned by reading (or reading within), e.g., the novel in question.
_ _ That said, the phrase above asserts that:

1. Jong incontestably went beyond merely portraying a form of female sexuality (i.e., the erotic lives of women, and for any particular woman, whatever she experiences as inseparable from her erotic life) to clearly express (not just arguably hint at) a specific view on some species of belief that
   • women as women have historically been and continue to be subordinated to men, in ways beyond the erotic, and
   • women consciously acting as women and in concert with other women can change or ameliorate that, and
2. the book's "attitudes" (figurative attitudes: books can suggest that they are expressive of the attitudes of their authors and/or characters, but they are incapable of having attitudes), in both areas,
   • were then controversial (which i believe is hard to contest at least in the case of "female sexuality") but
   • are now so nearly universal that former critics appear (at best) resigned to having lost those arguments.

While the book is certainly relevant to feminist history, it is neither obvious nor in evidence that it "knows about" its potential for relevance; as to controversy, i agree that it obviously was but think the evidence weighs on the side of continuing controversy.
_ _ For the moment and pending possible verification of parts of the old language (especially if she used the words "feminism" or "feminist" in the first edition, or was the first to make the connection to feminism outside its covers), i'm substituting

which became famously controversial for its attitudes towards female sexuality, and figured in the development of feminism

(which seems pretty likely, but could still use verification).
--Jerzy•t 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)