Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] OP t1_j9ec97w wrote

Reply to comment by OffensiveIdealist in Are there any books that you actually would want to see figuratively or literally burned? by [deleted]

[deleted]

−7

OffensiveIdealist t1_j9ecxkq wrote

If you don’t imagine how the author might separate what they portray and tell from what they endorse, and you can only stomach those stories which you can translate into literal ethical guidelines… Then, well, I guess you can read books about gardening

10

[deleted] OP t1_j9efekp wrote

[deleted]

−3

hearingthepeoplesing t1_j9efu9m wrote

If you were approaching Lolita expecting that it would be similar to “dark romance” that might be part of the disconnect. The point of Lolita is not the portrayal of “weird kinks” nor to show the central character as “misunderstood”. The point of the book is that it is narrated by a character who is trying to justify something that the other characters in the story, the readers and the writer find (rightly) abhorrent.

I would never suggest that people read Lolita if they are put off by the depiction of child abuse material or upset by it. If you don’t want to read content like that, then absolutely don’t. However, it does a tremendous disservice to the book to say that it’s on Humbert’s side.

10

manialikely t1_j9f2qkx wrote

How in the world did you get that Lolita was a justification of pedophilia??? Humbert is a deluded and unreliable narrator and you're supposed to be disgusted by him, that's not an endorsement of pedophilia. Nabokov was likely a survivor himself.

2

[deleted] OP t1_j9f3c7a wrote

[deleted]

1

manialikely t1_j9f4gwb wrote

I did read your comments... Humbert being an unreliable narrator was established in the first chapter, when he says he's writing to the jury... But fair enough, my bad.

1