Men Explain Lolita To Me

Sun Dec 20 18:29:10 CST 2015

“Had I done to Dolly, perhaps, what Frank Lasalle [sic], a fifty-year-old
mechanic, had done to eleven-year-old Sally Horner in 1948?”

The Real Lolita http://hazlitt.net/longreads/real-lolita

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20151221/3f4e4abf/attachment.html>