Richard, you are coming in compltely over the top here. Is
this a "strawman" argument? First, I am not
"oblivious" to the humor in Lolita. I simply don't believe
humor is the main objective of the novel as it is in Jeeves
Takes Charge for example. Others have referred to Lolita as
"a very funny novel." It is not a funny novel. It is a novel
that is seasoned with mild humor to take the edge off the
very weighty questions it poses about European and American
society in the 1950s. Secondly, I do not want "to find
something sick or evil in those who found humor in Nobakov's
novel." I think it's quite common for people to mask things
that make them uncomfortable by sniggering, giggling, or even
laughing at them, and that is what I'm suggesting is
happening when people find undue humor in Lolita.
Objectively, Lolita is a very dark novel, very beautifully
written. Tolstoy used a great deal of humor in War &
Peace, too, especially tying the policeman to the bear and
throwing them in the canal, and the dual when Pierre stumbles
and shoots his adversary inadvertantly, winning the dual in
which everyone thought he would die. But these and many other
funny part does not make War & Peace a "very funny"
novel. Do you get my points now?
Patrick King
--- Richard Moore <
moorich@aol.com> wrote:
> 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?
> > > > >
> > > > >
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the
free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 26 Feb 2007 EST