I absolutely agree with the above quote. Unfortunately, many people fail to see what's behind the "vulgarity and erotic undertone" of the novel...Originally Posted by Petronius
I absolutely agree with the above quote. Unfortunately, many people fail to see what's behind the "vulgarity and erotic undertone" of the novel...
Artistic fervors consecrate the novel, and if you keep this arty thing or if we have to set the in-thing of creativity the novel turns up as a book of vulgarity, and of course literary grandiloquence bumped up the image of the work. When plain truths are ornamented they become distorted and that was exactly what happened when we ogle the book. When we come across instances that take us aback we become biased or something preoccupies the mind that the writer is a big shot and must not be criticized.
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
The 'arty thing' is inextricably part of the novel.
Lolita is not porn. It is erotic, but it is far away from porn, for porn described sex in all chapters. But Lolita really arouse one question for me: I cannot tell which is art, for "art" ,it could be filth at one era, and it will become a masterpiece at anther era.
Rock in the ocean ...
True look at Pamela for goodness sake!
My mission in life is to make YOU smile
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The time has come," the Walrus said,"To talk of many things:
Forum Rules- You know you want to read 'em
|Litnet Challange status = 5/260
|currently reading
I haven't read it, but am definitely planning to. Porn or not, I will enjoy it, because I am not afraid to admit I am not particularly adverse to pornography.
I do find it odd, though, to some Lolita is perfectly acceptable, especially since it concerns an underage girl, while A Song of Ice and Fire is deplorable. Double standard, anyone?
Strange how you are so quick to pass judgment yet you haven't read even the first chapter, to note that the book isn't about sex, and doesn't really feature explicit sex in the sense that Martin's work does, not to mention the fact, that the sexual content of Lolita is carefully calculated to sound revealing, but really only suggesting, or removing. Not to mention the fact that there is a less nihilistic vision in Lolita, and that the book isn't about the abuse of a child as much as it is the abuse of a pedophile from the child.
Whereas Nabokov works in metaphorical language, and traces, Martin works in direct narration, and explicit revelation. The result is very different, especially since the narrator is the central perspective, whereas in Martin there is a third person narrator, corrupting things to a greater extent.
But of course, you haven't read the text. If you are reading it to find pornography, I think you are mislead. If not, then I think you should consider rewording your post, because as it stands, it seems that you are almost eager to embrace a vision of child pornography.
Last edited by JBI; 12-24-2008 at 04:39 PM.
So, am I wrong? I thought the book involved a man who has sex with a young girl. You can twist that any way you want, but it doesn't change that you're being extremely hypocritical.
The book is written from an acknowledged narrator in the past tense, meaning the whole thing is reflection. I am not being a hypocrite, because I can see the difference between texts (of which I have read, and you have not). The tone, presentation, context, narration, and overall message are different.
It is not the act itself which is abhorrent, in truth, it is the way it is presented. Read the text, and then you'll see the difference. The text doesn't have things for the thrills of its adolescent male readers, but rather for a purpose. But of course, this is futile, since you haven't read the novel, and you are just arguing for the sake of it.
". . . since you haven't read the novel, and you are just arguing for the sake of it."
And you aren't?
Anyways, I said I was planning on reading. But it STILL doesn't change that you like one book that has sex, a book some see as pure porn, and anothe where sex plays a small part, as an abomination.
This is exactly all I I have been arguing about. The acceptance that the novel has vulgarity and eroticism aplenty. When we embroider nakedness, obscenity or x-rated contents with ornaments or glossy fabrics we forget the nakedness. But it is very much there whether we get swayed by the externals.
I is human nature to see nature through a prismatic device not through a naked eye. And we take the sex quotient for granted when we become swayed by the beauty of it.
I have not presented my ideas at all through an ethical lens, but only to accentuate that there is vulgarity and eroticism the way we commonly understand the term both literally and figuratively.
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
I'm sorry but Lolita is far too complex .. in the sense that it has been debated constantly over it's position in the literary world, for someone to be arguing on the basis of well, nothing. You have not read the novel so how can you have an opinion of it?
Read it, and then come back and express your views, for this is a thread questioning the content of Lolita, yes?
Therefore, how can you express a view when you haven't been exposed to that content? you can't.
Now, my opinion is that Lolita is far from porn. Porn is used to incite sexual gratification, Lolita in my opinion, doesn't at any point, "incite" sexual arousal in the reader. The novel is beautifully written, but going deeper than that, I feel it explores a darker kind of desire. An exploitive one? Yes. But porn? No. And it's insulting, actually, to consider it to be so.
I read Lolita once and couldn't do it again. The main character disgusted me too much.
Whenever i read, I always take an unbiased view, but Humbert just.. i felt that he really baited the reader, especially when he referred to the reader as his "jury"
Though i agree it is not porn and blah blah blah, i could never agree with someone who could say that the story of Lolita is an acceptable one. I don't mean the novel itself, because it is written so very beautifully. i mean what the novel is about. Because, at the heart of it, Humbert is a perverted old man and young Lolita is left unprotected from him.. and when you take away the beautiful, eloquent writing, that is still the heart of it.
Porn, no. Is the novel vulgar and terrible, exploitive and sickening? No. Humbert is.
Yes, of course HH is a monster. Nabokov let it clear, not only in interviews when he is angry to see any sympathy towards him and not Lolita but also when HH slips with his lies or create really simple-minded arguments trying to justify his actions based on Lolita lack of innocence. He trick us, but he is a liar. But he is suffering because in the end he can keep what he is stealing from young girls. May be some short of intelectual suffering, but that is it.
Anyways, it is wonderful indeed. But not nice. Aesthetic pleasure can came from things that are awful after all.
If you enjoy porn, then you will be disappointed with Lolita.
Reply With Quote
