Is Lolita Porn?

[blazeofglory]

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.

[Petronius]

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.

[curlyqlink]

How do you define porn?

[JCamilo]

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

[Inderjit Sanghe]

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

[Bitterfly]

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...

[curlyqlink]

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.

[JBI]

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.

[Psycheinaboat]

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.

[Etienne]

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

[mtpspur]

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.

[mona amon]

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.

[DapperDrake]

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.

[stevejackson]

Lolita is a erotica not exactly porn.

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

[Etienne]

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...