A reason for Lo
Count this.
Okay, as I promised, I have some time now so I'm going to explain a bit about why I think we're reading Lo's Diary, and what all this has to do with post-modern theory and such. And yes, this is actually serious, I'm not going to berate that fetid piece of trash fiction. We're going to see what it's about.
First some history. Much Western literature of the last... 500 years or so has focused on the male as the seducer, the one who takes the innocent young girl and forces her against her will to screw him, thereby conquering her. Think of the Don Juan image. Fuck, let's make it modern. James Bond, the suave American who seduces every woman into sleeping with him. This is the western image, and you know that it's true today: Men want sex, women want love. Women aren't interested in sex unless it brings them love, men aren't interested in love unless it brings them sex.
Okay, we know this stuff is bullshit, right? That these are crudely drawn stereotypes? If you disagree, you're wrong. Just so you know.
Lolita is kinda sorta in that tradition, in the eyes of Pia Pera. I disagree strongly, and I think Lolita did a great deal to paint Lo as a sexual being on her own, but let's just go with Pera's assumption for now. What Lo's Diary is about is turning the old idea on its head, and presenting a man who thinks he is a great seducer, but is actually being seduced himself by a clever young woman. Women are perfectly capable of seduction on their own, and to believe that sex is 100% male domination is stark idiocy.
The other thing that Lo's Diary is forcing us to see is something that's a little harder to swallow. In our culture, we don't like to think of anyone as a sexual being until they're at least eighteen. The truth is drastically different, and the most recent statistic I heard is that children are beginning pseudo-sexual encounters as early as the age of eight. A twelve year-old is a highly sexual creature, sex being a very strong focus for the average person of that age (I'm generalizing, naturally; some people grow up to be very happily asexual, and I applaud that). I know when I was that age, at least 98% of my male friends wanted to put their penises in everything. The girls were taught not to show those urges in public, but I heard me some stories. It is natural for adolescents to be sexually driven, no matter what Christian morality states, and Lo's Diary brings that issue to the forefront by detailing a number of sexual urges and encounters involving what our society insists are children (one only needs to look to Africa to find these same-aged individuals being labeled as a adults, with jobs and families already).
This is all part of the "new feminist consciousness" described on the back of the book. If this book made you uncomfortable with its explicit sexuality, good. You needed the wake-up call. Fuck, I try to be Mr. Suave Liberal Progressive, and it made me a little uneasy. This isn't stuff we're used to hearing in the Midwest, but it's something we can't deny. Women are just as sexual as men, "children" are just as sexual as adults. The only things that suppress or bring out sexuality in certain individuals are various forces of social conditioning. Eventually it does become a part of your intrinsic personality, but at the beginning all of it is due to what we're told and who we believe. Sexuality is doubtlessly included in that programming.
So that's what Lo's Diary is all about. I still maintain that it's a shitball of a book, and I think that Pera's continuous efforts to undermine Nabokov's characters and narrative was insulting, but the central point is one worth remembering, especially if you plan on becoming a parent one day, or a teacher (anyone who teaches strict abstinence in sex ed. needs to be slapped). If we keep these things in mind as a culture, and become more open and accepting of the various forms and varieties of human sexuality (excluding rape and pedophilia, naturally), then we can advance, and then we won't be so fucking fucked up.
Okay, as I promised, I have some time now so I'm going to explain a bit about why I think we're reading Lo's Diary, and what all this has to do with post-modern theory and such. And yes, this is actually serious, I'm not going to berate that fetid piece of trash fiction. We're going to see what it's about.
First some history. Much Western literature of the last... 500 years or so has focused on the male as the seducer, the one who takes the innocent young girl and forces her against her will to screw him, thereby conquering her. Think of the Don Juan image. Fuck, let's make it modern. James Bond, the suave American who seduces every woman into sleeping with him. This is the western image, and you know that it's true today: Men want sex, women want love. Women aren't interested in sex unless it brings them love, men aren't interested in love unless it brings them sex.
Okay, we know this stuff is bullshit, right? That these are crudely drawn stereotypes? If you disagree, you're wrong. Just so you know.
Lolita is kinda sorta in that tradition, in the eyes of Pia Pera. I disagree strongly, and I think Lolita did a great deal to paint Lo as a sexual being on her own, but let's just go with Pera's assumption for now. What Lo's Diary is about is turning the old idea on its head, and presenting a man who thinks he is a great seducer, but is actually being seduced himself by a clever young woman. Women are perfectly capable of seduction on their own, and to believe that sex is 100% male domination is stark idiocy.
The other thing that Lo's Diary is forcing us to see is something that's a little harder to swallow. In our culture, we don't like to think of anyone as a sexual being until they're at least eighteen. The truth is drastically different, and the most recent statistic I heard is that children are beginning pseudo-sexual encounters as early as the age of eight. A twelve year-old is a highly sexual creature, sex being a very strong focus for the average person of that age (I'm generalizing, naturally; some people grow up to be very happily asexual, and I applaud that). I know when I was that age, at least 98% of my male friends wanted to put their penises in everything. The girls were taught not to show those urges in public, but I heard me some stories. It is natural for adolescents to be sexually driven, no matter what Christian morality states, and Lo's Diary brings that issue to the forefront by detailing a number of sexual urges and encounters involving what our society insists are children (one only needs to look to Africa to find these same-aged individuals being labeled as a adults, with jobs and families already).
This is all part of the "new feminist consciousness" described on the back of the book. If this book made you uncomfortable with its explicit sexuality, good. You needed the wake-up call. Fuck, I try to be Mr. Suave Liberal Progressive, and it made me a little uneasy. This isn't stuff we're used to hearing in the Midwest, but it's something we can't deny. Women are just as sexual as men, "children" are just as sexual as adults. The only things that suppress or bring out sexuality in certain individuals are various forces of social conditioning. Eventually it does become a part of your intrinsic personality, but at the beginning all of it is due to what we're told and who we believe. Sexuality is doubtlessly included in that programming.
So that's what Lo's Diary is all about. I still maintain that it's a shitball of a book, and I think that Pera's continuous efforts to undermine Nabokov's characters and narrative was insulting, but the central point is one worth remembering, especially if you plan on becoming a parent one day, or a teacher (anyone who teaches strict abstinence in sex ed. needs to be slapped). If we keep these things in mind as a culture, and become more open and accepting of the various forms and varieties of human sexuality (excluding rape and pedophilia, naturally), then we can advance, and then we won't be so fucking fucked up.
posted by Andy at 11:52 AM
4 comments
