Men Explain Lolita To Me

Sun Dec 20 10:32:49 CST 2015

I think we know this did not happen, but the idea that it did is quite 
instructive: to find HH'S "self-recognition" somehow an expiation of the 
novel's sins is to act as the Hays Code censors did.

(To avoid misunderstanding, I myself do not think novels are the sort of 
thing that can have sins they need to expiate.)

Ray

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com

On December 20, 2015 9:56:09 AM Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l