• 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

Never knew much about the guy. This article is a pro-Phil apologetic piece with some interesting history thrown in for good measure. Interesting at any rate.

My dark days with Phil; Newsweek/The Daily Beast
 
SFG75 said:
How the American novel lost it's religion-The Daily Beast/Newsweek
Click to expand...
Catchy title, which prompted me to wonder when it ever had it. But, ah yes, I see, beginning 1850, a little before my grandfather's time. Interesting nevertheless. Even though generalizations are dangerous, especially in a land as varied as the United States, it seems simpler to say that the novel simply mirrors/mirrored life and the generally declining interest in religion.
 
Excellent points Peder. I would add that I don't know if the transcendentalists would appreciate being grouped in with "that old time religion." The author cited Harriet Beecher Stowe's work as evidence for "the novel" during this time period as having a strong religious favor. Perhaps there were numerous movements and the social gospel was one of them? While her time was a bit earlier than the progressive era, I'd still count her in as a social gospel progressive.
 
SFG75 said:
Perhaps there were numerous movements and the social gospel was one of them? While her time was a bit earlier than the progressive era, I'd still count her in as a social gospel progressive.
Click to expand...

"Numerous movements" I would definitely vote for.

I have always wondered how to capture a complete and total description of a culture at a given time. Seems impossible to me, once the memories of the people who lived it have expired. E.G. what all was going on during, say, the Beat Generation, or the Silent Generation (mine)? And I've always wondered how many people ever read Emerson, or were influenced by him; I never have, even though a set of his works sits in a beautiful bookcase out in our living room. Seems to me that novels, books and authors are just glimpses, at best. So, I think you are definitely right.
 
no - unless some one can convince me its not highly inappropriate given that:

The novel is notable for its controversial subject: the protagonist and unreliable narrator, middle-aged literature professor and hebephile Humbert Humbert, is obsessed with the 12-year-old Dolores Haze, with whom he becomes sexually involved after he becomes her stepfather.
​
So no I won't be reading it.
 
I believe it is more than defensible. The book is consistently rated a top 100 read by modern library and others. The subject of the book is controversial, but most of your great books are. To Kill a Mockingbird has a section on rape, some books deal with gay characters, others deal with war. To me, judging this book on the basis of being "inappropriate" without studying the context of it, is to completely miss the mark. The book can hardly be categorized as a justification of Humbert's actions. The story is told from his vantage point, but he doesn't have a "happy ever after" with his Lo. Call it karmic justice or what have you, but he hardly ends up better off at the end, than at the beginning. It is also a classic due to V.N.'s writing style. Some authors can go pages and pages into eternity giving vivid descriptions of the scenery and characters. Dostoyevsky is a notable one for that. Nabokov's strength was taking three pages and with a scarcity of words, providing the same vividness and detail. The style of writing is truly something else to behold and is something that I truly appreciate and take away from when I have read his works. Cheap smut, the book is not.
 
I have no issue with reading books that deal with difficult subjects so long as they deal with them appropriately - ie highlight the wrongness of the action.

And while I have not read the book, many who have, have criticised it for its portrayal of a paedophile. I did not suggest the book was 'cheap smut' but if there is in any way a tacit or not so tacit approval of having a sexual relationship with a child in it then it is inappropriate.

As an example:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2005/12/lolita_at_50.html

And there is also a fair bit of discussion as to whether or not Nabokov himself was a closet paedophile given that he addressed the subject in 4 different stories/books - "Dar"; "The Enchanter" ; "Lolita" and "Ada"

I can't access the paper, but there is at least one serious psychological paper on the subject

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-31531-001


And an excellent blog post on why Lolita is not sexual precocious and highlights how the name has entered popular culture and the damage it does to view sexual abuse victims as the instigators of their own rapes.

http://www.mommyish.com/2011/11/16/lolita-novel-sex-rape-pedophilia-541/
 
Last edited:
The book was worth quite a bit of discussion here on BAR itself some time ago; a search should turn it up. There is no doubt that it has become more controversial as time has passed, but I don't think there is any doubt that it is a fascinating piece of literature and, in its ambiguities, it will spawn a never-ending and ever broadening range of opinions about itself and its author -- and even perhaps about the readers who read it. And then, perhaps, even about the people who comment on the people who comment on it, ad infinitum.

I'm with SFG on this one. It is a great and serious work of literature by a great author.
 
I'm going to stand my ground on this one. No matter how well written if the work, in any shape or form, glorifies the sexual objectification (and I can make an extremely strong argument for that given the way in which 'Lolita' has entered the popular lexicon and the damage that perception does) of young girls, or endorses or can be interpreted as endorsing the sexual pursuit of young girls I'm neither going to read it or praise its 'literary' qualities.

If, as some people argue, Nabokov was in fact making a statement about the perversity of people who claim the book is great literature, I think he was being far too clever because instead of shaming people, he has instead contributed to the continued justification of sexual exploitation of children on the grounds that children can be sexually precocious.

And for that reason alone I will not read it.
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with standing one's ground.

Nothing I have seen has convinced me to change my opinion either.
 
Meadow337 said:
I have no issue with reading books that deal with difficult subjects so long as they deal with them appropriately - ie highlight the wrongness of the action.
Click to expand...

Ah, but V.N. does highlight how it's wrong. From your slate source.

We are clearly meant to regard Humbert as a moral abomination, and even Humbert eventually concedes (it is one of the book's most beautiful and unforgettable passages) that in exploiting Lolita he has gratuitously destroyed another human being.
Click to expand...

And while I have not read the book, many who have, have criticised it for its portrayal of a paedophile. I did not suggest the book was 'cheap smut' but if there is in any way a tacit or not so tacit approval of having a sexual relationship with a child in it then it is inappropriate.
Click to expand...

And where specifically in the book, is it stated that he is in the right? Is there a line where he wistfully muses about his love and how he "completes" her? The Slate link indicates otherwise and totally undermines your premise here. Uncomfortable passages of his passion does not equate a full scale endorsement of the action, just as much as a movie with a person who does drugs, can have an anti-drug message. As cene by itself where someone is snorting a line of coke does not make it an endorsement alone. Correlation is not causation.

And there is also a fair bit of discussion as to whether or not Nabokov himself was a closet paedophile given that he addressed the subject in 4 different stories/books - "Dar"; "The Enchanter" ; "Lolita" and "Ada"
Click to expand...

What evidence is there that he was? Is there a legal history? Is there a history of accusations? Why hasn't anyone stepped forward? Surely the man did not live his ENTIRE LIFE without acting on such an abhorrent impulse. How solid is the people's court of psychoanalysis? Could it be that like many authors, he had some "pre" writings that were released later? The Enchanter is a case in point. And before anyone argues that The Enchanter is glorification of the said crime, it must be remembered that the offending party ends up committing suicide by getting hit by a car. It is clear the work is "pre-Lolita" as it is much simpler and does not show a well polished form of writing like Lolita.

And an excellent blog post on why Lolita is not sexual precocious
Click to expand...

Of course she wasn't, Humbert was a pervert and that is very clear to anyone who has read the book.

highlights how the name has entered popular culture and the damage it does to view sexual abuse victims as the instigators of their own rapes.
Click to expand...

And such things are a perversion of Nabokov's book about a pervert.
 
Sorry but I have to agree to disagree, if only because in the court of popular opinion, Lolita (no matter how much you may disagree) is about a "nymphette" who is sexually precocious, so much so that the name is used as a descriptor of such girls. Regardless of the so-called 'beauty' of the writing the mere fact that so many interpret the book in this way would indicate either a fundamental failure to convey appropriate levels of censure or it does in fact do as so many believe.
 
Meadow337 said:
Sorry but I have to agree to disagree, if only because in the court of popular opinion, Lolita (no matter how much you may disagree) is about a "nymphette" who is sexually precocious
Click to expand...

So you are running with a generalization of "popular opinion" that is devoid from a reading, any reading, of the book. In another thread, you were quick to criticize religious folks for being intolerant. This is no different. You are taking other people's words as gold instead of finding out for yourself, what it's about. If you were a country where The Satanic Verses was felt to be a horrible book in the court of "public opinion," would you take their word for it and not read it?
 
Seeing as how you ignored all the other opinions from people who had read the book that I put forward, even managing to twist one of them to say completely the opposite, I merely said, that I would not read it because of the EFFECT it has on popular opinion. That alone is sufficiently negative and detrimental to women and children for me to seriously not care what the book actually says. The manner in which it is generally perceived is so wrong, and the wrong attitudes that are perpetuated because of it, I can't see any defense of its writing style negating that.

And I don't actually have to handle toxic waste such as this to know I don't want to.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top