To think that 'Lolita' is an amazing literary masterpiece?

[Electrascoffee]

I have never wanted to read this book until now, having seen the film which, imo has done the book a great disservice.

Having read it now I think the narrative is exquisite. The book is in no way suggesting that paedophilia is acceptable or normal - quite the opposite in fact. Humbert is clearly a monster - the author leaves us in no doubt about that.

My friend said it's 'a pervy book' but he's never read it! The film, I feel tried to present Humbert in a more sympathetic light which is very annoying.

In my opinion it's a masterpiece that was way ahead of its time. And challenges views about misogyny, victim blaming culture in our society wrt sex crimes.

It isn't clear enough that she is being groomed and taken advantage of.

How clear would you have liked it to be? Should Humbert have gone on asides in which he used the word "grooming" and "rape" a lot? He talks about his grooming, drugging, and, eventually, direct paying of her in downright excruciating detail.

I think what this discussion illustrates to me is how many people have developed a kind of magical thinking about paedophilia, and like all magical thinking it's preoccupied with infection and corruption. Paeophiles lurk among us as demons with flaming eyes who only superficially resemble humans and have black hearts, and if you get too close to them you can be tainted by them. I'm not sure this kind of... Tabooing isn't the right word, but I don't know what is... is helpful to anyone, victims included, because reality constantly fails to fit the narrative.

So are we allowed to defame jimmy saville?!

I’m presuming that’s not a serious question. But just in case can you really not see the difference between supposition because of written novels and actual evidence and guilt.

Discussion surrounding Jimmy Saville isn’t defamation.

Discussion surrounding Jimmy Saville isn’t defamation

But only because he is dead, otherwise - in the absence of charges - he could well sue for defamation.

Nabokov is dead, so he can't sue anyone either. But even if he was alive, I have not suggested he committed any crimes.

I have not suggested he committed any crimes

No. You suggested he was “dodgy”. Implication very heavily made.

JacquesHammer

Another UTTER misrepresentation of my argument.

I despair.

Please, please attend some logic seminars or something.

No my point being that just because someone is dead it doesnt mean we shouldn't be able to discuss their possible predilections and given nabokov returned to this theme at least 3 times, his predilections should indeed be discussed. But yes you are right - jimmy saville was a bad example or though i did read that lolita was a favourite of his!

Pengggwn posts "I don't think you can write so convincingly about paedophilia without being at least dodgy."

JacquesHammer posts No. You suggested he was “dodgy”. Implication very heavily made.

Penggwn posts Another UTTER misrepresentation of my argument

I despair

Please, please attend some logic seminars or something

So basically Penggwn's contribution to this discussion boils down to the profound and stunning comment that Nabokov might have been at least a bit "dodgy" (whatever that is supposed to mean) but not necessarily "dodgy" enough to be criminal.

Is that an accurate summing up of your incisive and cutting literary analysis Penggwn?.

Is that an accurate summing up of your incisive and cutting literary analysis Penggwn?.

Excuse me, but where did I claim this? I made a perfectly simple point which has - sadly - been misunderstood over pages of posts by people who are now, regrettably, looking a bit red in the face at the realisation that they have been inferring all sorts of things that weren't there. You are now trying to back-pedal that, suggesting that I think I was being really clever but wasn't.

I never said I was clever.

I never said I was clever

That’s patently obvious.

However much you want to squirm out of it. You said Nabokov couldn’t write convincingly about the subject matter without being dodgy.

That isn’t anyone else’s quotes

You can suggest that’s not what you meant until the cows come home but maybe some better use of language would be in order if that’s not what you meant.

Pengwyn if anyone should be red faced it should be you.

I've never seen someone tie themselves in knots so much.

As lass says, this seems to be your opnion Nabokov have been at least a bit "dodgy" (whatever that is supposed to mean) but not necessarily "dodgy" enough to be criminal

That's without the 'sorry I offended you using disablist language', 'cretinous' is an ok insult apparently.

EuphoricNight

I'm not, though. There is no contradiction or 'knot' in what I am saying, with the exception of that encountered by people who failed to understand what I was saying. That is their problem.

JacquesHammer

Yes, that is what I said. Where have I tried to squirm out of what I actually said, as opposed to clarify - for those hard of reading - what I didn't say?

Pengggwyn can you just make it clear what you do mean, then? You say anyone who writes convincingly about paedophilia must be at least dodgy. What exactly do you mean by dodgy? Someone who has felt lusts for children but may or may not have acted on them? Or something else?

Pps have asked what is different about someone wholly imagining a paedophiliac urge, from someone wholly imagining a bloodlust to murder, for example. You've rejected parallels with writers imagining murder. Is it true that you think there's something qualitatively different about "feeling like you want sex with a child" - vs "feeling like you want to hurt or kill people"? Acting on any of it would be to commit illegal, disgusting, harmful acts. But is the paedophile one "worst" for you - so far as to be literally unimaginable to anyone who isn't sort of "that way inclined"?

I think that's what people are challenging you on. Nobody says you are a paedophile. But we are wondering why it's ok to imagine genocide, stabbing someone in the eye or shooting them with a crossbow- without you saying "they must be dodgy". Can you explain?

Where have I tried to squirm out of what I actually said, as opposed to clarify - for those hard of reading - what I didn't say

Are you actually reading what you’re writing instead of your faux outrage and ridiculous reporting?

By all means make a point. Maybe in future you’ll write what you mean instead of something else. Probably helpful.

Oh goodness Penggwn don't you recognise sarcasm when you see it?

On the book - there have been some fantastic points made. I'm in the camp that it is a horrific portrayal of a monster made more horrific and packing more of a social punch due to the complicity demanded of the reader - as many here have said.

It is also hugely problematic because of its cultural context and the way it has been received over the years. I'm not one of those who thinks historical perspectives don't matter.

And the point made about the victim's voice needing to be paramount is really important. Have a lot of sympathy for those who won't give the whole book house room.

RosyPrimroseface

Yes, Rosy, what you said is what I meant.

When I get home I will respond to what you said about bloodlust, although, to be fair, that is clearly covered in previous posts.

LassWiADelicateAir

I recognise sarcasm. I just believe yours was woefully misdirected.

JacquesHammer

Honestly, I don't know what to say to you without being unacceptable rude. I don't think we should talk anymore.

I don't think we should talk anymore

Good god finally you make a sentient point.

I wholeheartedly agree

@ElectrasCoffee

Apologies for the ridiculous derailments. Your post has been on the whole very interesting.

JacquesHammer

sentient means able to feel or perceive.

Do you mean salient?

Well Penggwn given how many pages you have been banging on about your analysis that Nabokov was at least "dodgy" it would have been rude of me not to acknowledge your skills in literary criticism.

I think "dodgy" as a critical tool brings so much to the practice of literary criticism. I look forward to future Booker shortlists being divided into "a bit dodgy" "dodgy" and "well dodgy".

*sentient means able to feel or perceive.

Do you mean salient?*

No. I mean sentient. As in you’ve made a point that people can actually perceive what you mean.

As your points aren’t in anyway important or succinct I wouldn’t choose salient.

Do hope that helps.