Men Explain Lolita To Me

[Mark Kohut]

LOL. yes. 

Sent from my iPad

> On 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