[HN Gopher] My Dad Published Lolita
___________________________________________________________________
My Dad Published Lolita
Author : deepbow
Score : 120 points
Date : 2021-03-20 02:57 UTC (20 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lithub.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (lithub.com)
| nanoscopic wrote:
| The actual article title is "How Would the Publishing World
| Respond to Lolita Today?" The title here is a small bit from the
| article. Unless the submitter here is the author I don't think
| it's appropriate to link this article under this title.
|
| The article consists of the story of how Lolita was published in
| the US mixed with background on the political setting of the era
| it was published in.
|
| The overall claim of the article seems to be that Lolita is still
| politically interesting and sparks debate.
|
| I disagree with this conclusion. The world is all too fond of
| sexuality, and especially with controversial sexuality.
|
| I am actually the author of a somewhat popular website involving
| written erotica, and what I've found is that controversial
| erotica is wildly popular regardless of the specific content. You
| could publish all manner of twisted crap today and it would
| mostly be met with praise.
|
| There are, of course, puritanical haters that will go out of
| their way to whine and cry about it, but the world has reached a
| point where it is broadly understood that written erotica is
| freedom of speech and trying to ban it or make it stop is
| pointless.
| hctaw wrote:
| Lolita isn't erotica, which puts this in a different context.
| This is like comparing BDSM pornography to rape scenes in film.
| The latter is going to have a different audience and intent and
| might be more controversial to ratings agencies and production
| companies.
| orhmeh09 wrote:
| It's a little awkward to comment on moderation but I want to
| say I'm glad to see this comment visible again after it was
| marked dead, because it is an interesting contribution and
| there's no reason to snuff it out.
| input_sh wrote:
| [dead] is a comment from a shadowbanned user, [flagged] is...
| well, flagged comments.
|
| Vouch gets rids of it if other people find it unnecessary.
| minitech wrote:
| That was because of the user's shadowban, not votes.
| grey-area wrote:
| Lolita is not erotica
| Duennepaper wrote:
| You might sound like someone who doesn't understand 'freedom of
| speech'.
|
| This does not allow you to do whatever you want.
|
| In germany for example it is written like this: "These rights
| shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in
| provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the
| right to personal honour."
|
| And its not different in the USA, you have limitations as well
| as the general good is more important than your personal.
|
| "The world is all too fond of sexuality, and especially with
| controversial sexuality." And what distrubs me the most on your
| comment: Just because their are pedophiles, doesn't make
| pedophiles okay. Yes i used here the extrem form of
| 'controversial sexuality' but to be clear: you should know your
| boundaries in comparison to the normal society. Just because
| you are part of that sub group of people, in my circles
| 'controversial sexuality' is not typical at all.
|
| You have a responsibility and just because you can and some
| other are having the same moral compass as you have, doesn't
| make your niche okay on a moral/society point of view.
|
| And it could be that your 'controversial sexuality' is actually
| okay but how you express yourself, it feels already that you
| crossed a line i wouldn't.
| throwaway4115 wrote:
| > [Freedom of speech] rights shall find their limits in the
| provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection
| of young persons, and in the right to personal honour.
|
| You seem to imply that controversial written erotica
| shouldn't be covered by freedom of speech protections, as it
| would be in the name of protecting children. Do you think
| censoring it would reduce the incidence of child abuse? If
| so, would banning videogames like GTA reduce the incidence of
| shootings or traffic rule violations?
|
| > in my circles 'controversial sexuality' is not typical at
| all
|
| It seems like the author of the comment you're replying to
| might be in a unique position to gauge what controversial
| sexuality might be of interest to your circles even if
| yourself aren't privy to it due to its controversial nature.
| Duennepaper wrote:
| No, my argument is, that 'freedom of speech' doesn't allow
| everything as the author indicates. Thats not even
| something i have an opinion on, the law already defines
| that and i highly suspect that it falls under usa laws as
| it does for germany.
|
| Like laws going in direction of 'proection of minors'.
|
| I'm not sure if you are allowed to just put a website
| online which is advocating for pedophility (lets keep the
| extreme to simplify). But here is where youth laws require
| you to make sure kids can't access it.
|
| Same goes for GTA, you also have youth laws protecting
| them.
|
| The author is probably part of a subcultural group of
| people in their own bubble. I highly doubt that his
| experience is in any way ever statistically relevant enough
| and reaches any majority at all.
|
| And just to clarify one thing: i don't care about known
| fetishes or weird erotica. Let people read and write what
| they want but its easy to cross lines in fiction you
| wouldn't dare in real life but starting to getting used to
| the thoughts, images and ideas.
|
| How do you think would freely advocate that kids should
| express their sexuality as it is just 'normal'? Kids which
| are just playing and learning and perhaps lern to touch
| themselves as a normal growing up process or adults
| sexualising those kids? No kid needs an adult supporter to
| learn how to masturbate and there are 1000x more important
| things for people to learn like taxes before they should
| learn how to have a very diverse sex live in their adult
| life.
|
| Don't get me wrong, we do put a lot of stigma on it as a
| society but its probably better to advocate to the adults
| and not to minors at all.
|
| Clear line.
| devwastaken wrote:
| For something to be wrong you have to prove a harm.
| Limitations to speech are because the harm of that speech
| weighs more than the chilling effect of suppressing it.
|
| Fictional stories and images on the internet have no
| relationship with reality. There are no victims, there is no
| one harmed. You don't have to like the content, that is fine,
| but there is no good argument about bad morals or government
| intervention unless you're proving actual harm.
| buisi wrote:
| > the world has reached a point where it is broadly understood
| that written erotica is freedom of speech and trying to ban it
| or make it stop is pointless.
|
| Unfortunately, this isn't entirely true, even today.
|
| https://www.vice.com/en/article/3a8nv3/canadian-author-charg...
| This is the most famous recent one.
|
| https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-convicted-multiple-obscen...
| There is also a Texas Man, by the name of Thomas Arthur, who
| hosted far more disturbing things on his website who got
| convicted of obscenity.
|
| He appears to have been trafficking in obscene drawings,
| however the text material is listed as charges as well.
| nanoscopic wrote:
| Alright. This is a fair point. I go way out of my way to
| discourage underage visitors to the erotica website I run,
| and I do agree that there is tremendous sensitivity in the
| current era towards the notion of anything sexual involving
| children.
|
| Despite that, I don't think such sensitivity is unreasonable.
| I do believe that children are sexual from quite an early
| age, and that that should be accepted and encouraged from a
| sexual wellness perspective, but simultaneously I think
| children are abused very frequently even in this era and we
| should continue to do everything we can to protect them from
| abuse.
|
| I still see plenty of "stories of my childhood" on erotica
| websites, and I don't see anyone going out of their way to
| shut them down. Example: solotouch ( not my website, but a
| common example with many such stories )
|
| Another legal example that comes to mind is the man who was
| convicted for importing obscene hentai manga. I personally
| believe hentai should be considered free speech but that is
| certainly not the case in the legal arena right now.
|
| My point remains that I believe the world is very accepting
| of many types of erotica that I had previously thought would
| be highly frowned upon.
|
| I will point out that under the miller test ( the main law
| concerning this in the US ), textual material that is
| artistically meaningful as writing does not constitute
| illegal writing. I myself shy away from writing any erotica
| describing explicit sexual activity of minors, but I still
| believe it to be legal if written well enough... I does
| though fail 2 of the 3 prongs on the miller test:
|
| 1. The average person would agree that description of
| explicit child sexual activity is illegal. ( fiction wise at
| least; I think accounts of childhood activity may be deemed
| acceptable by many normal folk )
|
| 2. Description of child sexual activity is patently
| offensive.
|
| In the case of Lolita, for the most part, the book isn't
| terribly explicit in nature. It also ensures its legality by
| being an instance of well written fiction.
|
| Other applicable law is "activity contributing to the
| delinquency of minors". So, it isn't unreasonable for
| something that is otherwise legal to be illegal ( for good
| reason ) if it is used to encourage minors to engage in
| sexual activity ( with adults or for the entertainment of
| adults )
|
| Essentially, the world is very accepting of erotica in many
| forms. The world simultaneously has many laws to attempt to
| protect children while maintaining the general acceptance.
| buisi wrote:
| Some things which people write or draw are certainly
| repugnant, extremely repugnant, including some particular
| forms of hentai manga, and if someone were actually acting
| out the activities described within, then I would want them
| to go to prison for a very long time.
|
| But, committing a terrible act, and writing about it from a
| fictional perspective are completely different things. I
| don't think people are so brainless as to blindly follow
| what is happening in a hentai manga.
|
| Someone doesn't simply "become" the sort of person who
| would do that, just by consuming fictional material, and if
| they're using purely fictional material, it could be even
| argued they're actively avoiding it.
|
| The actual risk factors for abuse (and not merely creating
| / consuming prohibited content) I know of are:
|
| Some people have poor mental health. Being unable to
| express yourself and having to shut things in would not
| help. Luckily, we have many ways to improve someone's
| mental health. Mental health can also improve if someone
| has supportive friends. This could be considered the main
| factor.
|
| There are people who look for substitutes for a partner and
| unscrupulously pick that.
|
| Someone may be physically incapable of feeling anything to
| adults and only to children. A recent scientific paper said
| that some address their loneliness by creating dolls and
| talking to them to keep them company. Banning and
| prohibiting things might frustrate them, but it wouldn't
| actually solve anything, other than making it clear that
| they have nothing to lose.
|
| I am sure there are other possible factors, but I don't
| think I have ever seen "I saw it in a book" mentioned as
| one. Even Dr. Seto, who is a leading expert in this area,
| believes that those who would abuse, are those who would
| have abused either way, irregardless of this content being
| available.
| Duennepaper wrote:
| "I do believe that children are sexual from quite an early
| age, and that that should be accepted and encouraged from a
| sexual wellness perspective."
|
| wtf?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jowsie wrote:
| Did you never have a sexual feeling before you reached
| the age of consent?
| nainarb wrote:
| I did
| [deleted]
| devwastaken wrote:
| What's wtf about it? It's biologically accurate. What
| they mean is you shouldn't tell a teen that sex is bad
| and evil and their instincts for sexual contact are not
| bad and evil.
| buisi wrote:
| I agree with your points, but the wording in the post is
| very vague. If they mean teens, they should say teens
| directly, rather than using the word "children" which is
| easy to misunderstand.
| rsynnott wrote:
| The Canadian one wasn't convicted; the law was effectively
| ruled partially unconstitutional:
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/yvan-godbout-
| acquitt...
|
| That is, arguably, the system working. Unfortunately, when
| things go to court, the system working often involves people
| getting hurt.
| buisi wrote:
| From what I know, it is getting appealed to a higher court,
| so yes and no. The verdict will be in sooner or later, and
| at that point, we will know. But, I'll also argue that this
| never should have gotten to a trial, it is appalling that
| the police think this is something someone should get
| charged for to begin with.
|
| The other case is also going up for appeal, from what I've
| read, although I don't know how the higher court will
| respond to it.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| mydadgreatest wrote:
| Oh yeah? My dad built the Eiffel tower!!!!
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Lolita is supposed to be a challenging piece. In this thread
| people are discussing the details, but the way I see this and I
| hope it's supposed to be seen as is that there is a tremendous
| contrast between prose and motif. More than any other book ever
| written IMO. Prose is extraordinarily beautiful, motif is
| extraordinarily disgusting. It tears the reader apart, inside
| out. That's art.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| I would also like to tackle _Lolita_ again, possibly through an
| annotated text, but I have a particular focus: I am uneasy with
| narrator unreliability.
|
| The difficulty I have with it is that you can use it almost
| anywhere to justify anything. _Star Wars_ and _Superman_? Perhaps
| there are two Kansas farmboys named Luke and Clark next to one
| another in an asylum, living out their fantasies, and all we see
| is the fantasy they choose to relate. You can begin to cram all
| kinds of unlikely conclusions into places once you bring up the
| idea that the author is not being entirely faithful in relaying
| what has transpired to the text.
|
| As such, I would love to see if anyone has covered _Lolita_
| pointing out "Oh, but over _here_ he said something completely
| different, " because the bulk of the N.U. focus I have seen
| approaches the topic from the axiomatically assumed lack of
| culpability of Lolita herself; Humbert _must_ be lying because
| otherwise she is complicit in this part over here. I would rather
| see contradictions within the text, but I haven 't found anything
| with that kind of focus.
| nightowl_games wrote:
| Chuck Palahniuk takes this to the next level. I agree that it
| is kinda frustrating. I think of the novel then as more of a
| tour of a mind, and not as a historical record of some sequence
| of occurrences. Besides, I prefer non-fiction for the latter
| style.
| epx wrote:
| I liked Lolita because it was written from the point of view of
| the perpetrator. Can't remember many other examples - "The Scarf"
| from Robert Bloch is one. I have doubts it would be published
| nowadays, too.
| smegma2 wrote:
| Another one is The Collector by Fowles. It reminded me a lot of
| Lolita, for example in both books the narrator refuses to take
| responsibility for their actions.
| alcover wrote:
| I believe Bukowski made such a novel. Don't know the title.
| mordechai9000 wrote:
| I just reread Lolita at 45, for the first time since I was 14.
|
| I slogged through it the first time, and didn't particularly
| enjoy it. All I remember from the first reading is that HH seemed
| kind of icky. I was barely older than Delores was in the first
| half of the novel, and I didn't really understand all the
| implications. I probably skimmed a great deal of the book without
| paying attention to it. Much of the subtlety of the story and all
| of the brilliant writing went right over my head.
|
| Then I happened to pick up The Fued, about the friendship and
| subsequent falling out between Nabakov and Edmund Wilson. It
| mentioned several times that Lolita was a runaway success, and it
| made Nabakov famous.
|
| I thought there must be something more to Lolita than I
| remembered, so I picked up a copy at the library. It was a whole
| different book. This time, I found the story both riveting and
| disturbing. On the first read, I knew that what he was doing
| would be called abuse, but I didn't really understand how he took
| advantage of her trust and naivety and adolescent rebelliousness.
| Or how awful it is to dehumanize pre teen girls and characterize
| them as sexual objects called nymphets.
|
| HH claims to know that he took something irreplaceable from her
| and ruined her childhood. But - and I think this is why they say
| he is an unreliable narrator - it's not clear if he really
| believes what he's saying, or if it's a calculated ploy to garner
| sympathy.
|
| The writing is incredible. The story is troubling and
| fascinating, and stayed in my mind a long time after. RIP Delores
| Schiller.
| Bodell wrote:
| I too read this around 14 and have revisited recently at 30. I
| was most intrigued by the but I fully written sentences when I
| was younger but now I'm older see it in a much more complicated
| light. A good sort of complication.
|
| I think of Lolita as a puzzle of a story. There are quite a few
| clues that lead to a metaphor that make since of HH's
| proclamations at the end. I think Nabokov was satirizing
| himself as an artist through HH's character. This view makes
| Delores the incarnation of "art" and HH the artist. The artist
| "loves" art as it affirms his whole life and reason for being.
| He seeks to control art, own it, and manipulate it for his own
| purposes. HH does not realize till the end that art/Delores
| lives and breaths on its/her own and that this autonomy outside
| of his control is truly what makes her her and art beautiful.
| Her struggle becomes real to him in the end, even if only a
| glimpse he does to me seem to actually recognize her as
| something separate not something he owns. He sees that seeking
| to calcify art only kills what was special about it in the
| first place; something like worshiping a corpse.
|
| It reminded me of a statement David foster Wallace said once.
| (I'm paraphrasing heavily here) when I'm done with a book I'm
| dead and the book lives on through the readers. I think he was
| trying to say that he does not control the ultimate meaning of
| his own work and if he did it would be the other way around his
| book/art would be dead.
|
| Amy Hungerford has 3 lectures on Lolita this is the 2nd one
| given by a guest speaker. I suggest all of them (Hungerford is
| a great literary analyst) but this one is a compelling argument
| for the above. https://youtu.be/QPnxLNFzA8s
| grey-area wrote:
| It is a remarkable story on many levels. It's also very
| disturbing, as it manages to make you feel sympathy for an
| odious character. I did end up wondering how Nabokov could so
| completely imagine this world and this character, which was
| also troubling.
|
| I don't think anyone is ready to read this as a child, not
| because it is going to corrupt children (who are routinely
| exposed to exactly this sort of manipulation in their teen
| years), but because there are so many levels you'd miss.
|
| Truly a masterpiece, in spite of the icky subject matter, some
| parts are really dark in retrospect, but it's handled with such
| a light touch it's hard to look away.
| BayAreaEscapee wrote:
| My father reads voraciously. Whenever we talked about a book
| I was assigned in high school, he would say, "Literature is
| wasted on the young."
|
| Now I understand what he meant and I agree with him. I
| understand so much more of literature now that I am well into
| adulthood.
| jfengel wrote:
| Literature, history, and math are all wasted on the young.
| We get exposed to a lot of things that we don't understand
| and can't appreciate, in the hopes that it will click for
| us later.
|
| I honestly don't know if that really works, or if it's just
| cargo cult. I do know that I considered my English classes,
| and now I run a Shakespeare theater troupe. Much of my goal
| there is to present the Shakespeare that would have
| appealed to me at the time. I can't tell if I'm here
| because, despite, or totally disconnected from my
| education.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| Sometimes though one falls in love with these things
| young and it's a life long maturing and appreciation.
| When I re-read things I always find new things, or new
| perspectives. The nuances I understood at 25 didn't
| diminish the impact of a book on me at 15, the way
| reading it at 35 didn't make it seem like it was wasted
| on 25 year old me.
| leetcrew wrote:
| > Much of my goal there is to present the Shakespeare
| that would have appealed to me at the time.
|
| I think there's something to this idea. I remember we
| first read the apology in translation sometime in early
| highschool. everyone thought it was boring af and no one
| cared. totally different when we read it later in my
| ancient greek class. the teacher really knew how to play
| to her audience, and at every bit of (mostly
| untranslatable) wordplay she would stop to point out how
| socrates was _roasting_ his interlocutors. to be fair, it
| 's a certain kind of student that self-selects into
| highschool ancient greek, but the class definitely got a
| lot more out of it that time around. you might not like
| to teach the apology as "the story of socrates the chad",
| but you gotta meet your audience where they are.
| [deleted]
| mbg721 wrote:
| I wonder sometimes if high-school English classes should
| use mid-level literary works for training, and leave the
| best ones to be appreciated later.
| grey-area wrote:
| I think it's good to be exposed to them and at least
| aware of them as you grow up.
|
| Certain things like Shakespeare I'd contend will appeal
| at least on a surface level to children too. Something
| like Lolita not so much.
| javajosh wrote:
| The median age of working adults is probably around 40 or
| so, including those who's job it is to evaluate literature
| for use in schools. So it makes sense that you'd appreciate
| their choices more when you turn 40 or so.
|
| This is an interesting situation, because it creates a
| reading list that is a "projected aspiration". We hope, I
| guess, that kids will read precociously. Education is,
| after all, the teaching of civilization's most important
| messages compressed into a fixed, very short time-span.
| School gets kids "caught up" on the civilizational
| conversations about things. But so much of the art and
| literature of humanity is like Lolita, in that it requires
| lots of actual living to appreciate (unlike algebra), so
| its position is...odd.
|
| I wonder if, by being exposed to these things at a young
| age, we give kids a "shared coordinate system" to interpret
| and express their world, and so shape their choices in it.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| > I did end up wondering how Nabokov could so completely
| imagine this world and this character, which was also
| troubling.
|
| As a writer, I have an extremely vivid imagination. Same with
| my friends who are writers. We all joke that our Google
| searches have us on every FBI watchlist that exist and a few
| that don't.
|
| The same goes with many artists. Embracing creativity
| involves some degree of getting rid of self-censorship.
|
| I can imagine entire worlds of horrible things. In my head, I
| can examine human nature unbound by cultural norms, design
| whole societies based on different rules.
|
| There is an unfortunate belief that a person's writing is
| representative of their personal beliefs and moral codes.
| Such things influence someone's writing, of course, but
| you're examine things from the wrong direction if you try to
| apply the writing back to the author.
| grey-area wrote:
| Have you read this book?
|
| Every reader has their own interpretation of a text and the
| author's intent. Personally, looking back on Lolita I can
| say I'm a little uncomfortable with the level of empathy
| and identification the writer shows with Humbert Humbert,
| but I know the intention is to discomfit the reader by
| making them identify with a horrible character, so...
| slibhb wrote:
| > I know the intention is to discomfit the reader by
| making them identify with a horrible character, so...
|
| That's not the intent of the author. Nabokov has
| absolutely no moral or social points to make.
|
| I didn't realize this until I read Eugene Onegin, which I
| take as the genesis of Nabokov's general perspective.
| Onegin is funny and ironic while still being emotionally
| affecting. Nabokov is much more in the "art for art's
| sake" camp than most people today are comfortable with.
| grey-area wrote:
| Can you recommend a good english translation? I've always
| wanted to read that poem.
|
| But, you're citing a book by Pushkin (or the anti-hero
| within?) as illustrative of Nabokov's worldview? While he
| affected amused disdain I think Nabokov did care about
| the world. Doesn't Onegin too?
|
| I think it's hard to square writing a book about a
| manipulative child abuser with being utterly
| disinterested in moral or social issues, because the book
| probes deeply into both (even if it is a little
| fantastical and hyper-real). I agree Nabokov has a very
| dry, aristocratic and distant style, but he wouldn't
| write about such things if he didn't want to provoke
| debate. Art has meaning and his has a lot more depth than
| surface. His position is of course very ambiguous but
| there is a lot of empathy for Humbert in Lolita, which is
| partly why it is so entrancing and discomfiting.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| Looks like James Falen manages to preserve the feel of
| orgiginal rythm. Also Kozlov(1998) is close. You can
| check others by yourself there:
|
| English Versions of Pushkin's Eugene Onegin:
| https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/pml1/onegin/
|
| It's hard to tell which one is the best, because I do not
| like the original ... too boring.
|
| I've tried it again today and it's boring again but today
| I have found that a few primitive tricks were used many
| times when rythm doesn't work.
|
| I think the common view about beauty of the poem is
| greatly exaggerated.
| grey-area wrote:
| Thanks. Just found Nabokov's too, which looks interesting
| but ungainly (atypical for him).
| slibhb wrote:
| I read James Falen's translation, which I thought was
| great. I don't speak Russian though so who knows.
|
| > But, you're citing a book by Pushkin (or the anti-hero
| within?) as illustrative of Nabokov's worldview? While he
| affected amused disdain I think Nabokov did care about
| the world. Doesn't Onegin too?
|
| That's my view, yeah. The figure here is the disaffected
| noble (or intellectual) who disdains society, creates his
| own values, and eventually tragically fails partly
| because he can't totally leave society behind. I think
| Nabokov loves those characters. I don't think he's
| criticizing them.
|
| I am of course not saying you have to agree with Nabokov.
| [deleted]
| grey-area wrote:
| _That 's my view, yeah. The figure here is the
| disaffected noble (or intellectual) who disdains society,
| creates his own values, and eventually tragically fails
| partly because he can't totally leave society behind. I
| think Nabokov loves those characters. I don't think he's
| criticizing them._
|
| Yes I agree he probably would have loved a character like
| that, though I think part of the attraction is the
| recognition of their inevitable tragic end (with the
| implicit recognition that they are mistaken about the
| world).
|
| Humbert of course is not in that mould (or not entirely),
| and I'm not saying Nabokov would be so crass as to write
| himself into Humbert, but he shows a lot of sly sympathy
| for him in Lolita, and his other books also show a
| preoccupation with transgressive sexuality in children
| (Ada), it's a weird obsession.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Many people make the mistake of thinking empathy and
| understanding are equivalent to sympathy and support.
|
| Art (big A) is designed to make you feel and think. It is
| an experience.
| whateveracct wrote:
| when a story stays with you like this, you know there's
| something to it.
|
| all my favorite films and books had me thinking about them
| months after the fact. even if it was just one part.
| tdalaa wrote:
| Really interesting read! Highly recommended!
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| what? the book, the lithub article or your comment?
| deepbow wrote:
| I know it's not the article title but that title is not what the
| article is about, and the interesting part is the author's own
| story.
| PhilosAccnting wrote:
| I'm absolutely convinced that censorship takes one of two forms:
|
| 1. Cut out things, overstepping and taking some of the best that
| humanity has to offer. 2. Avoid cutting out things, leaving many
| people offended for a wide variety of possible reasons.
|
| The reason I believe Lolita is being questioned is because the
| pendulum has swung too far toward Type 1. The entire _idea_ of a
| free society, though, is predicated on lots more Type 2.
|
| Thus, I believe Western society is unsustainable as it stands.
| We'll either see much more censorship in the coming years, or a
| company/government will face such a huge public backlash on their
| censoring that the trend reverses course.
| xwolfi wrote:
| Lolita is only subversive for elderly church going moms who
| understand a man is subverting a child, anyway.
|
| I remember it as a lesson on self-control, child mindset (they
| are in a phase where they can manipulate dishonestly but also
| quickly move on like nothing has consequences), a road trip of
| the US, a lesson on obsessive passion, on one-sided escalation
| of obsession.
|
| I read it on the advice of my dad around 16, and I had to admit
| this was absolute beauty, the main character being French like
| me helped also. There is nothing to censor, there is nothing to
| discuss: it can be read by children as a warning, it can be
| read by teenagers as a disturbing challenge, it can be read by
| adults as entertainment.
|
| Only in the US do people discuss these things like it's a big
| deal, it's just the story of a lost man who got manipulated by
| a airhead child and fell in a criminal trap of his own making
| to end up with absolutely nothing to show for.
|
| BTW western society doesn't exist. Americans should stop using
| this word to describe their own ways. We don't, everywhere west
| of China, agree on the definition of what is proper, what is
| censorship, what is society and how being west of China should
| impact how we group with others. So American society is
| unsustainable, but I'd like to argue that French society has an
| opinion on the balance of such things that works for us. It
| involves teaching limits openly and early, embrace free
| expression is a fantasy and explain why, and not shy away from
| re-discussing each instance of each issue together and
| publicly.
| prennert wrote:
| I have not read the novel, but put it on my reading list a few
| days back when I discovered it in the best reads list of "The
| complete Review" [1], which in turn I discovered via the
| excellent Conversations with Tyler [2] podcast which I started
| listening to in order a week or two back. I discovered this in a
| roundabout way via Hackernews (was mentioned in unrelated linked
| posts multiple times lately)
|
| Why this comment? If you don't know, please check out the
| fantastic Conversations with Tyler podcast. And if you are
| looking for a very diverse, entertaining and informative podcast,
| try it.
|
| Also the "Complete Review". Wow what a website! Proper 90s feel
| and still delivering value. If you think Lolita is one of the
| best books to read, you are probably having a similar taste and
| the reviews might work for you.
|
| [1] https://www.complete-review.com/reviews/nabokovv/lolita1.htm
| [2] https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/
| nxpnsv wrote:
| What a terrible cookie consent from
| dang wrote:
| " _Please don 't complain about website formatting, back-button
| breakage, and similar annoyances. They're too common to be
| interesting. Exception: when the author is present. Then
| friendly feedback might be helpful._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| pixelpoet wrote:
| It should be illegal to have these giant lists without a single
| opt out all button.
|
| If they make a cent from users who visit but then leave when
| they see this giant form, they should be fined into a smoking
| hole the ground.
| nxpnsv wrote:
| Yup, this is completely wrong with gpdr
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Consent should be opt in with everything disabled by default.
| If it is not then it is not compliant with GDPR so you can
| report this.
| solarkraft wrote:
| They are, according to the GDPR. For some reason it's just
| not properly enforced (see the sad state at
| https://enforcementtracker.com/).
|
| What's particularly funny about this form is that the
| "legitimate interests" they claim, meaning they don't require
| consent, can be disabled.
|
| Luckily uBlock Origin blocks the stupid form along with 44
| other elements.
| fifilura wrote:
| I suspect they copied the implementation from the cookie
| consent game without understanding it was satire.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26511997
| nxpnsv wrote:
| Haha, yes, that would be one level up...
| [deleted]
| Black101 wrote:
| You should enable EasyList Cookie filters if you are using
| uBlock Origin.
| stonesweep wrote:
| I just learned of this thanks to the other HN post
| yesterday(?) and turned it on, with it enabled and visiting
| the site in this post (multiple times just to be sure) I get
| no cookies at all saved from them, as well as no "accept our
| cookies" popups. I'm sold.
| mellosouls wrote:
| Actual title:
|
| _How Would the Publishing World Respond to Lolita Today?_
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| the responses here would have been influenced by the difference
| in message. perhaps even act as proof for what the title claims
| ;)
| Animats wrote:
| It's hard to imagine someone reviving _Gigi_ [1] today. That
| was a Broadway musical (1973) and a movie (1958).
|
| "Thank Heaven For Little Girls: [2]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigi_%28musical%29
|
| [2] https://youtu.be/2TqSyvdqn9c
| mod wrote:
| And per the link, it was revived in 2015.
| Animats wrote:
| In a "squeaky cleaned up" version.[1] "Gigi is now 18, not
| 15. (And played by Vanessa Hudgens, age 26 at the time.)
| ... Recall Maurice Chevalier, playing the narrator, the
| suave silver fox Honore Lachaille, singing "Thank Heaven
| for Little Girls" as he strolls through the Bois de
| Boulogne, eyeing young girls romping in the park. ... No
| doubt leading the list of Ms. Thomas's chores was removing
| this song from the mouth of an elderly gentleman. It has
| now been cleverly bleached of lechery, reassigned to two
| female characters, Gigi's grandmother, Mamita (Victoria
| Clark), and her Aunt Alicia (Dee Hoty), becoming an
| innocuous elegy for the fleeting nature of young girlhood."
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/theater/vanessa-
| hudgens-i...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-20 23:02 UTC)