My dictionary contains a very explicit definition of the word “cunnilingus” that leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind as to what action is being described. Is my dictionary pornographic?
You’re probably thinking of Gaelic(sp?), the old Celtic tongue - or Scotch, which is the heavily colloquialism-ridden speech as used by Robbie Burns.
‘Scottish’ is as much English as ‘American’ is, if you see what I mean. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet 
Jodi, I want to read it so I can comment on it, because I’m curious, and because I LIKE to read things that challenge me. I get the impression you’re supposed to be disturbed by Humbert-that’s the whole point.
(and hey, it can’t be any worse than Atlas Shrugged. shudder)
i read that Lolita is actually a analogy about butterfly catching
AS an idle note, Romance books use flowery language to depict what’s going on, and yet, you still know what’s happening. Does that mean all those housewives* are reading porn?
*I know that’s generalizing a lot. Sorry to all the housewives and readers of Romance novels I have offended.
Ainnee said earlier that Humbert is 65. Where did she get this figure? I started the book again today, and here on page 15, Humbert (talking about the girl he almost had an affair with when he was about 12) says that he met Lolita 24 years later. That puts him in his late 30s, does it not?
Likewise, Hum says he was born in 1910, and the book is clearly set around the 50s. No way is it 1975. 
The novel is set in the late 1940s, and Humbert is in his late 30s, not 65. I’m beginning to wonder if Ainnee even read the novel. She also claimed that Humbert “beat” Lolita “repeatedly”. When did that happen?
I was going to say the very same thing. However, though by today’s standards Lolita technically is not pornographic, it was thought to be at the time Nabokov wrote it. It was hugely controversial. That’s not to say that I don’t support it as a piece of literature. Though I saw both version, I haven’t read it yet. After this thread it’s just jumped to the top of my list.
To Ainnee’s credit, perhaps she was being hypothetical and not talking about Humbert with the 65 thing. But the beating part confused me, too. He’s far from kind to her, but I don’t remember him hitting her, and I sure can’t picture it. We’ll see what happens as I re-read the novel with more of a lookout for that sort of stuff.
True, once people found out what it was. (My edition says it was released to little fanfare.) It’s apparently still controversial. But it was never pornographic; the book hasn’t changed. People’s standards surely have, though.
If you can find it, there is a version annotated by Alfred Appel that’s pretty good - don’t know if that’s the one you saw. I had him as a professor in college, and he’s something of a expert on the book. He would read passages aloud in class just for the sheer lyric quality of the language. “Lo-lee-ta.” It trips off the toungue.
Yes, obviously. Was there some illusion that it WASN’T?
Zebra: I watched the movies and THEN read the book. I watched the original movie many years ago and the Lyne production when it came out. Then I read that it didn’t do justice to the book and checked it out of the library. So now I know.
"there’s my favorite definition of pornography: “Anything you skip through to get to the good part.” Lolita doesn’t even fall into that category.
Seriously, though I haven’t read Lolita"
LMAO Good one. Read it first.
To the person that asked if their dictionary was ‘pornographic’ because it contains the definition of cunnilingus, or the one who said BooC was valuable because someone has to discuss these topics, you DO have a point. One worth considering. I don’t think your dictionary is pornographic, actually. After discussing Lolita with some people who don’t use words like “hysterical” or diss homemakers (as was done above) I find that there is another way of looking at this. Those who revel in it I still question. Those who sympathize with HH I DEFINITELY question. Yeah I know we’re supposed to but if you do I question. I don’t know who Edward Meese is, but I have noted the misogyny here and the dismissal of legitimate complaints as hysterics. (In itself misogynistic.) Another is angry at the continued use of “child rape” - duh. Read the book. We aren’t talking about adolescents in full flower, even; we ARE talking about children. Children just BARELY getting their periods. If that. Nymphettes aren’t 16 year old hotties, FYI. Not that THAT would be something to brag about sleeping with.
I think in your eggheadedness you people have become desensitized to the horror of that which you read; I haven’t.
That’s the edition I’ve got - and he’s the Professor I had as well! When did you have him, Skammer?
I do agree with Ainnee about romance novels. They’re not graphic, but they ARE supposed to titillate (or is that word sexist too?), which would make them softcore porn of a sort.
Using the word ‘hysterical’ in 2003 is hardly misogynist, and your oversensitivity with the homemaker comment is pretty goofy. He was jokingly overgeneralizing and was obviously aware of it. I’m not a doctor, but if I was one, I’d recommend 750 mg of chill pills.
By “revel in it,” do you mean enjoy the book? Again, I think you’re having a problem in drawing a distinction between a book and reality. The condemnation of Humbert’s behavior has been unanimous in this thread. Simply liking this book doesn’t make one a child molester.
Another is angry at the continued use of “child rape” - duh. Read the book. We aren’t talking about adolescents in full flower, even; we ARE talking about children. Children just BARELY getting their periods. If that.
Which has been noted over and over again.
It’s true that most of the people here are able to appreciate the book on multiple levels and look into things like Nabokov’s symbolism and use of language, and you aren’t able to get past the fact that this is the story of a statutory rapist. But I don’t think that’s to the detriment of everyone else.
This wasn’t my own comment; was part of Ainnee’s post and I neglected to delete it. D’oh! :smack:
And I did want to add, Ainnee, that your arguments wouldn’t be weakened if you stopped calling people eggheads and misogynists and things.
I had Appel at Northwestern, in, I think, 1989 or 90. I don’t remember the exact year, but I think I was a sophomore which would have been spring of '89. I think it was 20th c. American Lit.
I don’t remember much of the class but I still remember Appel’s enthusiasm for Nabakov and Lolita especially.
For those who enjoyed Lolita, I have two other works to recommend.
Pale Fire, by Nabokov. A parody of literary analysis that I found hilarious, especially after sitting through a lit. class listening to a professor breathlessly rave about how significant it is that every character in Sartre’s Nausea can be described with a word beginning with the letter ‘A’.
“Granita”, by Umberto Eco in his book Misreadings. A take-off of Lolita about a young man obsessed with elderly women.
Just for the record, Morelin - who made the comment about homemakers and romance novels - is a woman. And a very polite and nice woman, in fact. Not especially misogynistic - unless you define “misogyny” as broadly as Anniee seems to.
A rather famous film critic once said something quite perceptive about controversial films: “A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it.”
Or, in other words, and more slowly:
It. Is. Possible. To. Enjoy. A. Book. As. Literature. Without. Enjoying. The. Subject. Material. Of. The. Book.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Misogynistic eggheads? Well, since by my count roughly half the people you’re talking to are WOMEN, that rather puts paid to your misogyny theory doesn’t it?
And as for eggheads – why would you think intellect desensitizes people to violence? That doesn’t make any sense.
But then, if I didn’t know who Ed Meese was, or what “misogyny” meant, I guess I’d hie myself over to Google rather than cheerfully post my ignorance.
Oh, dear! We’re out of our depth here.
This reminds me of the whole brouhaha surrounding the Scorsese/DaFoe film The Last Temptation of Christ. All the fundies & other protestors denounced it as blasphemy, pointing to the sex scene between Christ & Mary Magdalene. Umm, no, it wasn’t. That part was a dream. (Or a Satanic temptation, if you like.) The REALLY blasphemous part was when Christ (still in the dream) found the Apostle Paul, weaving stories of Jesus out of whole cloth. But no fundie I’ve met ever pointed out that part. So they must not have seen the film – or maybe, they were too distracted by the sex. Funny how it always works out like that.
I would posit that it’s not the horror you have read, but the horror within your head, that you need to deal with first.