Men Explain Lolita To Me

Mark Kohut mark.kohut at gmail.com
Fri Dec 18 05:56:19 CST 2015


just for the record, although I might have read Updike on it, I am
mostly stealing from
what I remember of Michael Wood's bit (if one must show one's work)....

And I remember from Greene, thru Trilling et al and even Roger Kahn's
falling-short piece
(it's about love) in the 90s,  much other reading.

No, HH is not god (in the novel). VN is--and he adds that complex
full-of-ironies frame and
recognition scene(s). "My characters are my galley
slaves"--paraphrased--VN responded when
asked about Forster's remark that 'sometimes his characters take on a
life of their own" .

And, that there is too much pattern and not enough life in some of
VN's fiction is the hardest
knock against him, in my humble opinion. As is said of Pynchon but
which I think is wrong.
To repeat myself again. I can say that again.





On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Ray Easton
<raymond.lee.easton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l



More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list