4 ms·

Rebecca Solnit about Lolita: "You read enough books in which people like you are disposable, or are dirt, or are silent, absent, or worthless, and it makes an

Rebecca Solnit about Lolita: "You read enough books in which people like you are disposable, or are dirt, or are silent, absent, or worthless, and it makes an impact on you." She quotes Vera: "I wish, though, somebody would notice the tender description of the child, her pathetic dependence on monstrous HH, and her heartrending courage all along…" And Azar Nafisi: "Lolita belongs to a category of victims who have no defense and are never given a chance to articulate their own story. As such she becomes a double victim—not only her life but also her life story is taken from her. We told ourselves we were in that class to prevent ourselves from falling victim to this second crime." http://lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-to-me/ http://lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-to-me/

Tomte 11y ago
The author may present her case inaptly, but she comes off as very dislikable. So she wrote an article about Lolita and got a comment: "To read Lolita and ‘identify’ with one of the characters is to entirely misunderstand Nabokov" I haven't read Lolita, don't have any literary criticism training and don't have the slightest idea whether this assertion is general consensus, debatable or total lunacy. But it is certainly civil. And there is no indication at all that it was posted because the author is a woman. Still, the comment is supposed to be a prime example of "mansplaining". I think the author just can't cope with criticism. And since her peer group seems to be radical feminists, what better way to discredit it than by asserting it is against feminism. Have I missed anything else in this posting? There was lots and lots of ranting, but this comment thing seemed to be the only thing of substance.
- HillRat 11y ago
  While I actually sympathize with the author's intent, Nabakov is not the best of literary targets, as even his most sympathetic characters form a cabinet of grotesqueries -- vide the protagonists of Pnin, Bend Sinister, or Pale Fire -- and Humbert Humbert is most assuredly a monster. On the other hand, the sexual politics of Nabakov are worthy of interrogation; he is a literary giant, but hardly immune from criticism, and his female characters tend towards the underdrawn at best. But great works are often great in spite of their politics, and the Russian novelists perhaps more so than most. One should not hastily lock away our artistic heritage on the same grounds upon one might dismiss a political jeremiad. Edit: And, to address the contretemps itself, I'm going to take the cowardly middle path and say that, while to identify with Nabakov's characters is to generally if not always misread Nabakov, it is also true -- death of the author and whatnot -- that deliberately misreading an author is a laudable act! The central tenet of postmodernism is the recognition that just as we have unreliable narrators, we also have unreliable authors and, if one feels that Lolita is mistreated not as a matter of plot but of characterization, then interrogation of the text and author is a service to scholarship. The only requirement to misreading an author is to at all times be aware of what the author intended. Accidentally misreading the text is academic malpractice.
mercurial 11y ago
At least, no blatant generalization in your link: > But seriously, you know who can’t take a joke? White guys. Ugh, seriously? Naturally, followed by the "I have white male friends". Would the author would find her own text acceptable if the word "white" was replaced by "black" and "male" by "female" or "gay"?
RodericDay 11y ago
That is an excellent article, thank you for sharing it. This is fascinating: The rapist told them, “Deviant fantasies had gripped him since he was a kid, way back to when he had seen Jabba the Hutt enslave and chain Princess Leia.” The Arthur C. Danto essay cited therein is also very interesting: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/12402/The%20Politics%20of%20Imagination-1988.pdf?sequence=1 https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/12402/Th...

Tomte 11y ago

The author may present her case inaptly, but she comes off as very dislikable. So she wrote an article about Lolita and got a comment: "To read Lolita and ‘identify’ with one of the characters is to entirely misunderstand Nabokov" I haven't read Lolita, don't have any literary criticism training and don't have the slightest idea whether this assertion is general consensus, debatable or total lunacy. But it is certainly civil. And there is no indication at all that it was posted because the author is a woman. Still, the comment is supposed to be a prime example of "mansplaining". I think the author just can't cope with criticism. And since her peer group seems to be radical feminists, what better way to discredit it than by asserting it is against feminism. Have I missed anything else in this posting? There was lots and lots of ranting, but this comment thing seemed to be the only thing of substance.

HillRat 11y ago
While I actually sympathize with the author's intent, Nabakov is not the best of literary targets, as even his most sympathetic characters form a cabinet of grotesqueries -- vide the protagonists of Pnin, Bend Sinister, or Pale Fire -- and Humbert Humbert is most assuredly a monster. On the other hand, the sexual politics of Nabakov are worthy of interrogation; he is a literary giant, but hardly immune from criticism, and his female characters tend towards the underdrawn at best. But great works are often great in spite of their politics, and the Russian novelists perhaps more so than most. One should not hastily lock away our artistic heritage on the same grounds upon one might dismiss a political jeremiad. Edit: And, to address the contretemps itself, I'm going to take the cowardly middle path and say that, while to identify with Nabakov's characters is to generally if not always misread Nabakov, it is also true -- death of the author and whatnot -- that deliberately misreading an author is a laudable act! The central tenet of postmodernism is the recognition that just as we have unreliable narrators, we also have unreliable authors and, if one feels that Lolita is mistreated not as a matter of plot but of characterization, then interrogation of the text and author is a service to scholarship. The only requirement to misreading an author is to at all times be aware of what the author intended. Accidentally misreading the text is academic malpractice.

mercurial 11y ago

At least, no blatant generalization in your link: > But seriously, you know who can’t take a joke? White guys. Ugh, seriously? Naturally, followed by the "I have white male friends". Would the author would find her own text acceptable if the word "white" was replaced by "black" and "male" by "female" or "gay"?

RodericDay 11y ago

That is an excellent article, thank you for sharing it. This is fascinating: The rapist told them, “Deviant fantasies had gripped him since he was a kid, way back to when he had seen Jabba the Hutt enslave and chain Princess Leia.” The Arthur C. Danto essay cited therein is also very interesting: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/12402/The%20Politics%20of%20Imagination-1988.pdf?sequence=1 https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/12402/Th...