Lolita
discussion
Men Explain Lolita to Me
Give the article a shot, Karen. I don't think you'll find much to disagree with.
Karen wrote: "I did read the article, and I don't agree with a lot of it. There are plenty of women out there who present their opinions as facts too! Maybe because I don't experience male chauvinism, I choose not to."I'm not seeing the source of your objections in general. At least, they don't seem to be related to the article in any meaningful way. Is there some aspect of in particular of Solnit's argument that you're responding to? What is it you're disagreeing with?
Karen wrote: "Here are excerpts of the article and my responses in quotes."It isn’t a fact universally acknowledged that a person who mistakes his opinions for facts may also mistake himself for God. This can h..."
Karen, if you give those quoted passages a more careful read, and put them in the context of the article itself, I don't think your objections hold up. For instance, your contention that she doesn't use the word "some" in her characterization of the issue is particularly odd given she does vitiate her language in the quoted paragraph by saying "especially." That indicates clearly that she understands this is not an exclusively male issue, nor that all males are subject to it. No, she did not use the specific language that you suggest, but the paragraph does not mean what you're suggesting it means. In fact, it does exactly what your saying it does not do.
Karen wrote: "'The rest of us get used to the transgendering and cross-racializing of our identities as we invest in protagonists like Ishmael or Dirty Harry or Holden Caulfield.'
What the hell does the above sentence mean?????? Does everyone get a label? How confusing and limiting.
Even out of the context of the original paragraph, I don't think that's what that sentence indicates. In fact, I think you've given it a very poor reading and attributed a meaning to it that doesn't exist in the original text. She is talking about how literature brings women and people of color OUT of their limited perspective by forcing them into the POV of white male characters, but the proliferation of that standard means that white males do not have the same experience. So, your focus on labels and limitations seems to have missed both the sense of the sentence and the functional use of those terms. That is the opposite of labeling and limitation. It's about how literature can get people to look past those things.
Karen wrote: "There has been a lot said this year about college students—meaning female college students, black students, trans students—and how they’re hypersensitive and demanding that others be censored."
Yep, but she fails to mention that straight white male college students are ALSO hypersensitive and demanding that others be censored.
She does explain in particular which groups she's talking about ("college students—meaning female college students, black students, trans students") so it seems clear that your objection that she's not including about straight, white male college students appears to be built right into her meaning. How in particular are you thinking that fits into the topic of college students in this regard?
Karen wrote: "'That’s why The Atlantic, a strange publication that veers from progressive to regressive and back again like a weighty pendulum recently did a piece on “The Coddling of the American Mind.” It tells us that, “Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke,” with the invocation of these two white guys as definitive authorities.'
The above last sentence is ridiculous- these two white guys ARE the authorities OF THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES, which means that Bill Maher and Jerry Seinfeld have experienced this over sensitivity at colleges and universities, where students ARE being coddled and are offended so easily and want to censor them (Bill Maher and Jerry Seinfeld, and anyone else who the students don't agree with).
Again, I think you're reading of that is an invention of your own rather than based on the text. They aren't quoted as authorities of their own experiences, but as authorities over the experiences of college students of whom they can know very little, but feel perfectly empowered to define, discount and deride.
As a side note, one must take with more than a little skepticism the socio-political viewpoint of anyone whose ideas just happen to line up perfectly with their own self-interest. Comedians saying that they should be able to ply their trade without regard to the groups they are addressing? Those same people should have no voice in how their time, tuition, public spaces are utilized and by whom? Bill Maher and Jerry Seinfeld have every right to state their objections to the students' objections, but they fail to realize that it is, in fact, they who are imposing their ideas on others more than the other way around. Freedom of speech also means freedom to object to the speech of others, and that is, in fact, what both sides are doing. That Maher and Seinfeld's comprehension of the situation is so shallow that they only see their own side of that situation is part and parcel of the article's theme.
Karen wrote: "Many women in horrible countries where they have no rights strategically try not to get raped, and their lives are spent in fear. But I don't know of any women where I live and have lived who spend their lives quietly trying not to get raped. There aren't rapists around every corner. I have not lived in one place all my life, and spent many nights in bars and in NYC, and have met different kinds of people. The great majority of the men I met did not try to rape me."
So, what's your point here? That crime statistics don't apply to you personally, so we should ignore them? You seem to be acknowledging here that Solnit is right... but that because it's outside your personal experience it is trivial. You may want to reflect on that.
Karen wrote: "Gary, I don't think I read the article poorly. I'm a fairly intelligent person. I don't like the way it was written, and this author generalizes too much. And did you really take me off your friends list because of this?"Yep, I did. In fact--since you want to address the issue publicly rather than mustering the grace and manners to simply move on--the ideas you've expressed here have been more than a little pathetic, and I don't need you in my feed. In short, your posts are a waste of my time. In fact, given the childishness of this latest response, I'll be blocking you now as you've clearly entered into some sort of mental vapor lock of the type that is so close-minded that I don't need to be bothered with your posts at all anymore. Your inability to read simple and concise sentences in a meaningful way, even doubling and tripling down on the willful ignorance expressed from your first post on this thread, means I don't care to interact with you on a website that is dedicated to reading. You may want to do the same (that is, block me) as you've clearly been so unsettled by a link to an article that is very much the sort of thing I regularly do here on Goodreads.
In any case, to address your later objection, the crime statistics reference is simply an example of how we recognize the reality in which we live. That you have not personally experienced the type of thing that she was talking about, and so easily discount it on that highly subjective basis means you are precisely the sort of person Ms. Solnit is addressing. That you are incapable of accepting even that most elementary and ultimately harmless of critiques as a moment of empathy and possibly reflection is intensely self-serving and expresses a serious lack of character, and I'm of an age and period in my life where I have increasingly little time to dedicate to such folks.
So, good luck to you, and goodbye.
OK, I'm late to the thread so I can't *really* finger out who wrote what... But whoever wrote *this*:What the hell does the above sentence mean?????? Does everyone get a label? How confusing and limiting.
actually got to the heart of the all the "Identity" crap (which is really all that Solnitwit is babbling about, ultimately...). And actually, it's given me insight into something that I sort of subliminally realized, but either didn't want to admit or never could grasp before.
The underlying theme that runs through this Solnit's writing, as with all SJW's, is an obsession with *identity* - racial, sexual, ethnic, twitnik, you name it. She and the rest of them just deprive *everyone* of any individuality - you're whatever *they* deicide is your "identity" group, and from there on our you're just fucked - you're one or another "Race", or "Gender", you're this, you're that... Solnitwit, like all the SJWs, has got a whole *drawer* full of labels (and more coming every day). If you've got a skin color or some genitals, they're right there with the labels and the staple gun.
But I always knew *that*... What just dawned on me, though, is that the kids in grade school who threw rocks at me and split my head open, and pushed me off the porch and broke my arm, and waited for me in gangs of 5 and 10 to kick the shit out of me, actually did me a *favor*!! Because by simply brutalizing me for *no* reason at all, regardless of *any* "Identity" on my part (other than merely being formatively "human"), what they did was essentially to deprive me of my *identity* as a *human*, entirely!!
I.e., they essentially kicked me of the human race, thereby *completely* depriving me *forever* of ANY of the SJW's treasured (sub)"Identities" such as "Asian", or "Female" or whatever they're obsessed with at the moment. But *more* importantly, they deprived Humanity (including - and particularly SJWs like *themselves*) of ANY RIGHT to stick an "Identity" on ME, forever!!
I.e., I now realize, they actually did me a FAVOR!! And I never thought of it that way... . And if Solnit wasn't such a nitwit as to write such vapid screeds, it might *never* have dawned on me!!! Talk about a silver lining on a dark cloud... !
That said (and possibly having wandered OT - if there was one to begin with) I'm a little confused as to whether we're having a Doylist or Watsonian dicsucsion of Nabokov and his protagonist Humbert Humbert Humbert Humbert Humbert? It seems like it's some sort of convolution product of both... ?? if it matters really since it seems like the subject is actually Solnit... . (But I'm not even sure about *that*? like I said I'm late to the thread (along with everything else).)
(Maybe I should add another "Humbert"...?).
Oh - And - Also - @Gary: I don't undersatand "Blocking" people... I mean, like, when the bugs are bugging you, why put up a window screen when you can hang up a bugzapper? They're *so* much more fun...
AnnLoretta wrote: "ut thanks for introducing her to me, and I'm looking forward to receiving her book!"You're very welcome. I'm interested in what you think of it. This article was my first encounter with her writing. (It was trending briefly on Twitter and that got my attention.) I'm looking forward to checking out more of her work.
Lolita certainly does tend to elicit some interesting opinions. It may be the most consistently misread book in history--if we discount religious texts, that is. ;-)
AnnLoretta wrote: "The funniest thing to me is that in response to your interesting post, we have a woman making Solnit's point by defending the men mentioned in the essay, and a man being exactly who Solnit is discussing, telling us all how wrong she is, also. So , interesting outcome to the experiment."Indeed, this has been interesting to follow! Karen reminded me of a physician in one of those "horrible countries" she could be talking about (like mine, I guess), where the contamination with certain toxic was up the sky, but he kept saying "I lived here all my life and I'm fine" as evidence that such contamination did not exist. It's always interesting to me when people aren't able to consider there is a world beyond their own noses.
Duane missed the actual point here. It's true that labeling everything and everyone can be limiting, but make no mistake, those boys who bullied you back then, they were actually labeling you something, which is why you were their target. Your considerations about going further to your human identity are, of course, valid as they are yours, but most likely not theirs. Some labels are there, whether we want to use them or not. The oppressed group can be the darker kid, the kid with glasses, the kid with orthodontics, the fat kid, you name it, but the labels are there and they have always been there. Yes, the goal/result is usually to dehumanize the oppressed, the target, but the reason is that "label", that categorization that, in the bullies' heads, made the victim a target.
You think you can dismiss everyone and diminish them by calling them Social Justice Warriors, to which I can only say this: I wish some of them actually were. We need more of those. We need more actual warriors re-educating their populations, so less kids end up throwing rocks at other kids because of whatever difference they see in them.
That doesn't mean you get to censor everyone; that is a hyperbolic knee-jerk reaction from people who want to preserve their right to oppress. I did read that essay about the coddling of the little gringos' minds, and yes, there will always be people who can't take a joke, but some jokes should never be made, too. Hyperbolic reactions aren't good on either side of the spectrum.
That said, the "white cis-het male" point of view is not simply a label someone invented, even if its name is a label someone came up with. The truth is that the large majority of works (books, movies, etc.) were made from and/or get analyzed from that point of view, even the -fewer- where a woman is the protagonist.
Laura wrote: (a bunch of stuff that I'm too lazy to edit in here... You're WAY overanalyzing and intellectualizing this. IN my (Admittedly limited) experience, people kick the shit out of each other because they're basically no better than animals. They don't really *need* any "labels" all. Half the time they do it simply because they're jealous or they didn't get laid last night. Labels just make it easier for ersatz intellectuals like SJWs to justify THEIR shit-kicking activities from their lofty vantage point at their computer in their bedroom at mommy's house, from whence they try to verbally kick the shit out of somebody in order to get their rocks off with their moral superiority.
In point of fact, humans will just attack what the social anthropologists call the "other" - i.e., whoever isn't "one of us". They don't even NEED a label. The SJWs are no different from the people they hate, in that regard... they just *think* they are. They remind me for all the world of evangelical Christians, just as today's Islamikazis remind me of the kids on the block- "You're not me, and you're not one of us, so I'm gonna kill you - (now let's see, now that I've decided to do it, what label can I come up with to provide a rational framework to justify killing you in case anybody asks why)"...
AnnLoretta wrote: "Maybe it's just a contemporary term, Social Justice Warriors, in a pejorative sense, that is in everyday use, that I'm not aware of."It's one of those terms, like "politically correct," that seems to be invariably used by people in a negative sense without any sort of understanding of what it means, what they are actually saying, or the innate hypocrisy of their ideas. In either case, it's usually meant to belittle the language of the Left, but really on anyone who suggests Progressive ideas or talks about civil liberties (read: women, minorities or their supporters.) Of course, they only use those terms when attacking ideas that don't apply to that person. Then suddenly it's about Liberty, Rights, the Rule of Law, etc.
However, in effect, it becomes an excellent way for those whose thinking is simplistic and dismissive to self-identify for the edification of decent, more developed people. Once someone whips out those terms, you can be pretty well assured they are going to engage in some pretty shoddy socio-political discourse--very often something they've been spoonfed from one corporate propagandist or another--and there's very little of merit to be gained from talking to them.
I'm not sure what point the author is trying to make, exactly. Does she only have a problem with men who take a "my way or the highway" attitude towards those who disagree with them (she never even mentions women who have that attitude)? Does she only have a problem with men who don't think Lolita is about rape? Does she only have a problem with men who think art has no effect on life or who think identifying with a character isn't the point of literary fiction? Since women who think those things are never even mentioned, the author presumably either thinks no such women exist, or she only has a problem with men who think those things. While she is careful never to say "all men," ALL of her complaints are about men. Sexist much?
Do you think sexism more often comes from men being sexist towards women or women being sexist towards men? What would you say the ratio might be?
AnnLoretta wrote: "It's a question of power, of domination, as I believe Duane may have been expressing, but as I said here, his own experience prevents him from discussing. "Ya think?
The way I see it, IMNTBHO, there really isn't anything to discuss - all of the noise about "privilege" and "oppression", and "race" and "gender", etc. ad infinitum, is just vapid intellectual pretentiousness camouflaging what is really just innate evil.
Have you read Kafka's "The Trial"? The guy never finds out what he's accused of, because really in fact he's not being accused of anything - the other monkeys just deicided to put him on trial for no reason at all (or maybe just because they didn't get laid last night?). Now, *that* gets *right* to the heart of it.
Gary wrote: "Do you think sexism more often comes from men being sexist towards women or women being sexist towards men? What would you say the ratio might be?"I believe sexism from men against women is more frequent than the other way around, although how much more frequent or how much worse will depend on context (somewhere like Sweden vs. somewhere like Saudi Arabia). Any ratio would surely depend on how you tried to quantify sexism.
In any case, I don't see what that has to do with this particular instance, beyond determining whether it is typical or atypical.
Lohengrin wrote: "In any case, I don't see what that has to do with this particular instance, beyond determining whether it is typical or atypical."It has to do with priorities, and the recognition of reality. The reality is that your objection does two things:
1. It assumes sexism despite the content of the article. To wit, the amount of text the author dedicated to addressing the issue of
And here, just for the record, let me clarify that I’m not saying that all of them can’t take it. Many white men—among whom I count many friends (and, naturally, family members nearly as pale as I)—have a sense of humor, that talent for seeing the gap between what things are supposed to be and what they are and for seeing beyond the limits of their own position. Some have deep empathy and insight and write as well as the rest of us. Some are champions of human rights.She's not talking about all men. She expressly says so. In order to be sexist, she'd have to be talking about men as a generality rather than a particular subset. So, the accusation of sexism itself is a product of either misreading or invention.
2. Your objection equates sexism of all sorts, presenting them as if they are of the same influence on society, with the same moral qualities, and that's simply not the case. It is, in fact, a routinely used dodge by those in positions of power in order to avoid a perceived threat to their authority. Anyone who points out that a minority group has a particular issue with civil liberties is not obligated to assure that the entirety of humanity must be assured of total equality before addressing the more proximate problem. Aside from missing the fundamental idea of the article regarding how art interacts with empathy, arguing that she's addressing only male sexism is to ignore the relative significance of the different sides of the issue.
Reasonable people prioritize their efforts and ideas from those most influential and significant to those least influential and significant. So, if the objection that she's not ALSO bringing up all the sexism directed towards white males is unreasonable as it equates the relatively advantaged with those more at risk.
If you read my post, you will see that I specifically said she avoided saying "all men" but that all of her objections were about men. Unless she believes that no women have such opinions, it is a double standard, and in either case yes, it's about generalisations (either "X is wrong only when men think it" or "only men can and do hold such mistaken opinions or attitudes"). I'm also not saying that my complaint is that she doesn't bring up sexism against men, my complaint is that the article (ironically partly about sexism) is itself sexist, not because of what it says about Lolita (which is actually very little) but because it complains about certain opinions and attitudes as if they were held solely by men (and, despite the disclaimer she makes, she keeps emphasising, starting with the title, that it's men this, men that...).
Lohengrin wrote: "If you read my post, you will see that I specifically said she avoided saying "all men" but that all of her objections were about men. Unless she believes that no women have such opinions, it is a double standard, and in either case yes, it's about generalisations (either "X is wrong only when men think it" or "only men can and do hold such mistaken opinions or attitudes")."Yes, you did say that. And that is a misrepresentation. Characterizing the article as "specifically avoid saying 'all men'" is, at best, inaccurate. In fact, she specifically says she's talking about not only a subset of men (white men) but specifically says not all the men in that subset. So if your argument is that she is biased towards men who are sexist then there's the merit to that argument. However, a bias against a subset of a subset of a gender isn't sexism any more than, say, a bias against some red-headed New Yorkers who root for the Mets is racism.
Further, in order for a bias to rise to the level of an -ism there's a pretty good argument to be made that the bias must not only accompany action, but must also have the support of culture/authority, and without that support it's nothing more than a personal bias.
So, calling it her ideas sexist when she's talking not about a group but a subset, and takes pains to point out that not all members of that subset engage in the kind of behavior she's describing, AND none of those ideas are backed up by either action or authority, is false.
Duane wrote: "humans will just attack what the social anthropologists call the "other" - i.e., whoever isn't "one of us""That is, mein Freund, a label, in the sense that it's a classification. If I gang with "my own" against "the other", I'm classifying my society in "people like me" against "people not like me". Sometimes it's the fat kid, or the kid with glasses, or the darker kid, but trust me, the labels are there, even before that kid becomes an intellectual screaming against social injustice online, where nobody can make them physically bleed anymore.
Duane wrote: "all of the noise about "privilege" and "oppression", and "race" and "gender", etc. ad infinitum, is just vapid intellectual pretentiousness camouflaging what is really just innate evil"
Easy words for a privileged white man. Yup. As a Latina woman living in a predominantly white-blond-blue eyed-people country, I can tell you a different story. Again, it's funny how some people can't see past their own noses.
Karen wrote: "I guess you said this better than I did, I should have just waited until you posted here. Cuz I was greatly insulted when I opened my mouth."
Yes, how dared we forget the women who bought into the patriarchal mindset and agree with it. Women can be sexist against women too, do not forget it!
Lohengrin wrote: "I'm also not saying that my complaint is that she doesn't bring up sexism against men, my complaint is that the article (ironically partly about sexism) is itself sexist, not because of what it says about Lolita (which is actually very little) but because it complains about certain opinions and attitudes as if they were held solely by men..."
First of all, I don't really care about the kind of sexism that doesn't harm anyone. The kind of sexism that diminishes women, causing inequalities (and rape culture, and wage gaps, etc.), harms women. The kind of sexism that goes "men are sexist" does not harm men in any way; the inequality still favors men.
Women who embrace the patriarchal mindset (as I expressed above, seconding Karen's complaint that we left them behind) do so because those ideas come inherently from a patriarchal system. They come from men. Some women are more compliant than others; it's a system that has run for centuries, and in the same way that some men disagree with it, some women agree with it. But as the origin is patriarchal, it's not entirely incorrect to assume it's a male thought, even if some women share it.
That said... In the same way that right winged people from the U.S. (because let's face it, the nickname came from there) use "social justice warrior" as a mockery and a pejorative, their left winged equivalents say "#NotAllMen" to mock and diminish the men who complain about being put in the same sack as the sexist. As AnnLoretta was saying, there are extremists in both sides of any argument. I don't think the middle is the right place to be, but you can pick a side without that meaning that you agree to relinquish your brain and go all the way to the extreme.
AnnLoretta wrote;"I didn't mean to advocate the middle, other than if we don't all come to the middle (the village square, sort of) occasionally, to speak reasonably and listen carefully, we'll all be screaming at each other from very far away, and then where are we?"
Exactly! That's why we don't see much progress happening politically- extremes on both sides. I as a rule don't talk politics online. :/
Laura wrote: "That is, mein Freund, a label, in the sense that it's a classification. If I gang with "my own" against "the other", I'm classifying my society in "people like me" against "people not like me". Sometimes it's the fat kid, or the kid with glasses, or the darker kid, but trust me, the labels are there....aHA! Yes, the next step of curse is to drill down to the "definition" of what a "label" is. But what I'm saying is, in the final analysis *all* of the "labels" (Or classifications) (Or etc.) are meaningless, because the ultimate motivation is just sheer animal viciousness, and the labels - in all their radiant glory, are pointlessly layered upon that fundamental fact. Do you think for an instant that the whole tribe wouldn't be murdering and mutilating each other apace even if they didn't have language at all out of which to create labels? So why bother analyzing their meaningless prattle, when fundamentally they're just evil to their very, simian core?
Easy words for a privileged white man. Yup
Easy words for anybody, actually, if they've studied enough sociology and anthropology and read enough monographs on how primitive peoples conduct *their* business -- Sooner or later , with enough common examples from enough "Cultures" all the way across the "Privilege" and skin color spectrum, , you no longer just see the trees, and start seeing the forest, y'know?
Yes, how dared we forget the women who bought into the patriarchal mindset and agree with it. Women can be sexist against women too, do not forget it!
Well... Interesting question. There was a charming article in the Daily Mail a while back, with photos of several "Islamic" women holding a screaming child down while one of them cut her clitoris off with a piece of glass. But, is that really "Sexist", or not? The SJWs have classified such umm... "practices" as acceptable under the doctrine of "Multiculturalism", haven't they? Aren't we "Privileged" Westerners" merely being "Judgemental", if we're "Intolerant" of such practices? Etc... . But , if (for instance, in this particular example) one just takes off the blinders and quits labeling everyone concerned, and finally realizes that they're just vicious animals doing the same thing a tomcat does when he tries to bite a rival cat's balls off in a fight, it all becomes perfectly, crystal clear...
Duane wrote: "Laura wrote: "That is, mein Freund, a label, in the sense that it's a classification. If I gang with "my own" against "the other", I'm classifying my society in "people like me" against "people not..."The SJW's really hate people like me, because I embrace their epithets with a smug statement like, "Yeah, I'm judgemental and intolerant, but I don't mutilate children, so I can still live with myself......."
Is it my imagination or does this thread keep getting shorter instead of longer?
Holly wrote: "The SJW's really hate people like me, because I embrace their epithets with a smug statement like, "Yeah, I'm judgemental and intolerant, but I don't mutilate children, so I can still live with myself..."<< Duane performs an octuple prostration in appreciation... >>
AND!
I've been *waiting* for YOU to show up here. What did you think of my proposal a while back, to add "Identity Removal" to the "Zombification and Vampirization" business you were going to start? (I just thought of it again because of the "Label" debate... I mean, a successful Identity Removal would render Labels *completely* unusable... wouldn't it?) As I was saying from my own experience, the proper application of senseless brutality during childhood does the job nicely, but I'll wager there are plenty of *adults* who'd like their identity removed (and, most importantly, would pay *handsomely* for it) - ? (Not sure what procedure would be necessary with an adult, though... it wouldn't be as simple as your Zombie procedure of dosing them with amphetamines and subjecting them to the 135 straight hours of Oprah, that is... ???)
?
Rebecca Solnit (and this essay is my introduction to her work) reminds me a lot of Barbara Ehrenreich. She is obviously a very gifted writer. On the strength of the writing of this essay, I added two of her books to my Scrib'd account. It seems like it will be entertaining reading, but she has the same fault as Ehrenreich: she's too invested in her goofy ideology to appeal to anyone other than those who already share her convictions. Because she is not basing her observations on reality instead of her convictions, the average reader will quickly discount her writing (as they should). She's wasting her talent.
Mickey wrote: "Rebecca Solnit (and this essay is my introduction to her work) reminds me a lot of Barbara Ehrenreich. She is obviously a very gifted writer. On the strength of the writing of this es..."Well, yeah - you're right, on all counts - Horowitz calls it a a "pseudoenvironment", wherein these whackjobs live in a world of their own imagining (and he uses the politics of Berserkley where if I'm not mistaken Solnitwit lives, as the background for his analysis).
But given all that, and wasted talent notwithsatanding, why even put her on your reading list? I mean, there is SOOOoooo much stuff to read out there, why bother with Yet Another Berserkley Whackjob? (Unless, as in Horowitz's case, you're making a career of psychoanalyzing Berserkley whackjobs, which... yeah, I guess that could be "Interesting"...)
Mickey wrote: "Rebecca Solnit (and this essay is my introduction to her work) reminds me a lot of Barbara Ehrenreich. She is obviously a very gifted writer. On the strength of the writing of this es..."Exactly, well stated.
Duane wrote: "But given all that, and wasted talent notwithsatanding, why even put her on your reading list? I mean, there is SOOOoooo much stuff to read out there, why bother with Yet Another Berserkley Whackjob? (Unless, as in Horowitz's case, you're making a career of psychoanalyzing Berserkley whackjobs, which... yeah, I guess that could be "Interesting"...) "To judge writers simply by their politics strikes me as a "politically correct" thing to do. I don't need to have the writers or musicians I like to reflect my political leanings. Frankly, most of that essay was stupid and offensive, but I think there is a possibility that she might have a few interesting ideas to share if she ever processes anything instead of living in this fantasy world.
For instance, Sarah Vowell is a great writer and is very precise and entertaining when dealing with historical subjects. When she gets on the subject of recent politics, she can quickly become snide, condescending, and intolerable. I just ignore the unoriginal, polemical parts and focus on the parts she does well.
I also like novel writers and musicians who's politics I may not agree with. I don't read political novels with an authors biased slant though. With music it's a bit different for me- if it's great and I love it I don't care, unless that musicians work is all politics, but I don't find that to be true often.
..."there is a possibility that she might have a few interesting ideas to share if she ever processes anything instead of living in this fantasy world...Well, yeah, but the point is, the time you spend trying to strain out the pearls of wisdom from her... ummm.... "Output", you *could* be reading something *else*, that's of *more* value and doesn't require such filtering - and if your list of "Want To Read" this-and-that is as long as mine, it's already too long for one lifetime...
I.e. to paraphrase a well-worn expression, "Life is too short for filtering Berserkley whackjobs out of your input stream..."
Gary wrote: "Yep, I did. In fact--since you want to address the issue publicly rather than mustering the grace and manners to simply move on--the ideas you've expressed here have been more than a little pathetic, and I don't need you in my feed. In short, your posts are a waste of my time. In fact, given the childishness of this latest response, I'll be blocking you now as you've clearly entered into some sort of mental vapor lock of the type that is so close-minded that I don't need to be bothered with your posts at all anymore. Your inability to read simple and concise sentences in a meaningful way, even doubling and tripling down on the willful ignorance expressed from your first post on this thread, means I don't care to interact with you on a website that is dedicated to reading.I just came across this thread and am appalled, Gary, at the demeaning and mean-spirited manner in which you responded to Karen, who in my opinion posted intelligent and well-warranted objections to Solnit's article. I believe you owe her an apology. I find it ironic that you belittle and dismiss a woman's opinions about an article called "Men Explain Lolita To Me," in which Solnit writes:
"but the main point is that I’ve been performing interesting experiments in proffering my opinions and finding that some of the men out there respond on the grounds that my opinion is wrong, while theirs is right because they are convinced that their opinion is a fact, while mine is a delusion. Sometimes they also seem to think that they are in charge, of me as well of facts."
This is exactly what you did to Karen, Gary, and not only dismissed her opinions but "disappeared" her from your feed.
Since Gary recently defriended and blocked my posts as well, because he disagreed with my opinions about this same article on another thread, I'd appreciate it if someone here whom he doesn't consider beneath him reposted this message.
Here's the other Lolita thread: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Thank you Michael, I appreciate what you have written very much, and I agree that Gary did to me exactly what Solnit was saying that men do to her. I hope you had a wonderful Christmas.
Back at ya, Karen.
Michael:Honestly, I find your judging Gary on the subject of "explaining" Lolita to her a bit ironic and hypocritical. Didn't you do the same to either "Ellen" or "AnnLoretta" on the thread you linked to? She wanted to discuss what happened to Lolita and you explained to her that this was an "oversimplification" and then continued to tell her what Lolita was really about (story-telling and language).
I don't think your assessment of Gary's behavior on this thread is too off the mark, I just marvel at your blindness on thinking that you are on some high moral ground as far as discounting other people's assessment and "explaining" to them their errors.
I think that your calling out of Gary has more to do with the fact that somehow he insulted you and you are using this to simply get back at him, which is fine, but I don't know why the rest of us have to be a party to it.
Mickey wrote;" don't think your assessment of Gary's behavior on this thread is too off the mark, I just marvel at your blindness on thinking that you are on some high moral ground as far as discounting other people's assessment and "explaining" to them their errors."
I know the post you are referring to Mickey, and I don't think they compare much- Gary's post to me was much more insulting.
"I think that your calling out of Gary has more to do with the fact that somehow he insulted you and you are using this to simply get back at him, which is fine, but I don't know why the rest of us have to be a party to it."
When a goodreads friend is insulted in such an offensive way, it is part of human nature to defend him or her.
There are quite a few ironies on this thread that are interesting and that I'd just like to point out:I could not see Karen's objections to the essay, because, by the time I became aware of the thread, she had already deleted her messages. The only thing I have to go on is the reactions of others and what was copied in their replies to her ideas. I found it ironic that Gary actually encouraged her to read the essay and assured her, "I don't think you'll find much to disagree with." I found this ironic because the article would be offensive to a large majority of people. Only a small minority would find it unobjectionable. Gary's inability to predict this is astounding. It would be like a Jehovah's Witness sharing a pamphlet on Goodreads outlining how his sect views something and being surprised to see any objections or different thoughts about it from the general public.
When Karen had objections to the article, Gary said they didn't relate to the main points of the article (because she was objecting to the premises) and then played a rather cynical game of semantic sleight of hand with her (because she did not include white male college students, she is not saying anything about them). When she objected to the way Solnit characterized female experiences and used her own experiences, her experiences were called "trivial".
So, we do have a man "explaining" Solnit's article to a woman rather aggressively, and when she does not agree with him (or with Solnit), being called stupid and a poor reader, after being chastised for not having "class or manners".
In another exchange, we had a male (Duane) object to the labels given freely in the article, and recounting how he had been beaten by others in elementary school. Despite the acknowledgement of this, his "explainer" goes on to discount his objections because he is "a privileged white man" and counters his beatings with being "a Latina woman living in a predominantly white-blond-blue eyed-people country" as if this fact alone trumps physical violence.
The idea of "not being able to see past one's nose" has been flung around by the people who refuse to see past their own categories and that is probably the main objection to this article: that its worldview bears so little relation to reality that this will negate any point that it was trying to make.
Karen wrote: "I know the post you are referring to Mickey, and I don't think they compare much- Gary's post to me was much more insulting."I agree that Gary's was more insulting, but this is beside the point: It is about explaining to someone that their assessment was not correct, which Michael did and seems to have no objection to, unless someone does it whom Michael is already upset with for defriending him or whatever. Then Michael jumps on his high horse and uses the situation to shame Gary (not that Gary doesn't deserve it, but how Michael thinks he has the authority to object to that particular behavior is ironic.)
Also, you seem to be wanting someone to come in here and defend you. Why don't you do that yourself? If Gary insulted you and it bothered you, tell him about it, don't wait for someone else to tell him off for you. You do it.
Karen wrote: "When a goodreads friend is insulted in such an offensive way, it is part of human nature to defend him or her. "
It depends on the human in question. The people who are more likely to do this, I find, are people who are used to being in positions of authority such as teachers (I used to be one), who are used to taking charge. I've never seen that impulse in Michael, who doesn't generally play peacekeeper or referee from what I've seen.
Mickey wrote: "Michael:Honestly, I find your judging Gary on the subject of "explaining" Lolita to her a bit ironic and hypocritical. Didn't you do the same to either "Ellen" or "AnnLoretta" on the thread you l..."
I appreciate your input, Mickey, and cannot deny that at times I may have been somewhat overbearing in response to posts with which I strongly disagree. But, as Karen avers, I don't believe my responses have ever been nearly as insulting and condescending as some of Gary's posts in this thread.
In message 746 on the other thread, I responded to a now-deleted post by Ellen:
"You make some interesting points, Ellen, but I think what you’ve written is a vast oversimplification of a complex matter: the meaning and implications of this magnificent novel. No great work of art can be reduced to a single interpretation. It’s much more multifaceted than you suggest, and this thread has certainly demonstrated that different readers draw widely different inferences from the narrative.
In my own view, the novel isn’t about Lolita or Humbert Humbert. It is about language and literature, about storytelling and the profound ambiguity of the so-called real and the imaginary."
I agree that I come off as something of a know-it-all, but I don't believe I insulted her. I acknowledge that I thought she made some good points, but suggest there are other ways of viewing the novel. That's very different from the dismissing, insulting tone Gary takes with Karen.
Having just spent a good 15 minutes looking through that entire thread, I find nothing posted by an "AnnLorretta," so I can't comment on my response to her. (In the future it would be helpful if folks noted the message # when referring to eariler posts.
"I think that your calling out of Gary has more to do with the fact that somehow he insulted you and you are using this to simply get back at him, which is fine, but I don't know why the rest of us have to be a party to it. "
Gary didn't just insult me on that thread, Mickey, but a number of us who were cordially discussing our reactions to Solnit's piece. In response to the opinion I posted written by a blogger named Nicole, he replied:
"That is, without a doubt, the most whiny, pathetic and idiotic response to Solnit's article that I've yet read. So idiotic, in fact, that I'm not even going to bother explaining why it is idiotic. If the idiocy isn't readily apparent from a first reading then an explanation will be beyond the comprehension of anyone reading it. "
This response is so condescending and dismissive that I was dumbfounded, and please note that once again Gary is defending a piece called "Men Explain Lolita To Me" by belittling and sweeping aside a woman's considered opinions.
To Karen, Mickey wrote:
"Also, you seem to be wanting someone to come in here and defend you. Why don't you do that yourself? If Gary insulted you and it bothered you, tell him about it, don't wait for someone else to tell him off for you. You do it. "
I think Karen defended her point of view several times. She may have finally backed off, but don't men frequently use intimidation as Gary did to get women to shut up?
Finally, I was indeed coming to the defense of Karen, whom I consider a friend who has valuable things to say about novels and life. Some us on the other thread, including Gary and Karen, have been discussing Lolita for some three years. Despite my own flaws, I won't stand by when a member of this close on-line community is out of line.
By the way, I find it curious that no one on this thread whose comments aren't blocked by Gary responded to my plea to repost what I'd written so that Gary could read it. I wonder: are people protecting Gary? Or afraid of him? (Which I can understand.)
Michael wrote: "But, as Karen avers, I don't believe my responses have ever been nearly as insulting and condescending as some of Gary's posts in this thread."I agree with this. My point was not that you were equally as insulting as Gary was, but that the offense that you charge him with (explaining Lolita) is something you have done as well. And while not as direct, the term "vast oversimplification" is another way of referring to another's views as "stupid". (I do recognize the distinction between referring to someone's views as stupid and outright saying someone is stupid.) I object to your objection only in regards to "explaining" Lolita. As far as any objections to the mean-spiritedness or ugliness, I have never seen you demonstrate anything of that nature. I didn't mean to imply that you had and I hope that I didn't.
In regards to the Ellen/AnnLoretta problem, I'm not sure what happened. Ellen's post was deleted, but AnnLoretta began answering your questions. I thought maybe she had changed her name (sometimes people do this in the middle of threads and it's confusing). The posts directly after the Ellen one (and your response) had AnnLoretta answering your post as if she was Ellen, responding with "I" to what you had said to Ellen.
Michael wrote: "Gary didn't just insult me on that thread, Mickey, but a number of us who were cordially discussing our reactions to Solnit's piece. "
I saw that exchange, but I figured that there had to be some inside story to it as the response was so extreme. Obviously, Gary feels very strongly about the Solnit piece and, I suppose, sees anyone who objects to it, even people who had heretofore been friendly with him, as enemies. Or he's just having a very, very bad Christmas.
Michael wrote: "I think Karen defended her point of view several times. She may have finally backed off, but don't men frequently use intimidation as Gary did to get women to shut up?
"
Karen did discuss her objections and stopped bothering when it became clear that having a civil discussion with Gary was not going to happen. She then stood on the sidelines and made little asides to others about how she was treated by Gary. If it bothered her (and it seemed like it did), she has the ability to deal with it herself and call Gary out. Instead, she seemed to be waiting for someone to come in and defend her. I'm simply encouraging her to cut out the middle man and deal with it herself. It matters little which party is the man and which party is the woman, and I don't agree that gender matters or should matter in this situation.
Michael wrote: "By the way, I find it curious that no one on this thread whose comments aren't blocked by Gary responded to my plea to repost what I'd written so that Gary could read it. I wonder: are people protecting Gary? Or afraid of him? (Which I can understand.) "
Gary can still see everyone's posts even if he has blocked them. Your post doesn't need to be reposted. He'll just need to click on the little sign to read them, and he probably will. I don't know why you are so bent on characterizing Gary as some abusive and overbearing man. I understand you are angry with him because he insulted you, but isn't mischaracterizing him as a brute simply because you figure, with his stance as "friend to women" based on the article, this will irritate him the most not a bit clownish?
Mickey wrote;"She then stood on the sidelines and made little asides to others about how she was treated by Gary. If it bothered her (and it seemed like it did), she has the ability to deal with it herself and call Gary out."
I did! Message 8! Now message 46! After message 8 I did make aside comments, I could not let it go.
Karen wrote: "I did, here below, message #8. After I flagged Gary's post to me, I really wanted the whole thing to go away, and deleted all my posts, and then Gary put some back up, but not all. I truly was shocked as I have not experienced insults like this from a man or anyone for at least 33 years."Since my posts are back up, I need to respond to the above, which I wrote yesterday. I don't think I trivialized rape, and it's not so far out of my experience- I have been in scary situations as a woman also. Maybe I didn't word it in my original post the way I should have.
I don't think I have been so insulted in a very long time, to call ME childish, my reading skills pathetic, and having a lack of character is ridiculous, and childish too. I didn't really like the article, so what? I don't like the idea that everyone be devided into certain identity groups..."
Karen, I think by your continuing asides, you are still upset by the conversation. I think you should deal with it directly instead of indirectly looking for people to call Gary out for the way he treated you. You said some things to him already, but you have obviously not said everything you need to say. If it's hard for you, my advice would be to write what you most wish someone else would say in your defense.
Mickey, I posted in response to your post in message 48. Lol. And you are right, I am still a bit upset because I haven't said everything I wished to say, I thought I should have posted a stronger comeback, I didn't. And Michael defended me, and that's very nice. So let's move on.
Being human is a natural thing. Like being a bacterium.Being humane? Requires grease.
E.D. wrote: "Being human is a natural thing. Like being a bacterium.Being humane? Requires grease."
There's a quote I'm fond of from Maxine Hong Kingston: "Let's make love, mate and mix with exotic peoples, and create the new humane being."
Granted, it's only tangentially related to the subject at hand, but always worth noting.
E.D. wrote: "Being human is a natural thing. Like being a bacterium.Being humane? Requires grease."
<< oh, fuck, no... we're on his radar >>
OK... I can't resist that one.
So does being inhumane require grease also?
Karen wrote: " And Michael defended me, and that's very nice. So let's move on."HEY WAIDaminnit... *I* defended you when I didn't even know who I was defending 'cause you'd deleted your posts! **I'm** the one who should get the Nobel Pizza Prize. !! (?)
Duane wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Being human is a natural thing. Like being a bacterium.Being humane? Requires grease."
>
OK... I can't resist that one.
So does being inhumane require grease also?"
Your earlier observations above on human nature would indicate that we're already just barely two fewer hairs past baboons. So..., no,....probably not.
However, I would concede that some pricks work really hard at being pricks. How much lube that requires--for them--is debatable. Really nasty pricks seem to glide easy.
Not to mention their poll numbers. :}
E.D. Wrote;"However, I would concede that some pricks work really hard at being pricks. How much lube that requires--for them--is debatable. Really nasty pricks seem to glide easy.
Not to mention their poll numbers. :} "
Good one!
Duane wrote;"HEY WAIDaminnit... *I* defended you when I didn't even know who I was defending 'cause you'd deleted your posts! **I'm** the one who should get the Nobel Pizza Prize. !! (?)"
Sorry Duane! You deserve recognition too.
E.D. wrote: "Your earlier observations above on human nature would indicate that we're already just barely two fewer hairs past baboons. So..., no,....probably not..."WELL... yeah, sort of... What I was getting at earlier was that humans don't label other humans and *then* attack whoever they labeled - they get the atrocity worked out in their little minds first, and *then* come up with a label later, to make it look good to somebodyorother (usually themselves). But just to be Fair And Balanced, the same probably applies when they're doing something equally stupid of the opposite persuasion, such as acting all "compassionate" toward some little psychopath who just bashed his parents' heads in with a steel pipe (and No, I Am Not Making That Up). I.e, they get all weepy and mushy *first*, and THEN label the little monster a "victim".
So, that said, obviously "humans" are *capable* of all manner of both "humanity" and "inhumanity", but does one form of behavior really require grease where the other is shipped prelubricated??
Boy, this thread got busy while I was gone... So much lecturing from so many high horses... Let's see...Mickey wrote: "In another exchange, we had a male (Duane) object to the labels given freely in the article, and recounting how he had been beaten by others in elementary school. Despite the acknowledgement of this, his "explainer" goes on to discount his objections because he is "a privileged white man" and counters his beatings with being "a Latina woman living in a predominantly white-blond-blue eyed-people country" as if this fact alone trumps physical violence. "
How cool, you completely misread my exchanges with Duane. How on Earth you managed to pull the conclusion that my own experience with people labeling other people trumps any physical violence is beyond me. Unless you have a direct quote of me saying exactly that, I would say you pulled that one out of one of your sphincters. Yes, I argued about Duane's views on the existence of labels, but I can't find where I dismissed his bullying experience.
You are mixing different things that have been discussed. I don't know if this happened to you because you read an already edited thread, or because you read too much too fast, but you certainly made a cute mess out of it. Else, you would know that when I said people can't see past their noses, I was not referring to Duane being bullied. But hey, I get it. Reading these threads, where insults and whining abound, can be challenging. Kudos to you for having the patience of going through it.
Duane wrote: "What I was getting at earlier was that humans don't label other humans and *then* attack whoever they labeled - they get the atrocity worked out in their little minds first, and *then* come up with a label later, to make it look good to somebodyorother (usually themselves)
It may be the case for some people. However, when you explained this identification of the "attack target" as "other", as in "not like me/us", you're already talking about classifying people in categories. Me and people like me versus people not like me and us is the base of a labeling, and that's how it starts. So, whether you want to call that White Men versus the rest, or whatever it is that a particular human wants to call any group they feel they belong to, we're really talking about the same thing, with a different name.
About your question... it would depend how you define humane. It could obviously mean different things to you or me, and the grease would have to have a different composition. But wait... if you apply what you consider to be humane, can you label another inhumane after your own view? *Gasps*
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Catcher in the Rye (other topics)
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (other topics)
My Year with Eleanor (other topics)
The Beauty Myth (other topics)
More...
Lizzie Skurnick (other topics)
Barbara Ehrenreich (other topics)
Sarah Vowell (other topics)
Barbara Ehrenreich (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Men Explain Things to Me (other topics)The Catcher in the Rye (other topics)
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (other topics)
My Year with Eleanor (other topics)
The Beauty Myth (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Barbara Ehrenreich (other topics)Lizzie Skurnick (other topics)
Barbara Ehrenreich (other topics)
Sarah Vowell (other topics)
Barbara Ehrenreich (other topics)
More...
Men Explain Lolita to Me
Rebecca Solnit: Art Makes the World, and It Can Break UsFull article: http://lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-...