Is Lolita Porn?

[Bitterfly]

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!!

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

[DapperDrake]

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.

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.

[Petronius]

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.
And you're quite welcome.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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?

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".

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.

[Bitterfly]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

[Etienne]

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.

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.

[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? So unlike his poems, which are so beautiful. I was quite shocked! 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?

[Etienne]

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

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

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

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.

[Bitterfly]

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! 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!

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.

[Petronius]

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.

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.

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. 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? )

[DapperDrake]

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? (I do do that occasionally)

[Petronius]

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.

I think we're actually agreeing. You see, the eating of the meal itself may not be artistic, but it is the driving force behind the meal's existence. The effort was put in the making in order for it to be savoured, unless you refer to the dish's design alone as art and not the taste as well, which I doubt.
In sex, the climax (this is the main gratification, not the copulation) itself may be common, but whatever leads to it leaves room for creativity, which means it can be art, at least from the perspective of the one who makes the creative effort.

If in today's culture, in the majority of cases, sexual entertainment products are bland, the fault is not in the intent (that of creating sexual arousal and pleasure, which I still belive you haven't proven it can't be a viable channel for art), but in the process. Or rather, it is in the intent, which really isn't arousing someone, but making money by selling the easiest to create product that would satisfy said demand.

You do have a point, but I do believe you're making a mistake in your separation between porn and erotica. In the visiual entertainment industry, the sole difference is that the former is explicit and probably more deviant, while the latter is milder, i.e. does not graphically depict sexual organs. Intent is the same, and quality is just as low. In literature, the word "erotica" is more oftenly used because generaly literary types want to pass as more refined, and written word is not as striking as an image. I simply think making a separation where one is utter garbage and the other can be a must-read work of art can't be justified.
I say fight against consumerism, not "porn", and give all kids of art a chance to shine.

[JCamilo]

I must add that Barthez have a text about Sade as his importance for the development of the language. It is an interesting read.

[chasestalling]

nabokov's contempt for dostoevsky is well documented.

chief among his objections is dostoevsky's penchant for creating a first person narrator/protagonist who takes the reader into his confidence and appeals to the reader's intellect and/or sentiments.

lolita is in effect nabokov's parody of this dostoevskian device, this formula for enlisting the reader's sympathy for an act of moral turpitude with clever arguments and by the sheer poetry of his words.

seen in this light, moral indignation seems a tad silly.

[blazeofglory]

I do not argue that prostitution is good or bad or porn is something ethically bad or something we need to discard or cover up. All I want to put across is the fact that Lolita is porn given the substances of porn it is stuffed with in point of fact.

[PeterL]

I do not argue that prostitution is good or bad or porn is something ethically bad or something we need to discard or cover up. All I want to put across is the fact that Lolita is porn given the substances of porn it is stuffed with in point of fact.

I didn't notice anything pornographic about Lolita. Could you specify exactly what you consider pornographic about it.