Men Explain Lolita To Me

Fri Dec 18 17:11:03 CST 2015

Well,  no,  young women should probably do what I did  - as much as possible, recognize and stay away from the domination oriented guys.  There are lots and lots and lots of nice guys in the world - find them.  Times are changing. In f2f land I only know one really domination oriented guy and he’s that way with everyone - a big blow-off.  Meanwhile, I know at least a couple dozen nice guys.  In the cyber-world I know 2 “win/lose” type males, neither one is  on the p-list.  The males on the p-list seem pretty much in the "nice guy” bunch  - fwiw.   

Bek

> On Dec 18, 2015, at 1:39 PM, 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