Men Explain Lolita To Me

[Johnny Marr]

I'm increasingly of the opinion that it may be.

Just my opinion though ...

On Thursday, December 17, 2015, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the obviousness is what makes the attempts to 'correct' her so
> patronising.
>
> And god, I really hope mistaking your opinions for universal truths
> and forcing them on others isn't hardwired.
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Johnny Marr <marrja at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > I think the question of whether mansplaining is biologically linked to
> sex,
> > rather than deepset power imbalance between the genders, is a potentially
> > interesting source of neurological/biological research. Do men tend
> towards
> > pedantry and pedagoguery as part of a hard wired 'right brain-left brain'
> > imbalance?
> >
> > I sympathise with a lot of the points Solnit makes, while also agreeing
> with
> > an earlier comment that Nabokov himself would have been first in the
> queue
> > to patronise her and castigate her for 'misreading' his novel.
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, December 17, 2015, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think she made some remarks somewhere about how Lolita is a pretty
> >> disturbing novel if you empathise with Lolita, and some blokes chimed
> >> in to inform her how she was reading it all wrong if she did that.
> >>
> >> Solnit was the writer to first identify mansplaining and I think it's
> >> a great concept. There's certainly a previously unlabeled rhetorical
> >> arrogance that to me isn't biologically linked to sex but definitely
> >> has ties to gender and power and language. I also like that the P-list
> >> is kinda absent of that, and that we understand you don't go round
> >> telling someone they're reading Pynchon wrong, actually, and here's a
> >> list of reasons why.
> >>
> >> Also dig her argument against defending art from all criticism because
> >> ART, GUYS, IT'S ART. I've had the same thought for years but never
> >> read it: if you think art is automatically immune from critique then
> >> you're saying it has no impact, no real effect, it exists in a
> >> hermetic bubble that admits no exchanges with our profane world. I
> >> think the most interesting art can have huge and reckonable effects
> >> and yes, governments and other authorities recognise this and can be
> >> troubled by it.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Perry Noid <coolwithdoc at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > She is definitely not going to win any of the people who were
> >> > criticizing
> >> > her over whatever it was she wrote before with this piece. I can say
> >> > that
> >> > much at least.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Curiously uneven if you ask me...salient, brilliant points mixed with
> >> >> the easiest (therefore worst) ways to make her case...
> >> >> people posting on Facebook???...My gawd....I could do this
> constantly.
> >> >>  People, men or women, misreading a great work.....
> >> >>    Nabokov had HH come to a moral epiphany....seems this must be said
> >> >> and wasn't. Unless Ms Nabokov quote is to be equivalent.
> >> >>
> >> >> we have to identify with Lolita because common human morality....to
> >> >> read it right....
> >> >> Does she read it aright even w identification?
> >> >> That she framed this around mansplaining....seems too of the
> moment...
> >> >> And that many women do not have their explanations and want you to
> know
> >> >> it?
> >> >> but, yes, more men 'splain than women in the America I know...
> >> >> I think she 'projects' her feminism world too much sometimes...
> >> >>
> >> >> More talk around me I don't really 'get".
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Matthew Taylor
> >> >> <matthew.taylor923 at gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> >> > Thoughts on Rebecca Solnit's latest?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-to-me/
> >> >> -
> >> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> >> >
> >> >
> >> -
> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151217/f084e9a0/attachment.html>