Men Explain Lolita To Me

Sun Dec 20 10:49:04 CST 2015

might as well let them in on the truth

I Was exaggerating a little.  But Rebecca S made me do it

PS You do sound a little like malignd but your address is different.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:28 AM, john bove <malignd at gmx.com> wrote:

> The idea that Lolita might function as a sort of instruction manual for
> young women as a sort of instruction manual was not, surely, what VN had in
> mind.
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 4:19 PM
> *From:* "Paul Mackin" <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
> *To:* "Joseph Tracy" <brook7 at sover.net>, "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org
> >
> *Subject:* Re: Men Explain Lolita To Me
> 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
>
> - 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/20151220/4dfbfd1e/attachment.html>