Talk:Parents' Day (novel)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Urve (talk · contribs) 07:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Review soon. Urve (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read the book (or any Goodman or Reich - though there is an interesting but tenuous connection between Reich and Boychick by a reviewer so I've done a little reading about him), so I'm going into this mostly uninformed but interested. I think the article is nicely written. For what it's worth, I read the article before but surprisingly it still hasn't been picked up at GAN.

On sources:
 * I think Walter Breen's writing (as J.Z. Eglinton) deserves at least a mention in the article. His defense of what he calls "Greek love" is supported or illustrated by, among other things, this particular novel. Not too much (there's not a ton to say) – but when we say "Goodman's public endorsement of adolescent sexuality was both jarring for the 1940s and novel among Americans", it's important to note that it wasn't universal -- there were some who weren't jarred but enthusiastic. This is the version of Breen's book I looked at. (And on that point, maybe wikilink adolescent sexuality.)
 * Breen/Eglinton certainly had a few things to say about Goodman in that book but I'm not particularly apt to quote from it. One of the harder corners to navigate with Goodman (and there are many) are his words and deeds on pederasty, how they registered in the 1940s, 1960s, and today in relation to gay acceptance. I've read many sources on Goodman and while many address his status as an out, gay writer at a time when doing so was criminalized and being gay was widely shunned, no sources stand out as having specifically addressed his pederasty—it's usually lumped in with that period's literature on being gay (I think you alluded to this with your DYK nom on Boychick). So yes, a conspicuous and complicated gap in the literature. I addressed some of these period differences and source difficulties here: Peer review/Paul Goodman/archive1.
 * In this case, seems to say exactly what a general reader needs to know about the societal temperature. I think we we would need a stronger source than Breen/Eglinton to say there was some noteworthy pocket of Americans for whom this wasn't novel or jarring. Our own article gives Breen the epithet "convicted child sex offender", so it's not surprising that he (and others like him) finds it not novel or jarring, but making him into an expert for our purposes here seems like undue weight. Also should note that his book was not widely reviewed/regarded. But I'd be interested if you saw something in this that I'm missing. Not an easy topic!  czar  20:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's what I'm thinking, but note that I'm not hanging promotion over this fine of a point. I'd like to hear what you think. Looking at gay writing from our modern perspective, pederastic literature seems to be an aberration and a repugnant debasement of the community. That was, obviously, not always the case, and in fact, it was the opposite for certain circles. Parents' Day, The White Paper, Boychick, Street of Stairs – these were largely accepted by the gay press without specific condemnation of their predatory imaginations (or in the case of Cocteau and Goodman, it seems, predatory realities reimagined). If there wasn't really any condemnation within those circles - and I think there wasn't in this specific case (albeit with some larger American "jarring", but that's not what I'm trying to get at) - we have to wonder, were there champions of it? Did people find pleasure and joy in what we -- readers, not editors or sources, but people encountering this article -- would largely find disgusting?  And the answer, it seems, is yes: At least one prolific defender of pederasty, who called the practice "Greek love", did find this novel pleasurable, important, beautiful, etc.  I am a bit stretched for time, but I recall that Breen speaks approvingly of at least one poem. Perhaps we could move the description of poems interspersing the text to a bit later in the article, and use that as a jumping off point for just a single sentence about Breen's approval. The specific way this is done doesn't matter too much to me -- or if it is done -- but I think if we have a staunch defender of pederasty speaking approvingly, in a reliably-published source (through Neville Spearman), of the central sticking-point of the novel for modern readers, then I think that's worth pursuing.  I don't find the UNDUE argument very persuasive. It's about as DUE as any single person's reading of it - I don't think we can really claim that Horowitz is somehow more deserving of two sentences, but this not even part of one. Sure, Horowitz's focus is more on this novel than pederasty as a whole, but I don't think that's enough.  That's all to say: I trust what you do with this. I find the novel disturbing and wanted to know who defended it, specifically, for what unsettled me. And we have someone doing so - obviously not in a way that we could write "convicted sex offender Breen wrote, in his tract defending pederasty, that the book was awesome," but we could at least hint at this undercurrent in gay literary criticism. That's all I'll say on it; it's ultimately up to you and I trust you'll make a good decision. Urve (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The best I can see doing with that source is something like, "In his book on Greek love, J. Z. Eglinton cited Parents' Day as a rare, modern example of pederast literature." Would that cover what you felt was important? He doesn't quite praise it beyond that and per the chapter I think it would be too far a stretch to use the source for anything more (even the poetry mention).
 * I haven't found much more re: the literature gap we mention above. I skimmed a decent chapter on Eglinton/Breen—one of the very few by a reputable press—that begins to touch on attitudes of the period, which I've added for historical context. (It also covers pederast objections to Breen's book, which gives all the more reason not to cite it.) Otherwise nearly everything ends up being either written by a NAMBLA affiliate or published by one. (This includes Eglinton's Greek Love as well.) For instance, had some interesting historical context on how views on pederasty factored into the gay liberation movement but its author is a pederasty advocate and the journal itself teeters on the edge.
 * I had also found this passing mention but also don't see anything reasonable to do with it. czar  09:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "whereas heterosexual relationships with students were tolerated" - I don't think this is supported by p 237 but p 229, which is the citation for the first half of the sentence. But about Morton, I think p 236 has an interesting line of thought we can include here, about the interplay of community/location/locale and sexuality/eroticism. How I would include that, though, I don't know.
 * Here's the source from Morton, p. 237, for that part: "The fact that heterosexual liaisons between the adult faculty and the not-yet-adult students do take place (as an illicit but tolerated training for future behavior) suggests that it is not dissemination of sexual knowledge as such which is at issue, but his dissemination of a particular sexual knowledge." czar  20:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Urve (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "admission of the narrator's desires as "unrealistic" or "pathetic"" - I don't think this is really what Morton's conclusion is, but rather his understanding of other readers in general ("this prediction may be taken, even by sympathetic readers, as an 'admission' which signals the impossibility, indeed the 'unrealistic nature,' of the narrator's 'desire' (which for these readers tends to render the narrator as hopelessly 'pathetic')", emph)
 * I read it as simple hedging as a euphemism for saying that what follows is his view of a general interpretation. I don't see it as hesitation more than an indirect writing style that could apply to many of his other claims, but it's all still his interpretation and attributed in-line as such. czar  20:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your perspective on this and won't push it. Urve (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * and we can tie Gestalt Therapy/Reich back in to the analysis section with Morton's argument about a lie/truth being two different perspectives of the same speech (Morton pp 236–237), no? I have no familiarity with Gestalt Therapy, so I'm not sure if this is accurate, but I think you know what I'm getting at here; we pay a lot of attention in the Publication section to Reichian techniques, but that essentially disappears in the following section ... maybe we can align them more? There is some analysis, "communal and psychosexual properties of physical touch", connecting them loosely, but I would prefer something more explicit if we have it.
 * My understanding is that Goodman didn't so much follow Reich as use the pieces that he wanted from Reich (and Freud) to perform a self-analysis, i.e., write a book revisiting what he did at Manumit. The Morton example of telling a lie that contains a truth has a tangential connection to Gestalt therapy/Gestalt Therapy (book) but not fully enough that I can see it being more of an aside in the Reception section, which is potentially distracting from the main points. czar  20:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, your point about distracting is a good one. It would require a fundamental rewrite of the structure of that section, and not much to gain. Urve (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "which attempts to understand—rather than justify—his behavior" - this is what Horowitz says, but Gunn says the opposite ("we seem to have Goodman's personal apologia masquerading as fiction")
 * The many contradictions of Paul Goodman :) Let me look into this one czar  20:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn that this Horowitz paraphrasing some background by Stoehr or Goodman himself but if it is, I can't readily find it. I'm going to strike this as I think Horowitz is one of the weaker sources here in some of the assumptions I recall him making. The self-analysis was definitely for Goodman to understand himself but the "rather than justify" is murkier. czar  21:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether you do this is up to you, but this struck me: Maybe this is an opportunity to highlight his contradictions? Two sources came away with opposite interpretations of what this novel is doing for the reader, maybe that's worth mentioning? Your judgment. Urve (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

On prose:
 * "the narrator ejaculated in his pants" - the 'his' this refers to is the narrator, but it's ambiguous as written. I'm not sure in his pants matters - perhaps cut to avoid ambiguity?
 * I've clarified to his "own" pants. It's awkward but my understanding is that this one of the climactic (sorry) moments we'd want to highlight in this narrative, given that it's what secondary sources highlighted. czar  21:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Urve (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "In a jealous betrayal by Jeff, the narrator is fired from the school" - this is unclear, but the source for it isn't any better. Are there any other sources that describe what the betrayal was? I think it would be acceptable to cite the novel itself here if there aren't.
 * The book itself is vague (classic Goodman) but it's on pp. 230 and 240 of the original text and implies that Jeff reported the narrator. I'm inclined to leave out the Jeff/betrayal part and just say he was fired, if the current phrasing causes undue confusion. Otherwise I'm inclined to leave as is, as a vague betrayal. czar  21:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Either are OK; I would prefer leaving it in as vague. Urve (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "Parents' Day was originally titled The Fire, in reference to the central plot element and based on the real fire incident at Manumit" - this isn't in the synopsis so it caught me off guard; perhaps also add this detail there?
 * I've dialed back "central plot element", which overdid it. czar  21:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Urve (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "explores a series of sexual attractions and relationships that culminates with his firing from the school" - this is true but I think it's misleading to leave it at that; maybe emphasize in the lead that it is about (or maybe just includes?) attractions/relationships with students
 * Which part is misleading, the firing due to sexual relationships? My impression is that it's core to the story (and the reason why he wrote it). czar  21:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm misunderstanding the article, one of the central tensions is that he has sex with students. It's acceptable for straight teachers but unacceptable for gay ones - but even so, I think leaving it at a "series" of sexual relationships without any qualification makes it seem as they were acceptable. But I don't know. Urve (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the series culminates with his firing, I think a general reader will reasonably infer that one led to the other czar  09:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Widmer's credentials are spelled out twice
 * I did this because I didn't expect readers to remember who he was from the prior paragraph—is it distracting or helpful? czar  21:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Up to you; I found it unnecessary but style and cohesion are not my strong suits. Urve (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Other:
 * You may consider adding a fair-use photo of the cover of either edition; up to you (I don't)
 * I don't feel strongly as the book didn't have a wide readership and isn't exactly known by a single image czar  21:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Urve (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I will think over this tonight - let me know what you're thinking (whether you agree or not). And let me know if there's something you wanted feedback on that I haven't addressed; sometimes I wonder if a specific layout or wording choice or conclusion or whatever is working, and it's hard to tell when writing alone. Urve (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thoughtful review, ! Replies above. Happy holidays, czar  21:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've replied above. I'd be happy to promote now, but it's rare that we can share a space with another person who's interested in what we're writing and is willing to offer feedback, so I'll keep it open until at least you reply above (with whatever decisions you make - I trust you). Open to questions. Are you planning on FAC? Urve (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for the added attention on a delicate topic. FAC? That horrible, demoralizing fiefdom? :) (I had seen the copy edit and third opinion requests unfold.) I'm considering FAC for some of the other Goodman articles but articles like this, I thought, don't exactly have the cachet to attract FAC reviewers. I'm open to it, since this will be the Internet's lasting resource on this topic for quite some time, if not forever, but wasn't planning on it. czar  09:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you; passing now. Congratulations - an important article written about an novel that was written at an important time, by an important person, about an important element of gay history. Best of luck with wherever you see this article going in the future. Urve (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)