Oh…the reference to “hysteria” is so noted. You DO know where that comes from right?
Not really. Wonder what ol’ Anniee would make of Henry Miller’s or William S. Burroughs’s works? Since those, (along with James Joyce’s Ulysses) broke new ground as far as censorship in the US is concerned.
All Hail Henry Miller and William Burroughs or god forbid Tucker will find us provincial lol. Get serious.
Yes, god dam nit I do! The people you are trying to communicate with are neither stupid nor immoral. They just don’t blaze with your self-righteous fervor.
You never said it outright, but did heavily imply it in several places. I’m aware of the definition of hysteria, also.
You’ve said your piece on your take on the protagonist of the book, what else have you to add to the literary discussion?
I am being serious. Miller broke new ground in his explicit description of sex and frequent use of the word “fuck.” Burroughs did the same with his homosexuality (including graphic descriptions of having sex with young Arab boys in Tangiers) and drug use.
Anniee, you need to calm down a bit here or your time on the SDMB may be shorter than you perhaps anticipated, as you are getting perilously close to being a jerk. Your implied accusations of pedophilia are A) preposterous, and B) not impressing anyone. Nobody here is a fan of child rape and nobody is arguing with you because they like child rape, so your cute little “but I guess you guys don’t mind child rape” lines are both tiresome and dumb. You can play coy all you want but there’s really no other interpretation of classic one liners like “Child rape IS dirty or didn’t you know that?” Yes, we know that. We aren’t discussing whether or not child rape is dirty.
“Lolita” may or may not be great literature, but it is not pornography by any definition commonly used by English-speaking people. Furthermore, the book is quite plainly NOT meant to arouse the reader, so to suggest that liking the book somehow makes one a pedophile is, as I said, utterly preposterous. You ARE trying to make your point by insulting people. Trust me; you aren’t going to convince anyone on this board with such a hackneyed, silly, ad hominem approach.
Are you seriously fucking saying that I and everybody else who believes Lolita is a non-pornographic classic of modern literature is a fucking misogynist? :mad: :mad: :mad:
Yes, I should, Ainnee. But I think you’ve missed the point. I think Lolita is a fascinating book, and a non-pornographic one. What I resent is your utterly baseless implication that anybody who likes the book, or even just thinks it’s not porn, is a misogynist who tolerates or endorses child abuse and rape. You couldn’t be more wrong, and it’s classless and disgusting of you to smear people like that. If you’re unable to tell the difference between reading about a behavior and endorsing it, you’ve got a real problem with reality.
Likewise, Nabokov is clearly not glorifying Humbert’s behavior. The book is in no way pornographic in the standard sense, otherwise, why the subtlety in depicting the sex that there is? Yes, sexually abusing a child could be called lurid or sensational, but by that definition, books about the Holocaust that talk about the atrocities are pornographic. We all know that’s not the definition you’re going for, so please to explain you came to the conclusion that Lolita’s primary purpose is to cause arousal.
Also, to be technical about it, Humbert’s not a pedophile. Pedophiles lust after prepubescent children; Lolita isn’t one of those.
ANNIEE, seriously girl, get a grip. This:
Is pretty close to the line of being a jerk, since it clearly implies that anyone who – God forbid! – disagrees with you is immoral and excited by child rape. In fact, on second thought, it’s over that line, and so far over it that if it had been directed at me I’d have invited you to the Pit, where I’d currently be ripping you a new one.
The definition of pornography is “sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other materials whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.” You seem to define “explicit” as meaning “you can figure it out if yo think about it,” but that’s not what the word means. It means “fully or clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.” So if you know that HH is licking her, but it’s even un peu unclear as to where, then that ain’t explict. Furthermore, the primary purpose of Lolita is not to cause sexual arousal, but to make you think about the characters and the nature of morality and sexuality. Is it a very disturbing book? Yes. Are many people, like yourself, offended by it? Yes. You can only imagine the welcome it received when it first came out.
But to say that it’s merely pornographic is simply incorrect, and to imply that people who disagree with you are immoral or misogynistic or child rapists is unworthy of you.
Please note as well that not one person here agrees with you. And while the reason for that may be because you are holding the sword of righteousness in your hand against a vile misguided world, you should not dismiss the possibility that it’s because you’re wrong. In any event, do not on such slim evidence impugne the morals of those with whom you disagree, unless you want them to beat the crapulence out of you in the forum designed for that task.
Just some friendly advice. YMMV.
Yep, a lot of Russian names get longer when they’re nicknames:
Olga=Olishka
Alexei=Alyosha
Anya=Anushka
Nikolai=Nikolasha
And so on. Pet names.
Okay, I think I’m going to read this book now, just to see what all the fuss is about.
Anniee
If you didn’t like the book why did you watch both versions of the movie?
In defense of Humbert Humbert: (1) Dolly Haze (Lolita) did not lose her virginity to Humbert, she did to a teenage boy who worked at the summer camp she attended, (2) Lolita is quite aware of what she is doing when she finally gives in to Humbert, (3) in several U.S. states, Dolores Haze was old enough to marry Humbert Humbert, (4) Contrary to what someone wrote above, Humbert does have sexual relationships with adult women, not counting Charlotte Haze. Humbert was married in Europe before he came to America; and after Lolita leaves Humbert, he meets a woman who becomes his mistress and traveling companion.
Thanks Exapno Mapcase, excellent post. Allegory is a fun tool for writers. If you want to talk about youth culture, having a sexually active teenage girl (very sexually active in the book, long before ol Humbert waddles into the picture) lusted helps bring that idea to the forefront.
**Anniee ** If I felt like being a jerk, I’d suggest that your constant use of the phrase "child rape!!!’ and talk of licking offend me. Instead I’ll just point out that licking is what cats to their paws when they’re cleaning themselves. The activity discussed in the book has a bit more finesse.
The OP has certain gotten an earful on this question. Let us all hope that if the OP is underage, there are no trips to certain web sites for an eyeful on the topic.
And in Spanish:
Juana:Juanita
Carla:Carlita
Carlo:Carlito
Lola:Lolita
Def Leppard?
Maybe she works for these loons. “Ooo, it was just so awful I couldn’t tear my eyes away! I bet the sequel will be even worse!” :rolleyes:
I once joined a yahoo groups mailing list to discuss the works of Stanley Kubrick. Oops.
I think that account still gets 30-40 “lolita” porn spams a week.
I’ve not read Lolita, but I have studied Bastard out of Carolina, and I have to say Anniee’s description of it is one of the most grotesque caricatures I’ve ever come across. BooC has been widely praised by people who have suffered abuse as children. It is in no way pornographic or exploitative. It offers a well-written, detailed account of abusive family life, and if you are saying people shouldn’t read or write books like BooC, you are saying people shouldn’t discuss child abuse at all, because I don’t know how any author could be more responsible than Dorothy Allison in handling the topic.
(As to Kubrick’s film, a parallel: it affects an amoral approach to the subject, much as Dr Strangelove does to nuclear war; at times Dr Strangelove seems to be revelling in the glee of nuclear destruction, while Kubrick’s Lolita plays on the girl’s seductiveness. But neither nuclear war or child abuse is a good thing.)