Well, how to day this delicately? Earlier, on The Long
Goodbye string I asked the question are you serious or is
this a sendup? At the time I thought it was a sendup. Even
when you wrote that those seeing humor in Lolita were simply
laughing to cover their embarassment, I thought you might be
trying to be provocative. After all, I can not remember ever
being embarrassed by a book. Mom never found the stash of
Orrie Hitt novels.
But now this. Okay, I accept that you are more than likely
serious. As long as we are discussing acceptance, I can
accept the fact that you believe Lolita is a great novel even
though you are apparently oblivious to its humor. That's okay
by me.
Why is it that you apparently want to find something sick or
evil in those who found humor in Nobakov's novel? It's a
rather common opinion beginning with the first reviews of the
novel. So the emotion (anger?) generated by the disagreement
on this list is puzzling if not insulting. I find your latest
post to be (at the least) very distasteful.
Richard Moore
--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Patrick King
<abrasax93@...> wrote:
>
> Well, Kerry, if you find yourself giggling to
relieve
> the tension as you read Nabakov's poetic reference
to
> a 14-year-old girl's vulva, I'd say the humor is
more
> in the reader than it is in the writing. Just
my
> opinion.
>
> Patrick King
> --- "Kerry J. Schooley"
<gsp.schoo@...>
> wrote:
>
> > 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@...>
> > 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
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________
> Bored stiff? Loosen up...
> Download and play hundreds of games for free on
Yahoo! Games.
> http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 25 Feb 2007 EST