|
LO LI TA
Apr 18, 2017 1:44:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Charlie on Apr 18, 2017 1:44:59 GMT -5
Oh wait ew it's been suggested he had relationships with little girls? Gross.
I wonder where the foundation of this suggestion lies?
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Apr 18, 2017 9:48:02 GMT -5
It probably does in the word "lies". i can't find any allegations of the kind beyond people who speculate like Lee Bear does.
As charlie said, I belong to the group that hasn't yet read the book (I know, I know... love the first page though and will read it eventually). That's why I can't say whether Nabokov's descriptions are supposed to be a metaphor or whatnot.
However, metaphor or not, the accusation seems to me as sensible as claiming an actor who's portrayed a convincing pedophile/psycho killer/whatever must have that character's tendencies inside himself as well. Or, like, thinking that Stephen King must secretly want to kill people bc he writes about it a lot. Basically, a rookie mistake a total novice to the way an artist works might make.
But like I said, I haven't read the book, plus I also noticed I disagree with Lee Bear on plenty other stuff, so I guess I didn't even bother saying anything before.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Apr 18, 2017 11:16:31 GMT -5
no nabokov was not a pedophile, and he weren't gay either despite charles kinbote
|
|
|
Post by Grace on Apr 18, 2017 23:29:27 GMT -5
oyyyy. so first of all, i would suggest reading the book. there's an author who recounted stories of nabokov routinely going to hotel rooms with little girls that i can't find now (and would be stoked if someone could find it)
here's my case for nabokov being perverted. if you read the book, you'd pick up on the way he talks about little girls. they're extremely sexualized - as much as adult women are sexualized every day (a lot). having never been a man, old and creepy or otherwise, but having definitely been a little girl, there's a way that men can choose to be threatening and perverted and there's a way that they can just NOT. we live in a pedophilic culture. young girls are being sexualized whether you like it or not, and you're either contributing to that or you're actively working against it. maybe i just know creepy (old) men better than you do, Baudelairized, but reducing my extensive knowledge of human interactions to "people who speculate like Lee Bear does" is pretty offensive. obviously, nabokov is dead and can't speak for himself. but it makes me uncomfortable that, the way this book is written, it appeals more to pedophiles than it does to assault victims. why not write a progressive narrative?
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Apr 18, 2017 23:58:33 GMT -5
uhhhhhh, good job at summarizing why lolita has one of the most famous and well-written unreliable narrators in literary history? this sounds like the bullsh!t controversy regarding Cannibal Holocaust (not that i'm comparing it to lolita in quality). "it's so darned disgusting, deodato must be a real murderer who killed his actors on camera!"
|
|
|
LO LI TA
Apr 19, 2017 0:48:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Charlie on Apr 19, 2017 0:48:38 GMT -5
Meh I agree it's gross to perpetuate the sexualisation and objectification of young girls, i haven't been given an opinion by Charles Vane yet, so i gotta follow my own, ew. I reckon a certain modicum of artistic license is owed to authors and while we may disagree with the message their art sends to society, it's important to recognise the merits of the piece as it stands alone. I too would prefer to read a book championing the rights of the victim, but if the purpose of the novel is to explore the darkness of the human psyche, then it's really unhelpable that the perspective of the abuser is taken
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Apr 19, 2017 17:27:01 GMT -5
maybe i just know creepy (old) men better than you do, Baudelairized, but reducing my extensive knowledge of human interactions to "people who speculate like Lee Bear does" is pretty offensive. I don't know what you're on about because that doesn't make any sense... or you just misunderstood me; I merely said that your and other people's allegations against Nabokov don't seem to go beyond speculation based on Lolita - a work of fiction. I'm not reducing anything to anything, just saying what it is. If you care to provide any trustworthy sources on what Nabokov did outside of his writing, feel free to do so. Like big bear said, your "case for nabokov being perverted" is that the narrator sexualizes the titular little girl. Maybe that's because that's the way the narrator is supposed to be characterized. Either way, it's hardly a freaking case, innit. it makes me uncomfortable that, the way this book is written, it appeals more to pedophiles than it does to assault victims. why not write a progressive narrative? ughh, and here's again where I just see how our viewpoints on art and life are just on two opposite ends of the spectrum, but let me just say that I think a lot of, if not most, great art is supposed to make some of its audience uncomfortable, so that's a success on Nabokov's part.
|
|