Hmmm....

So this whole 'plot doesn't matter' business is really getting to my head. Maybe I'm just apart of the masses (the simple-minded folk) but I prefer to enjoy the plot of a book I'm reading. Honestly, I really enjoy the plot of Lolita, and as fucked up as the subject matter is, Nabokov is a really good story teller. It can drag on at times, but all the twists and turns and surprises (whoa! Charlotte just discovered Hum's secret! wait! she just got hit by a car!) are enjoyable to me. 

We have heard from Krzys and read in Eagleton and others that content is just a vehicle for style. Maybe not outright, but but I keep getting the strong impression that content and plot don't really matter. This makes me sad. It also makes me feel like those Russians Eagleton talked about at the beginning of L.T. (I think Formalists, but I don't have my book at hand to double check) were correct in their theories, which, to me, seemed a little too outlandish. 

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate good style and close reading and all that, but I feel like if we discount plot all together that we are doing something wrong. Obviously plot is not the number one most important thing that a work of literature has to offer, something that I learned very quickly in this class, but I do think it counts for something. But then again, according to Nabokov I am just a lowly 'bad' reader and I don't know what I'm talking about. I can just see him reading this, rolling out of his chair laughing at my naive stupidity. What an asshole. I think I'm going to go read Janet Evanovich just to spite him.