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.

Oh right - helpful

You asked a one word question that was “why”.

You didn’t actually ask me to explain, you asked me why I thought that.

Maybe a better phrased question would have elicited the response you required.

They went away for a short break and spent much of the break "playing" at being some of their characters.

At this stage, I'm always imagining Anne going along with it mostly for Emily's sake, I must say, given that A managed her time away from Haworth as governess rather than better than either of the others did, (despite the fact that Charlotte is always rather dismissive of her), and doesn't seem to have been as desperately guilty as Charlotte about it, or as dependent on it.

But Emily could clearly barely cope at all when she couldn't spend vast swathes of her day 'playing' and writing up what she imagined, hence staying at home as 'housekeeper'.

On the subject of Emily Bronte's personality, this may be of interest: www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/21/emily-bronte-strange-cult-wuthering-heights-romantic-novel

CountessCon

I agree fully with everything you say.

I always think that Anne being portrayed as meek and subservient isn’t a true portrayal. I think she was an incredibly clever “man manager”. I think Charlotte was incredibly threatened by both her sisters, just Emily’s personal skills - or lack thereof - meant it was easier to deal with!

pennycarbonara

Thanks - I read that the other day. Ironically round the writer overly verbose and her points were lost totally.

I’m involved in the bicentenary celebrations up at the parsonage

JacquesHammer

"Why do you think that?" is the same question, and you are trying to be clever.

Why do you think that?

My answer would have been the same.

If you want a more detailed explanation is usually better to make that obvious.

JacquesHammer

I couldn't really give a fuck whether you explain or not, but if you don't, you don't get to use the argument. You've asserted that Bronte is an example of someone who wrote about sexual desire, etc., without ever feeling it. I do not believe that, and you have not demonstrated it.

Pengggwn

Oh bless you love

reprints.longform.org/playboy-interview-vladimir-nabokov

"People tend to underestimate the power of my imagination and my capacity of evolving serial selves in my writings"

JacquesHammer

@CountessCon

You haven’t been involved in any recent events surrounding the Brontes have you? I enjoyed listening to someone with similar thoughts as you a few weeks ago.

I’ve currently got a book on the go about the Brontes. Deep in the midst of research

I read that the other day, penny. It's got several factual errors, and after all, Emily isn't responsible for the fact that some people have subsequently misread WH as a romance (mostly, I suspect, after the romanticising Hollywood versions) or for the fact that Charlotte, who was understandably protective of Emily's reputation after her death, did her best to reinvent her as a sort of Spirit of the Moors, stronger than a man, simpler than a child etc etc -- when in fact a lot of contemporary critical responses to WH asumed the author was more like a Trainspotting-era Irvine Welsh, crude and depraved etc.

And yes, she was a high Tory -- they all were. And deeply difficult to be around. She made her family watch her die of TB, getting up everyday and doing her usual chores hanging onto the walls and coughing up blood, and refusing to have her imminent death mentioned, or to see a doctor until half an hour before she died. I don't think she'd be top of anyone's list for Fantasy Dinner Party guest.

You don't get to put stuff like that out there without people asking that question. I don't give a shit about 'evidence'; this isn't a court.

No, but you are behaving as though Lolita is evidence.

Incidentally, penggwyn, are you also suspicious of actors who have delivered compelling and engaging portraits of murderers, psychopaths, abusers?

No, but you are behaving as though Lolita is evidence

Define "behaving as though something is evidence".

Have I catalogued it? No. Have I presented it to police? No. Have I unpicked it in a court of law? No. Have I suggested it offers any certainty or likelihood that I am correct 'beyond reasonable doubt'? No.

I have said it leads me to the view that he is "dodgy", by which I am suggesting, only, that I believe it is more likely than not that he shared some latent paedophilic tendencies.

That is an opinion to which I am fully entitled.

Jacques, no, I'm a modernist, but I share an office with a Bronte scholar, and we have productive arguments about Bronte-ish matters. Like whether anyone will ever make an adaptation of Villette, which is much my favourite of all the Bs' novels.

(I mean, I do see the problems, but it would be glorious if well done. I know there is a lost BBC one from the late 1970s.)

QueenAravisOfArchenland

Why is that the same thing?

Remember when there were all the threads on here cos a child's bed frame was called that?

Are you thinking of Tom Hardy and Dominic West, amongst others? Mmm! Tom Hardy, on that logic, would indeed be locked up for the dasfety of society!

No idea what dasfety is But I am sure whatever it is Mr Hardy could portray it exceedingly well!

@Pengggwyn, first of all, I didn't say it was. But your theory would suggest that it is. Actors often have fairly minimal material to work off wrt lines, direction etc - they have to bring the nuance and emotion of the character. If they can do that vividly, searingly, sympathetically, without having dark tendencies themselves, why can't a writer?

Jacques, no, I'm a modernist, but I share an office with a Bronte scholar, and we have productive arguments about Bronte-ish matters. Like whether anyone will ever make an adaptation of Villette, which is much my favourite of all the Bs' novels

Ah! Apologies if you thought I was prying, just the way you phrased something really reminded me of someone else

I agree Vilette whilst difficult would be wonderful properly dramatised. I’d also like a better TOWH!

I’m yet to see a WH that is accurate and does the book justice.

QueenAravisOfArchenland

My theory wouldn't suggest that at all. You are suggesting it.

I couldnt finish it, I found it left me feeling grubby

Okay. So why is it different? Why does a writer need to be suspected of having these dark tendencies, but an actor doesn't?