Men Explain Lolita To Me

Mark Kohut mark.kohut at gmail.com
Sun Dec 20 12:32:05 CST 2015 

I disagree. The best novels and dramas --fictions w people--hinge on all kinds of awarenesses or not .
And critical readers judge that. Need I mention the Greeks, Shakespeare, Hardy, Faust, Austen, Eliot, And many many more. It is a question of character creation and actions in the fiction. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 20, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Ray Easton <raymond.lee.easton at gmail.com> wrote:

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

More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list