Mike C

That's pretty harsh, and inaccurate. You obviously haven't read much, if any. In fact it's only really the 'chick-lit' label that's degrading, as most is about empowering, not degrading, women.

If you want to see just how good - and dark - 'chick lit' can be (although I think Martha would string me up for referring to it as such) then I'd urge you to read 'The Bitch Goddess Posse' (Bitch Goddess Diary in the UK) by Martha O'Connor. It'll change how you think about the genre. I promise.

As for me, I'll read anything; I'm a book junkie. Through choice I wouldn't read any more high fantasy or space opera, Patterson or Clancy, King or Archer, but if there's nothing else available, who knows?

Then you should read it. Books that disturb are books that stimulate thought.

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

raymondstary

"The Awakening" by Kate Chopin. It's not literature, it's crap. The symbolism is trite and the characters unsympathetic.

raymondstary

Yeah, but the thought is: "Ewwww."

Mike C

Then read it. You're thinking the wrong thought.

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

Shawn

I agree... Lolita isn't about pedophilia, it's about the character.

__________________
I have had a spider-tea free morning, thank you very much.

Stewart

I'll be third in favour of Lolita. It's not about paedophila. It's all about the language. That's all that should matter.

As for me, I'm not likely to read fantasy or sci-fi. I may, on occasion, lightly dabble, but I'm in no way getting involved in forty book series that go nowhere. Horror, maybe. But those years are well behind me now. In fact, when it boils down to it, I'm not likely to visit any genre section of a bookshop. So no crime, no thrillers, no romance. And no children's books, despite my current reading of the His Dark Materials trilogy which, probably backed by my disdain for fantasy, I'm finding wholly silly and lacklustre.

__________________
book reviews | world lit forum

Amour

Not sure wikipedia would do Nabokov justice, really, and when it comes down to it, what does it matter? I suggest you read "Speak, Memory", if you do so love his work, or, at the very least, pick Lolita up, and read his introduction/afterward (depending on which version you find) entitled "On a book entitled Lolita". It will rather clear up all of those preconceived notions of yours, and perhaps enable you to overcome your avoidance of a true masterpiece of language. I would highly encourage you to take the advice set forth by Mike and Stewart.. Couldn't say it better myself.

Which leads me to your next point: I did. I don't know you personally, no, you are absolutely right. My statement was rather harsh and pointed, and I apologize. I simply meant that Lolita carries, and indeed showcases, a good deal of Nabokov's main themes and messages (not to mention his absolute command over language, not English, but language in general), albeit subtly, and if you do indeed marvel at his other work, Lolita should be no different. I did not, however, compare you to &"people who wish to ban books&". I said simply that your view, on this one book, was one reason that this particular book has been banned previously; that thinking the theme is vulgar and disturbing, and putting it on your &"will never read&" list, is a more common reason for the book not being read (obviously on a personal level, but also on a more educated, but no less harmful, broad level.). No, you did not say that you wanted Nabokov, or any other author banned, but the sentiment you expressed, as I have already explained, leads to this particular book being banned. I meant no great insult, and I again offer my apologies. I do feel rather strongly on the topic, and simply wish for you to read Lolita, and judge for yourself if it is indeed &amp"disgusting&". You may find it's quite the opposite. I'm not sure the last bit of your reply was necessary, but I will certainly take it under consideration.

Edgewise

Apology accepted. My passions can become quite inflamed when I feel I am being attacked, and I apologize as well for the comment near the end of my post. Of course, I can see your point of view about book bannings, and how it relates to "Lolita". I don't think it should be banned any more than you do, and, given the reactions to my post, perhaps I should reconsider my bias against this particular novel. Nonetheless, despite Nabokov's brilliant prose, I still find it difficult to reconcile my feelings about his writing with the subject of "Lolita", charecter study or not. Oh well. The future will tell.

__________________
How can you expect a man who's warm to understand a man who's cold?
- Solzhenitsyn "Ivan Denisovich"

Kyrie

"Catcher in the Rye" I know some consider it a classic, but I just can't read it, I read the first few pages and I have to close it.

"Of Mice and Men" was also horrible, but I had a test on that one...

__________________

Amour

apology accepted, likewise. Though I don't know you personally, I do rather like what I know of you, and enjoy reading your posts..

That's what I like to hear.. I truly do think you will enjoy it. I openly admit, I had the same reconciliatory reluctance in the back of my mind, but I think that's part of the experience. I don't believe that was unintentional. And I truly do recommend reading "On a book entitled Lolita".. This is the best link I can find : Rad Geek People’s Daily 2006-04-01 – Over My Shoulder #17: Vladimir Nabokov on a book entitled Lolita (1956), but it's less than half of the essay, and does not contain the part that nails what we are discussing on the head. Maybe I'll type it out later, if I have the time, if you would be at all interested, and if I would be doing so legally (Would posting the essay with full credit to Nabokov be in violation of copyright or anything?). Anyway, "aesthetic bliss" really is the only appropriate description. More later, I've got to run for now.

Stewart

The thing is, you seem to think the subject is paedophilia in Lolita. Without reading the book you can never know what angle Nabokov takes on the subject and you are just left spouting stuff that has no substance since it isn't formed from experience of the text. It's not about paedophilia. I would say that Humbert Humbert is more of an ephebophile than a paedophile. But what marks the difference between Humbert Humbert and those perverts lurking in the community just waiting to pounce on kids (as the papers would have you believe) is that he loves his Lolita. It's a love story, pure and simple. And let's not go thinking she's innocent.

__________________
book reviews | world lit forum

Mike C

It is, and it's not. It's as much about the shifting of power from one to another as a love story. It's about so much that has little to do with sex or paedophilia and so much to do with the power of love and how it can corrupt.

Damn, it was so long ago I read it... need to go read it again. Damn.

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

Amour

Spot on, as always.

Amour

Spot on, as always.

Edgewise

Although I already clarified my feelings on this issue, I would like to respond to this comment in particular:

"you are just left spouting stuff that has no substance since it isn't formed from experience of the text"

Do you have tastes in what you read, good sir? I am sure you do. Have you read every book out there? I am sure you have not. When purchasing novels, often all we have to go by is hearsay, experience, and reading the often brief and admitedly crappy summeries on the back of the book. Don't tell me I am ignorant simply because I am going by A: Instinct and B: Hearsay. I am sure you harbor your own biases about particular genres or novels which you haven't read. Don't clobber me with self righteous bullshit when we are all in the same boat.

__________________
How can you expect a man who's warm to understand a man who's cold?
- Solzhenitsyn "Ivan Denisovich"