Men Explain Lolita To Me

Paul Mackin mackin.paul at gmail.com
Sun Dec 20 09:56:08 CST 2015 

Should include acknowledgment of the damage done, the publisher may have
thought.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/aed4d748/attachment.html>

More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list