>>1753

>Maybe American Psycho should be banned because it romanticises murder, or Fear and Loathing because it's got a lot of drugs in it and we all know drugs are bad, right?

Shouldn't be too long at the rate we're going at. "Mothers against..." will run out of real targets and need to move onto fictional ones next. They already claimed that Airsoft guns were devilish tools of child murder.

>>1750

nabokov is genius in that you do sympathize with humbert humbert but you are slightly disgusted at yourself for doing so - just as he loves lolita but can see that he is robbing her of her childhood. its highly erotic and written from his perspective - so while it sort of romanticizes his "nymphet" fetish you realize you are walking in the mind of a tortured soul.

>>1757
Oh, so that's what's wrong with intercourse with the very young? It 'robs them of their childhoods'? How moral.

>>1758

if you read the book this conversation might go better. the book is written from his perspective - that is what is so fascinating about the piece. In the book, Lolita seduces him, abuses him, and pretty much consumes him. Its very powerful.

This was one of those books that I really didn't enjoy whilst reading; but upon reflection it was well worth the effort.

I honestly can't believe it's considered so scandalous. Empathising with another human being - even if it's quite a cretinous one - doesn't deserve to have so much tabloid rage directed against it.

>>1762
Humbert's not a cretin. You may not like him, but that is not the same thing.

>>1759

A child is the seducer and abuser? Sounds like the paedo fantasy or excuses after they were caught.

>>1764
I'm not entirely sure about the comment to which you replied; the point is that Humbert is not a fundamentally bad person, he is most certainly not acting with any malice, and does not seem to be a forceful or dirty type; and perhaps most importantly, he truly wants Lolita to be happy.

>>1766

Sounds dangerously close to saying that paedos aren't the monsters that deserve death that everyone knows they are. Surely it isn't asking much for the book content to be reviewed and edited so as to make it clear that all paedophiles are heartless and wish only to rape, abuse and kill your children without mercy to satisfy their sick fantasies?

Think of the children. It is irresponsible to allow pro-paedo books free circulation in the population. Who knows what it could encourage? It may cause outbreaks of the paedo disease in communities everywhere. We all know it only takes a few pictures or a book like that to start someone off on the paedo path and then soon they are lurking outside our schools...

>>1763

It is the same thing; they're both purely subjective.

>>1768

...is a cretinous assertion.

>>1767

thats the beauty and genius of this book. it is written in such a way that you do feel for the antagonist while you certainly would never sympathize in normal life with a child rapist and molester. Searle would say Nabokov successfully challenges our "background." Throughout the book Humbert brings up famous instances in history involving child brides - though the last one happens to be Sade's Justine...

Again you seem to be missing the point that the book is written from Humbert's perspective. there is a newish book out supposedly written from Lolita's perspective in which the story obviously falls much differently. What is haunting about this book is that it lets you travel with this man and give him voice, though I wouldnt say the book advocates his point of view or actions. I have even heard that his relationship with Lolita is a metaphor for government relations - though I dont know too much about this view to argue successfully for it. If anyone else does, please - do tell.

>>1771

I would chip in with a bit more argument, but yours was eloquently put and it appears to me that the gentleman you are arguing with is clearly trolling.

>>1775

There was a time before the idiocy of the internet spread too far, when people could simply be the "devil's advocate" in an argument or even have a joke without some vile person screaming "troll" every time.

Don't be one of those sort of people. There are enough killjoys and dense people who can't seem to understand anything but the most plain and basic statements of fact. Reading between the lines, sarcasm and understanding anything implied or inferred? Not a chance. Leave these people behind to throw stones at a paediatrician's house "for messing with our kids" and keep your knee securely in place. You can do better.

>>1776
Well said. I suspected that someone would cry 'troll' on 1767, and intended to reprehend them as and when it happened, but you have already done so much more eloquently than I could ever have hoped to manage. Glad to know that it's not just me thinking this.

>>1743
I do agree it was good, my favourite thing being to see how his name changed and things linked up... but today, any half-decent story does the same thing.

Anyone else find that cover sexy and then feel guilty?

>>1796

no.

>>1776
Oh please. Think of the children?

Either way, read the book, then perhaps you can put forward a coherent argument on threads about books.

>>1798

Deary me. Looks like someone is a grumpy Gus today!

>>1797

Wasn't he into boys?

>>1800
No, it was always girls.

I was going to say 1767 was trolling for a split second, before realising that it was obviously meant satirically - "devil's advocate" my arse.

I read the book but I'm man enough to admit a reason I didn't like it were the long (rare) words.
I'm all up for expanding my vocabulary but it's hard to enjoy a novel when I have to consult the dictionary a dozen times a page. I did get all the way through but over all I didn't quite relate to the character.

>>1759 That's just what he believes. The last scene in the book (I think) blows that image to pieces. He describes her sitting on the bed like a lost little girl who just wants to escape but with no idea which way to run and all his fantasies about consent turn to dust. I wouldn't call him a monster, but at this point your sympathies really lie with the girl.

I also like how the book drums home how awful it would be to be under the thumb of a 12-year-old girl. Women are tough at the best of times but having a stroppy teen be your lord and master would be hell.

Pale Fire is better

I just finished this last night and holy crap if it's not one of the best books I've ever read. It kinda trailed off in the last 50 pages or so at times for me but the actual ending, where Humbert confesses that despite all the difficulties and trauma she has put him through and the erosion of sexual desire he has for Dolores, he truly loves her in a simple, pure and sacrificial way which contrasts with the filthy lust he set out with.

Also the part where he is wrestling Quilty is hilarious. The image of two unfit pompous highly intoxicated middle aged 'literati' paedophiles grappling with each is just gold.

>>2081
It is a great book, the subject matter just makes people a bit wary of it.
If you can find it, read Death in Venice too, the ending is equally amusing and sardonic

>>2083
I preferred Death in Venice to Lolita personally, possibly because I found the character easier to sympathise with.
If you do get round to reading Death in Venice, I'd highly recommend watching the Luchino Visconti portrayal afterwards, slow paced but shot in impeccable Italian style with Dirk Bogarde putting in a brilliant performance. I can't recall seeing a truer page to screen adaption.

>>1764
>>1766
You have to remember that H.H. is not a reliable narrator. You have to ask yourself if what you're reading is true - can he be trusted? Or is he just lying to himself?

I remember reading some critical essay bollocks about Nabokov's use of apples and how it relates to Eden/Eve.I need to read it again and notice all the parts with apples.

What a crazy and fascinating book.

The two main characters are not very sympathetic, I think, until the last 40 odd pages where H.H. reveals more of his manipulations and of the effects he could they had, and you see Lolita as a much more vulnerable person than the sexy yet distant little girl that she is portrayed as for much of the book.

I really don't think it encourages or sympathises with paedophiles. It is a important theme, but the general message seems to be that grown men lusting after little girls leads to pain and sorrow. Makes me feel like shit, actually.

Have not read the book or seen the movie(s) but I would say that we need more films/books on this subject, Maybe a lot of 12 year old girls would enjoy reading/viewing as much as older men?

Middle-aged women are just jealous they are not as lovely as these little girls are, although I prefer relationships with older, maturer women, I find little girls are very enlightening before they reach teenage years and I very much enjoy the company of these girls as they amuse me with the simple but perfect views on life, always smiling, laughing and cuddling.

Keep in mind most paedophiles would never want to touch, harm, harass a child but most enjoy thinking about it, if you do not give them such outlets as this then they will only go looking for it in the real world.

A real life example of this plot has recently happened around me and all I could feel was hatred for the older man involved with this girl who was venerable but seemed to love him.

I do not think about it much but if 2 people love each other then why should it bother me, I suppose if the older guy was not in his late thirties, a drunken pot smoking loser. I would appreciate the Romeo and Juliet sentiment a bit more. (she was 15 and just turned 16).

Although the police would be on his tail every day he would still put his neck out just to see her, in the end she was taken away and now they are probably not going to spend Christmas together.

I wish it would end for the good of them both as in this case love can only destroy both lives.

>>2160
Get off /lit/

>>2164
Agreed

Average book, intense hype. That happens when you write something mediocre about something taboo or controversial.

Da Vinci Code, God Delusion etc

>>2187

Did you read the book? There's nothing average about it. Regardless of "taboo" content, it's pure poetry. You can open up just about any page and it reads like water. It's not just fiction, it's one of the better murder mysteries ever written, and unless you're paying attention, you might not even realize that's what it is! Much like someone mentioned Pale Fire, there are so many riddles that he hints at and lets you try to solve as you go. No one is who they say or seem to be. So many deftly placed allusions. This book is a triumph for the English language...even written by a non-native speaker.>>2187

>>2273

I thought for a second there you were talking about the Da Vinci Code.

>I honestly can't believe it's considered so scandalous.
Neither can I. I read it at the behest of my sister, who just finished a Masters thesis on it. I was expecting it to be "difficult" on account of the paedophilia aspect, but it's not at all - it's remarkably chaste in diction (if not in its protagonist's intent). There's really nothing in there to masturbate over, no sordid scenes or explicit pornographic content, and I'd be suspicious of the mindset of anyone who managed to find it "erotic".

It's also pure poetry, as someone else said here. It's certainly dense, and I will admit to checking the dictionary for at least a dozen words whilst reading, but irrespective of the author's sesquipedalian excesses and the controversial subject matter, it's written with incredible flair from start to finish. I can't understand how anyone could consider it "average", and if they do so, I'd honestly like to know what they read that is so much better.

>>2273

You've convinced me. Just ordered a copy.

>>2273

I love it that I just read this in your voice.

They don't write books like the used to.

>>2316

Yeah, sorry, I get a little flustered when it comes to the unjust slander of literature. Especially when it's one of my favorite books.

I often wonder if it's not that they don't write books like they use to - rather, they're more concerned with finding the next big best-seller...which means it must have mass marketing appeal. A brilliant book that challenges the reader AND has a guy obsessing over a little girl...probably wouldn't cut it with major publishers anymore.

>>2344
It probably would, they'd simply recieve no publicity.

>>2345

I don't think any major publisher would touch something so difficult - in the sense that the moral stance of the book would be difficult for someone of contemporary normal reading habits to grasp. Big books are often gimmicky - and 'cleverness' is also a gimmick. The game is also pared down to strict niche marketing. I think the likelihood of such a book being on some house's tick-list is very remote indeed.

>>2346
There were a few books out recentlyish that were popular and about child molestation.

>>2347

Would you say they were equally 'challenging' as 'Lolita'?

>>2349
I have no idea, popular books usually annoy me so I avoid them

>>2350

Well I hadn't heard of them, either. I suspect they'd be less nuanced, however, given that the majority of contemporary popular lit at times resembles the level of discourse found in 'Eastenders' - shrill, histrionic and a brute (if sentimentalised) traduction of the facts of reality.

>>2351
True, but my point was that the taboo subject isn't a problem, and something so well written would still recieve acclaim, so long as it wasn't hidden under the sea of tripe.

>>2363

I agree - AM Homes had a reasonable amount of success with 'The End of Alice' about ten years ago, much of which contains far more troubling content than Nabokov's masterpiece - her book wasn't the greatest literary novel I've ever read but certainly no shrill victim screed.

>>1796

I didn't feel guilty.