Men Explain Lolita To Me

[Ray Easton]

Dolores Haze, indeed.  (Why did I not think to use that name? he asks, 
kicking himself.)  There is a "real" Dolores Haze, but we never make her 
acquaintance.   We only meet Lolita.

Mark, I think, stealing from Updike, reads the novel sentimentally: he 
cares about Lolita more than God does.  God in this instance being HH.

Ray

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com


On December 18, 2015 5:16:39 AM Johnny Marr <marrja at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps Ray thinks that Dolores Haze is real but 'Lolita' is HH's sick
> fantasy?
>
> On Friday, December 18, 2015, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, now we knew where our difference lies.
>> She is also real (within the reality of the book), which does not take
>> place just in HH's head.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Ray Easton
>> <raymond.lee.easton at gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > But there is no "Lolita herself" -- only HH's construct, his creature.
>> >
>> > [ I am not containing because I think we are going to reach agreement,
>> but
>> > because I find it an interesting exchange. :-) ]
>> >
>> > Ray
>> >
>> > Sent with AquaMail for Android
>> > http://www.aqua-mail.com
>> >
>> >
>> > On December 18, 2015 4:38:05 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think to stop at calling it " about obsession" is to leave out
>> essential
>> >> details, such as LOLITA ( mostly) herself and her ' meanings' by the
>> end of
>> >> the book.
>> >> But, as I said, we differ it seems.
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPad
>> >>
>> >>> On Dec 18, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Ray Easton <raymond.lee.easton at gmail.com
>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I should also have said:
>> >>>
>> >>> Lolita is *profoundly* amoral.  It's amorality is central to it,
>> >>> critical to what it is about.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ray
>> >>>
>> >>> Sent with AquaMail for Android
>> >>> http://www.aqua-mail.com
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On December 18, 2015 4:17:20 AM Ray Easton
>> >>>> <raymond.lee.easton at gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I was aware that you were alluding to words of HH himself -- all the
>> >>>> more
>> >>>> reason to be wary!  HH makes a fictional living out of manipulating
>> the
>> >>>> way
>> >>>> we see him.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And one ought to be especially wary in this case, given that the novel
>> >>>> explicitly pokes fun at the view that this is a morality tale -- that
>> is
>> >>>> John Ray's view of the story!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Lolita is indeed more than a stylistic exercise.  It is a presentation
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> obsession,  perhaps the best there is; certainly the best with which I
>> >>>> am
>> >>>> acquainted.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The novel itself requires no "moral lesson" for its validation.  It is
>> >>>> we,
>> >>>> the readers, who want rather desperately to find such a lesson present
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> in this we are like HH himself. HH no doubt would say to us, while
>> >>>> charmingly smiling,  "Hypocrite lecteur..."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ray
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sent with AquaMail for Android
>> >>>> http://www.aqua-mail.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On December 18, 2015 3:25:35 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com
>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yeahp. One--I--can sound silly defending fictional " truth" in such a
>> >>>>> writer. so it be. We differ. Nabokov's LOLITA would be nothing but a
>> >>>>> stylistic exercise if he did not believe and show in the novel
>> >>>>> awareness
>> >>>>> that pedophilia IS pedophilia. My perhaps lame remark on him "
>> getting
>> >>>>> what
>> >>>>> he deserves" was, if I remember correctly, a verbal allusion to
>> >>>>> Humbert's
>> >>>>> very words as HE suggested his proper punishment, if you will
>> remember.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Totally amoral or whatever as you position re Nabokov , you will need
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> explain Humber's recognition scene and subsequent awareness.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 7:37 PM, Ray Easton <
>> raymond.lee.easton at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> When I say 'Nabakov does not care a fig...' I am not referring to
>> what
>> >>>>>> the
>> >>>>>> man in his "non-fic life" did or did not believe.  (I don't care
>> about
>> >>>>>> such
>> >>>>>> things.)  I mean that his novels have no moral viewpoint and present
>> >>>>>> no
>> >>>>>> moral lessons.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> HH "gets what he deserves" -- you sound like John Ray, Jr., PhD.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Ray
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Sent with AquaMail for Android
>> >>>>>> http://www.aqua-mail.com
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On December 17, 2015 5:35:40 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com
>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> yeah, Nabokov greatly dissed 'morality' in fiction all his non-fic
>> >>>>>>> life...
>> >>>>>>> but he did believe in themes and human goodness and badness..
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> some take Nabokov's constant dissing of 'morality' as part-act
>> >>>>>>> (against
>> >>>>>>> lousy, sentimental poshlost fiction) and part unreliable
>> narrator...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Anyway, he recognized love and death and themes related to and life
>> >>>>>>> and sense perceptions and
>> >>>>>>> so much more in his own
>> >>>>>>> and in others' fictions.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Ray Easton
>> >>>>>>> <raymond.lee.easton at gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Morality -- Nabakov does not care a fig about morality.  And  the
>> >>>>>>>> novel is
>> >>>>>>>> designed to force us to identity not with Lokita, but with HH.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Ray
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On December 17, 2015 4:40:02 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com
>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> we have to identify with Lolita because common human
>> morality....to
>> >>>>>>>>> read it right....
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Sent with AquaMail for Android
>> >>>>>>>> http://www.aqua-mail.com
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> -
>> >>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -
>> >>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -
>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>


-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l