Taibbi on Humbert (Sort of) TK Newsletter

Tue Aug 10 22:22:16 UTC 2021

Yes.  How could one NOT conclude that N consciously made Humbert a
pedophile?  But he does it with a large stage-wink.  He also makes Humbert
a murderer and a kidnapper, but only after he’s got us hooked and complicit
and conflicted.  That’s partly what makes Lolita so much fun!

David Morris

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 2:12 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Now, rereading,  I will suggest he consciously made Humbert a
> pedophile......
>
> His "intentions' in his novels are complicated by his constant
> statement that he was never a moralist in them...(but usually taken to mean
> what Taibbi said, no hint of a "literature of social intent"....)
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 1:57 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Which Nabakov novel had the unfortunately “plain” daughter commit suicide
>> after her blind date treats her badly one night?  Was that Shade’s daughter
>> in Pale Fire?  Anyway, N treats the “Plain Jane’s” suicide as less than a
>> tragedy. Maybe even inevitable for one so I’ll-fated as to be born a homely
>> female.  My point being that I think it is a mistake to assume that Nabakov
>> was at all “woke.”  I think he had his own dark predjudices towards women
>> and gays and others less mentally gifted than himself.  So I think his
>> Humbert might actually be his own humorous naughty alter ego, NOT someone
>> to be morally vilified.
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 11:30 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> STOP MISUNDERSTANDING ME.......stop telling me what I am....argue
>>> objectively.
>>>
>>> You have never been able to read me correctly......
>>>
>>> I LOVE LOLITA.....one of the greatest masterpieces of our time.......I
>>> did
>>> not say I agreed with Wood who also thinks it a great slightly-flawed
>>> masterpiece.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> --
>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>
>>