Posted on 02/23/2015 9:41:24 AM PST by Borges
One of Lolita’s first supporters, the great critic Lionel Trilling, addressed what is perhaps a central issue at the heart of this controversial novel, when he warned of the moral difficulty in interpreting a book with such an eloquent narrator: “We find ourselves the more shocked when we realize that, in the course of reading the novel, we have come virtually to condone the violation it presents… We have been seduced into conniving in the violation, because we have permitted our fantasies to accept what we know to be revolting.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Must? Not sure. Art can challenge you without "seducing" you "into conniving in the violation, because we have permitted our fantasies to accept what we know to be revolting".
By avoiding challenge you flee from Truth.
Life's filled with enough challenges, and one simply cannot avoid Truth indefinitely. Further, one needn't elevate the process of tempting or being tempted to "art" in order to be properly challenged or to encounter the truth.
You completely missed my point.
You assumed I didn't know that an artist like Chopin didn't have detractors.
Of course I know that every major artist has detractors from Shakespeare to The Beatles to Nabokov.
Doesn't take many brain cells to get that.
‘Paradise Lost’ also tempts the reader to sympathize with Satan - who is a very charismatic character.
I like the Kubrick film but it’s certainly not the novel. Just avoid the awful 1990s film with Jeremy Irons.
You continue it deliberately not understand that sentence. It’s a divided sentence, working with the barrier between what you might fantasize about and what you would actually do. If you can’t acknowledge that you would (and probably occasionally do) fantasize about things you know are wrong you can’t understand Truth. It’s in the nature of sin that we want to do things we know are wrong, and in being righteous we don’t do them. Have you never thought the world would be a better place is Person X died? But you don’t kill them, and you probably even post-pend that thought with a bit of guilt because good people know you really shouldn’t wish ill upon others. That’s the exact same thing, your fantasies have accepted something (”sure would be nice if that jerk had a heart attack”) that you know is revolting (wishing people dead is wrong).
The fact that you continue to grossly not understand that sentence shows exactly what I’m talking about. You are fleeing from Truth, you will not acknowledge that we do dream of things we shouldn’t. Lolita isn’t tempting, the actions in the book always remain wrong and the reader never doubts it, it’s simply reminding us of the dream-action barrier.
Post-Western society has adopted the words of Roman prefect Pontius Pilatus as its creed:
"What is truth?"
John 18:38
Similar to the experience of viewers of the TV series “Breaking Bad” (in my opinion).
James Joyce.
“Welcome, O life, I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.”
No i have not..
nor am i questioning if it does or does not have merit....that is beside the point....
The point was if something has artistic value....can it still be condemned on the merit of it message?...
my point.. yes it can and is commonly done...
the question if something is art is not the same as the merit of its message..
In fact art ..a book or film can, with skillful editing, have its message changed 180 degrees (pro become anti, anti becomes pro).. and still remain art...
Its very common it music to take say a patriotic song..and alter the tempo and tone to make it mock the same message
Well and good. In this case the message is not problematic in the way you hear from people who assume they know what it’s about. Besides I can disagree with the message and still enjoy great art. Wagner’s operas have a moral vision that’s pretty repugnant - to take one example.
I posted the James Joyce quote to show what he said was the purpose of his art.
Nothing at all about challenging or shocking people.
But, after writing the above, Joyce went on and wrote one of the most challenging works of art of the English language Its purpose was not to challenge but to create.
Similarly, with tour Kafka quote, he is describing properties of art he values. Never does he say the challenge Is the purpose, but he is describing the effect art he likes has on him.
And I’d also say what Kafka is describing is a personal preference and in no way reflects the purpose of any and all art.
Keep in mind as well that Kafka wrote that when he was only 20 years old.
That is the sort of thing a young man says and thinks.
I sure did.
Fair point..
It’s actually not about a pedophile - it’s about a hebephile (attracted to the pubescent as opposed to the pre-pubescent).
no big difference, deserves the same death
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.