Barra has read "Lolita" 4 times, and claims to understand that Nabokov's writing was intended as a "the springboard for leaping into the highest region of serious emotion." And yet, he asks, about this book: "Can the soul live on parody alone? What kind of world would it be in which the only literature was parody and its only virtue irony?"

Which version of Lolita are you talking about, Mr. Barra? The sublimely beautiful artistic achievement that produces the highest sort of aesthetic bliss in an able reader? Or the one in which you consider it merely to be an exercise in "verbal dexterity"? Did your editors at Salon, desperate to derive some sort of "social" meaning from what is arguably the finest novel of the 20th century, put you up to it?

Although you ignore this, Nabokov was a deeply moral (but not moralistic - a very significant difference) writer - but on his own terms. He was, for instance, against cruelty. Which is a vastly different thing than using literature (!) to make some sort of comment on the social and political issues of the day. He proved his point that this can be done, didn't he, in choosing to write an immensely beautiful and wonderfully sympathetic book about a youngish man (not middle-aged, as identified above) engaged in an erotic relationship with a very young girl, which by definition is considered reprehensible by modern Western morality. Is it not a moral act to be sympathetic to even the most henious of criminals? And is this not one (of many) emotions produced by Lolita?

Lolita requires a finely calibrated understanding to fully appreciate. Mr. Barra, unfortunately, in a desperate attempt to judge Lolita on a basis alien to its intent, seems to have lost his. You are both worried and resentful that Nabokov might have held you in contempt. Perhaps it is because you know, at least in regards to Lolita, that he would be right to.

Should Morrocans be congratulated for not burning down the Danish embassy, as the writer of this article seems to imply? Look, if the Muslim "street" is "feeling pain" for being backwards, then maybe it should stop being backwards. If the concept of free speech (however silly the caricatures are) is too difficult for screaming rock-throwing mobs to understand, if large numbers insist on responding like brute animals, then they ought not be expected to be treated as anything but. It is only a civilized largesse that keeps this from happening. Which, of course, is part of being civilized. Too difficult for the Muslim "street" to comprehend? Really?

Um, PART of the reason why people may deficit spend is because of lack of income; the other reason might be because they buy too much shit.

As has been previously pointed out, monism (the idea that All is One) has been present in Western thought since at least Parmenides. While there are some parallels between Spinoza's monism and some quasi-philosophical Eastern texts, they are decidedly not the same. Take a look at the method: Spinoza was a individual rationalistic philosopher, while the Upanashads are a part of a long upwelling of religious tradition. This is clear if you have actually read Spinoza, for instance, rather than just a short article about books about Spinoza. It is the sort of sloppy and lazy generalizing evidenced by the practicioner of yoga above that keeps most of them ensconced firmly in the Chicken Soup For The Soul category. This may not have bothered Spinoza, latter-day saint that he was (!), but it does me. Read the books, people. Or just stick with your bumper-stickerizing tin-can philosophizing, and leave Spinoza et al alone.

you said:

I regularly read yogic spiritual texts, and the description of Spinoza's view of God and the Universe is EXACTLY what has been taught in the nondualistic yoga tradition for thousands of years.

And I merely pointed out that Spinoza's views are NOT the same, which you would know if you had read any Spinoza. 20 pages of the Ethics would suffice. It's just a pet peeve of mine: the cheap chicanery of bargain-basement "eastern" new-agey philosophizing leads people to think they see the Truth in all things. Bollix. Try some humility on for size. The world of the spirit, if I may use such a term, is a hell of a lot harder to grasp than that. I'll grant you it's a minor point in this fucked-up world of ours, but it annoys me all the same. Don't take it personally, though. I'd probably feel the same way about your friends down at the yoga center, or anyone else who thinks a hobby is the road to enlightenment. (If in fact you think none of these things, then do look past this tirade.)

This kind of tripe, along with a few other pieces too tedious to recall, makes the occasionally-intelligent Rebecca Traister out to be exactly the nagging, humorless, holier-than-thou feminist that makes lively people with real lives roll their eyes and change the subject. Spare us the drabble, RT, and find something worthwhile to occupy internet electrons with. It might make you feel better about banking that Salon salary for doing next to nothing.