Subject
Re: LOLITA, the novel (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Aguirre <aguirre@ltec.net>
Mary Eugenia Lewis <eugenia@utkux.utcc.utk.edu> writes:
>
"Lolita is ultimately about varying levels of intellectual
>blindness and how intellectually blind people can recognize such blindness
>in others but almost never in themselves. Thus, Humbert can see that the
>psychologists are blind but not the blindness in himself. However, the
>ultimate level of blindness is not Humbert's but the reader's; for while
>the critical reader may recognize the psychologists' blindness and
>Humbert's blindness, she remains blind to her own blindness. Lolita is a
>game. In order to win, however, one must recognize not that one is being
>deceived but that one is being deceived about being deceived."
I write:
Sounds like the blind leading the blind, so where do we end up. I wager at
the beginning when we open a book called _Lolita_ by a certain author, who
has created a piece of fiction that may even be called a piece of art in
the most humble sense. Therefore the book may be game, construct, reality,
fiction--whatever--but let's be wary of staking a claim or privileged
position on ground that--well, taking El Nino into account--isn't always
that solid.....in other words, as a literary critic, I may enjoy being
deceived but that doesn't mean that my realization--or non-realization--of
my deception makes said deception any less pleasurable. So I "don't" need
to recognize my deception, nor to be told to recognize it, to open the
cover of the book and wallow in the language. In fact I may even resent
the directive. But again maybe I don't...I guess I have to wait and see.
Robert Aguirre
University of Nebraska--Lincoln
Mary Eugenia Lewis <eugenia@utkux.utcc.utk.edu> writes:
>
"Lolita is ultimately about varying levels of intellectual
>blindness and how intellectually blind people can recognize such blindness
>in others but almost never in themselves. Thus, Humbert can see that the
>psychologists are blind but not the blindness in himself. However, the
>ultimate level of blindness is not Humbert's but the reader's; for while
>the critical reader may recognize the psychologists' blindness and
>Humbert's blindness, she remains blind to her own blindness. Lolita is a
>game. In order to win, however, one must recognize not that one is being
>deceived but that one is being deceived about being deceived."
I write:
Sounds like the blind leading the blind, so where do we end up. I wager at
the beginning when we open a book called _Lolita_ by a certain author, who
has created a piece of fiction that may even be called a piece of art in
the most humble sense. Therefore the book may be game, construct, reality,
fiction--whatever--but let's be wary of staking a claim or privileged
position on ground that--well, taking El Nino into account--isn't always
that solid.....in other words, as a literary critic, I may enjoy being
deceived but that doesn't mean that my realization--or non-realization--of
my deception makes said deception any less pleasurable. So I "don't" need
to recognize my deception, nor to be told to recognize it, to open the
cover of the book and wallow in the language. In fact I may even resent
the directive. But again maybe I don't...I guess I have to wait and see.
Robert Aguirre
University of Nebraska--Lincoln