Printable View
Um, it's not a book for children, so that's a pretty stupid argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
Yes, it has paedophilia in it- there are people like that in the world. People don't take offense to it because it's 'porn'- they take offence to it because it's showing them an ugly truth.
Why does it matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
I don't understand why people get worked up over whether this or that is porn and where the line should be drawn between "vulgarity" and "art".
Why should anyone draw that line?
I'm not convinced there is one.
I'm not convinced vulgarity can't be art.
The labels people choose to stick on such things are meaningless to me.
Not only is the line a completely subjective one, what difference does it make?
If you think it is suitable for your children, let them read it.
If not, don't.
Why the need to label it?
As we are living in a world wherein diversities, varieties, differences do take place and democratically speaking we do respect such things. I do not mean anyone must subscribe to my views, and neither should I do to theirs in point of fact. There are prostitutes, gays and womanizers, all have their voice and say in point of fact. Why should we do not go against their ideals and course of living nor should they by the same token, here I do not know why I am pinching or they get pinched by all I put forth. Everybody has the right to oppose, criticize, appreciate, and depreciate.
Notwithstanding all your stuffs, positive or negative I am still very much for my ideas that Lolita is porn by all standards, and if nothing or no books ever are written pornographically or if the term itself is a misnomer all I do say is Lolita is porn.
You can't say something is porn when the world at large disagrees with you. You can say 'I take offense to it because it goes against my beliefs' but don't claim that anything with sex in it is porn.
Sensuality is not porn- what about all those great poems? Do you think they're porn too?
blaze, i think it's time we rename this post 'a monument to stupidity'
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Don't you think it's a subjectuve value assessment?
Who should be the ones to dictate whether or not something is pornographic?
I won't attempt to define obscene, "but I know it when I see it."
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart 1964
Same with me, and Lolita is not obscene.Quote:
Originally Posted by one_raven
Well, what I mean is you can't denounce something as pornographic like that when you are a tiny minority, therefore it is more likely to be your personal offence than it actually being pornographic.Quote:
Originally Posted by one_raven
Honestly there are more books I'd class as pornographic which are far worse.
Of course you can - if it is a subjective value assessment.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
"Personal offense" is the whole point of "subjective" is it not?
If it is subjective, there is no such thing as "actual pornography".
And you are certainly entitled to that subjectuve, personal opinion - regardless of what anyone else (even a majority) might think.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
No?
This is why I question this need of people to label something as "porn" or not; "obscene" or not; "offensive" or not.
Seems not only pointless to me, but impossible.
If you like it; read it.
If you do not; don't.
If you think it is suitable for children; let you kids read it.
If you do not; don't.
The only reason I can see to label things as porn, obscene, offensive, objectionable... is to use those lables as justification for censorship and dictating the behavior and personal liberty of others.
Why else would it be a valid practice?
Furthermore, why this delineation between obscene and art at all?
Can something not be offensive and art simultaneously?
Can art not be obscene?
I think it can.
But that's just my own, subjective opinion.
I'm actually reading Lolita right now, and it is definitely not porn. Is it disturbing and at some points uncomfortable? Of course. But it's not... pornography. It wasn't created for the purpose of sexual excitement, it was created to tell the story of Humbert Humbert and Lolita... It's a very strange story, but a story nonetheless.
Anyway, pornography's supposed to be arousing, isn't it? I'd be worried if anyone found the novel arousing...
Why?
Porn or not, some of the passages are definitely erotic.
Well, the right to have opinions is not the same of having right opinions. I could point to a elephant and say "In my opinion it is a monkey, see a monkey!"Quote:
Originally Posted by one_raven
Lolita is not porn. References to sex are all veiled, the language is not straightfoward (the aforementioned kid would not even grasp those momments), the sexual act never described, it is not the intention of the author to focus on them, etc,etc,etc.
If Henry Miller was reading Lolita to Anais Nin they would fall asleep quite fast.
Still fighting about it?! :alien:
It's not porn.
Humbert and Annabel's bit is but they're teenagers, what dyu expect?Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon