Men Explain Lolita To Me

Sun Dec 20 09:28:44 CST 2015

maybe the publisher demanded some sort of acknowledgement of the
transgression

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Ray Easton <raymond.lee.easton at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151220/672991f4/attachment.html>