[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 392 KB, 600x937, lolita-book-cover.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3974507 No.3974507 [Reply] [Original]

ITT: morals in literature

>For me, a work of fiction exists insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is in a sense of being somehow, somewhere connected with other states of being where curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstacy is the norm ~ Vlad Nabokov

Other argue that books that glorify immoral ideas should not be allowed to exist.

For instance, lolita is no doubt a phenomenal book, but it brings up some rather deplorable ideas

Can a piece of literature exist without a moral?

Please present your thoughts on the issue

>> No.3974560

>>3974507
I'd make some mention of de Sade, but the story of his I'm reading -"Eugenie de Franval"- leaves me a bit conflicted over whether its moralizing is tongue-in-cheek or actually sincere; I'm leaning towards the former.

>> No.3974581

"morals"

lol

>> No.3974606

>>3974581
Where's the lol?

>> No.3974623

>>3974606
Just before the "ita"

>> No.3974634

>>3974507
>Other argue that books that glorify immoral ideas should not be allowed to exist.

Yes, and those people are tedious faggots and best described as overweight soccer moms who spend too much time at church and who lack even a basic post-secondary education. And their European counterparts aren't much better.

If you don't like a book, don't read it.

>> No.3974639

>>3974581
>>3974606
>>3974623
HEY-OH!

>> No.3974649

actually, Lolita is one of the more moralistic books to come out of the modern period, and I like it for that.

The ending of the book is satisfying because it involves Humbert coming to a realization of his guilt.

>> No.3974663

>Can a piece of literature exist without a moral?

imo, no.
the literature that claims to be "without morality" and "art for art's sake" is just glorifying the aesthete's morality (although the aesthete would call his morality, "immorality", but nonetheless he is advocating things the same way a moralist would).

>> No.3976467

>>3974663
I agree and disagree; literature can certainly transcend didactic moralising and engage in moral ideas on a higher level, it's just that instead of directly advocating moral ideas directly you instead present a certain attitude to morality itself, one which may overcome the inherent contradictions of more naive moral approaches.

The kinds of moral attitudes encouraged by the aesthete generally involve various kind of ethical free-play, in which things like virtues and taboos are contrasted, combined or involved in dialectic sublimation. This requires that, to a certain extent:

a) The person immersed in the art work possesses some real sense of moral values, such as the belief in the worth of compassion, as otherwise they would be uninvolved in the moral dimensions thereof.

b) They are open, yet firm and strong, minded enough that they are capable of deriving pleasure from moral values being twisted, their paradoxes exposed, and gaining clearer understanding drawn out from that.

>> No.3976478

>>3974649
He's not exactly repentant though

>> No.3976580

>>3974507
The problem with and beauty of Lolita is that, despite seemingly tackling an important and controversial issue, it offered no moral lesson, it was purely aesthetic. Humbert doesn't repent and there's no suitable conclusion, but the prose is gorgeous and the characterisation wonderful.
lolita is a prime example of a book void of moral meaning, and as nabokov is shown to quote, exists solely for its well-written prose.

>> No.3976629

>>3976478
he doesn't lie about the pleasure he got, nor does he lie about the satisfaction of experience and of coming to a bigger understanding, yet he feels guilt about the damage done. don't you think that's more sincere and conscious that "I wish I hadn't done it"?

>> No.3976634

>>3976467
>"They are open, yet firm and strong [...] enough that they are capable of deriving pleasure from [...] being twisted, [...] exposed, and gaining [...] from that."
you devilish bastard. I see your hidden language

>> No.3976642

>>3976580
consequences are shown, why should Humbert repent, why is the "lack of a moral lesson" a problem anyways?