Posted on 02/22/2017 7:16:01 AM PST by Borges
Don’t be a jerk...Its just my opinion. Do you have limits???
But people with letters behind their name who want to show how enlightened they are like to force young people to read filth.
My interpretation is he was pinning or lusting, which is sick in itself, but never followed through.
“Don’t stand so close to me.”
No jerk intentions here. I’m just curious what you think. If I didn’t care I wouldn’t ask.
What Nabokov have you read? He’s actually mostly been ignored by Academia. Feminists don’t like him and his conservative politics don’t fly well in modern day Academic circles.
That song, and 2112, started my literary exploration. Thankfully, my dear mother was a librarian at the time.
It’s important to turn bad things into art. It’s the whole basis of morality plays, it’s an opportunity for society to reiterate its values, it’s a reminder to the audience that evil exists closer than they might think, it’s a reminder of how easy it is to get sucked into evil. Now if there are some bad things you don’t want to consume as art that’s OK, but to rule out bad things as a source of art is to forget what art is.
Couldn't tell it from his yawners of books.
But mostly his stuff was just dull. If you are not in to sexual titillation from children Lolita is boring.
And as for being ignored, please. Every college has his tripe on the "must read" list. At least they did when I was in college. If they have dropped it then it is because they found something worse to demand you drag your way through.
Nabokov was a staunch anti-communist all of his life. He supported McCarthy, the Vietnam war and hated the hippies. He was a good friend of William F Buckley. Lolita has no sex scenes. It is not remotely titillating. It’s also not boring for a moment unless you need constant ‘action scenes’. I’ve been through English Lit programs both as an undergrad and as a grad student and have never encountered him. Nor have the people I know at other schools. He’s always been more of a grass roots/cult writer.
So?
You still could not tell it from his books.
Lolita has no sex scenes. It is not remotely titillating. It’s also not boring for a moment unless you need constant ‘action scenes’.
Your opinion. You are entitled to it. But not your own reality.
I’ve been through English Lit programs both as an undergrad and as a grad student and have never encountered him.
And I did.
He’s always been more of a grass roots/cult writer.
He has always been a crushing bore defended by the pretentious.
What politics can you tell from his books then?
No it’s fact. Lolita has no sex scenes. No four letter words. Feel free to post an excerpt. I’ve read it multiple times. There is nothing remotely pornographic in it. A writer like D.H. Lawrence is much more explicit and that was an earlier generation.
I’m guessing you don’t like Modernist writing in general. Joyce, Woolf, Faulkner...
Lolita may have been a literary masterpiece, but I make my computer crime investigation classes read it to see how a pedophile’s mind works.
I don’t even know if it’s accurate in that sense.
Close enough. It’s a story of an old guy diddling a little girl. You can slap all the lipstick on it that you want to, but it’s a glorification of child rape.
It doesn’t glorify it at all. It depicts it as aberrant and destructive. Have you read it?
Yep, I read it. Found it most disturbing too
What part of it glorified child rape? That’s absurd and bears no relation to the text.
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.