Men Explain Lolita To Me

[Mark Thibodeau]

But at least we agree on your secondary point: this particular essay
of Solnit's is entirely inconsequential.

J

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not this particular essay that has my 5X "panties" in a twist,
> it's Solnit's simultaneous and paradoxical intellectual mediocrity and
> current cultural omnipresence. If she hadn't been befouling my
> favorite magazine with her fatuous scribblings of late, I couldn't be
> arsed to give a damn.
>
> J
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:37 PM, kelber at mindspring.com
> <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> With so many guys getting their panties in a twist over an inconsequential
>> essay, it seems the writer must have hit a nerve.
>>
>> Laura
>>
>>
>> Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Punishing myself by reading this latest Solnit on men "explaining"
>> Lolita to her and I've come across what must be the most painfully
>> awful neologism of an era and a medium that is stuffed to the bursting
>> with awful neologisms: "privelobliviousness". Sweet Christ what a
>> mediocre, one-track mind this person has.
>>
>> J
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:00 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> HH wasn't empathetic because he was obsessive. One usurps the other, ergo
>>> failure. HH failed in scores of other traits for the same root cause. The
>>> beauty of Lolita is HH's ability to elist our empathy with his obsession.
>>>
>>> David Morris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, December 17, 2015, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Solnit praises Lolita and calls it "that masterpiece of Humbert
>>>> Humbert’s failure of empathy". Which someone would Arkansas my work
>>>> that way.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Charles Albert <cfalbert at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > An angry bint with a bludgeon looking to make her bones Arkansasing the
>>>> > justifiably celebrated work of a dead white guy?
>>>> >
>>>> > Don't see that every day.
>>>> >
>>>> > If you want a truly stimulating  and exquisitely balanced investigation
>>>> > of
>>>> > the same question I recommend Byatt's Possession.
>>>> >
>>>> > love,
>>>> >
>>>> > cfa
>>>> >
>>>> > On Dec 17, 2015 8:59 PM, "John Bailey" <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If you approach pop literary criticism with the same standards you
>>>> >> expect of Kantian philosophy you may end up with a reasonable amount
>>>> >> of stomach trouble.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Tommy Pinecone
>>>> >> <endaflynn345 at gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >> > I had originally extended that message to cover that point but then
>>>> >> > decided
>>>> >> > to take it away.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > To show the weight of thought that needs to go behind a conclusion.
>>>> >> > Kant
>>>> >> > is
>>>> >> > astoundingly painstaking, as you likely know. That's why I
>>>> >> > recommended a
>>>> >> > short introduction, the excerpts can be shocking to someone not used
>>>> >> > to
>>>> >> > it,
>>>> >> > it is an education you are not likely to find anywhere else apart
>>>> >> > from
>>>> >> > first
>>>> >> > hand in Kant. I could just as easily recommended some of Aristotle's
>>>> >> > work,
>>>> >> > but Kant is more illustrative of the point.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Wittgenstein's big ideas and posthumous work are constructive in a
>>>> >> > similar
>>>> >> > way.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On 18 Dec 2015 01:09, "Danny Weltman" <danny.weltman at gmail.com>
>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> What in Kant's first critique do you find helpful for hitting on "a
>>>> >> >> fast
>>>> >> >> track way to make someone who is uneducated aware of the blatant
>>>> >> >> flaws
>>>> >> >> in
>>>> >> >> certain ideas and movements that are just unsustainable, and
>>>> >> >> somehow
>>>> >> >> having
>>>> >> >> their day the past few years?"
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Tommy Pinecone
>>>> >> >> <endaflynn345 at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> This is why I make it a deliberate priority not to go on Twitter
>>>> >> >>> or
>>>> >> >>> to
>>>> >> >>> follow any new intellectual voices.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> Every time it is some unfamiliar, alleged authority voicing a loud
>>>> >> >>> opinion that's appointed a flashy title; for some reason Twitter
>>>> >> >>> is
>>>> >> >>> frequently mentioned along the way.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> I hope the majority of you can see through this pettiness. It's
>>>> >> >>> unfortunate that we are swamped with the hack work and profound
>>>> >> >>> blanketed
>>>> >> >>> hate in modern academia, it is however a fortunate thing that we
>>>> >> >>> can
>>>> >> >>> merely
>>>> >> >>> look away and concentrate on human issues instead of coining new
>>>> >> >>> derogatory
>>>> >> >>> terms and stirring up the rabble with a short article.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> I often wonder how different these outlooks would be if these
>>>> >> >>> people
>>>> >> >>> were
>>>> >> >>> introduced to literature in a different way, free from ideology
>>>> >> >>> and
>>>> >> >>> identity-that is an unbiased, philosophical way. I make it a hard
>>>> >> >>> point with
>>>> >> >>> any aspiring student to start off with a short introduction to
>>>> >> >>> Kant's
>>>> >> >>> primary Critique and a short introduction to Wittgenstein's
>>>> >> >>> thought;
>>>> >> >>> no
>>>> >> >>> doubt it is an anomalous approach, but it's a fast track way to
>>>> >> >>> make
>>>> >> >>> someone
>>>> >> >>> who is uneducated aware of the blatant flaws in certain ideas and
>>>> >> >>> movements
>>>> >> >>> that are just unsustainable, and somehow having their day the past
>>>> >> >>> few
>>>> >> >>> years.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> We shouldn't have to pause to think of these things when there are
>>>> >> >>> bigger
>>>> >> >>> issues than female characters not being put in the center of the
>>>> >> >>> stage. What
>>>> >> >>> if I wanted to pen an article on how I wasn't happy with the lack
>>>> >> >>> of
>>>> >> >>> empathy
>>>> >> >>> Beckett shows in all of his works, to individuals of both genders
>>>> >> >>> no
>>>> >> >>> less?
>>>> >> >>> Sure, the circumstances are different here, but not dramatically.
>>>> >> >>> It's
>>>> >> >>> simply absurd. I struggle to believe these type of things when I
>>>> >> >>> see
>>>> >> >>> them
>>>> >> >>> being taken so seriously by so many. Makes one feel hopeless,
>>>> >> >>> especially
>>>> >> >>> when these are still the early years of the internet and the
>>>> >> >>> loudest
>>>> >> >>> voices
>>>> >> >>> are reaching aspiring students through social media poisoning
>>>> >> >>> their
>>>> >> >>> nascent
>>>> >> >>> opinions and thoughts.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> On 17 Dec 2015 20:51, "Matthew Taylor"
>>>> >> >>> <matthew.taylor923 at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >>> 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/?listpynchon-l
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l