Men Explain Lolita To Me

Fri Dec 18 16:58:34 CST 2015

As per internet law, please now clear a space for some men to explain
how it's MEN who are most at risk of violence against their person and
also more go to war and family courts favour mothers and why is it so
hard to be a man and do manly things with other manly men these days
fer cryin' out loud?! *bites the head off a bear*

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Becky Lindroos <bekker2 at icloud.com> wrote:
> YAY, Laura !!!!!   Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap!!!
>
> And now y’all got me interested I’m reading  "Men Explain Things To Me”  (2014) and it is so funny - excellent so far.  Years ago I read Solnit’s  book on walking -  ??? -  and it was boring so I didn’t really watch for her.  I’m not big on reading feminist books but this one is interesting -
>
> She is very careful about not lumping all men in any particular category - that said,  90% of murders are committed by men and I personally have not heard that the stats for women murdering or raping men/boys has skyrocketed.
>
> Bek
>
>
>> On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:18 AM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> Did it occur to anyone that Solnits wrote this essay for women readers? I didn't find anything she said particularly new or earth-shaking, though it was well-phrased. Certainly nothing that should have ignited this hysterical, hostile response.
>>
>> She says: "... the western world has held up a mirror to them [white men] for so long—and turns compliant women into mirrors reflecting them back twice life size, Virginia Woolf noted. The rest of us get used to the transgendering and cross-racializing of our identities as we invest in protagonists like Ishmael or Dirty Harry or Holden Caulfield." Is that really controversial? Girls all over the world were thrilled with Harry Potter. Does anyone here truly believe that boys all over the world would have become obsessive fans of a "Harriet Potter" series?
>>
>> Suppose a black male writer had made the same points about white readers, male and female? Would he be described here on the list as: "An angry [replace "bint" with some moderate racial epithet] with a bludgeon looking to make [his] bones Arkansasing the justifiably celebrated work of a dead white guy"? or "Great Googly Moogly but [he] is an insufferable, sanctimonious, hyper-inflated-with-a-sense-of-self-importance piece of work."?
>>
>> Much as Solnits doesn't like being "mansplained" to, I think there are men [not all men, as Solnits makes perfectly clear in her essay]who really can't hack having a woman stating an opinion they disagree with, and they pretty much flip out when they encounter it.
>>
>> I do think the essay is inconsequential in the sense that it was a response to the hostile response to a previous essay she'd written. She's a columnist, and has to churn this stuff out quickly. If she'd sat down to write a long, thoughtful literary analysis of Nabokov's work, this would not have been the result. Dammit, Jim, she's a cultural critic, not an academic literary professor. Sure, the phrase "privilobliviousness" is cringe-worthy. I guess she was just fed up with using the phrase "white male privilege" and wanted to save herself the two taps of the space bar it entails. Harpers doesn't have a huge readership, and most people are blithely unaware of the minor flame-war her essay launched.
>>
>> Do Brits and Yanks have different perspectives? Do black American and white Americans have different perspectives? Do men and women have different perspectives? Yes.
>>
>> Some female perspective:
>>
>> I've been extremely uncomfortable with the number of instances where Pynchon blithely depicts men having sex with girls, or just generally sexualizes young girls. Not just poor Bianca, but Lucille in V., the youngest Boer daughter in M&D, Merle joking about how young Dally should have sex [don't have the page-reference handy], and Japonica Fenway in IV. Nothing in BE (maybe Jackson's teenaged girlfriends made it too embarrassing to write about?). I know there are claims that the Bianca episodes are "thematic," and that male children are sexually abused in GR, but it all seems a little too obsessive on Pynchon's part. GR is still my favorite book, though. I identify with Slothrop.
>>
>> My mother adored Anna Karenina, and wore through a number of copies. But she decried the ending. She could pinpoint one sentence where the book "turned." Don't have the exact quote, but it involved Vronsky looking at "the dying woman," i.e. Anna. From then on, my mother said that the reader was distanced from Anna. Though Anna didn't die in that scene, Tolstoy had sentenced her to death. My mother mentally rewrote the final scene: Anna goes to the railway station and takes a train to Paris to start a new life. The End."
>>
>> I consider Kubrick one of the greatest directors of all time (who wouldn't?). But I've only seen Clockwork Orange once. In the theater, there was laughter during the Singing In the Rain rape sequence. My male date felt he had to "explain" what Kubrick was conveying in the scene. I didn't then and I don't now give a flying fuck what Kubrick's intentions were - I will never, ever watch that again.Life's too short to put myself through that kind of pain. I've seen 2001: A Space Odyssey (not what you'd call a chick flick) probably about 15 times.
>>
>> What this shows is that feminists [Solnits, me, my mother,etc.] can call out sexism where they see it, even in their favorite works of art, but still understand its context and appreciate, or even love the work it's contained in.
>>
>> Final question: Who here has seen Diary of a Teenage Girl? I consider it the best film of the year. How would the story play if written from the man's POV?
>>
>> Laura
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: matthew cissell
>>
>> Sent: Dec 18, 2015 4:39 AM
>>
>> To: "kelber at mindspring.com"
>>
>> Subject: Re: Men Explain Lolita To Me
>>
>>
>>
>> I don' think it inconsequential, on the contrary the conversation and topic strike me as quite important. I just don't think it's the best way to procede, in part because dehistorcizing the novel and then generalizing the male comments and extending them to all men is not accurate or useful.
>> No nerves struck here, just incredulous that this is what gets over the bar. Where is Simone De Beauvoir? Or even bell hooks?
>> One may sympathize with her experience and sentiments, but that does not gain agreement.
>> What do you think of the piece?
>> ciaomcps I'm not wearing my panties right now, still in my nightgown which does get rumpled sitting in this chair.
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:37 AM, kelber at mindspring.com  wrote:
>> With so many guys getting their panties in a twist over an inconsequential essay, it seems the writer must have hit a nerve.
>> Laura
>>
>> Mark Thibodeau  wrote:
>>
>> Punishing myself by reading this latest Solnit on men "explaining"
>> Lolita to her and I've come across what must be the most painfully
>> awful neologism of an era and a medium that is stuffed to the bursting
>> with awful neologisms: "privelobliviousness". Sweet Christ what a
>> mediocre, one-track mind this person has.
>>
>> J
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:00 PM, David Morris  wrote:
>>> HH wasn't empathetic because he was obsessive. One usurps the other, ergo
>>> failure. HH failed in scores of other traits for the same root cause. The
>>> beauty of Lolita is HH's ability to elist our empathy with his obsession.
>>>
>>> David Morris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, December 17, 2015, John Bailey  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Solnit praises Lolita and calls it "that masterpiece of Humbert
>>>> Humbert’s failure of empathy". Which someone would Arkansas my work
>>>> that way.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Charles Albert
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> An angry bint with a bludgeon looking to make her bones Arkansasing the
>>>>> justifiably celebrated work of a dead white guy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't see that every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want a truly stimulating  and exquisitely balanced investigation
>>>>> of
>>>>> the same question I recommend Byatt's Possession.
>>>>>
>>>>> love,
>>>>>
>>>>> cfa
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 17, 2015 8:59 PM, "John Bailey"  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you approach pop literary criticism with the same standards you
>>>>>> expect of Kantian philosophy you may end up with a reasonable amount
>>>>>> of stomach trouble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Tommy Pinecone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I had originally extended that message to cover that point but then
>>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>> to take it away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To show the weight of thought that needs to go behind a conclusion.
>>>>>>> Kant
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> astoundingly painstaking, as you likely know. That's why I
>>>>>>> recommended a
>>>>>>> short introduction, the excerpts can be shocking to someone not used
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> it,
>>>>>>> it is an education you are not likely to find anywhere else apart
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> hand in Kant. I could just as easily recommended some of Aristotle's
>>>>>>> work,
>>>>>>> but Kant is more illustrative of the point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wittgenstein's big ideas and posthumous work are constructive in a
>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 18 Dec 2015 01:09, "Danny Weltman"
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What in Kant's first critique do you find helpful for hitting on "a
>>>>>>>> fast
>>>>>>>> track way to make someone who is uneducated aware of the blatant
>>>>>>>> flaws
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> certain ideas and movements that are just unsustainable, and somehow
>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>> their day the past few years?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Tommy Pinecone
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is why I make it a deliberate priority not to go on Twitter or
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> follow any new intellectual voices.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every time it is some unfamiliar, alleged authority voicing a loud
>>>>>>>>> opinion that's appointed a flashy title; for some reason Twitter is
>>>>>>>>> frequently mentioned along the way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I hope the majority of you can see through this pettiness. It's
>>>>>>>>> unfortunate that we are swamped with the hack work and profound
>>>>>>>>> blanketed
>>>>>>>>> hate in modern academia, it is however a fortunate thing that we
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> merely
>>>>>>>>> look away and concentrate on human issues instead of coining new
>>>>>>>>> derogatory
>>>>>>>>> terms and stirring up the rabble with a short article.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I often wonder how different these outlooks would be if these
>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> introduced to literature in a different way, free from ideology and
>>>>>>>>> identity-that is an unbiased, philosophical way. I make it a hard
>>>>>>>>> point with
>>>>>>>>> any aspiring student to start off with a short introduction to
>>>>>>>>> Kant's
>>>>>>>>> primary Critique and a short introduction to Wittgenstein's
>>>>>>>>> thought;
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>> doubt it is an anomalous approach, but it's a fast track way to
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> who is uneducated aware of the blatant flaws in certain ideas and
>>>>>>>>> movements
>>>>>>>>> that are just unsustainable, and somehow having their day the past
>>>>>>>>> few
>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't have to pause to think of these things when there are
>>>>>>>>> bigger
>>>>>>>>> issues than female characters not being put in the center of the
>>>>>>>>> stage. What
>>>>>>>>> if I wanted to pen an article on how I wasn't happy with the lack
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> empathy
>>>>>>>>> Beckett shows in all of his works, to individuals of both genders
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>> less?
>>>>>>>>> Sure, the circumstances are different here, but not dramatically.
>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>> simply absurd. I struggle to believe these type of things when I
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> being taken so seriously by so many. Makes one feel hopeless,
>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>> when these are still the early years of the internet and the
>>>>>>>>> loudest
>>>>>>>>> voices
>>>>>>>>> are reaching aspiring students through social media poisoning their
>>>>>>>>> nascent
>>>>>>>>> opinions and thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 17 Dec 2015 20:51, "Matthew Taylor"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts on Rebecca Solnit's latest?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-to-me/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>> -
>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-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/?listpynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l