Men Explain Lolita To Me

Fri Dec 18 06:49:14 CST 2015

A badly written sentence on my part -- I meant I was stealing from Updike 
the concept of  sentiment I was employing.

"My characters are my galley slaves" -- indeed.  'HH is God' and 'VN is 
God' are largely (I agree not entirely -- there is the framing device, as 
you point out) two different ways of saying the same thing.

The "recognition" scenes are not 'added' as the framing material is -- they 
are provided to us by HH.  To take them at face value -- this is indeed 
what HH wants us to do.  But to do so is, I think, to be confused by all 
the smoke and mirrors surrounding us.  And to jump at the chance to avoid 
seeing in ourself the monster that HH is -- because we the readers are 
*accomplices* in his crimes.

I too sometimes find Nabakov's stuff brilliant but lifeless.  But not Lolita.

Ray

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

On December 18, 2015 5:56:19 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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