Taibbi on Humbert (Sort of) TK Newsletter

Tue Aug 10 16:02:00 UTC 2021

Taibbi DOES NOT  say or even imply, " that he (Humbert) is *supposed* to be
a likeable narrator…” He says "How can I like Humbert Humbert?".

Had you mysteriously learned to read better, you might be able to see that
THAT was my naive question my first reading. I've read it multiple times too
and had it read to me by Jeremy Irons (as well as having seen all the
movies, including the one written by Nabokov)....

His question shows his thinking that he wants not to read what is there,
what Nabokov puts on the page which even Taibbi must agree is where he
exists, yes? ....as those who cancel *Lolita *almost always do not take the
whole novel in.....
"you can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style"....he might
have quoted when he is into his polysylllable riff......at the beginning a
statement
that he has murdered (unless he is lying, one reason we read on).....added
to with his self-revelation near the end AND WITH Lolita's end......he
destroyed her childhood...
his cultured emigre charm and success and erudition is another of Nabokov's
overarching dark satiric meanings....

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 11:27 AM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> So you don’t like Taibbi, as you don’t like so many progressive voices who
> fail to simplify the world to CNN morality and Democratic party lies. Not
> too surprising.
>   Unfortunately as a writer with clear bias you are indulging straw man
> logic, reading unexpressed thoughts into the words of the person being
> verbally flogged. Taibbi DOES NOT  say or even imply, " that he (Humbert) is
>  *supposed* to be a likeable narrator…” He says "How can I like Humbert
> Humbert?". And he is saying this after many readings. This is not an
> attempt by Taibbi at a literary critique or essay on Nabokov or Lolita.
> Reflections on Lolita and Nabokov and  what makes an interesting character
> are a personalized and internalized jumping-off point for a discussion of
> media morality and cancel culture and how we treat character issues.
>   You don’t like Lolita but claim to revere Nabokov, I don’t like either
> and don’t feel required to do so to be literate. Taibbi does like the
> writer and Lolita which is only one of Nabokov’s works that have a serious
> fascination with sex with children. Lolita drew the fascination of  the
> american letters community as an inquiry into character, into maleness,
> into manipulative games, and into language itself. It simultaneously drew a
> huge crowd as something with the appearance of sophisticated eroticism,
> thus  enlarging the interest of the literati, and also drawing in a lot of
> the playboy crowd and young men and women who wanted to be in the know.  I
> would suggest part of Taibbi’s use of this work was to show both sides of
> the drawing power of sex: first,  as a common ground of public fascination,
> and second as a common ground of moral debate and how that fascination has
> become so central to public morality while the planet burns, nations are
> starved, the treasury is looted, and insanely immoral wars are propagated
> by the same media.
>   To me the heart of the article is the moral comparison between the
> questionable substance of the sex allegations against Cuomo versus the much
> more devious and destructive isssue with Covid in nursing homes. He is not
> negating  that groping and abusing power is behavior that cannot be
> tolerated, but asking why are far more violent and destructive actions so
> easily tolerated?  Here he is talking about something in this weird
> political culture that is substantive and  worth writing about. The essay
> was far more interesting  and nuanced than your petty attack.
>   In the end I think you only succed in illustrating Taibbi’s point about
> the oversimplifications of cancel culture and skewed moral judgements.
> "Poor Matt”? His career as a writer is impressive because he is funny
> thoughtful and able to clarify complex realities. I doubt he qualifies as
> poor in any sense.
>
>
> On Aug 10, 2021, at 5:05 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Taibbi is as wrong as he has been lately about almost everything. Why is
> worth a discussion but not by me today--or probably ever.
> TRUTH: .....Humbert's evil is FINALLY being seen by more and more, not what
> he writes......mention it
> in a room or zoom of women and good readers as I did in my film class about
> a good movie influenced by Lolita (w the sexes reversed) .......read the
> early intellectuals who wrote of *Lolita* as *a love story*, even in *The
> New Yorker.*.......Read the next generation of critical responses, such as
> by the real good Michael Wood, who argues that the crucial scene where
> Humbert realizes he's a monster doesn't fully work. ......I will refute
> narcissitically as well. In my first reading, college, a freshman, but not
> for a course, I had serious trouble liking Humbert from the get-go--she is
> twelve!---thinking then as stupidly as Taibbi still thinks that he is
> supposed to be a likeable narrator....
>
> MT: "No story can survive an unlikeable narrator" ---has he not read enough
> great literature or is he just naively stupid? *Journey to the End of
> Night, Cabot Wright Begins, American Psycho, Houllebecq and more....*C'mon,
> why do we give Taibbi a pass with this stupidity? Because he once pointed
> out the real unsaid
> in our world? ........Superficial literary twitter of common readers is
> full of folks saying, about almost any book...."I didn't like the
> character(s)".....so, it was a bad book or not worth finishing......That's
> Matt's base of judgment it seems....
>
>
> "With Cuomo as with anyone else in the Internet age, the important issue
> isn’t right or wrong, but whether or not he’ll survive."
> Wrong, wrong. See everyone, every almost every woman reacting in real
> time......They are all over my twitter....
> 2 aides resigning with only their own pressure.....(to answer another
> overgeneralization of Taibbi's)
>
> AND don't get me started on another writer failing of so many who criticize
> social media in his way---with generalizations based on THEIR social
> media.....
> In its very being, twitter is what you make it; how you curate it....all
> these "twitter takes; twitter says"  are simply wrong (unless he's going to
> get TOTAL analytics which are still almost impossible to obtain WITH THE
> POSITIONS in the tweets known. I. E.. the nature of positive or negative
> responses need measured by their content. )....Everyone's twitter;
> everyone's Facebook is unique and is curated by one's notions of what one
> wants to see/hear)
>
> More bullshit from Taibbi:
> "Morality in this sense has become a pass/fail exercise, with everyone
> divided into just two categories, viable and disgraced. Which of the two
> one lands in depends entirely on how high levels of public disgust and
> emotion reach at the peak of viral mania, versus how entrenched the target
> is or isn’t. "
> Let's see, like General Kelley?..... Steve Bannon?....Sen Frankel?, who
> bowed out of the Senate for the good of the party, he said....The Dixie
> Chicks....lots of others.....
> his line blots out ANY acting on a principled morality, so damn
> self-justifyingly cynical; so loaded since, of course, almost every famous
> person will fight to keep their fame/power/fortune...I say this is hardly
> the "morality' of most people in this world, this country, of course, but
> he isn't talking about them,  just generalizing falsely for his paid
> articles...
> Belated thought: look at his "relative" Glenn Greenwald, fully disgraced
> and still viable to refute his two simple-minded categories from another
> direction
>
> MT" It’s a quirk of literature that readers will cheer the Acapulco
> polysyllable dives of a child rapist but find the same style pompous in the
> diary of an inoffensive emigre professor."... ....MORE WRONGNESS: Humbert's
> pompousness is raised to the level of pedophilia self-deception while
> Pnin's is simply a way of living and being seen. H's charming pompousness
> is part of the meaning; Pnin's charmlessness is part of his.
>
> MT "Nabokov, who famously despised the “literature of social intent,” might
> have puzzled at the effectiveness of Humbert as a narrator but surely
> didn’t worry about it."
> MK: Where does he come off with this? Where is the allusion from N's life
> or writing  to support this arrogant attempt to read N's baroque mind? The
> mind of a hardly predictable genius?.."might have puzzled at"......Yeah,
> wrong....my understanding of Nabokov, the man who created and solved chess
> puzzles and writing puzzles, is that the usual meaning of "might have
> puzzled at" has no traction....he worked without real worry about getting
> his words, characterizations, right not, not NOT
> "puzzling [as if he wasn't sure; he who said in response to E. M. Forster's
> remark that sometimes his characters took on a life of their own, NEVER
> his....they are like galley slaves rowing as I want them to...[paraphrase
> but the metaphor is exact]....
>
> Poor Matt......who has lost his whole subject matter and has never gotten
> literature, it is obvious....
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 9:59 AM Allan Balliett <allan.balliett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> https://taibbi.substack.com/p/tk-newsletter-on-good-people-and?r=2pty3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=email
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>
>
>