Men Explain Lolita To Me

[John Bailey]

I used to teach this course on art and its 'others' - texts that were
charged with being pornography, blasphemy, or propaganda, and then
defended as art, as if that label made it categorically not one of
those other things. It was amazing how almost every single student
came in agreeing that no, these books were art and therefore immune
from being degraded thus. And then they went and read American Psycho
or Story of O or some Solzhenitsyn or watched Blue Velvet or listened
to 2 Live Crew and usually decided that the issue is much more
complicated.

I don't think art can stop bombs but it can make someone think twice
about joining an army. At the same time I'm leery of the whole
category of 'art' as a frame we put around something to shield it
against thorny discussions.

Anyway Pynchon - yes, he writes stuff that makes me very uncomfortable
too. Actually, just writing that made me wonder: perhaps Solnit's
greatest crime is that she writes about how a few books affect her.
She doesn't couch this by generalising that this is how the imagined
reader will necessarily respond to the book, or how the superior
reader will interpret it, only what some people might think and feel
about it, why that might be, some history and context etc etc. Which
is Simply Not Done.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No doubt art and life work together in a positive feedback reinforcement.
> But in the case of the male libido, and the part domination plays in it, I
> don't think it's something young women need to be shielded from.  Better if
> they could learn to say, Ho, ho, ho, so that's what the big babies need.
> Actually I think they sense it anyway, from a fairly early age. Not a very
> balanced solution I'll admit but it's the best I got.
>
>
> P
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekker2 at icloud.com> wrote:
>>
>> Advertising works for a reason.  “Glamorous” actors/characters smoking in
>> movies had/has an effect.  Seeing blacks almost entirely in  low-status
>> positions (real or fictional) has an effect.  Women never seeing women as
>> good bosses had an effect.  Of course art has an effect - lol -  Sometimes
>> artists actually want to say something about the world or their perception
>> of it.
>>
>> The thing is, imo - heh,  there are at least a couple levels of effect -
>> one is a cognitive response and another is an emotional response.  The
>> emotional can be subconscious - I don’t know if that’s true about a
>> cognitive response.
>>
>> In reading Blood Meridian I find the language to be so excellent I can
>> overlook the violence.  Reading Lolita I can appreciate the language and
>> understand this is a great novel on a cognitive level.  But even so I have
>> an emotional response to HH justifying his abuse of a 12-year old girl.  I
>> have women friends who were totally unable to get through the violence (much
>> of it against women) in Blood Meridian - their emotional response was too
>> strong.   These same women read crime novels with horrible abuse of women
>> and children but the perpetrators are always presented as completely sicko
>> bad guys - never "justified”  by anything else.
>>
>> How many men read and appreciated A Little Life? - Great writing.  lol -
>> (sex abuse of boys)   Of course Yanagihara is certainly no Nabokov and  yes,
>> A Little Life is emotionally manipulative.   Marlon James’  A Brief History
>> of Seven Killings was a much better choice for the Booker winner.
>>
>> Becky
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree with what you say, I think.  I am not going to reread Solnit to
>> > see how I have misread her. What I remember is DANTO arguing that art/
>> > literature must have some effect or it wouldn't be art and the State
>> > wouldn't worry about some examples of it.
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> > On Dec 18, 2015, at 1:43 PM, Peter M. Fitzpatrick <petopoet at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>      I suppose that subjectively, one could say that "this piece of art
>> >> has profoundly engaged me and I, personally, will act differently from now
>> >> on." That is different than a blanket statement that "Art makes Life". One
>> >> could cite Hitler's efforts at book burning and banning of "degenerate art"
>> >> as perhaps strong examples of art making a big difference in a culture. I
>> >> still think that Art, with a capitol A, has to take a back seat to the
>> >> Allied Forces noble efforts to destroy the Third Reich in making the world a
>> >> better place. Yes, the Allied bombers made special efforts to avoid bombing
>> >> the great cultural artifacts in Europe. We do value art, literature, music,
>> >> etc. I think it is a mistake to think that they therefore gain an equal
>> >> status with "Life" as, a general concept. Not individual lives, or even a
>> >> large group, but Life, as an abstract category of existence.
>> >>      I grant that in a metaphoric or poetic sense, "Art makes Life" can
>> >> be true. I think it is a mistake to think that we use "Life' as a barometer
>> >> of how we regard the value of a piece of Art, which I think Solnit was
>> >> implying. Art can change the world in manner you suggest, but so can
>> >> weather, food, and major economic indicators. The idea that Art, by itself,
>> >> has an overarching claim on our life world than any other category, to me
>> >> still rings false. It has en elevated value, to be sure. But the minute Art
>> >> becomes a social program, we are stuck with phenomenon like Communism's
>> >> Socialist Realism.
>> >> "
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> Okay, I'll be ridiculous. Not the first time. I'm not going to address
>> >> the largest implications of the question as you do.
>> >>
>> >> i'm going to take small philosophical baby steps. If "art makes life"
>> >> is at least partly true for one person. And that person acts
>> >> "better' because of it, then the statement is true.
>> >> If "art makes life' is true of more than one person and they act
>> >> better because of it, then the statement is true and somehow the world
>> >> is different because of that therefore.......
>> >>
>> >> One question is How many are so effected? And what does it lead them
>> >> to see and do differently? And how does that matter in your largest
>> >> questions.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Peter M. Fitzpatrick
>> >> <petopoet at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >      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
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l