Humour is highly subjective of course. Personally one of the
things I find funniest in fiction or life is the contortions
people will twist themselves into when they discover that
they are the very embodiment of the problems they take most
seriously (which tend to be categorized under the headings of
"Evil" or "Immoral.") Some of these things are just plain
silly, like pants on piano legs; others more darkly so, like
a picture of J. Edgar Hoover in drag. Imagine an entire
career, more, an entire Government department dedicated to
denying the essence of that photograph. Evil certainly, but
hilariously so.
Of course I seldom see the humour when I'm caught in similar
situations taking myself too seriously, which I suppose is
what makes humour so subjective. Knowing it's just me, I hope
you'll forgive me Patrick if I say that your argument below
is one of the funniest things I've read on RARA AVIS or
anywhere else, in some time.
Thanks, Kerry
At 04:51 PM 22/02/2007, you wrote:
>Well, Bob, clearly you don't get my meaning at
all.
>Thompson and Highsmith are being droll in
those
>instances and their descriptions are funny.
Kevin
>Weeks' description of moving victims in Brutal:
the
>untold story of my life inside Whitey Bulger's
Irish
>Mob, was not very funny at all. Humbert's
comparison
>of Lolita's desire for him to her desire for lunch,
a
>Humburger to a Hamburger was somewhat funny but
it
>doesn't mark the book as a "very funny
book."
>Personally, I think people who want to
pigeonhole
>Lolita as a "funny book" are embarrassed by the
fact
>that Nabakov used Lolita to undermine his
readers'
>sensibilites. It's a great novel written from
the
>perspective of America's most reprehensible type
of
>criminal. It puts that criminal in perspective as
a
>human, not a monster. It even strikes at the very
real
>urge of age to hunger for youth and beauty.
Everyone
>does this. Mary K. Letourneau can't restrain
herself,
>many of the rest of us can. By accepting Lolita as
a
>great novel, we are also forced to accept our
own
>potential for evil. As Humbert finds out, the
reality
>is not as fine as the fantasy. Any good novel
employs
>humor, pathos, drama, and psychology in even
measures
>to move the reader. Lolita is at the very least a
good
>novel, but unlike Forest Gump, Breakfast of
Champions,
>or Huckleberry Finn, humor is not it's main
objective.
>That's my point.
>
>Patrick King
>--- bobav1 <<mailto:rav7%40COLUMBIA.EDU>
rav7@COLUMBIA.EDU> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear Patrick:
> >
> > OK, you win.
> >
> > Lolita = not funny
> >
> > Corpse-moving = funny funny
> >
> > If I understand your concluding sentences,
Lolita is
> > not funny any
> > more than the lives of actual child molesters
are
> > funny, but
> > corpse-moving is funny because the lives of
actual
> > murdering
> > corpse-movers can be funny.
> >
> > And clearly, the discussion of humor
in
> >
>www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/02/lifetimes/nab-v-obit.html
> > is simply
> > deluded.
> >
> > Thank you for making my day :) (No, really
…quot; your
> > email is wonderfully
> > Nabokovian!)
> >
> > Loving rara-avis,
> >
> > Bob V in NYC
> >
> > P.S. Amen to the superb stewardship of
Denton!
> >
> > P.P.S. Do Lankford and Doherty wish to weigh in
on
> > how Altman got the
> > Mexican dogs to hump on cue?
> >
> >
> > The reply to Richard Moore:
> >
> > Okay, but there's a lot more humor in
Thompson's
> > Recoil, when Pat has
> > to get that corpse out of the elevator, or
in
> > Highsmith's Ripley
> > Underground when Ripley is trying to get the
corpse
> > out of his wine
> > cellar in the wheelbarrow and it keeps falling
over,
> > than there is
> > anywhere in Lolita. Lolita is a psychological
study
> > of one type of
> > child molester...and the child he molests, for
in
> > Lolita, the child is
> > NOT innocent. Nabokov makes Humbert a tragic
but not
> > detestable
> > figure. Clair Quilty is much easier to hate
than
> > Humbert is. One can
> > even relate in some ways to Humbert's problem.
In
> > the wide world there
> > is some crazy denial that children don't think
about
> > sex until they're
> > 16 or so. Anyone's who's actually lived life
knows
> > children experiment
> > with sex much much younger than that. That
adults
> > have a
> > responsibility to control their behavior
with
> > children is the given.
> > That some adults cannot and why, is the subject
of
> > the novel. I'm sure
> > there were passages in Lolita that made me
smile,
> > but I would not
> > categorize Lolita as a "very funny" novel. Any
more
> > than the life of
> > Paul Shanley was a very funny life.
> >
> > Patrick King
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:rara-avis-l%40yahoogroups.com>
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Patrick King
> > <abrasax93@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Frankly, Bob, no, I don't find those
passages
> > "funny"
> > > at all. I find them to be true and
beautiful.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>__________________________________________________________
>Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
>in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink
Q&A.
><
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367>
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
>
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 23 Feb 2007 EST