Men Explain Lolita To Me

Fri Dec 18 17:20:09 CST 2015

But even nice guys are still guys.  ☺

P

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekker2 at icloud.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151218/fbcd91f1/attachment.html>