Men Explain Lolita To Me
Ray Easton
raymond.lee.easton at gmail.com
Sun Dec 20 08:28:37 CST 2015
What I find genuinely remarkable in what you say is this:
> I will repeat, in his self-recognition scene... he realizes that he
> destroyed Lolita's childhood. ( major critical question is whether that
> scene is deep enough, whether it suffices for a book-length pedophilia
> obsession.)
>
"A major critical question" -- really? Once one has adopted a standpoint
from which one demands that the work justify itself according to some
external moral standard, surely the matter is already settled. *Nothing*
could possibly serve as justification. The idea that a "self-recognition
scene," however powerful, could justify the "pedophilia obsession" is
abhorrent.
Ray
--------------------------
> Then we learn LOLITA has died in childbirth, at 17, birthing a stillborn
> girl. To me, assuming some traditional values to family, motherhood and new
> life--see The Grapes of Wrath--this is a heartbreaking fictional
> presentation of the normal life LOLITA is never to have.
>
> Re my last remark. Nabokov sez somewhere--that Paris Review
> interview?--that the rarest thing in life ( or fiction) would be a couple
> living out a normal life together without much thought of such institutions
> as religion, as any State, etc. I think of this in how VN ends LOLITA.
>
> a--and, esp in later readings, I was always conscious of VN's hyperbolic
> but real hatred of that Viennese Witch Doctor ( and all institutionalized
> psychology that followed) and consequent ruination of much fiction that
> left real-world sense perception, loving appreciation of all the beauty,
> all the subtlety of our real world for sophomoric " explanation" of
> character(s). Common human understandings and their actions are how we know
> fictional creations, I think he would--has?--said. for most fiction (
> although he also patterned into his fiction certain themes more cleverly
> than about anyone else).
>
> I think I'm done now.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list