Men Explain Lolita To Me

Paul Mackin mackin.paul at gmail.com
Sun Dec 20 16:04:39 CST 2015 

It's about the travels of a foreigner through America. It's a very funny
place. The acting out of HH's attraction for Lo must sustain that mood.
The objective awfulness is something we're not suppose to notice. At least
at first.

But back to the original question, I don't suppose most likely readers
today are unaware of the harm such goings on would do to a young girl. (Not
so sure about the late 50s).  And it's possible for most people to read the
book as it was written and enjoy it for what it is.  Of course there are
plenty who can't.


On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 3:32 PM, john bove <malignd at gmx.com> wrote:

> To read Lolita and come away with the idea that all VN is after and
> demonstrating with HH is a fictional demonstration of a quest for pure
> power, is -- well, it misses almost everything.
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 1:58 PM
> *From:* "Mark Kohut" <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
> *To:* "Paul Mackin" <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* "Ray Easton" <raymond.lee.easton at gmail.com>, "pynchon -l" <
> pynchon-l at waste.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Men Explain Lolita To Me
> We prosecute for pedophilia because the law knows it takes some maturity
> to become an adult and sexuality is too fully involved with our being to be
> overwhelmed by an adult. It is pure power then.
> HH kidnaps her. HH's obsession is a hope for total control.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 20, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> According to Wikipedia Nabokov expert "Brian Boyd tries to let Humbert off
> the hook on the grounds that Dolores was not a virgin and seduced Humbert
> in the morning of their hotel stay."
>
> Wonder how he came to that conclusion.  Haven't got his book.
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:56 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151220/416dd70b/attachment.html>

More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list