Is Lolita Porn?

I read it a long time ago in my school days, and that time I read the book with great gusto, the passion escorted the thought that this is a classic and notwithstanding the fact that it is full of porn-centric essences I had the feeling that it had something aesthetics, appreciations of beauty in point of fact. I leafed through the book hungrily and found it un-put-down-able. It in substance had the quotients that scintillate my imaginations at that formative age.

Now coming into an age of maturation, physically, emotionally and of course intellectually I take the book differently notwithstanding its elevated, honed, horny style. I take the book as pure porn and this is swathed by a beautiful wrapper that is sophisticated, urbane style that could blindfold the reader. But the membraned beauty that sheathes the vulgarity of the book is skin-deep and once one observes keenly the screen will fall and the whole scenes of ugliness and vulgarity will resurface. The following opening line endorses this fact.

It's unquestionable that Lolita has a strong erotic undertone, but I fail to see the problem. Isn't vulgarity intellectual? Isn't pornography art? They are reflections and symbols of reality, threads of beauty if looked at right, and they can't be excluded from culture without limiting it.

How do you define porn?

I do not imagine a book without any descriptions of sex can be porn, but well...

No, no, and thrice no-it is not "porn", in the normal sense of 'pornography'-it caricatures 'literary pornogrpahy'-Lolita is NOT about sex.

I don't think Lolita is porn at all! Porn is the explicit representation of the sexual act (for the purpose of exciting people sexually), no? And even that definition seems a bit limited (Sade represents sexual acts ad nauseam,but I'd hesitate before qualfying his books as pornographic).

And if the book can be seen as vulgar, isn't it because Lolita is incredibly vulgar herself? And possibly Humbert Humbert as well, in spite of his flowery discourse? He tries to pass his basic lust for a more aesthetic emotion - but we are lead to distrust him from the opening page onwards! I think the discrepancy you have perceived between the beautiful exterior and the ugly undercurrents is purposeful. Some readers can be taken in - others immediately see that Humbert is actually a disgusting character.

Ah, I've just been to see the etymology/definition of pornography, and where you could be right, blazeofglory, is that pornography is also defined as a portrayal of obscene subjects. I guess it's the definition of obscene that's called into question, then, and isn't that a matter of opinion? Humbert's lust for nymphets could be considered as an obscene passion, ie, one that should not be depicted on scene, for some people. But what is truly obscene, nowadays? Murder on stage used to be considered as obscene at one period (the characters had to go and die offstage); it's not the case at all now.

Possibly "pornographic" in its contemporary acception is too limiting a word to be applied to the novel, even if it does corrrespond, to some extent, to that notion...

Quote:

---

Porn is the explicit representation of the sexual act (for the purpose of exciting people sexually)

---

As good a definition as any, yet plenty problematic. What then is the difference between porn and erotica? And anyway, is there something wrong with getting sexually excited??

"Obscenity" seems equally impossible to quantify in any objective sense. I believe "community standards" are the legal test here. But then what's the difference between enforcing community standards and repressing individuality? Aren't they two sides of the same coin?

How about this as a definition of the line beyond which we can condemn a written work as porn. It's the place where the fear of seeming like a philistine exactly balances one's fear of seeming like a pervert.

Are there even depictions of actual sex? It's like saying if a movie that features a scene where the characters have sex is porn. The only reason you think it is porn is because the girl is bellow the age of consent.

I don't think Nabokov intended Lolita to be viewed as porn. The author never allows you to forget that Lolita is a little girl. Every sexual scene that I can remember was prefaced or concluded by descriptions of the girl's toys, gum, inky fingers from magic markers.

I think more than sexual excitement, the author intended the character of Lolita to be pitied. There is room to pity Humbert Humbert, too. In my opinion, it has been a very misunderstood book.

If Nabokov has held a mirror before us in the form of Lolita, perhaps we should worry about what it has shown us about ourselves.

Porn? You sure are an extremely prude person...

Well if it is then it's poorly done. My idiot brother named his daughter's middle name Lolita so I'm a bit biased.

I think more than sexual excitement, the author intended the character of Lolita to be pitied. There is room to pity Humbert Humbert, too. In my opinion, it has been a very misunderstood book.- Psycheinaboat


This is more or less the way I feel about it as well. I never thought of Lolita as porn. The author's primary purpose I feel, is not to titillate, but to tell us the tragic story of a young girl called Dolores Haze who dies at the age of 17. The book may be called 'Lolita' and we only see it through HH's distorted vision, and yet the author's ingenuity enables Dolores' real story to shine through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bitterfly

Porn is the explicit representation of the sexual act (for the purpose of exciting people sexually),

---

I would go further than that and say that porn is the above but only provided there is no other substance to the material to lend it artistic merit. i.e. for material to be porn it must have been created with the sole crude purpose of sexually exciting people and no other purpose.
Porn is not a word that I would use to describe any classic literature no matter how obscene.

Lolita is a erotica not exactly porn.

--------------------
Check Grammar, Spelling or Style and Enhance It!
Proofreading software | Software to correct English

Wow people actually think Lolita has anything to do with porn or eroticism? The subject matter contains a part of sexuality but that's all... it would be like calling sexual education courses porn or erotica courses, in a way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DapperDrake

I would go further than that and say that porn is the above but only provided there is no other substance to the material to lend it artistic merit. i.e. for material to be porn it must have been created with the sole crude purpose of sexually exciting people and no other purpose.
Porn is not a word that I would use to describe any classic literature no matter how obscene.

---

Wouldn't that be deliberately trying to take away any positive meaning because you think porn is supposed to define something bad? While I agree today's pornography has little - if any - artistic merit, I find it more daring to view it as part of the erotica, and accept that it could have artistic potential if tackled with proper refinment. After all, something that excites us visually, emotionally, intelectually, etc. is considered art... why eliminate sexuality?

That brings us to the question... did Lolita really excite anyone...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DapperDrake

I would go further than that and say that porn is the above but only provided there is no other substance to the material to lend it artistic merit. i.e. for material to be porn it must have been created with the sole crude purpose of sexually exciting people and no other purpose.

---

Ah yes, I agree with you, and it explains why Sade can't really be described as pornographic (at least, not unless you're really sick :sick:)! Or Bataille...

And Lolita isn't really even erotic, no? I don't remember being really excited by the story.

Quote:

---

After all, something that excites us visually, emotionally, intelectually, etc. is considered art... why eliminate sexuality?

---

That's interesting... So you think sexual stimulation is the only form of stimulation that is rejected as not being artistic, because of our inbred strain of puritanism?
But maybe, very simply, art can't be defined merely as something that stimulates us, don't you think?

It is not, people getting excited by Lolita, really really is excited by HH.

Quote:

---

That's interesting... So you think sexual stimulation is the only form of stimulation that is rejected as not being artistic, because of our inbred strain of puritanism?
But maybe, very simply, art can't be defined merely as something that stimulates us, don't you think?

---

I assume you mean true art is supposed to have a deeper "meaning", and I agree up to a point, only I belive true art shouldn't offer a particular - intended - message, but a subjective artificial experience. I suppose any worthwile experience will stimulate you one way or another, otherwise you would be completely indifferent to it.
Depictions of beauty, or works simply meant to immerse one in a certain atmosphere, can be, and are, artistic in nature.
I don't think erotism is rejected at all by artists, on the contrary, they seem to touch on it constantly, but it's funny how some people tend to put labels of what is and what is not "too sexual" in art, and create exceptions when culture and academia demand it. Sade for example, I believe was fairly excited by his writings, and so were his contemporary readers. If we see something different than pornography in his writings, and perhaps more was intended, that only proves his genius but doesn't make him less of a profligate. Let's appreciate the man for (and inspite of) what he really was.

Lolita didn't really excite me either, but I can see why it may have that effect - and that's the author's succes, rather than the reader's failing - the same way a victorian novel may seem romantic to some and boring to others. To clarify my view on this, I don't think Lolita can be called porn in any way, but it being chastized for its elements of sexuallity bothers me more than the misclassification (which is subjective anyway, and hey, if someone gets excited while reading, he has his right to call it so). I also don't agree with your opinion that the book is simply a drama demonstrating how seductive and destructive a "disgusting character" like Humbert can be. Now, that is a puritan take on the book, one that applies our previous knowledge to the events and explains them in a way that leaves us knowing nothing more than we already knew, and thus making the reading futile save for the enjoyment of indulging ourselves in the narrator's "flowery discourse". ;)

Ah, I think you now have misunderstood me!! :p

I spoke of HH as a "disgusting character" not because his attraction for nymphets revulses me (I am also of the opinion that morality and art are different realms that should not be mixed up - and I adore Nabokov anyhow), but because he is quite horrible, when you stop to think about it: he's a murderer and especially a terrible pedant and hypocrite! His "disgustingness", by the way, I find one of the most interesting elements in the novel.

You're right about hindsight making that viewpoint possible. But isn't it one of the joys of re-reading, that it affords different interpretations every time (for rich books such as Lolita, naturally)? The first time you can enjoy his "floweriness" at face value - the next times you can see him differently...

Quote:

---

I assume you mean true art is supposed to have a deeper "meaning", and I agree up to a point, only I belive true art shouldn't offer a particular - intended - message, but a subjective artificial experience. I suppose any worthwile experience will stimulate you one way or another, otherwise you would be completely indifferent to it.

---

Actually my question was not rhetorical (otherwise I would not have found your assertion interesting). I agree with you that art should stimulate or excite, definitely. But I'm not altogether sure that it shouldn't have a message. Let me explain: I'm not saying I enjoy purely didactic fiction, for example, but rather that I look for something else than mere stimulation when I really read a book (that is, not only for pleasure). I think works of art can deliver messages - now, on whether that message is intentionally meant by the author or on the contrary different for every reader according to his/her subjectivity, I would go for the latter.

Quote:

---

Sade for example, I believe was fairly excited by his writings, and so were his contemporary readers. If we see something different than pornography in his writings, and perhaps more was intended, that only proves his genius but doesn't make him less of a profligate.

---

He might have been excited, but I hope all contemporary readers were not titallated by scenes such as you can find in his most violent books! Did you read until the end of The Hundred Days of Sodom, or even La philosophie dans le boudoir (sorry, don't know what it's called in translation)? Some pages are an astonishing and even nauseating turn-off. I find Sade interesting and non-pornographic merely because he went so far into horror - and I wonder how one can write things like that (I've never, ever, read worse than some pages in his novels).

Quote:

---

for material to be porn it must have been created with the sole crude purpose of sexually exciting people and no other purpose.

---

Doesn't this get us into the hopeless confusion of establishing intent? How can we know what an author intended? And as for the effect on the reader, isn't that the very definition of subjective?

Quote:

---

Did you read until the end of The Hundred Days of Sodom, or even La philosophie dans le boudoir (sorry, don't know what it's called in translation)? Some pages are an astonishing and even nauseating turn-off.

---

It is my impression that it's the Marquis de Sade's devilish humor at work. He's tweaking the reader's nose. He starts out his scenes of debauchery with a bit of naughtiness, mild enough, and progresses by stages until they're digging up grandma's corpse and raping it. At some point, anyone's reaction is pure disgust. I think the whole point is to ask, "where do YOU draw the line, dear reader?"

Lolita's supposed to be shocking and repulsive.

Quote:

---

I spoke of HH as a "disgusting character" not because his attraction for nymphets revulses me (I am also of the opinion that morality and art are different realms that should not be mixed up - and I adore Nabokov anyhow), but because he is quite horrible, when you stop to think about it: he's a murderer and especially a terrible pedant and hypocrite! His "disgustingness", by the way, I find one of the most interesting elements in the novel.

You're right about hindsight making that viewpoint possible. But isn't it one of the joys of re-reading, that it affords different interpretations every time (for rich books such as Lolita, naturally)? The first time you can enjoy his "floweriness" at face value - the next times you can see him differently...

---

I'm glad we clarified that. I guess I'm more acceptant of Humbert. He makes plenty mistakes and has his flaws, but isn't that a wide-spread human trait? Him being a murderer is more of a literary eccentricity in my view. After all, his final episode with Quilty is absolutely hilarious, perhaps having more to say about human nature in general than Humbert's. It's more like a theatrically pathetic duel than a murder. As for being a hypocrite and overall an awful person, he fares pretty well to make his mistakes more palatable and intellectualy justified (not completely by far, but still)... unlike, say, Frederick Clegg.

As for multiple reads, I'm not into that just yet - plenty new books ahead of me for now... I am greedy, and fickle.

Quote:

---

Actually my question was not rhetorical (otherwise I would not have found your assertion interesting). I agree with you that art should stimulate or excite, definitely. But I'm not altogether sure that it shouldn't have a message. Let me explain: I'm not saying I enjoy purely didactic fiction, for example, but rather that I look for something else than mere stimulation when I really read a book (that is, not only for pleasure). I think works of art can deliver messages - now, on whether that message is intentionally meant by the author or on the contrary different for every reader according to his/her subjectivity, I would go for the latter.

---

The way I see it, you're saying you want the art-granted experiences to be meaningful, to leave something behind. That's great, but I don't think they can all be so. For an experience to really be meaningful, many others have to be casual, both for the higher status to make sense by comparison, and for you to have a field where you can use your earned refinment. That's why I accept two faces in art, one complex and one simple, meant purely for enjoyment. For example, we can enjoy watching a landscape photograph, and consider the spectacle of that image to be artistic, although it teaches us nothing and it doesn't even involve much creative effort (rather, a knack to discover beauty already existent).
But perhaps I am biased, because I recieve great pleasure (not sexual, obviously) from the intellectual stimulation of complex writing, with far more passion for the act itself than for anything I should pick up from it rather than the residual changes of the experience (which doesn't concern me so much). I don't find it much different than other forms of pleasure, and am not even sure us humans have other purpose than the survival and well-being of ourselves and our descendants.

Quote:

---

He might have been excited, but I hope all contemporary readers were not titallated by scenes such as you can find in his most violent books! Did you read until the end of The Hundred Days of Sodom, or even La philosophie dans le boudoir (sorry, don't know what it's called in translation)? Some pages are an astonishing and even nauseating turn-off. I find Sade interesting and non-pornographic merely because he went so far into horror - and I wonder how one can write things like that (I've never, ever, read worse than some pages in his novels).

---

Oh, The Hundred Days of Sodom was disgusting from the start, but realistically...? I think there are plenty - mostly men though, Sade doesn't read like much of a ladiesman - though few would admit it even to themselves, and hopefully none would venture back. The social tabu on sex makes a lot of repressed perversities seem exciting in theory, and lack of imagination plays a role in diminishing the disgustiness when simply encountered in literature.
When I claimed earlier that pornography can be art, I certainly didn't refer to Sade... His erotica (let's call it so) is awful, and he's even an awful writer (too repetitive in The Hundred Days, even for a sketch, and unimaginative), but he is brilliant for the insight about moral and manners of his age, his self-irony, sarcasm and the ability to become a small phenomenon, inspite his tastes, because he was so determined to preserve his identity against cultural pressure. Also, my country's edition of this book features a flamboyant volume of 600+ footnotes, most of them irrelevant, circular and repetitive, meant to prop the value of that translation of manuscript pieces, which I found rather amusing, and thus "artsy" in its infatuated pointlesness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

As for multiple reads, I'm not into that just yet - plenty new books ahead of me for now... I am greedy, and fickle.

---

I think I'm going to re-read Lolita for the umpteenth time, after this discussion! :p Because I find your opinion about the end of Lolita as a sort of human comedy quite appealing.
I am oblige to re-read and re-read, for I too am greedy, but it's my memory that's fickle in what it preserves!

Quote:

---

That's why I accept two faces in art, one complex and one simple, meant purely for enjoyment.

---

I entirely agree. But what I tend to think more highly of books that offer more than simple satisfaction - books that change my mind about some things, that open me up to different ideas, that challenge me.

Quote:

---

But perhaps I am biased, because I recieve great pleasure (not sexual, obviously) from the intellectual stimulation of complex writing, with far more passion for the act itself than for anything I should pick up from it rather than the residual changes of the experience (which doesn't concern me so much). I don't find it much different than other forms of pleasure, and am not even sure us humans have other purpose than the survival and well-being of ourselves and our descendants.

---

Hmm, I understand, but that's an approach I have towards music rather than literature (I even feel that musical appreciation can be akin to sexual pleasure, really). Possibly because my training has been such that my reading is too intellectual, and I dissociate pleasure and thought.

Quote:

---

Oh, The Hundred Days of Sodom was disgusting from the start, but realistically...? I think there are plenty - mostly men though, Sade doesn't read like much of a ladiesman - though few would admit it even to themselves, and hopefully none would venture back. The social tabu on sex makes a lot of repressed perversities seem exciting in theory, and lack of imagination plays a role in diminishing the disgustiness when simply encountered in literature.

---

One again, I agree with you on the whole - nothing better than the frisson de l'interdit, as the French would say! But without wanting to split hairs too much, I really wonder whether raping an eviscerated pregant woman would appeal to many men - even in representation.

Quote:

---

It is my impression that it's the Marquis de Sade's devilish humor at work. He's tweaking the reader's nose. He starts out his scenes of debauchery with a bit of naughtiness, mild enough, and progresses by stages until they're digging up grandma's corpse and raping it. At some point, anyone's reaction is pure disgust. I think the whole point is to ask, "where do YOU draw the line, dear reader?"

---

That's so true!!!!! There should be a test: where did you stop reading Ulysses, where did you stop reading Sade?! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

Wouldn't that be deliberately trying to take away any positive meaning because you think porn is supposed to define something bad? While I agree today's pornography has little - if any - artistic merit, I find it more daring to view it as part of the erotica, and accept that it could have artistic potential if tackled with proper refinment. After all, something that excites us visually, emotionally, intelectually, etc. is considered art... why eliminate sexuality?

---

Well I wasn't making any value judgement of porn itself. I think intent and purpose are very important here, if material is created for artistic reasons then I'm happy to allow it to be art (no matter the content) but if material is created solely to create sexual stimulus then it is clearly not art... that is not to say of course that it couldn't be appreciated as art if you really tried :) because as they say, art is in the eye of the beholder.
This at least is how I think we should define porn, of course there is a separate classification for artistic "porn" and that is erotica.

As to your question "why eliminate sexuality", its simply that a consumer of porn is not deriving any artistic pleasure (which is inherently intellectual) from the material but purely sexual (which is inherently physical), so we have to make some sort of distinction.

Quote:

---

I am oblige to re-read and re-read, for I too am greedy, but it's my memory that's fickle in what it preserves!

---

Oh, but memory is always tricky! You don't have to remember everything, the essence of beauty and/or wisdom in a book will always stay within you. Anyway, that's not to say Lolita isn't worth it ;), so have a nice re-read.

Quote:

---

I entirely agree. But what I tend to think more highly of books that offer more than simple satisfaction - books that change my mind about some things, that open me up to different ideas, that challenge me.

---

Indeed, but what I like the most is literature as a whole. And I have to admit, rare are the authors who can sway me from my opinions right now, although I do appreciate a parallel perspective.

Quote:

---

But without wanting to split hairs too much, I really wonder whether raping an eviscerated pregant woman would appeal to many men - even in representation.

---

Indeed it wouldn't. But once you put it into context, it makes more sense. After all, Sade's age was filled with oppresion in different forms, from different directions and in various stages of conflict, and loads of human stupidity. He most likely wasn't very bright himself, but he was an educated, yet very obsessive libertine more or less locked in a cage. No doubt he dealt with a lot of anger and took his imaginary revenge on the world. In our days, we don't have so many reasons to think like him, and especially we have more reasons not to.

Quote:

---

Well I wasn't making any value judgement of porn itself. I think intent and purpose are very important here, if material is created for artistic reasons then I'm happy to allow it to be art (no matter the content) but if material is created solely to create sexual stimulus then it is clearly not art... that is not to say of course that it couldn't be appreciated as art if you really tried because as they say, art is in the eye of the beholder.
This at least is how I think we should define porn, of course there is a separate classification for artistic "porn" and that is erotica.

As to your question "why eliminate sexuality", its simply that a consumer of porn is not deriving any artistic pleasure (which is inherently intellectual) from the material but purely sexual (which is inherently physical), so we have to make some sort of distinction.

---

I wouldn't be so quick to separate the physical and the intellectual. After all, the brain is just as much a part of our anatomy as the genitalia... What about a master chef? Should his cooking not be considered art because it only appeals to our taste buds?
Furthermore, the purely physical desire to give or recieve pleasure can trigger an intellectual effort to make the act more refined or inventive. The two are very strongly linked, and I believe the mind plays a greater role in sexuality than you would give it credit for.

I wouldn't say art is defined by the intent, but by the level of thought, passion and talent put into it. Consumerism is indeed a plague, but it manifests on all arts, just take a look at today's best-seller lists in literature... just because descriptive sexuality doesn't have any academia backing it up it doesn't mean it's not art-worthy. ;) As for the porn-erotica separation, I just belive the former is a derogatory term for the latter, at best a scale of explicitness. Drawing a line can't really help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

Oh, but memory is always tricky! You don't have to remember everything, the essence of beauty and/or wisdom in a book will always stay within you. Anyway, that's not to say Lolita isn't worth it ;), so have a nice re-read.

---

That's so true, about the essence staying with you!! But it's also very bothersome, when you like speaking about books, not to be able to remember one well from one year to the next.

Quote:

---

Indeed it wouldn't. But once you put it into context, it makes more sense. After all, Sade's age was filled with oppresion in different forms, from different directions and in various stages of conflict, and loads of human stupidity. He most likely wasn't very bright himself, but he was an educated, yet very obsessive libertine more or less locked in a cage. No doubt he dealt with a lot of anger and took his imaginary revenge on the world. In our days, we don't have so many reasons to think like him, and especially we have more reasons not to.

---

Hmm, yet you still have a few violent authors. Bret Easton Ellis, of whom I have only read two or three novels, reminded me of Sade a little, even though he doesn't go as far.
By the way, wouldn't you think that Sade, as an aristocrat, would have had less constraints than anyone from another social class at the period? I know he wrote from the Bastille at one time, but he seems to have led rather a free life apart from that episode.

About the dissociation of the physical and the intellectual: isn't it because laughter is also seen something corporal rather than intellectual that comedies are often considered as "lower" than tragedies? That someone like Shakespeare could be disparaged, in the eighteenth century for instance? That Rabelais was despised and forgotten for a while as well?

Honestly, if you think Lolita is porn, I think your problem isn't a misreading of Lolita, but rather a misreading of porn.

In truth though, for those who mention Humbert as a murderer, that is an interpretation. Many don't actually consider Quilty to be real, and merely a plot device used by Humbert. I have read essays saying they were one and the same, and merely different aspects of the same personality. But I think I am running off topic.

As for Sade, I don't know his relevance, or why he is even still in print. Sure he may have been shocking, but has anyone even tried to read him? Is it even worth it? All politics and censorship asside, I have come to the conclusion that despite all the political assignments around Sade, his books aren't really about politics, or liberation, but are instead simply the workings of a perverted mind. That isn't to say that erotica is bad, or anything (though I am strained to come up with a good example of erotica, in the sense we see it today), I am just saying his "views" are artificially placed. I don't think he wrote to challenge anything, or to say anything, I think he simply wrote to create his representation of his own perverse sexual fantasies. If you take my view, he slowly seems to become, not a good writer, merely a bad perverted one.

Quote:

---

But it's also very bothersome, when you like speaking about books, not to be able to remember one well from one year to the next.

---

Perhaps you shouldn't be expected to... Usually when talks on literature, or social subjects in general (law, economy, for example) get too dogmatic, I get bored and not all that impressed. As long as the one with fresh memories is happy to share, and the one without is aware of his limitations, nothing should be lost in a discussion.
As far as that being your personal desire, that's simply choice. Some like being rooted in select but limited knowledge, others to explore wider horizon, at the cost of a certain shallowness. Each with its up and downs. ;)

Quote:

---

Hmm, yet you still have a few violent authors. Bret Easton Ellis, of whom I have only read two or three novels, reminded me of Sade a little, even though he doesn't go as far.
By the way, wouldn't you think that Sade, as an aristocrat, would have had less constraints than anyone from another social class at the period? I know he wrote from the Bastille at one time, but he seems to have led rather a free life apart from that episode.

---

Well, he certainly wanted to live a life without constraints, but his social status didn't do him so good. He was still accused for blasphemy and he was sentenced to death for homosexuality, which was a crime in the eyes of the church at that time (although he escaped death and was just imprisoned). He also lived through the French Revolution and the subsequent Terror, when he saw many of his fellow aristocrats beheaded by the mob (he only escaped because he was incarcerated or viewed as insane, amd had some popularity for having been incarcerated at Bastille as far as I recall), and his estate pludered. He was then imprisoned again for his "filthy writing" under Napoleon's regime and died in an asylum.
He spent a great part of his life either running from the law, being incarcerated, or trying to fawn upon a very frightening new political webbing in order to stay alive. From his writings, he seems to criticize the bourgeoisie of his youth, with it's vices and decadence, but by his education and status he also held no respect for the stupid masses, and certainly oposed the church and his time's ideas of morality. So, in my view, we're dealing with a man pretty much dismayed of humanity (and I'm not sure I can blame him), who can't help being selfish, has to be a hypocrite for his own good, and finds himself under quite a deal of pressure.
His writings fit his era perfectly, they are little more than a wicked, cynical, cry of frustration. I would not have wanted to live in his age.

I can't say I've read much, if any, modern violent novels, as they're not exactly my type. I liked Sade for his black humour, not for his violence, erotic morbidity or even minor deviances. I'm not sure him and today's violent authors write for the same reasons, but I can't afford to claim that, as I have yet to as much as make myself carry American Psycho to the cashier. :p

Quote:

---

About the dissociation of the physical and the intellectual: isn't it because laughter is also seen something corporal rather than intellectual that comedies are often considered as "lower" than tragedies? That someone like Shakespeare could be disparaged, in the eighteenth century for instance? That Rabelais was despised and forgotten for a while as well?

---

I've allways considered laughter to be intellectual... ;) Good comedy is the hardest thing to write. There's a fine tread between enlightening someone through laughter and offending them, and this border changes with the culture and with the reader alike. I prefer the extremes, and I think the less likely a reader is to be offended by something (and the more likely to laugh instead) the more intelligent that reader is.
Tragedy on the other hand takes too many "quality points" for sobriety (kinda like it's not nice to call someone stupid for maiming himself with a chainsaw, although it may very well be the case). That's cheating, and I think many tragical works (in general) are not as great as they are made out to be for appealing to "very deep human emotions".
As I expressed myself earlier, quality and intent are two different things. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

As far as that being your personal desire, that's simply choice. Some like being rooted in select but limited knowledge, others to explore wider horizon, at the cost of a certain shallowness. Each with its up and downs. ;)

---

Well, I read widely and in all directions, and consequently often have the impression I'm shallow, which bothers me, and which is why I try to re-read every now and then!!

Quote:

---

His writings fit his era perfectly, they are little more than a wicked, cynical, cry of frustration. I would not have wanted to live in his age.

---

Thanks a lot for that mini-biography. I hadn't realized that Sade had lived under the Terreur; in fact, I've become aware that I really don't know much about him at all (am trying to remedy to that, and speaking about Lolitas! his last affair was with a thirteen year old...)! And definitely, the period isn't appealing - too much bloodshed, obviously.

Quote:

---

I can't say I've read much, if any, modern violent novels, as they're not exactly my type. I liked Sade for his black humour, not for his violence, erotic morbidity or even minor deviances. I'm not sure him and today's violent authors write for the same reasons, but I can't afford to claim that, as I have yet to as much as make myself carry American Psycho to the cashier. :p

---

And I can't say I've seen too much humour in his works, but maybe I should re-read them. ;)

Quote:

---

I've allways considered laughter to be intellectual... ;) Good comedy is the hardest thing to write. There's a fine tread between enlightening someone through laughter and offending them, and this border changes with the culture and with the reader alike. I prefer the extremes, and I think the less likely a reader is to be offended by something (and the more likely to laugh instead) the more intelligent that reader is.

---

Oh, the origin of laughter might be intellectual, but its effects? A great belly-laugh is probably too physical - and too plebian - for some people. I enjoy the laughter provided by shock - a comic passage in a overall "serious" novel, for instance. Eighteenth-century authors were good for that, but I think they weren't always appreciated.

Quote:

---

As for Sade, I don't know his relevance, or why he is even still in print. Sure he may have been shocking, but has anyone even tried to read him? Is it even worth it? All politics and censorship asside, I have come to the conclusion that despite all the political assignments around Sade, his books aren't really about politics, or liberation, but are instead simply the workings of a perverted mind. That isn't to say that erotica is bad, or anything (though I am strained to come up with a good example of erotica, in the sense we see it today), I am just saying his "views" are artificially placed. I don't think he wrote to challenge anything, or to say anything, I think he simply wrote to create his representation of his own perverse sexual fantasies. If you take my view, he slowly seems to become, not a good writer, merely a bad perverted one.

---

We've been speaking about Sade, so obviously we've read him (I take it for granted that Petronius is speaking from personal experience).

But I've had the same qualms as you about him; he has been "recuperated" by quite a few people, and one wonders why. Apparently even Angela Carter, who's an author I really love, wrote that he left a space for woman. I'm not sure I agree with her (except maybe for Juliette). I read an interesting chapter about him in one of Barthe's book as well, and he seemed to take Sade seriously. But it's true that when you read his books, they're a letdown: not well-written, terribly repetittive especially, and not particularly clever either. But at least he's a literary oddity, which makes him interesting! :)

Now Sacher-Masoch is far more beautiful...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

I wouldn't be so quick to separate the physical and the intellectual. After all, the brain is just as much a part of our anatomy as the genitalia... What about a master chef? Should his cooking not be considered art because it only appeals to our taste buds?
Furthermore, the purely physical desire to give or recieve pleasure can trigger an intellectual effort to make the act more refined or inventive. The two are very strongly linked, and I believe the mind plays a greater role in sexuality than you would give it credit for.

---

"What about a master chef? Should his cooking not be considered art because it only appeals to our taste buds?"

Doe's it really only appeal to our taste buds? I think there is more intellectual appreciation involved than you give credit for, and yes, cooking esp. of a master chef is certainly art.
Yes of course the is a very strong role in sexuality for the mind, but that does not mean the sex is appreciated cerebrally - quite the opposite, it is often despised cerebrally. By your argument creating cocaine would be considered a work of art because it gives pleasure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

I wouldn't say art is defined by the intent, but by the level of thought, passion and talent put into it. Consumerism is indeed a plague, but it manifests on all arts, just take a look at today's best-seller lists in literature... just because descriptive sexuality doesn't have any academia backing it up it doesn't mean it's not art-worthy. ;) As for the porn-erotica separation, I just belive the former is a derogatory term for the latter, at best a scale of explicitness. Drawing a line can't really help.

---

I can't disagree more and I don't accept your reasoning, the defining and using of different words is to draw lines, that's what we're about here, the classification of porn, we are drawing a line so that we can decide if Lolita is porn or not.

"just because descriptive sexuality doesn't have any academia backing it up it doesn't mean it's not art-worthy"

Creating a work of art and appreciating material as art are two different things. We are discussing if Lolita is inherently porn, or if it is inherently art - my opinion is that it is art.
That does not mean that a work of art cannot be used as porn or that porn cannot be used (appreciated) as art.

Quote:

---

Well, I read widely and in all directions, and consequently often have the impression I'm shallow, which bothers me, and which is why I try to re-read every now and then!!

Thanks a lot for that mini-biography.

---

Don't beat yourself up too much.. just be happy you can enjoy so much art. :D
And you're quite welcome.

Quote:

---

Oh, the origin of laughter might be intellectual, but its effects? A great belly-laugh is probably too physical - and too plebian - for some people. I enjoy the laughter provided by shock - a comic passage in a overall "serious" novel, for instance. Eighteenth-century authors were good for that, but I think they weren't always appreciated.

---

Effects are subjective. Can a great literary work be trivialized because many people praise it from snobism rather than genuine appreciation?
Funny thing is, I often enjoy the comic of deliberately exaggerated seriousness.

Quote:

---

As for Sade, I don't know his relevance, or why he is even still in print. Sure he may have been shocking, but has anyone even tried to read him? Is it even worth it? All politics and censorship asside, I have come to the conclusion that despite all the political assignments around Sade, his books aren't really about politics, or liberation, but are instead simply the workings of a perverted mind. That isn't to say that erotica is bad, or anything (though I am strained to come up with a good example of erotica, in the sense we see it today), I am just saying his "views" are artificially placed. I don't think he wrote to challenge anything, or to say anything, I think he simply wrote to create his representation of his own perverse sexual fantasies. If you take my view, he slowly seems to become, not a good writer, merely a bad perverted one.

---

Quote:

---

But I've had the same qualms as you about him; he has been "recuperated" by quite a few people, and one wonders why. Apparently even Angela Carter, who's an author I really love, wrote that he left a space for woman. I'm not sure I agree with her (except maybe for Juliette). I read an interesting chapter about him in one of Barthe's book as well, and he seemed to take Sade seriously. But it's true that when you read his books, they're a letdown: not well-written, terribly repetittive especially, and not particularly clever either. But at least he's a literary oddity, which makes him interesting!

---

With Sade, it's more about the phenomenon than the writer. He's supposed to have been quite influential from his cone of shadow, but you should know more about that than I do, as I am not all that versed in literary history, I just enjoy reading...
For me, there are more to apreciate in a work of literature than just the wording and the theme (sometimes it's context). You should also consider that most of Sade's works were not edited, or even finished. More like the sketch of a manuscript.

Quote:

---

Now Sacher-Masoch is far more beautiful...

---

As a writer, he is, but is he a much better thinker...? I've only read Venus in Furs, and although I enjoyed it, I did expect something much deeper...

Quote:

---

Doe's it really only appeal to our taste buds? I think there is more intellectual appreciation involved than you give credit for, and yes, cooking esp. of a master chef is certainly art.

---

I do give cooking the deserved credit, I just think sexuality is very similar. A lot more can go around the basic act of fornication in order to enhance the experience and turn it into much more than animal copulation. You can compare sex to cooking in the way pleasure is delivered, and with dancing in the way the act itself is performed. There were even religious movements concerning this, in the form of tantrism.

Quote:

---

Yes of course the is a very strong role in sexuality for the mind, but that does not mean the sex is appreciated cerebrally - quite the opposite, it is often despised cerebrally. By your argument creating cocaine would be considered a work of art because it gives pleasure.

---

How on Earth is sexuality despised cerebrally? :eek:

There is nothing creative in making cocaine, nor does it deliver pleasure alone or refinment at all. The comparison is pretty far fetched. Perhaps you misunderstand me?

Quote:

---

I can't disagree more and I don't accept your reasoning, the defining and using of different words is to draw lines, that's what we're about here, the classification of porn, we are drawing a line so that we can decide if Lolita is porn or not.

---

You're talking about a stepped scale of values for subjective matters. There's no way it can work better than a continuous one. Who's deciding what each step should be? And furthermore, who's deciding where a work should be classified when it hovers somewhere in-between?
Also, my experience with words is that on medium and long term general use makes them alter their meaning, so they're not so good at "drawing lines".

Quote:

---

We are discussing if Lolita is inherently porn, or if it is inherently art - my opinion is that it is art.

---

Art and porn don't exclude eachother... I think we all agree Lolita is art, and not "porn", what concerns me is how much hypocrisy is involved in accepting or dismissing its elements of sexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

Effects are subjective. Can a great literary work be trivialized because many people praise it from snobism rather than genuine appreciation?
Funny thing is, I often enjoy the comic of deliberately exaggerated seriousness.

---

Ah, it's often more difficult to understand because you have to comprehend that the seriousness is not in earnest! I remember reading A Modest Proposal for the first time... or some of the writings of the Oulipo - they sometimes pastiche awfully serious styles - Umberto Eco has done it too!
And are effects so subjective? Maybe they're results of something like fashion. I sometimes have the impression that a whole era will be amused by things that will not make the next one laugh. How else do you explain the quasi-disappearance of farce, for instance? Sometimes it's difficult to really laugh - I don't mean just smile - at something that must have been awfully funny at some other period.
But no, a great work would not be trivialized. Then again, I've been thinking about how great literary works are in way "created" (because of Le Clézio's Nobel Prize, actually, since I don't consider him to be that great an author), and wondering whether some great works haven't been trivialized and others, less great, apotheosized.

Quote:

---

With Sade, it's more about the phenomenon than the writer. He's supposed to have been quite influential from his cone of shadow, but you should know more about that than I do, as I am not all that versed in literary history, I just enjoy reading...

---

Nope, no idea. I mean, I can sense his inflence in authors such as Bataille; or maybe even Lautréamont (but I'm really not sure about that), but have no idea about the true range of his influence.

Quote:

---

For me, there are more to apreciate in a work of literature than just the wording and the theme (sometimes it's context). You should also consider that most of Sade's works were not edited, or even finished. More like the sketch of a manuscript.

---

Yes, like rough drafts. Obviously that must have been the case for the Hundred and twenty days... Very modernist then, fragmentary! :p

Quote:

---

As a writer, he is, but is he a much better thinker...? I've only read Venus in Furs, and although I enjoyed it, I did expect something much deeper...

---

No, not a better thinker. I really meant more beautiful, just as I said. I appreciated it aesthetically. And because he's very German but I couldn't explain that! I like those novels about young men discovering the world.

Quote:

---

I do give cooking the deserved credit, I just think sexuality is very similar. A lot more can go around the basic act of fornication in order to enhance the experience and turn it into much more than animal copulation. You can compare sex to cooking in the way pleasure is delivered, and with dancing in the way the act itself is performed. There were even religious movements concerning this, in the form of tantrism.

---

This wasn't addressed to me, but I can't help adding that I perfectly agree. Of course sex is in the head before/at the same time as being in the body! How else, even, could one enjoy pornographic or erotic literature if the process was not mental?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bitterfly

Nope, no idea. I mean, I can sense his inflence in authors such as Bataille; or maybe even Lautréamont (but I'm really not sure about that), but have no idea about the true range of his influence.

---

You can add Flaubert (de Sade was even one of his favorite authors), Baudelaire and Apollinaire (read Les onze mille verges, for example!), the surrealists in general, etc. Sainte-Beuve has said that de Sade was, with Byron, the greatest inspiration of the moderns.

Quote:

---

because of Le Clézio's Nobel Prize, actually, since I don't consider him to be that great an author

---

I've never read him, actually, but I was thinking picking up something by him (he was actually giving a conference at my favorite bookshop last week, I was there as they were preparing it and didn't know, they often have conferences like that, I learned the next day it was Le Clézio). What have you read by him? I've heard his first works were best (Le procès-verbal, Le désert,...) but after that it got blander.

I read the Onze mille verges earlier this year!! And yes, you're absolutely right and I should have thought about it! It's a horrible book, didn't you think? So unlike his poems, which are so beautiful. I was quite shocked! :p Just joking - I didn't find it that horrible, but still, some passages were quite unbearable to read.

Baudelaire I'm not surprised; the surrealists of course! But I had no idea that Flaubert was inspired by Sade. Where does one find traces of this influence? I'm trying to draw on my memories of Bouvard and Mme Bovary and l'Education Sentimentale but can't find anything. Maybe his short stories? Or simply his style sometimes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bitterfly

I read the Onze mille verges earlier this year!! And yes, you're absolutely right and I should have thought about it! It's a horrible book, didn't you think?

---

Horrible, but formidable I think ;)

Quote:

---

So unlike his poems, which are so beautiful. I was quite shocked! :p

---

Yes, but many themes are in fact present in his poetry. In a much less shocking way though!

Quote:

---

But I had no idea that Flaubert was inspired by Sade. Where does one find traces of this influence? I'm trying to draw on my memories of Bouvard and Mme Bovary and l'Education Sentimentale but can't find anything. Maybe his short stories? Or simply his style sometimes?

---

Try Salammbô, or even The Temptation of Saint-Anthony. But I think it is also present elsewhere but more underlying. In those two books I mentioned it is clearer.

By the way I checked your profile, your favorite is Primo Levi, I bought If this is a Man last week and was just about to start it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

What have you read by him? I've heard his first works were best (Le procès-verbal, Le désert,...) but after that it got blander.

---

Blush... I have to confess that I've only read one of his books, L'or. Which iI found bland indeed (though that can be a voluntary style). And I don't like contemporary French authors very much on the whole. So I'm neither a very knowledgeable nor a very objective critic of his! :p I've been planning on reading more - but he's not the only recent Nobel Prize winner who's disappointed me. Elfriede Jelinek had the same effect on me - I read three of hers - not sure whether it's lard or cochon, hein!

And I don't think I've read either Salambô or La tentation. I'm not sure, I may have delved into them at one time... Anyway, if you tell me they're a little Sadian, I'll be sure to try them again!:D

Just saw your edit: oh please, read The truce or Maintenant ou Jamais - they're even more wonderful. If it's a man is a bit in the same vein as Robert Anthelme's one about the camps - possibly more philosophical and drier; whereas the other two I mentioned are - I don't know - wider in scope.

First of all... Etienne, I thank you for elaborating on the authors Sade influenced, and thank you both for the suggestions, since I may make us of them as well.

Quote:

---

And are effects so subjective? Maybe they're results of something like fashion. I sometimes have the impression that a whole era will be amused by things that will not make the next one laugh. How else do you explain the quasi-disappearance of farce, for instance? Sometimes it's difficult to really laugh - I don't mean just smile - at something that must have been awfully funny at some other period.

---

Yes, humour may not be timeless because it often has era-specific refferences and undertones that the casual reader will simply not get, and even the studied one may not be intimate enough with historical context to spontaneously burst in laughter. Also, culture itself advances, yesterday's subtle joke may be today's childish prank. Comic tends to become overused especially when it's influential, and since you're more likely to have encountered something similar, you're less likely to be surprised and therefore viscerally amused even by works you appreciate.
But I think that makes it even more refined as art, like a flower if you wish. I'm not one to think literary works that are timeless in value should also be considered timeless in relative quality.

As for farce, I think writers lost interest into its pure form because it became predictable, and patternish. But it didn't quite dissapear. We could say it "evolved" from literature to cinematography and television. After all, it was always meant to be played.

Quote:

---

No, not a better thinker. I really meant more beautiful, just as I said. I appreciated it aesthetically. And because he's very German but I couldn't explain that! I like those novels about young men discovering the world.

---

Alas, today the world has so little to reveal. Now, the mind...
I'm very interested in primal human nature, the true necessities and unnecessary restrictions of society, and the way culture builds on that (as much as on older culture). I think Lolita (and Nabokov's works in general) are very insightful about such things, and very beautiful on top.

Sexuality has been very important for us for as long as the species existed, that's why I give it so much credit, and why I think forays into deviant behaviour, especially when the promoter does its best to justify it, are very interesting. For Sade, I was more or less able to counjure explanations, but von Sacher-Masoch is mostly just relating a story. I was really hoping for the narrator to better explain the intellectual and visceral cause for his need to submit and be humiliated. Instead, he just comes out as unconsiderate and narrow-minded. The ending is a bit too "fated" for my taste, and though I think it could be very ironical, it does seem a bit like the author is making a pompous point about something that ails him but he doesn't understand...
That's not to say the book isn't beautiful. :D It may even be insightful, just on a different level than I wanted. (By the way, is it only my plebean mind finding a bit of irony in your observation that Masoch is "very German" in the context of discussion about the popular meanings of pornography in this thread? :lol:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bitterfly

This wasn't addressed to me, but I can't help adding that I perfectly agree. Of course sex is in the head before/at the same time as being in the body! How else, even, could one enjoy pornographic or erotic literature if the process was not mental?

---

Perhaps I'm stretching my point a little but I do believe I have a point, I'm not saying however that sex has no mental component, that would be silly and i'm surprised what i'm saying is being interpreted that way. Must be down to my lack of communication skill I guess :)

When a master chef creates a meal, that meal is a work of art. The eating of the meal is not a work of art and the eating is analogous to copulation.
Now, when a low quality ready meal is created on a production line it is not a work of art - it is created purely to sate hunger and, yes, taste good. but it's not art. Porn is analogous to that ready meal and erotica is analogous to the master chefs meal.

Do I have a point or have I spun myself a web of nonsense? :D (I do do that occasionally)