Anniee, perhaps you are over-simplifying things. Your expressions are more a bit more ham-fisted than is customary in a disussion of literary fiction, which could explain why a few posters are aguing against you.
I suppose I should read it sometime… if only to shock people afterwards:D
I actually found the movie incredibly boring… listening to Humbert self justify his obsession. AND if you are looking for salacious I don’t recommend the movie…
Nabokov also cowrote the screenplay. I was introduced to the book by a lesbian who’d been raped by her father when she was about the age of Lolita in the book. She loved the book, BTW.
True. Too bad for you no one actually made that argument.
I don’t either. Some heavy breathing and euphemisms, but nothing I would describe as treading anywhere near territory I would call “pornographic.”
One of the most fascinating and intellectually rewarding books — and, yes, rewarding — I’ve ever read.
:smack: Duhhrrr, I meant, “and yes, disturbing.” :rolleyes:
Ok; so on what basis isn’t it pornography then? Just so we can set the record straight here and I won’t be a liar?
Exactly, cervaise; it DOESN’T USE MODERN PORN PARLANCE but it is STILL EXPLICIT. If you don’t understand that he’s licking her privates you DON’T UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE but it’s STILL WHAT HE’S DOING and you are SUPPOSED to KNOW that. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE EXPLICIT.
Yes the subject matter is irredeemably evil; but just because they don’t speak like Ron freaking Jeremy doesn’t make it NON porn! Idiocy.
Oh and guess what, modern PORN doesn’t necessarily turn MOST people on anyway, so the fact that you don’t feel like whacking off to child rape doesn’t make it non porn. MANY people don’t like porn.
And to the one who resented the implication; good. You should feel that way.
The point of the novel is that the narrator tries to lull the reader into having sympathy for him. he dishonestly portrays himself as the victim of a seductress. It is only as you get further into the book that you begin to realize what a smarmy, lying, raping scumbag that Humbert really is. Nabakov was fond of using unreliable narrators. It’s a tricky thing to do. The author has to tip the reader to the dishonesty of the narrator while using only the narrator’s voice.
Humbert was a master of manipulation, obfuscation, self-justification and self-deception. That is the genius of the novel. It shows us how the human mind can delude itself and others into rationalizing even the most despicible acts.
The book is not pornographic in its intent (and it’s not even sexually graphic). It’s a character study that shows us the darkest parts of our own minds and how subtle our own self-deceptions can be.
I like porn. Yes I do! When its hot and buttery theres nothing like it; sitting there cuddled up with your honey with some nice porn to share…
Oh wait that’s popcorn…
Lolita is of course a comedy: a black comedy, a comedy of manners, a social satire, a parodying of Momism in American culture and much more. Despite - because - of its content, it is a very subtle book, with its surface events designed to disguise the commentary that is layered underneath.
Nabakov is as consciously meticulous in setting up the events and consequences of the book as Agatha Christie leaving invisible clues to her murderer. Lolita quite deliberately loses her virginity to a boy at camp long before she evinces any interest in Humbert. She is the aggressor in the first sexual act with him - she climbs into his bed deliberately to have sex with him.
The continued sexual acts are a parody of marriage and the position of women in American culture. When Humbert blackmails Lolita into giving him blow jobs for her lunch money, how can anyone not read this as a commentary against the economic dependence of the 1950s’ woman.
Lolita goes on to leave Humbert and take up with another older man. She then leaves him and marries someone closer to her own age, becomes pregnant and dies in childbirth. Horrible events, but to say that Humbert caused her downfall by their sexual relations is to misread the book. Her loss of innocence is of her own volition and so is her final fate. (Can be this a commentary about post-World-War-II America? It’s a thought.)
Humbert himself dies in prison. The mother dies. Everybody dies. The ending is a classic model of tragedy.
And none of these scenes is remotely graphic or pornographic. A reader who does not read closely can miss half or more of the sexual acts in the book, let alone the sexual imagery.
Let me emphasize the point: to talk about the book being pornographic because it concerns an affair with a 12-year-old is to totally miss every single thing that makes the book an enduring classic.
Oh, for God’s sake…
The book is not pornographic. It’s not even graphic. It has no erotic intent. It’s not “child porn.” It’s not dirty in any conventional sense. There are no explicit descriptions of sex, it’s mostly just implied.
have you actually read the novel or do you just feel a duty to be offended by it?
You’re probably one of those people who thinks Huck Finn is racist.
[Whiny Sensative Type With No Understanding of History]But it is! Why just look at that passage where Huck Finn says he’d rather go to Hell than make Jim a slave! He uses the N-word! That’s racist![/WSTWNUOH]
I most certainly have read Lolita. I felt nothing but repulsion and disgust for Humbert. But perhaps that’s because I have morals and child rape does nothing for me.
NOT GRAPHIC - indeed. I guess you were one of those that didn’t comprehend the language. The acts described were indeed described in some detail; they just weren’t, as I said, Ron Jeremy. They weren’t modern consumer porn. But they were indeed explicit. Just because your favorite words were missing doesn’t make it non-explicit.
Unreal. Perhaps you remember the scene where she had a fever, hmm? What did you think he was licking, her neck? Or didn’t you know he was licking anything at all? God, people are dumb. YES it was explicit and YES it was dirty. Child rape IS dirty or didn’t you know that?
Jeez, what is it about fictional, intergenerational relationships that make people freak the hell out??
And how come there’s no equivalent word for underage, sexually active boys?
por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-ngr-f)
n.
1 Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2 The presentation or production of this material.
3 Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the… pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein).
It’s not the first definition, or the second. You going for the third?
When I was a kid, I was sexually abused and /I/ resent the implication as well.
“Jeez, what is it about fictional, intergenerational relationships that make people freak the hell out??”
Didn’t read the book I take it? He raped and beat her repeatedly. She was a child. It isn’t a 17 year old young woman in love with a 65 year old man. It’s forcible rape. Duh.
Metaldog, thanks. You have informed us that this book is pornographic. As though anyone reading it would think otherwise; but apparently they have. Perhaps misogynists WOULD think that, eh?
I think calling it pornographic is a real stretch on your part. A real hysterical stretch.
And in case you missed it, I resent your implications that anyone capable of enjoying the book’s literary merits has fewer morals than you do. A book containing repulsive acts is not automatically immoral - if we were discussing the Marquis De Sade’s work, your flapping would be more understandable.
You defined pornographic and the book fits. Good deal.
“A book containing repulsive acts is not automatically immoral”
Never said it was. Pay more attention.
“anyone capable of enjoying the book’s literary merits has fewer morals than you do”
Never said that either. Where DO people come up with this stuff?