Men Explain Lolita To Me

[Peter M. Fitzpatrick]

     I would only take issue with her final assertion that "art makes
life". I am none too sure about the truth of that, especially in our modern
era, where access to means of expression are at an unprecedented level, at
least in Western societies. More than one author has despaired at the idea
or hope that they could possibly change society through their writing. The
Mapplethorpe controversy could be read as an effort to battle gay rights as
much as artistic expression. Picasso's "Guernica" is a masterpiece, but I
have serious doubts if it ever changed any country's views on the use of
technological weapons that do not discriminate between combatants and
civilians. James Joyce and William S. Burroughs helped to change obscenity
rulings in American, perhaps, but I don't think this is what Solnit means
by "art makes life".
     Plato wanted to banish the poets, assuredly,so that his
philosopher-kings could priviledge reason and law over emotion and
imagination. I believe Heidegger had a lot to say on this aspect of our
cultural heritage (even if he was prone to utter idiocy in other areas,
notably fascism). Perhaps this is another aspect of Solnit's piece that
raises questions to me - why does it seem so humorless, intellectual, if
not a little unclear on what she does privilege in literature? That she
uses this charge of "lack of humor" to chide others does bring her own
seeming lack to the foreground, at least to me.
     "Lolita' is provocative, original, and must strike some note that is
essentially true to readers - books do not enter the "canon" of modern
literature through any other mysterious vetting process than reception and
response. Solnit can criticize it as much as she likes, it isn't going
anywhere. Generally, my main criticism of her piece is that it too strongly
influenced by modern literary studies efforts at de-construction and
Derridean disdain of the "phallo -centrism" of the so-called "Logos".
Somewhere in there, I think men are supposed to feel bad. My own zen moment
in modern literary critical studies was when we were covering  Lacan's
interpretation of Poe's "The Purloined Letter". I suddenly realized that I
could read Poe's short story one million times and I would Never, no, Never
see whatever it was that Lacan was seeing there.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Charles Albert <cfalbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thesis?
>
> Or long exhausted trope?
>
>
> love,
> cfa
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
>> Typical of Solnit: witty,engaging, sharp but balanced, and a pleasure to
>> read. Many of the responses seem to prove her thesis with unexpected ease.
>> > On Dec 17, 2015, at 3:50 PM, 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/?listpynchon-l
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151218/de19b077/attachment.html>