(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
1. October notified jeg Knut Kolnar's book Man Beast. Desire in modern movies. My main point was that Kolnar is tendentious in his approach to the films he describes. He finds trouble with the postmodern male identity everywhere. On October 21, Kolnar wrote a post where he claims that the review is characterized by "great irresponsibility" and that it contains "many factual errors". There is no evidence for any of this, for Kolnar consistently misunderstands and misquotes:
Kolnar writes that I have made a program statement that gender is not a legitimate approach to the study of the popular cultural field. Of course, I did not claim that. What I wrote was: "There will always be problems associated with making one (of many) qualities the key to culture." And these problems arise when, in reductionist ways, you have a thesis that seems to be confirmed wherever you turn and turn.
Columns write that I think male research should be a criticism of feminism. I wrote nothing about feminism. I wrote: "Male research is by no means an attack on women's research, it is rather a pat on the shoulder". Male research is an extension of female research, and will of course use similar methods and problematisations. I don't mean man research should be anything at all – except that when studying gender you have to see it in the context of other important variables, depending on which area you are dealing with.
Kolnar writes in his book: "Jack / Tyler Durden and the others in Fight Club experiencing intense gender turmoil. However, this turmoil does not cause them to ponder what gender really is ”(p. 129). No, they do not ponder. Kolnar is pondering this; and he thinks Fight Club has a one-dimensional view of men, because he does not find his own constructivist gender categories: "Here are no people who directly contradict the fragile categories of gender". Read: androgynous / transer / drag queens / gay. And Kolnar concludes: "This provides little insight into the gender boundary rises and the stress conditions that regulate and hold the gender categories in place" (p. 133). Kolnar finds confirmation of what he is looking for, even when he can't find it! This is what I mean is to adapt the terrain to the map.
Columns write that I claim he "equates" the crazy Buffalo Bill (Nattsvermeren) and ordinary men. Once again, to what I wrote: "Making […] Buffalo Bill an indicator of what is wrong or limiting men today is completely ridiculous." Kolnar defends itself by saying that contemporary processes are reflected in art, often in a distorted and enlarged version. Yes, that is a prerequisite for all criticism. The only problem is that Kolnar's connection between the male / masculine and Buffalo Bill is pure impressionistic gossip. To the extent that "hidden and unexpected aspects of gender" emerge, it is because Kolnar allows associations to flow freely: "In a peculiar and bizarre way, the film puts the penis under debate" (p. 177).
Columns write in conclusion: "That I write badly, have not understood anything and that gender is something here and such things, must be at the reviewer's expense […]". That Kolnar writes poorly, I give examples of, and I justify it. I have not claimed that he has not understood anything, but it is possible that he feels affected by the headline of my review: "Gender without judgment". And the peculiar and bizarre assertion that "gender is something here", I have no idea what it means.
Kjetil Korslund is a book reviewer in Ny Tid.
