Nabokov, Carver and Marxist theory
Munzerr
on this newsgroup, but I'm looking for some opinions and advice. I'm
writing a paper at the moment about how Raymond Carver's short stories
shed light on American culture, viewed through Marxist
criticism.
I'm looking particularly at 'Cathedral', but any of his books of
stories can be used. The paper continues to discuss the same thing
about Vladmir Nabokov, particularly his novel 'Pale Fire'.
Any ideas, illuminations, references or critical works would be
helpful!
*Anarcissie*
A Marxist interpretation of _Pale_Fire_??
Munzerr
Marxist critics of the time. He is quoted as saying that he didn't want
anyone making Marxist mumbo jumbo readings of his literature - and I
think that's the purpose of the novel - to make comment on those who
do.
There are references to 'anti-Karlists', and lots of political
comment about Zembla.
So yes, let's have your ideas! Thanks.
*Anarcissie*
The fact that Nabokov despised Marxism wouldn't stop true Marxists
from analyzing hell out of his writing. But in the case of _Pale_Fire_
I'd really like to know where they'd put the hooks in. Would't the
whole thing be dismissed as another example of trivial bourgeois
decadence?
Munzerr
how Marxism would comment on Pale Fire. Critics certainly had
previously said lots about Lolita, and Nabokov's Russian origins would
only make Marxists look with even more scrutiny. Where does Nabokov fit
in history? What do his novels have to say about American media?
Nabokov was not interested in this.
Have you read Pale Fire, out of interest? Thanks for your ideas so
far!
Paul Ilechko
> I think I'm looking more at how Nabokov is commenting on Marxism, than
> how Marxism would comment on Pale Fire.
Which is the exact opposite of what you said in your original post.
Maybe you should just do your own homework ...
Munzerr
Don Phillipson
news:1147826185.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I think I'm looking more at how Nabokov is commenting on Marxism, than
> how Marxism would comment on Pale Fire. Critics certainly had
> previously said lots about Lolita, and Nabokov's Russian origins would
> only make Marxists look with even more scrutiny.
You may need to be more specific about which
Marxism you mean, viz.
1. USSR state-certified Marxism, and at what date
(because the party line varied, cf. Socialist Realism.)
2. European intellectuals who identified themselves
as non-dogmatic Marxists.
3. Living Americans who identify themselves as
Marxist (i.e. active in war politics, inactive in polemics
about post-modernism, feminism, etc., concerned about
class warfare, unconcerned about race, the Labour
Theory of Value etc.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Arindam Banerjee
Don Phillipson wrote:
> "Munzerr" <andym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147826185.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I think I'm looking more at how Nabokov is commenting on Marxism, than
> > how Marxism would comment on Pale Fire. Critics certainly had
> > previously said lots about Lolita, and Nabokov's Russian origins would
> > only make Marxists look with even more scrutiny.
I don't see why anyone with any sense should ever take Marxism (meaning
taking a predominantly materialistic, anti-religious, anti-family, anti
private property, anti morality, anti-individualistic stance, based
upon a twisted perception of history, wrong understanding of tribal
behaviour and ignoring the scope of human creativity; and advocating
the primacy of money power over trust and honour) seriously any more.
While it is true that a certain Communist party which calls itself
Marxist has got power thumpingly in the Indian states of West Bengal
and Kerala, that does not mean that the inhabitants of those states
take the theoretical aspects of Marxism seriously. I say this, because
from my experience and also of others in the area, the people have no
idea about the basic theories underlying Marxism. For them, the CPI(M)
is a regional party with universalist aspirations; that is also
pro-worker, anti-trader, anti-US; that provides a certain level of
security, basic education, rational outlook, etc. It is by no means
against private enterprise, private property, religion, family - it is
strongly pro-society, and quite prudish. While Marxist thinking like
class struggle etc did predominate in the 60s-70s, the success in
eliminating the landowner classes by giving the soil to the tiller have
made those theories obsolete. However, land reform was by no means
exclusively done by the Marxists; it has been done elsewhere in
non-Marxist states.
Ah well, Marx gone, Einstein to go! The grand damage that Marx did to
international social behaviour, Einstein did to physics and also in a
subtle and indirect way to the enrichment of presumptuous stupidity and
immorality, so much the fashionable behaviour of the unprincipled
relativistic leaders of our times. I expect that when oil prices
treble from what they are now, the basics of physics (mechanics,
thermodynamics) will be researched in the light of my new theories.
> You may need to be more specific about which
> Marxism you mean, viz.
> 1. USSR state-certified Marxism, and at what date
> (because the party line varied, cf. Socialist Realism.)
> 2. European intellectuals who identified themselves
> as non-dogmatic Marxists.
> 3. Living Americans who identify themselves as
> Marxist (i.e. active in war politics, inactive in polemics
> about post-modernism, feminism, etc., concerned about
> class warfare, unconcerned about race, the Labour
> Theory of Value etc.)
I think that by Marxism we primarily mean the supposedly universally
applicable theories of Karl Marx, and secondarily the practical efforts
of his adherents who tried to take those theories to their logical
conclusions.
smw
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Don Phillipson wrote:
>
>>"Munzerr" <andym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1147826185.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>I think I'm looking more at how Nabokov is commenting on Marxism, than
>>>how Marxism would comment on Pale Fire. Critics certainly had
>>>previously said lots about Lolita, and Nabokov's Russian origins would
>>>only make Marxists look with even more scrutiny.
>
>
> I don't see why anyone with any sense should ever take Marxism (meaning
> taking a predominantly materialistic, anti-religious, anti-family, anti
> private property,
you're doing fine until about here.
> anti morality, anti-individualistic
this, though, is utter nonsense. Read the 1844 manuscripts.
*Anarcissie*
> > > how Marxism would comment on Pale Fire. Critics certainly had
> > > previously said lots about Lolita, and Nabokov's Russian origins would
> > > only make Marxists look with even more scrutiny.
>
> seriously any more.
Perhaps they don't. But dismissing Marxism on evidence from the
material world, or by means of logic, won't get Munzerr's paper
written.
He has to say something about _Nabokov_ disliking Marxism. This
leads to the problem of having to know something about Nabokov,
and makes curious the cross-posting to s.c.indian and s.c.bengali,
unless Mr. Nab was even more peripatetic than I had imagined.
Arindam Banerjee
Dear lady, I read whatever works of Marx I could lay my hands upon
before I was 22, thanks to the MIR and Progress Publishers of USSR,
that were out to influence my thirdworld mind.
I will admit that based upon what I remember Marx wrote, Marx wanted
morality as an ultmate goal for mankind, and individualism under some
wishy-washy collectivism could exist when the shackles of state and
religion would be unbound.
However, I dismiss this as wishful thinking, to attract the foolish
cattle to the Red atheistic altar. You cannot reconcile the concept of
class struggle - and most perniciously, the concept of class enemy -
with any concept of morality.
Also, the need for the worlds' workers to unite - well, what could be
less indivdualistic than that? The call to form a collective for some
vague ideal (but for the killing of the richer or better off people in
the short term) is nothing but demagogic; a populist appeal to the
rioting mob; and while it is attractive to the unfed and ignorant and
all those without opportunity doubtless, it cannot be said to be
individualistic in any way.
To do the robbing and killing implicit in class struggle, Marxism must
necessarily have no use for morality. Morality according to Marxists
is a means by the upper classes with their religious allies to keep the
poor poor, sans opportunity, only to serve the upper class interest.
In contrast to the Marxists, were the Jesuits who taught me Moral
Science. A fundamental aspect of Moral Science is that the means must
justify the end, and never the other way around. But Marxism is all
about the end (glorious revolution, workers' paradise, etc.) justifying
the means (killing and robbing the better off in the name of class
enemy and class struggle).
smw
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
...>
> In contrast to the Marxists, were the Jesuits who taught me Moral
> Science. A fundamental aspect of Moral Science is that the means must
> justify the end, and never the other way around. But Marxism is all
> about the end (glorious revolution, workers' paradise, etc.) justifying
> the means (killing and robbing the better off in the name of class
> enemy and class struggle).
On the contrary, you cannot have a fully moral class society.
>
smw
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
...
> In contrast to the Marxists, were the Jesuits who taught me Moral
> Science. A fundamental aspect of Moral Science is that the means must
> justify the end,
Surely they did not teach you that. How could driving a car possibly
justify your arrival?
Arindam Banerjee
Who told you that?
Arindam Banerjee
smw wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > In contrast to the Marxists, were the Jesuits who taught me Moral
> > Science. A fundamental aspect of Moral Science is that the means must
> > justify the end,
>
> Surely they did not teach you that.
Oh yes they did. That was when I was in Standard Ten - the last year
they taught us Moral Science. But they did not elaborate upon it, in
the class. It was however written in the Moral Science textbook.
I had thought about this point very deeply. At that time, I was far
too young to understand the implications of this profound issue. I
thought it made more sense to have the ends justify the means. I
thought, like all the Marxists, if I want to do good, then I am good
and so will do good just because I am oh so good and unselfish.
It took me a long time to understand the truth of the English adage
that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> How could driving a car possibly
> justify your arrival?
Driving a car *properly* increasing your chances of safe arrival. Good
means, desired end.
You want to arrive in style. Good end. So you steal a Mercedes. Bad
means.
In a corrupt society, this is accepted behaviour, and works. But
corrupt societies are inherently unstable and overall not very
satisfying.
The irreligious, unmythical, materialistic, repressive nature of
Marxism has accounted for its failure everywhere they tried to
implement it.
anima...@yahoo.com
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> smw wrote:
> > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > Don Phillipson wrote:
> > >>"Munzerr" <andym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>>how Marxism would comment on Pale Fire. Critics certainly had
> > >>>previously said lots about Lolita, and Nabokov's Russian origins would
> > >>>only make Marxists look with even more scrutiny.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't see why anyone with any sense should ever take Marxism (meaning
> > > taking a predominantly materialistic, anti-religious, anti-family, anti
> > > private property,
> >
> > you're doing fine until about here.
> >
> > > anti morality, anti-individualistic
> >
> > this, though, is utter nonsense. Read the 1844 manuscripts.
>
> Dear lady, I read whatever works of Marx I could lay my hands upon
> before I was 22, thanks to the MIR and Progress Publishers of USSR,
> that were out to influence my thirdworld mind.
>
> I will admit that based upon what I remember Marx wrote, Marx wanted
> morality as an ultmate goal for mankind, and individualism under some
> wishy-washy collectivism could exist when the shackles of state and
> religion would be unbound.
>
> However, I dismiss this as wishful thinking, to attract the foolish
> cattle to the Red atheistic altar. You cannot reconcile the concept of
> class struggle - and most perniciously, the concept of class enemy -
> with any concept of morality.
Why do you say that? It is the essence of the morality of
the Right. Some are better than others; it is the right and
duty of the better to rule, to maintain order and enforce
virtue.
Marx began by recognizing the existence of class struggle,
which is inherent in the existence of classes -- of sets of
people with different, often contradictory interests. That
much seems incontrovertible, regardless of Marx's faults
in other matters.
Munzerr
To clarify, I'm speaking about Marxism ie. the Marxist area of
Literary Theory that is ongoing and a major area of study. Authors that
are classed as Marxist Critics include Roland Bartes, Walter Benjamin
and Terry Eagleton. This has no necessary link to Communism, but (as
has been correctly pointed out) discusses the tendancy for Literature
to be a product of a societies current modes of production and economic
base.
I'd really like some comment on Nabokov and Carver, in light of this.
Anyone who has read either Pale Fire or Carver's Cathedral will be
well-suited to give comment. For those who haven't, any thoughts on how
Marxist Literary themes have affected American Twentieth-Century
fiction will still be appreciated.
Munzerr
How does one 'cross-post'? (I'm new to Google Groups)
smw
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
>>Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>>In contrast to the Marxists, were the Jesuits who taught me Moral
>>>Science. A fundamental aspect of Moral Science is that the means must
>>>justify the end,
>>
>>Surely they did not teach you that.
>
>
> Oh yes they did. That was when I was in Standard Ten - the last year
> they taught us Moral Science. But they did not elaborate upon it, in
> the class. It was however written in the Moral Science textbook.
>
> I had thought about this point very deeply. At that time, I was far
> too young to understand the implications of this profound issue. I
> thought it made more sense to have the ends justify the means. I
> thought, like all the Marxists, if I want to do good, then I am good
> and so will do good just because I am oh so good and unselfish.
>
> It took me a long time to understand the truth of the English adage
> that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The negation of "the end justifies all means" is not "the means justify
the end." It's "the end does not justify all means."
>>How could driving a car possibly
>>justify your arrival?
>
>
> Driving a car *properly* increasing your chances of safe arrival. Good
> means, desired end.
Absolutely. But proper driving doesn't _justify_ arrival. It just gets
you there.
smw
Munzerr wrote:
> Thanks for the discussion everyone.
>
> To clarify, I'm speaking about Marxism ie. the Marxist area of
> Literary Theory that is ongoing and a major area of study. Authors that
> are classed as Marxist Critics include Roland Bartes, Walter Benjamin
> and Terry Eagleton. This has no necessary link to Communism, but (as
> has been correctly pointed out) discusses the tendancy for Literature
> to be a product of a societies current modes of production and economic
> base.
Historical materialism, then, not Marxism.
Munzerr
Who coined the term? And what are its seminal works?
I suspect that the term is an area of philosophical study, not a field
of Literary Criticism. But I could be wrong.
smw
Munzerr wrote:
> Can you give me a reference for that?
> Who coined the term? And what are its seminal works?
Benjamin's _Thesis on the Concept of History_.
Arindam Banerjee
smw wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > smw wrote:
> >
> >>Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >>
> >>>In contrast to the Marxists, were the Jesuits who taught me Moral
> >>>Science. A fundamental aspect of Moral Science is that the means must
> >>>justify the end,
> >>
> >>Surely they did not teach you that.
> >
> >
> > Oh yes they did. That was when I was in Standard Ten - the last year
> > they taught us Moral Science. But they did not elaborate upon it, in
> > the class. It was however written in the Moral Science textbook.
> >
> > I had thought about this point very deeply. At that time, I was far
> > too young to understand the implications of this profound issue. I
> > thought it made more sense to have the ends justify the means. I
> > thought, like all the Marxists, if I want to do good, then I am good
> > and so will do good just because I am oh so good and unselfish.
> >
> > It took me a long time to understand the truth of the English adage
> > that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
>
> The negation of "the end justifies all means" is not "the means justify
> the end." It's "the end does not justify all means."
True. Subtle, logical point here. I do not have photographic memory
so I cannot recall what actually was printed on the page of the Moral
Science book! However, in popular talk, we did speak of "means
justifying the end" as the opposite strategy to, and not the negation
of, "end justifying the means". Idealism was rampant in the 70s, so we
did not think in terms of negation.
> >>How could driving a car possibly
> >>justify your arrival?
> >
> >
> > Driving a car *properly* increasing your chances of safe arrival. Good
> > means, desired end.
>
> Absolutely. But proper driving doesn't _justify_ arrival. It just gets
> you there.
Proper driving does not justify arrival, it causes it. And not all
issues in this world are explicitly moral issues. Getting from here to
there, is one example. But there are always deeper underlying issues,
that are fundamentally moral. Should one drive at all? Is that a
moral thing to do? If morality is the key issue, why at all have
vehicles that kill and pollute, roads that lead to roadkill and
uglification of the environment, etc. etc.? Should we allow this
unending human sacrifice on this road to feed our economy and our sense
of well-being? Should one give up motorised transport, and go back to
horses? Or construct vimans following my new ideas in physics? That
do not kill, pollute, don't need roads, are much safer and faster, and
will take you to the stars?
Arindam Banerjee
Because robbing and killing people after labelling them in some
convenient way is immoral.
> It is the essence of the morality of
> the Right. Some are better than others; it is the right and
> duty of the better to rule, to maintain order and enforce
> virtue.
True. But who is better, is decided ultimately by force. And force
does not necessarily equate to the capacity for violence - the
non-violent aspects of life also have force. Thus, simply because a
certain country has the most nukes, does not make it the best to rule.
Also, a mob may have force, and the mob leaders do have power. While
nukes and mobs/mobsters can enforce submission, they cannot maintain
order and most certainly they cannot enforce virtue.
> Marx began by recognizing the existence of class struggle,
He invented the existence of class struggle, as something to base his
murderous and destructive theories upon. In real life there are rich
people, middle class people and poor people. Each group has its
strengths and weaknesses. In a moral climate the existence of class
struggle is unnecessary.
> which is inherent in the existence of classes -- of sets of
> people with different, often contradictory interests.
True there are contradictory interests, at a given time. But in any
open, competitive and dynamic system there are also opportunities.
Lazy people who are set in their ways think in terms of contradictory
interests.
> That
> much seems incontrovertible, regardless of Marx's faults
> in other matters.
Marxist ideas may have had some relevance in Europe, where Marx lived.
In Asia we had a totally different society with different philosphies
and religions. The sooner all Asians kick out Marx and Marxism from
their psyche, the better for them. The Chinese did take to Marx under
the leadership of Mao, but now they have changed their tune - and how!
Arindam Banerjee
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Don Phillipson wrote:
> > > "Munzerr" <andym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > I think I'm looking more at how Nabokov is commenting on Marxism, than
> > > > how Marxism would comment on Pale Fire. Critics certainly had
> > > > previously said lots about Lolita, and Nabokov's Russian origins would
> > > > only make Marxists look with even more scrutiny.
> >
> > I don't see why anyone with any sense should ever take Marxism ...
> > seriously any more.
>
> Perhaps they don't. But dismissing Marxism on evidence from the
> material world, or by means of logic, won't get Munzerr's paper
> written.
> He has to say something about _Nabokov_ disliking Marxism.
I don't see any reason for Mr Nabokov to like Marxism.
> This
> leads to the problem of having to know something about Nabokov,
Great literary talent, wrongly utilised.
> and makes curious the cross-posting to s.c.indian and s.c.bengali,
> unless Mr. Nab was even more peripatetic than I had imagined.
There be Marxists. No response from them so far, though. They are
lurking, and biding their time.
Paul Ilechko
> lol. Yes, how is it that we're on s.c.indian and s.c.bengali now?
>
> How does one 'cross-post'? (I'm new to Google Groups)
>
This is not "Google Groups", this is Usenet. "Google Groups" is just the
worst possible interface for accessing this rich and fertile and
frequently ludicrous universe. And I *still* think that you should do
your own homework.
Chris F.A. Johnson
> lol. Yes, how is it that we're on s.c.indian and s.c.bengali now?
>
> How does one 'cross-post'? (I'm new to Google Groups)
This isn't Google Groups; this is a Usenet newsgroup, to which
Google has provided (in addition to their excellent searchable
archive) a broken front-end for posting. It is missing many of the
capabilities of a real newsreader.
Some more information on using Google Groups to post (as well as
links to various Usenet netiquette articles) can be found at
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google>.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Arindam Banerjee
"Your Banasur has seen the light of day at last. Please find the
Statesman website at www.thestatesman.net and search for Sunday
(14.5.06) Kolkata edition and go through pages 20-21 of its supplement
named 8th Day entitled A TRY-HARD LOSER."
This is the very first time I am in print for a literary article in a
major publication! I am so pleased! One of my dreams is now attained.
Anyone following the above link can read the story, however on the net
it does not carry my name. In the print version, it does, and they
have even provided a nice illustration.
Arindam Banerjee
ffoulkes
But crashing that car might justify Arindam's non-arrival.
ff
Arindam Banerjee
How cruel! How unkind! So Arindam has to take his wife's lovely
little car - and the wife - in a huge circle, and arrive at the same
place: home. Through the wineries of Yarra valley, the mists and
jungles of Yea, on the way to the diminishing autumn leaves of Bright,
and return via the snows of Mount Hotham, after ascending its heights;
then past the winding Tambo River and the cathedral at Bairnsdale.
While listening to Irish folk songs on the car's CD player.
Arindam is quite happy to be where he is, so he does not particularly
want to arrive anywhere. So please leave the car alone, Prof. Muir.
> ff
ok.pre...@gmail.com
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> I don't see why anyone with any sense should ever take Marxism (meaning
>> taking a predominantly materialistic, anti-religious, anti-family, anti
>> private property,
>you're doing fine until about here.
>> anti morality, anti-individualistic
>this, though, is utter nonsense. Read the 1844 manuscripts.
In the new (Spring 2006) issue of _Dissent_, Marshall Berman makes this
point really well. The full article is at:
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=439
I quote:
"MARX PRESUPPOSES the Enlightenment and its central ideas, universal
human rights and political democracy. He presupposes the English, the
American, the French revolutions; he sees communism as a way to make
good on their broken promises of democratic citizenship and human
rights. Among the generations that made the Russian and Chinese
revolutions, there were millions of men and women who imagined the
triumph of those revolutions, in 1917 and in 1949, as a chance to
fulfill those promises in their own lives. But the state and party
elites that took control of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic
of China were at best indifferent to those freedoms and more often
aggressively hostile to them. Masses of Soviet and Chinese people
yearned for fulfillment of the promises of modern life. But the new
elites denied that any such promises had ever been made. The political
models that meant most to them were peasant communes, religious
monasteries, military empires, all of them overpowering collectivities
that crushed the individual self. The communism of the rulers was
formulated most clearly and crudely in Chairman Mao's Little Red Book
of the 1960s: 'The self is nothing, the collective is everything.' What
Marx meant by communism can't even be imagined until Stalinism and
Maoism are overthrown. Only then can modern subjects emerge and act."
-- Marshall Berman
Arindam Banerjee
Communism will mean a great deal when all aspects of Marxism and its
derivatives (Stalinism, Maoism) are thrown out. Communism minus
Marxism has its attractions.
Communism has done intense evil everywhere, while seeking to do good
and create a better human race. Most so, among the simple-minded,
trusting peoples of Asia, who throughout pre-history had benevolent
rule, and have based their lives upon morality and truth. They also
valued literacy, and thought that anything on print had to be true.
So, to begin with, Marxism spread like wildfire, simply because the
Asians had not the necessary mental equipment (the capacity to
understand lies and treachery) that the European mind naturally
possesses, given the quality of their history.
Just as Marx thoroughly sought to destroy human society by giving it an
atheistic, immoral, and materialistic basis, through his endless
shallow rantings designed to appeal to starved and ignorant minds; so
did Einstein seek to destroy the soundness underlying physics and our
understanding of the universe by his ridiculous theories of relativity
that are based upon an astounding analytical bungle by serious
scientists, which repeated ever since. Like Marxism, relativity is a
dogmatic chant by the well established vested interests in academics
and polity.
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> Communism will mean a great deal when all aspects of Marxism and its
> derivatives (Stalinism, Maoism) are thrown out. Communism minus
What most people _mean_ when they say "communism" is either
Marxism, or the policies and practices of the people who claimed
to be following Marx, for instance the Communist Party of the
USSR. If that is what people have been talking about, then
communism less Marxism will not mean a great deal, it will
mean zero.
Arindam Banerjee
Then, good. We shall after that debate about the meaning of the word
"commune" as noun and verb, and how to apply them and their derivatives
- communication, communalism, communism, etc.
We shall then see that communism of various sorts existed long before
Marx (as tribes and clans, joint family situations, monasteries,
hostels, etc.) without overarching economic considerations, and social
stratifications.
Taking out Marxism from Communism will be like taking out the poison
currently associated with this term.
*Anarcissie*
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Communism will mean a great deal when all aspects of Marxism and its
> > > derivatives (Stalinism, Maoism) are thrown out. Communism minus
> > > Marxism has its attractions. ...
> >
> > What most people _mean_ when they say "communism" is either
> > Marxism, or the policies and practices of the people who claimed
> > to be following Marx, for instance the Communist Party of the
> > USSR. If that is what people have been talking about, then
> > communism less Marxism will not mean a great deal, it will
> > mean zero.
>
> Then, good. We shall after that debate about the meaning of the word
> "commune" as noun and verb, and how to apply them and their derivatives
> - communication, communalism, communism, etc.
That will not help Munzerr write his paper, which I was communistically
attempting to do. Nabokov's impatience with Communism was also
his impatience with Marxism.
Arindam Banerjee
Nabokov I don't think was impatient with Communism - he hated it.
Lolita is most forgivingly understood as a mockery of theoretical
Communism's anti-family posture: what dreadful consquences arise when
basic human decencies are callously overthrown. In actual fact, the
Soviets who considered themselves Marxist Communists were highly
pro-family and prudish, and in practice wanted as much private property
as they could get - quite unlike what theoretical Marxists should be.
Arindam Banerjee
I cannot resist adding, taking Marxism out of Communism will be one
thousandth as good as taking Einstein's ridiculous theories out of
physics.
*Anarcissie*
My impression of N. is that he thought Communism / Marxism
was stupid.
Lolita has nothing to do with The Family except in the most
superficial sense. The consequences are not dreadful, they are
worse, they are commonplace. The protagonist turns out to be
not a devil, but a fool.
Arindam Banerjee
I think he thought it was evil.
> Lolita has nothing to do with The Family except in the most
> superficial sense.
Then I deplore the quality of your understanding.
>The consequences are not dreadful, they are
> worse, they are commonplace.
In a debased social situation, as now in the Western world,
unfortunately it may appear so. Yet, even in modern USAn society,
marrying a woman with the intention of having sex with her daughter is
perhaps not that commonplace. (I hope!)
>The protagonist turns out to be
> not a devil, but a fool.
The Devil is really a highly moral person, the chief lieutenant of God,
who acts as the Public Prosecutor, if we are to believe the real
bearded Jews (like Mordechai Housman, who told me this).
The protagonist in Lolita is an unprincipled, weak, opportunistic
creature with no moral checks and no divine spark. Such people are the
most prone to do evil, and from the nature of their weakness and lack
of principle, they do appeal to the low qualities inherent in most
human beings; and so, in their eyes can pass merely as fools when their
doings are exposed.
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> The protagonist in Lolita is an unprincipled, weak, opportunistic
> creature with no moral checks and no divine spark. Such people are the
> most prone to do evil, and from the nature of their weakness and lack
> of principle, they do appeal to the low qualities inherent in most
> human beings; and so, in their eyes can pass merely as fools when their
> doings are exposed.
It is Humbert Humbert's "divine spark" which is his problem,
according to his own narrative. He fetishizes and fossilizes
the frustrated amour of his childhood (or this is what he
pretends, anyway). However, when he finally meets what
he's been hunting for, the divine child-woman, she turns
out to be more experienced than he is and quite practical
about the sexual matters which he had fantasized into a
baroque monstrosity. Of course she eventually loses
interest and casts him off. In the end, his great dream now
faded out, he visits her in Gray Star, Alaska (as I recall it),
the ethereal fire turned to ashes.
The story is quite fantastic and has very little to do with
standard-issue child abuse as far as I know. Did you
actually read it?
Arindam Banerjee
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > ...
> > The protagonist in Lolita is an unprincipled, weak, opportunistic
> > creature with no moral checks and no divine spark. Such people are the
> > most prone to do evil, and from the nature of their weakness and lack
> > of principle, they do appeal to the low qualities inherent in most
> > human beings; and so, in their eyes can pass merely as fools when their
> > doings are exposed.
>
> It is Humbert Humbert's "divine spark" which is his problem,
As I wrote earlier, I deplore the low quality of your understanding.
You also do not know, or misunderstand, the meaning of "divine spark"
and its practical relevance. Sad.
> according to his own narrative. He fetishizes and fossilizes
> the frustrated amour of his childhood (or this is what he
> pretends, anyway). However, when he finally meets what
> he's been hunting for, the divine child-woman, she turns
> out to be more experienced than he is and quite practical
> about the sexual matters which he had fantasized into a
> baroque monstrosity. Of course she eventually loses
> interest and casts him off. In the end, his great dream now
> faded out, he visits her in Gray Star, Alaska (as I recall it),
> the ethereal fire turned to ashes.
No ethereal fire; rather, with his lusting gone, as it had to, as a
natural consequence.
> The story is quite fantastic and has very little to do with
> standard-issue child abuse as far as I know.
Did you not say something earlier about it being commonplace? And now
you are saying it is fantastic! It is not just about child abuse, it
is also about direct betrayal of trust, lust, weakness of character,
vanity, stupidity - all nicely written with well-expressed sophistry.
In short, it can be seen - as I wrote earlier - most forgivingly as a
mockery and attack of Marxism, by showing the unconsciously Marxist
family-basis-busting protagonist as a weak, unprincipled, vain,
hypocritical creature.
> Did you
> actually read it?
Yes, long ago, and also saw a movie on it. Lolita is not a book I
possess. For me, Nabokov has corrupted the meaning of this very
beautiful Sanskrit word, by putting up such disgusting imagery with its
association. For that reason, I cannot forgive him.
*Anarcissie*
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > ...
> > > The protagonist in Lolita is an unprincipled, weak, opportunistic
> > > creature with no moral checks and no divine spark. Such people are the
> > > most prone to do evil, and from the nature of their weakness and lack
> > > of principle, they do appeal to the low qualities inherent in most
> > > human beings; and so, in their eyes can pass merely as fools when their
> > > doings are exposed.
> >
> > It is Humbert Humbert's "divine spark" which is his problem,
>
> As I wrote earlier, I deplore the low quality of your understanding.
> You also do not know, or misunderstand, the meaning of "divine spark"
> and its practical relevance. Sad.
On the contrary, you have it exactly the wrong way around.
You have the standard, orthodox, banal, dare I say Philistine
interpretation of the story -- something you could have bought
in the supermarket while checking out your Ricearoni. For
you, it is supposed to be literally true, I suppose. It is your
understanding which is low and uninformed. You haven't
made any effort to get beyond bumper-sticker cliches. You
should probably stay away from Nabokov; he is well beyond
the narrow realm you have chosen for yourself. Where are
you writing from? I think you would do well in Peoria or
Dubuque as long as you stayed away from the hipster
element.
Arindam Banerjee
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > *Anarcissie* wrote:
> > > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > The protagonist in Lolita is an unprincipled, weak, opportunistic
> > > > creature with no moral checks and no divine spark. Such people are the
> > > > most prone to do evil, and from the nature of their weakness and lack
> > > > of principle, they do appeal to the low qualities inherent in most
> > > > human beings; and so, in their eyes can pass merely as fools when their
> > > > doings are exposed.
> > >
> > > It is Humbert Humbert's "divine spark" which is his problem,
> >
> > As I wrote earlier, I deplore the low quality of your understanding.
> > You also do not know, or misunderstand, the meaning of "divine spark"
> > and its practical relevance. Sad.
>
> On the contrary, you have it exactly the wrong way around.
My understanding is my own, and very clear; however I am very afraid
that it looks original to those very many who have the wits to take it
at the mere animal level.
Well, the quality of your understanding sort of explains the wickedness
of the world. Misunderstanding of texts is nearly as harmful as
misinterpretation. I am afraid Nabokov expected far too much from his
multitudinous readers who read him "rightly"! Poor devils, they
abandoned their morals and turned into this modern society of
celebrated bores and whores. In this, they were aided by Einstein's
relativistic nonsense which applied in the social area effectively has
it that good and evil, virtue and vice are merely matters of opinion.
> You have the standard, orthodox, banal, dare I say Philistine
> interpretation of the story -- something you could have bought
> in the supermarket while checking out your Ricearoni.
I merely found it disgusting, and at the best, a mockery of Marxism.
This is by no means a standard, orthodox, banal interpretation of this
far-too-clever book; it is a kind and forgiving interpretation.
For
> you, it is supposed to be literally true, I suppose.
A fool can suppose anything he likes. Selective cutting and ranting is
your forte. You do not have the wits to take in all I write, evidently.
Please understand, I see this as a novel (an ordered literary sequence
of lies or non-truths or imagination) that at the kindest
interpretation was written to attack and mock the unconsciously Marxist
family-basis-(of trust)-buster, and show the ultimate futility of being
such an unprincipled, scheming and opportunistic arsehole. The
temporary delights of illicit passion are not worth the ensuing
chagrin.
I never wrote anything to support your supposition, that I suppose it
to be literally true.
> It is your
> understanding which is low and uninformed.
Heh-heh. :) :)
>You haven't
> made any effort to get beyond bumper-sticker cliches.
Huh, where did anyone write before that Lolita is a too-clever attack
on Marxism? Some may have, I don't know. I only know that as far as I
am concerned I am giving my own opinion on Nabokov's Lolita with
respect to Marxism - which you (or someone else maybe) seemed to be
interested in, to help Munzer's thesis.
It is uncouth to ask for some reaction from someone on some subject,
and then subject that person to abuse after that is provided. Now,
this could be news for the uncultured.
> You
> should probably stay away from Nabokov; he is well beyond
> the narrow realm you have chosen for yourself.
I have the insight, which you lack, to see through various sorts of
bullshit. Those who wallow in it - like Marxists and Einsteinians -
cannot see anything else.
> Where are
> you writing from?
Why do you want to know?
> I think you would do well in Peoria or
> Dubuque as long as you stayed away from the hipster
> element.
I do well enough, wherever I am.