Talk:Apples and Pears

Initial challenge to the OR plot summaries with which this page began, and to originator's categorization of this novella
This entry on APPLES AND PAIRS would not exist, I feel it fair to say, were it not for the keen interest of Tony, who has created it, in calling the world's attention to works that he believes fit the category "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction".


 * Update 9/13/07: Three of the four contributors to this discussion page agree that Apples and Pears: Het Erewhonisch Schetsboek:  Messidor - Vendémiaire 1981 is particularly unsuited to the "pedophilia/child abuse" label that its creator, "Tony Sandel" champions.  Today I have once again removed Tony's "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse" label, since it has gained no support at all on this page.


 * "Tony" is not wrong that child sexuality is something addressed in Davenport's work. Davenport's exploration of human sexuality in general and child sexuality in particular is highly original. There is an issue here, but Tony is not up to addressing it. Slapping a completely inappropriate and misleading label on this work of fiction is the exact opposite of the treatment it deserves -- and has so far not received here.  I continue to resist a strong temptation to take this case to the headquarters of Wikipedia Deletion Police, but if "Tony" gets into a revert war with me over this appalling label, I will.


 * Also: No significant progress has been made toward replacing the initial crude, reductionist, inaccurate, biased, summary of this challenging novella with something more neutral. This article continues to violate Wiki neutrality standards.  It should be taken offline until someone less biased can work on it.  SocJan 18:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someday a more balanced view of A+P might be justified. In the meantime, I believe that this entry, given its many problems, should be taken to wherever biased articles go until they can be re-written.


 * It is marred by numerous factual inaccuracies (for example, Sander 'Floris' is not a blood relative of Adriaan van Hovendaal).
 * I agree this is an errorTony 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony


 * It presents a highly skewed and thus distorted summary that misleads the reader as to the nature of APPLES AND PEARS and glosses individual passages so as to highlight only controversial material. (This is precisely the sort of selective, reductive, out-of-context reading of his work against which Davenport fought throughout his career.)


 * I have highlighted the predominant theme of the book. Others should contribute if they wish on other themes.Tony 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony


 * Is it the job of Wikipedia articles to highlight themes? Even if so, would there be universal agreement that you have identified "the predominant theme"? What has happened to the neutral POV that Wikipedia articles are supposed to maintain (and that you pledge to honor, on your personal Wikipedia page)?


 * I have written from a neutral POV. There is, for sure, more that can be added on other, less dominant themes, but that just makes the article incomplete, not a distorted POV.  I have not said in the article that pedophilia is a dominant theme - that would be POV.  I've just summarised the main storyline; that's one core justification for a Wiki summary of a work of fictionTony 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony


 * Tony, you have contradicted yourself. In one breath, you claim to have “highlighted the predominant theme of [‘Apples & Pears’]”. In the next breath, you claim neutrality, & you claim NOT to have said that pedophilia is a dominant theme (in the article, true, but since you describe in the discussion—just as public as the article—that you consider it such, then you tell everyone to read the article that way, which is, of course, how you mean it). In that same next breath, you state that there are “other, less dominant themes”, which re-asserts that you consider pedophilia a “theme” of “Apples & Pears” & the “dominant one”! Where, exactly, is the concrete factuality in the statement “Pedophilia is the dominant theme of ‘Apples & Pears’”? Point to the page of “Apples & Pears” that states that, please. Your peculiar reading or “Apples & Pears” violates Wikipedia’s goal of hewing to objective, neutral, factuality. Until you are willing to write a truly complete summary of “Apples & Pears”, then this page in its current state should be held in abeyance. I would LOVE LOVE to see a page on “Apples & Pears”. I am happy to write one with you, but this one isn’t ready for public viewing in its current, parochial state. James Nicol 05:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James: I would be delighted if you want to edit/add to the article and happy to have it put into abeyance for, say, 4 weeks for you to get to work. Then you can load it up again. Perhaps you can get SocJan to work on it too.Tony 13:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Tony


 * The position Tony appears to be taking here is that he has no obligation to be neutral; somehow the rest of us should now help the article achieve neutrality by adding to it, correcting his errors, and doing the work necessary to balance out the selective summary he acknowledges having provided. Speaking only for myself, I don't have the interest or time to devote to this.


 * Let me be very clear: I am against censorship, against deletion of articles with merit.  But I also do subscribe to the Wikipedia insistence on neutrality.


 * This A+P entry, as it currently stands, is absolutely not written from a neutral POV.


 * The question I raise continues to be: Will  Tony or someone else bring this article into line with Wikipedia neutrality and factual quality standards in a timely fashion?  If not, should it be worked on off-line until it reaches a minimum quality level? This seems to be what Highers Up in Wikipedia recommend in situations like this one.  I don't presume to answer the question.  (Notice that I have not formally requested anything from Wikipedia Police and Homeland Security Forces.)


 * Thanks, Tony, for the fast response. Let's now hear from others.  Further affiant sayeth not (for now). SocJan 20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me illustrate by contrasting one passage from Tony's summary of A+P with the text itself and with a Davenport scholar's recent treatment of some of the same material.


 * P A S S A G E  from current Wikipedia entry on A+P


 * Back in Amsterdan, Adriaan is invited to a meeting of ‘Paedofil Frihedskaemper’ (Paedophile Patriots) where he meets Gotfried Strodekker and his two sons Nils (age 13) and Tobias (age 11). Toby is naked throughout the meeting and the men play with him. Strodekker is chairman of the 'Nederlands Student en Arbeiterverbond voor Pedofilie' (NSAP). Adriaan agress [sic] to address the meeting on Fourier's blueprints for childhood in the New Harmony. Olaf, an 18-year-old Danish man, is a member and shows explicit films of children involved in explicit [sic] sexual activities at the next meeting, including clips from a film he is making himself.


 * Problems with this passage:


 * ♠The words 'Paedofil Frihedskaemper' appear only on an article of clothing worn by Olaf; PF is not the group that is meeting.


 * ♠The meeting in Strodekker's house is of the steering committee of the NSAP -- as an earlier passage, "7 FRUCTIDOR" (A+P, p. 180), clearly states.


 * ♠Olaf is not a member of the NSAP; he is a visitor.


 * ♠"Toby is naked throughout the meeting and the men play with him" is lamentably misleading and inaccurate.


 * This sentence misleads as to the nature of the "meeting" and the role played by Toby at the meeting:


 * In fact (A+P, p. 190-191), Toby's father strips Toby before the very formal presentations that are to follow, so that Toby can be "our presiding daimon". After which "Tobias palmed two cookies and an orange slice, and went to sit astride Olaf's thigh [ . . . ]"  during the speeches. (Strodekker has explained that he has just come from photographing his two sons with Olaf.)  Olaf later "park[s] Tobias in [Joris] Oudveld's lap" when he wishes to show literature from his Danish sexual freedom group.
 * The meeting is a group of self-proclaimed pedophiles.Tony 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony


 * Nor are only men present; we are introduced to Elsa Boonwijn, "smartly feminine, good legs, Athena's nose [. . .]". Not just present: she is among those who speak.


 * After the meeting and subsequent discussions, when he departs Adriaan chastely kisses Toby's tummy; no other contact between them is mentioned. (When Adriaan next meets Toby  (p. 209), they shake hands and Toby fetches him coffee.)
 * 'chaste' is not in the book. Adriaan kisses the boy on the navel.Tony 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony


 * Thus, "the men play with [Toby]" comes down to Toby sitting in the laps of, and being caressed and cuddled by, exactly two of those present, Olaf (18) and Joris (in his early 20s).
 * happy to be more explicit and mention that Tobias is placed on teh lap of a man with an erection etc. (p191)


 * Not exactly an all-male orgy, as the article's summary could very well suggest!
 * Your suggestion, not mine.Tony 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony


 * In short, "The men" (a term the reader would expect to include Adriaan)
 * do not "play with" Toby (a description that could mean almost anything,
 * but, especially in the context of Tony's interests in child sexual abuse and pedophilia,
 * could easily conjure up enormously more than what in fact happens).
 * More happens than I describe. I can write more. Tony 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony


 * P A S S A G E from scholarly monograph by Prof. Andre Furlani [Furlani, Andre.  GUY DAVENPORT / Postmodern and After, Northwestern University Press, 2007.  pp. 112-113] discussing the same section of A+P


 * A "Pythagorean Calvinist" ([A+P], 254) who rescues teens from squalor and profligacy with financial support, encouragement, and affection, Adriaan [ . . . ] reluctantly accepts an invitation to address the Nederlands Student en Arbeiterverbond voor Pedofilie, but finds its chairman, Godfried Strodekker, dismayingly strident. Adriaan delivers a paper on Fourier, which is no ideal subject since the philosopher argued that children are a neuter sex and proposed to segregate youths under fifteen from the sexual life of New Harmony.
 * This 'scholarly' piece is itself full of errors. The "Pythagorean Calvinist" comment is made in another context. Adriaan is at the NSAP meeting when he agrees to address them at a future date "The most I hope I agreed to is to...".  No mention of reluctance.  There is no descrition of Adriaan's lecture.Tony 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony


 * [ . . . ] Adriaan denies himself sexual contact with minors, and he intervenes to prevent sexual intimacy across ages.
 * This is nonsense. Adriaan has frequent sexualised contact with children in teh book.Tony 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony
 * [ . . . ] Adriaan's tactful explanation is that this is to protect not the boys but Joris: "Because it's unfair to Joris, who can only want to play for keeps, whereas you two, enjoying a permissiveness that's at best experimental and, shall we say, experiential, are simply playing" ([A+P], 255-56).
 * Wrong. This paragraph refers to Adriaan's warning to the two boys not to love Joris.  It's nothing to do with his own actions.Tony 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony

I have no interest in trying to repair the current, seriously flawed, Wikipedia summary of A+P. My own feeling is that A+P defies summary and Wikipedia readers will be done a mis-service if this "summary" is allowed to stand.
 * Why not allow others to edit is normal Wikipedia practice. You have no right to delete an article just because you don't want the subject matter of the book to be described.Tony 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony

A+P is a highly allusive collage, in which the "story" that Tony extracts is just one element. It simply will not do, as the current article does, to dismiss as "innumerable literary and artistic references, passages in Dutch and other foreign languages" the extensive and numerous passages of social observation, philosophical speculation, descriptions of plants and geological formations, etc., that are at least as crucial to this metamodern (Furlani's term) experimental "fiction".

I vote for deletion of this entry.

Comments from others who have read Davenport? SocJan 10:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I welcome comments from anyone who has read Apples and Pears, but not anyone who has just read Davenport. Apples and Pears is a very comple work of fiction and I do not even aspire to understand it all.   Thatvwould be a lifetime's work.  It has, however, a very strong theme of sexual interaction between children and adults.  It also has many pages written in an erotic style with frequent descriptions of children enjoyed sexual acts with each other and with adults.  It is, and this is my POV as someone who has read very widely on the subject, one of the most explicit works of fiction about sex with children that is a) widely available and b) written by a respected author.  The writing could be described as pornographic, though again this is a POV and has no place in the article.Tony 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony


 * I