/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18470880]

How did the interpretations of this book change so drastically? It went from
>"In 1958, Dorothy Parker described the novel as "the engrossing, anguished story of a man, a man of taste and culture, who can love only little girls" and Lolita as "a dreadful little creature, selfish, hard, vulgar, and foul-tempered".[28] In 1959, novelist Robertson Davies wrote that the theme of Lolita is "not the corruption of an innocent child by a cunning adult, but the exploitation of a weak adult by a corrupt child. This is no pretty theme, but it is one with which social workers, magistrates and psychiatrists are familiar."
to
>"In 2008, an entire book was published on the best ways to teach the novel in a college classroom given that "its particular mix of narrative strategies, ornate allusive prose, and troublesome subject matter complicates its presentation to students".[47] In this book, one author urges teachers to note that Dolores' suffering is noted in the book even if the main focus is on Humbert. Many critics describe Humbert as a rapist, notably Azar Nafisi in her best-selling Reading Lolita in Tehran"

[Anonymous No.18470921]

Is that a cunny or a brain?

[Anonymous No.18470939]

>>18470921
coombrain

[Anonymous No.18471047]

>>18470880
>caring about a woman's opinion about literature for anything other than attaining sexual gratification
Filtered

[Anonymous No.18471089]

>>18471047
>Not taking a woman in real life and destroying her with coercive control until her opinion is yours
>Not forcing your choice of texts into her tiny mind which can't accomodate such girthy tomes until the seminal text and blood of effort pour out of her small internal space
>Not writing an account of the same, deleting every aspect of her identity, including her name, while protesting that you love her deeply
>Not being blind in your diarised account to a Mid Western University scholar scamming on your Hegel Bitch as you go on an epic road trip to avoid arrest for coercive control
>Not raping the fuck out of a sick child in hospital the night that Quilty steals her
>Being absolutely blind to Lolita's agency as a person, even as a child sex abuse victim, in that she has repeatedly chosen *how* she will be raped even as she has no control over being raped

>CAMP CLIMAX

Not caring about a woman's opinion about literature *in order* to attain sexual gratification, while obliterating the woman, the literature, and sexual gratification.

[Anonymous No.18471516]

>>18470880
>How did the interpretations of this book change so drastically?
>In 1959, novelist Robertson Davies wrote that the theme of Lolita is "not the corruption of an innocent child by a cunning adult
If he wrote that it means that "the corruption of an innocent child by a cunning adult" was already a common interpretation back then and he was going against the grain.

[Anonymous No.18471560]

>>18470880
>little girl bad
>big man bad
why do moralfags always get filtered

[Anonymous No.18471573]

>>18470880
Holy fuck, has any book gotten worse covers than Lolita?

[Anonymous No.18471673]

>>18470880
It wasnt as taboo back then, so people were more likely to take Humbert's account for what was happening as accurate. I would say the newer view is the correct interpretation. Nabokov intended Humbert as a cruel man giving a distorted view of what was happening, and that the discerning reader would be ablse to see through his distortions.

[Anonymous No.18471784]

>>18471673
>It wasnt as taboo back then
>Eventually, at the very end of 1955, Graham Greene, in the London Sunday Times, called it one of the three best books of 1955.[38] This statement provoked a response from the London Sunday Express, whose editor John Gordon called it "the filthiest book I have ever read" and "sheer unrestrained pornography".[39] British Customs officers were then instructed by the Home Office to seize all copies entering the United Kingdom.[40] In December 1956, France followed suit, and the Minister of the Interior banned Lolita;[41] the ban lasted for two years. Its eventual British publication by Weidenfeld & Nicolson in London in 1959 was controversial enough to contribute to the end of the political career of the Conservative member of parliament Nigel Nicolson, one of the company's partners.[42]
uh-huh

[Anonymous No.18472002]

>>18471784
the sexual nature was taboo, not the age

[Anonymous No.18472346]

>>18471516
this. The common interpretation has always been that Dolores was the victim, but the book was released during the sexual liberation movement and there were forces openly at work trying to legalize child rape. Trying to change the identity of the perp in a story about the subject was meant to help degrade society further in their desired direction.

[Anonymous No.18472665]

>>18472346
your jpg image reminds me of my age
>1 guy 1 jar
fun fact: he was dead silent during the whole ordeal because he had a wife/kids in the other rooms

[Anonymous No.18472707]

>>18472002
What does that even mean? To fuck a child was the taboo, not to be a child? Why do brainlet retards who are wrong never have the grace to accept it, rather than always doubling down with an even more stupid take. Zoomer fuck heads like yoi are really sickening.

[Anonymous No.18472708]

>>18472665
I remember him on 99chan when he did it the first time, and the second time. To this day I am uncomfortable going down the pickle isle at the grocery store.

[Anonymous No.18472713]

>>18472708
He did it twice? As in broken twice

[Anonymous No.18472716]

>>18472707
He is saying it would have been seen as just as filthy if she had been 40 years old. You really are dense.

[Anonymous No.18472730]

>>18472713
Yes, second time the rag under the jar is red, like red from the blood from the first time. I somewhat suspect even the first time was not his first, he is just too calm while he pulls the shards out and he makes sure to keep everything in frame.

[Anonymous No.18472735]

>>18472716
Obviously retarded take. You live in a phantasy world where a grown man having an affair with a child was not taboo in the 50s. Get professional help, I am sure your local imam can give you guidance.

[Anonymous No.18472747]

>>18472735
All I did was translate English to moron, never said I agreed with it.

[Anonymous No.18472834]

>>18470880
To quote Trans activist Alok Vaid-Menon:
>"There are no princesses. Little girls are also kinky. You're kids aren't as straight and narrow as you think."
This isn't some wild remark, it's the consensus.

[Anonymous No.18472841]

>>18472834
>your

[Anonymous No.18473000]

>>18470880
I can think of two reasons:

1) Empathy has been centralized within criticism and there's now a right kind of empathy (i.e. social justice ideology has been corrupting literary criticism for decades; interpretations have become cruder and less original).
2) Humbert was shocking not because he does terrible things but because of who he is as a person. He isn't a crude pervert...he's a highly educated and sensitive man who happens to also be a sexual predator. He's a basket of characteristics the elite respect (reflection of literary types).

Add those two together and you get the original urge toward distancing/condemning Humbert but less creative ways to do so. The 1958/59 interpretations were simplified, but honest, hot takes while the one from 2008 distances itself using technical jargon and implied virtue signaling within an accepted rubric.

[Anonymous No.18473096]

Phillip Cole's The Myth of Evil (2006) and Marjorie Heins' Not in Front of the Children (2001) propose a non-puritanical take on child-to-child and child-to-adult relationships (similar to Kathryn Laity's The Case for Terry Gilliam’s Tideland) with regard to adult consumption (also, see Milton Diamond on recidivism rates for pedophiles/child molesters given possession of child abuse material). Children are regularly exposed to, and internalize, both Objectification (Berger) and the Male Gaze (Mulvey). Hence the kinky comment by ALOK.

[Anonymous No.18473163]

>>18472834
>>18473000
>>18473096
The West now has the choice between you pedophiles and Nazism.

We're not going to choose you.

[Anonymous No.18473177]

>>18473163
You're confusing a summary for advocacy. Don't do that.
https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/11/twitter-has-the-most-child-abusive-content-out-of-all-social-media-platforms-report.html?m=1

[Anonymous No.18473200]

>>18473163
>not picking the chad nazi pedophiles over the moralist sjw victim machine
ngmi

[Anonymous No.18473222]

>>18470880
Its almost like a series of real world events affected the way we treat and view taboos

[Anonymous No.18473247]

>>18473222
What events (genuine question)? I would argue that since May of 1968, the popularization of pedophilia chic (Mary Eberstadt) in the entertainment sector has been fairly linear. See >>18473096

[Anonymous No.18473588]

>>18472834
Yes that’s true. And adults or adolescents still shouldn’t fuck latent stage children.

[Anonymous No.18473695]

>>18473163
If you think >>18473000 is advocating pedos, you're a retard. Work on your reading comprehension before your next post or better yet, go back to /pol.

[Anonymous No.18473745]

>>18473000
Very good post. And checked.

[Anonymous No.18473911]

>>18473000
this, its funny how "based and redpilled" people itt are literally on sjw's side lmao

[Anonymous No.18473933]

>>18472665
>a wife/kids in the other rooms

[Anonymous No.18473943]

>>18470880
>How did the interpretations of this book change so drastically?
Short answer: the Jew.
Long answer: also the Jew.

[Anonymous No.18473955]

>>18472665
>reminds me of my age
How long as it been, anon? I remember 1G1J, it doesn't seems that long ago

[Anonymous No.18474093]

>>18473943
Girodias?

[Anonymous No.18474216]

>>18470880
I wanted to say liberalism but really it's society neutralizing it. That's it.

[Anonymous No.18474540]

hell yeah, a lolita 1g1j crossover episode
finally a good thread on /lit/

[Anonymous No.18474775]

How many of you fucks are libertarians? Spill it

[Anonymous No.18474928]

>>18473745
I didn't emphasize a key point though. Criticism used to be a jumping-off point for further discussion and ideas. What you were able to say about a book said a lot about your ability to appreciate it and can be esteemed as a means to guide others to a greater appreciation as well. However, the climate we're in, and the way things have been moving for some time, emphasizes not what you can say about a book but how what you say demarcates your place within the boundaries of acceptable "progressive" thought. Sure, there's always been boundaries one would operate in in order to be on the same page as others; but I don't buy the idea that the current culture is the same in the sense that there's just more respect for how honorable the path we're on supposedly is (i.e. it feels much more malevolent and something that's been insidiously growing for quite a while).

>>18473911
I'm not sure what you mean. I think there's a good mix of people /lit. Compared to other boards, there seem to be more people on here who are sympathetic to identity politics (and endorse the fact that it has centred itself within both political and academic culture in the West). However, I'm wondering how what you said highlights the idea that the political left tends to eat itself (e.g. attacking writers like J.K. Rowling and Margarate Atwood for being TERFs when the later was literally the poster child for Feminism and leftwing branded (Canadian) nationalism (i.e. anti-Americanism)).

[Anonymous No.18475461]

>>18474928
No war but the class war mate. Atwood is a liberal and not my comrade. Etc. You forget just how left the Overton window is here.