Men Explain Lolita To Me

Sat Dec 19 15:19:05 CST 2015

The discussion was about art and its destructive effect upon young women,
specifically art like Lolita, which portrays male libidinous domination
over a prepubescent girl. HH isn't invented out of the whole cloth, but is
an exaggerated expression of male sexuality. I don't think I'm wrong here.
I of course don't say men in general are pedophiles, but men nevertheless
recognize a bit of themselves in HH. That's why they can't turn their eyes
away. And by presenting Lolita herself so inertly and somewhat comically,
the author takes attention away from what the poor girl must surely be
suffering.

I think young women shouldn't be SHIELDED from the book.  It won't harm
them. It might give them an inkling of what they'll be dealing with.  It
might even make them more sympathetic. Rebecca S does speak of harm done
males by and under the present dispensation. Of course I may be wrong, but
there's nothing horrifying about my opinion.

PS Women DO need to be shielded from rapists. Pepper spray or a dagger long
enough to reach the heart.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

>  “Better if they could learn to say Ho,ho, ho so that’s what the big
> babies need”
> If I understand you. That is just as creepy and shitty as all get out.  Do
> you really mean that? Also, neither Solnit Nor Becky said anything about
> shielding young women. This article is not asking for protection; it is
> boldly and smartly questioning male presumptions that overlook the natural
> response of women to writing that ignores their dignity and value.
>
> > On Dec 18, 2015, at 4:39 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/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151219/1ea7b99f/attachment.html>