Taibbi on Humbert (Sort of) TK Newsletter

[Mark Kohut]

Ah, I'm softly pinned. Yes.

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 6:22 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>