• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Excellent articles as of late

Meadow337 said:
Seeing as how you ignored all the other opinions from people who had read the book that I put forward,
Click to expand...

"ALL" the people included a salon writer who posted a huge caveat that you choose to ignore. A writer and a shrink who posits pure conjecture hardly constitute a mass of opinion, let alone, the right one.

even managing to twist one of them to say completely the opposite,
Click to expand...

Oh, was the quote mistaken? Let me know how I specifically put in the wrong words from what was in the article.



I merely said, that I would not read it because of the EFFECT it has on popular opinion.
Click to expand...

You are not responsible for the wrong headed opinions of others.

And I don't actually have to handle toxic waste such as this to know I don't want to.
Click to expand...

If you read it yourself and held the same opinion, I could respect that. This book does not have a negative majority feeling a la Mein Kampf. The book has arguable merit, unlike Mein Kampf. That alone, should be enough evidence for you to be open minded and to consider other view points.
 
Well let's put it this way - on some things I am unashamedly not particularly "open minded" if open minded means what it usually does in that you are supposed to be accepting of something you find - I want to say 'inexcusable' but I know full well that victims more often than not become the perpetrators which BTW is why Nabokov's own abuse is relevant - but was he just victim or also a perpetrator - and if just a victim why didn't he write more clearly about the wrongness of the act? Was he one of those victims still trapped in the cycle of shame and self-blame? We will probably never know, but all the same, the book is still sufficiently ambiguous for his "victim" to have to come to represent a view of girls that justifies abuse. Now if he was being dreadfully clever, as some suggest, and doing some kind of reverse psychology trick my feeling, given the results, (you see 'by their fruit they shall be known') this book has failed utterly IF (and that is still a big if in my mind) this book was in fact intended to highlight the wrongness of the actions of a paedophile. And I will not, under any circumstances, find favour with those results.

BTW it is perfectly legitimate to go by others' opinions in forming your own. I'm sure you went with the opinions of those who laud this book as 'great literature of the modern age' before you read it. And I'm quite sure you are swayed by other critics and reviews before you buy an assortment of things. Next time you buy something based on an advertisement you are being swayed by some one else's opinion.
 
Meadow337 said:
Well let's put it this way - on some things I am unashamedly not particularly "open minded" if open minded means what it usually does in that you are supposed to be accepting of something you find -
Click to expand...

No, I never said anyone had to "Like" something automatically. Just that in order to have an informed opinion, it's best to have read the book you are talking about.

I want to say 'inexcusable' but I know full well that victims more often than not become the perpetrators which BTW is why Nabokov's own abuse is relevant - but was he just victim or also a perpetrator - and if just a victim why didn't he write more clearly about the wrongness of the act?
Click to expand...

A good question to ask. The beauty of a discussion is to consider both sides of the debate. One prominent scholar believes that it was due to Nabokov's own abuse that he FULLY UNDERSTOOD Humbert's harm that he inflicted and that the book is a MORAL one.( http://jeffreymasson.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/nabokov-freud-and-lolita/ ) You however, ran with a generalization, and then went to google to reinforce your un-read opinion of the book.

BTW it is perfectly legitimate to go by others' opinions in forming your own. I'm sure you went with the opinions of those who laud this book as 'great literature of the modern age' before you read it. And I'm quite sure you are swayed by other critics and reviews before you buy an assortment of things. Next time you buy something based on an advertisement you are being swayed by some one else's opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm sure rave reviews are how many people choose books. A few things happen though. Some times, you read it and it is as good as the hype. Cormac McCarthy's The Road and most books by Steinbeck are worth the hype if you ask me(except for The Winter of Our Discontent. ) Conversely, you have to admit that it is a universal phenomenon to feel disappointment when something doesn't live up to it's billing. Kerouac, most "beatnik" works, Kurt Vonnegut, and Saul Bellow elicit such a feeling from me. But there is a difference between how I feel about these authors and you with Lolita. The difference is this-I read the book.
 
I'm still with SFG on this one.
I prefer to read books, and participate in conversations about them with other people who have also read the book. At least there is something objective (the book) that can keep the conversation rooted in fact.
I don't much care to get involved in arguing about opinions or conjectures. After all, everyone is entitled to their own, and some people are very excitable (as well as adamant).
Discussing hearsay seems particularly pointless to me (cf. the recent "discussion" here of Fifty Shades of Gray). And arguing about hearsay, seems even more pointless.
Perhaps there really are two separate topics: discussion of the book, and discussion of hearsay about the book. I've done my share of the former, and the later doesn't really interest me. Because, as SFG has said, I've read the book and actually know what is says.
 
I can have an opinion about why I don't want to read something which is as worth defending as an opinion in favour of reading something and to argue otherwise is disrespectful and dismissive of my right not read something if I don't want to.
 
Meadow337 said:
I can have an opinion about why I don't want to read something which is as worth defending as an opinion in favour of reading something and to argue otherwise is disrespectful and dismissive of my right not read something if I don't want to..
Click to expand...
You seems to like aggressive mis-characterizatons: "toxic trash", "pretentious and dismissive."
I think I said you are entitled to your opinions. I'm not sure why you think I am denying your right to defend your opinions. I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I am arguing that your opinion is any less valid than mine. And I am especially not sure why you seem to think that, because you have an opinion, I must listen to it and your justification of it. I find the endless repetition dreary. My own opinions have already been posted here and I don't think more need be said by me about them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Peder said:
You seems to like aggressive mis-characterizatons: "toxic trash", "pretentious and dismissive."
I think I said you are entitled to your opinions. I'm not sure why you think I am denying your right to defend your opinions. I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I am arguing that your opinion is any less valid than mine. And I am especially not sure why you seem to think that, because you have an opinion, I must listen to it and your justification of it. I find the endless repetition dreary. My own opinions have already been posted here and I don't think more need be said by me about them.
Click to expand...
Last edited by a moderator? Like how? By whom?
Big Brother/Sister at work?
Conversation available if desired.
 
SFG75 said:
Posting about Lolita must be against forum rules. :rofl
Click to expand...

:rofl no but replying to me when I'm in the middle of posting from my mobile and it a. posts before I've finished editing and b. takes ages to correct - the copied post will get changed to reflect what I meant to say (and that is all that got changed!)

So just wait a mo before replying to me :D :D :D I add stuff, change what I said, fix my typo's (well sometimes) :) best of all wait before getting upset with me :rofl
 
Meadow337 said:
I add stuff, change what I said, fix my typo's (well sometimes) :) best of all wait before getting upset with me :rofl
Click to expand...

Ah! Not all of us have such luxury. But OK, understandable. In my case, not angry, just very curious because moderator interventions are so rare (and I could see no change).
 
SFG75 said:
Why was post #27 "moderated"? That was his question.
Click to expand...

*scratching head* I thought I explained that.

Peder said:
Ah! Not all of us have such luxury. But OK, understandable. In my case, not angry, just very curious because moderator interventions are so rare (and I could see no change).
Click to expand...

Good because I didn't change what you said, just what I said. :)

Every one happy? gooooooooooooooooooood!
 
SFG75 said:
I found a cool link but the hyperlink thing is messed up. If someone feels like over functioning for me, by all means, feel free to fix.
Click to expand...

Actually it isn't it - just works a bit differently. Just copy paste the full URL into your post and the rest is done for you.
 
you see when I read views like these:

http://www.examiner.com/article/lolita-an-intriguing-account-of-pedophilia

that contain comments like this:

The book is Humbert Humbert’s firsthand account, confession, and justification of his illicit relationship with his adolescent stepdaughter, Dolores Haze, more fondly known as Lolita. The concept is disturbing: an aging European man lusting after a young girl, coaxing her into intercourse. Yet, because the prose is so compelling, it is not long before readers, against their will, begin to cheer for poor disturbed Humbert, sympathizing with his hopeless plight and channeling his frustration.
Click to expand...

and I wonder why it is that you find it so hard to understand why I'm against this book. If it makes a (supposedly, assumedly) educated reviewer take this view, and a woman no less, then there is something profoundly wrong with this book.

In one sense, I understand and am sympathetic to the plight of the victim into perpetrator, however I am not, and never will be sympathetic to the perpetration of the act, no matter how clever or flowery the prose used to describe it. The damage it does to victims, and actually even the perpetrators is incalculable.

PS I have noticed that the reviewers who are in favour of the book, tend to ignore the fact that it is about a paedophile, or worse, justify it. Very very few say what I'm saying and I'm wondering just when it was that morality became so shamefully ambiguous?

In 1950's and '60s it seems things were a little clearer to people and I have to agree with Ayn Rand's opinion (from the second article you shared):

When asked about Nabokov, she replied: “I have read only one book of his and a half — the half was Lolita, which I couldn’t finish. He is a brilliant stylist, he writes beautifully, but his subjects, his sense of life, his view of man, are so evil that no amount of artistic skill can justify them” (“Playboy Interview” 40)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
[quote="Meadow337, post: 364686, member: 24549
". . .his subjects, his sense of life, his view of man, are so evil that no amount of artistic skill can justify them" ("Playboy Interview" 40)
[/quote]
As far as I am concerned, there is nothing new in this thread that hasn't all been said before. The anti-Lolita/Nabokov/pedophile argument has been around a long time; it is old and tired, and I don't see any signs of its being resolved.

But I do take pointed exception to the bolded remark.

Justify them? Justify just exactly what them? An author's subjects, sense of life, view of man being so evil? Forget for a moment that we are speaking of Nabokov/Lolita.

How many other authors can one think of to whom one might apply such a comment? There are at least a few. How many books have been written on subjects that society has sought to ban for their subject matter? There are again at least a few. And remember for the moment that Nabokov's 16 or so novels all have different subjects and plots. And then to suggest the broad generalization that they cannot be justified; and should therefore not exist?

If one can't think of other books or authors which fit the description, then I don't think one has read very widely at all. And requiring that an author's subjects, sense of life, view of man or his works be "justified" raises my hackles straight up. To suggest such an infringement is outrageous and remarkably narrow-minded.

So, I post to this thread, against my inclination, and despite the fact that I think it has all been said before. It is all so not news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top