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 ...
Well, huff and puff away, Mr. Borges.
And, like Humbert, try hard to be good. Or something like that.
I did not mean it would change perceptions positively or negatively.
It does illuminate some of the writing process.
I love these informed opinions from those who’ve never read the book. The reviewer says that the book seduced him into agreeing with Humbert Humbert and they just accept his opinion as if it were gospel.
I did read Lolita and I found it to be excellently written, all the more impressive because English wasn’t Nabokov’s first language.
As I recall the book gives us a view of Humbert’s internal dialogue and in that fashion he becomes familiar. But unless you suspend your moral compass you see that there’s a slow motion train wreck in progress with Humbert at the controls. You see Humbert rationalizing his behavior. If you willingly accept his version of events you’d better stay off of a jury because you’re liable to be snowed by a guilty defendant.
Perhaps. But there are many terms you could attach to "seeing the world in a different way" as easily as "challenge". If seeing the world differently is the purpose then one should say that.
I agree with others that the notion that art is supposed to "challenge" has been adopted as an excuse to inject sociology and politics into art. Which wouldn't be so bad except that that's often all you get from it, with no actual art. Art isn't to be understood intellectually. It's to be felt, and to be seen from a different point of view. It's to have an experience that isn't your own, but one somebody else has given you.
Not always challenged. Sometimes just soothed and calmed.
I am in no way challenged when I listen to Chopin.
Not always challenged. Sometimes just soothed and calmed.
I am in no way challenged when I listen to Chopin.
Well that’s because it’s a short sentence and the challenge list is long. Artist generally seek to challenge 3 things right off the bat: the medium (can this be done here), themselves (can I actually pull this off), and the audience (can you handle this). Now within the realm of audience challenging there are many more possibilities. You can challenge their view of themselves, their world, or art. Also you can challenge their ability to simply digest the art, there’s a lot of amazing art that comes from the “sit down, shut up, hang on” school.
How can you understand the truth if you’re not challenged? Truth isn’t easy, truth is tough, truth almost always comes with admissions of error and failings. You can’t serve the mind with a challenge, it’s like a muscle, you don’t make a muscle stronger by only staying within its comfortable stress zone, you have to challenge it, try to do stuff you’re not entirely sure it can do. Same with your mind.
If you want art to serve your mind and help you understand Truth you MUST consume art that challenges you. By avoiding challenge you flee from Truth.
Nope. Sorry but that’s quite simply a lie.
That’s your loss actually. Chopin’s music was formless and highly dissonant to many of his contemporaries. Especially the Germans and the British!
You can find politics in just about any Art. It’s hard not to. As for your intellect/emotions dichotomy. That’s as old as the wind. It obviously should challenge both heart and mind.
Nabokov is a writer who has always been studiously avoided by Academia. He does not fit into to any of the fashionable categories that Lit Departments cater to these days. His politics were decidedly conservative (staunchly anti-Communist, defended Joe McCarthy and the Vietnam war) and many of his comments would ruffle P.C. feathers today (about pandering to race/gender based standards etc...)
Ayn Rand found a source of inspiration in a similar crime, the abduction and murder of 12 yr old Marion Parker in 1927.
Authors often use real life events as a starting point for their work.
The rest of the world was. The difference is that by now the havoc Chopin wrought on the music world has been accepted as normal.
To quote musicologist Charles Rosen:
“Chopin’s music was as destructive of the tonic-dominant polarization of the 18th century style as Schoenberg’s was of late 19th century chromaticism”
Why so judgmental? I seek out some art for the purpose of being soothed, some for informing, and, yes, some for challenge.
Why do you consider people who are soothed by some art at a "loss"?
Chopin’s music was formless and highly dissonant to many of his contemporaries
So what? Every artist has his/her critics in any generation. Including Nabokov for "Lolita". Why do you even bring that up? If you go by that standard you would spurn "Lolita".
You misunderstood what I said. My point was that you would appreciate Chopin even more if you heard how shocking and dissonant his music really was. I remember one critic talking about someone reading reviews of Beethoven symphonies written at the time they were premiered where the critic of that time whines about how difficult the music was. There is a temptation to laugh at the yokel for not getting what sounds so pleasing to us now but the fact is that we should be envious of their ability to hear Beethoven (or Chopin) as new and shocking music.
First of all L does not debase or corrupt - if you read it that would be obvious. Exaltation requires challenge no?
People lose track of the fact that how things are isn’t how they were. Simple things we take for granted in art, like perspective in a painting, were massive revolutions, sometimes even considered evil, and then became accepted. It’s always fun to cycle through some of these revolutions in order, really sink your brain into things before them, then the first example, and the acceptance to eventual norm. Gives you an appreciation for just what people really did when they brought that change.
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.