When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
scroll.in
When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#2No post body was provided.
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#3> The book is certainly not pornographic in the normal sense of the word. It is, as I have said, a serious book, seriously written.
> In this note, Nehru also pointed out that he would not hesitate to ban horror comics or books that deal with sex and crime and have no literary merit.
> In the end, Nehru favoured the release of the stock withheld by the Customs
> This case not only demonstrates Nehru’s sensitivity and open-mindedness, but is also a rare example of statesmanship, where the prime minister himself read a book in question to decide whether it should be censored.
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#4I’ve tried to read Lolita a few times, and have never made it through. Between the turgid prose, the abominably horrible narrator, and the pedophilia, I simply lack the endurance and interest.
My daughter had to finish it for a uni project and she confirmed for me that the depressingly boring tone continued to the morally inadequate end.
I’ve read a few of the “greatest” books of the last 200 years and simply cannot fathom how this one was so well received.
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#5I’ve tried to read Lolita a few times, and have never made it through. Between the turgid prose, the abominably horrible narrator, and the pedophilia, I simply lack the endurance and interest. My daughter had to finish it for a uni project and she confirmed for me that the depressingly boring tone continued to the morally inadequate end. I’ve read a few of the “greatest” books of the last 200 years and simply cannot…
Perhaps, one has to realize that the artistry here is clever cloaking of the most repugnant motif with the equal and the opposite - utterly beautiful prose that captivates the mind. So, in a way, Nobokov masterfully created this intense tension in the reader between the foreground and the background. If this book was a painting, it'd be right up there with Hieronymus Bosch[1], visually the most contrasting thing one can imagine.
I can see why some people "don't get it", may be there is more to it. This is my interpretation atleast and I personally think Lolita deserves its reputation as one of the greatest books ever written.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Bosch#/media/File:T...
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#6I’ve tried to read Lolita a few times, and have never made it through. Between the turgid prose, the abominably horrible narrator, and the pedophilia, I simply lack the endurance and interest. My daughter had to finish it for a uni project and she confirmed for me that the depressingly boring tone continued to the morally inadequate end. I’ve read a few of the “greatest” books of the last 200 years and simply cannot…
I, too, failed to finish Lolita. The prose is interesting, but I just couldn't get into the story.
I'm sure I'll be derided for this, but I think a good alternative that you might want to consider is Perfume by Suskind. It has a similar over-the-top style of prose, but it was very enjoyable to me and it had an interesting story. Only the ending was a bit strange, but it was well worth my time.
Give it a shot!
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#7I’ve tried to read Lolita a few times, and have never made it through. Between the turgid prose, the abominably horrible narrator, and the pedophilia, I simply lack the endurance and interest. My daughter had to finish it for a uni project and she confirmed for me that the depressingly boring tone continued to the morally inadequate end. I’ve read a few of the “greatest” books of the last 200 years and simply cannot…
It is easy for me to understand just about any criticism of Lolita, but “turgid“ prose? In my mind it is one of the most beautifully written books in the history of modern English. That makes the book profoundly troubling for me, although of course I feel that no books should be banned for any reason.
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#8I’ve tried to read Lolita a few times, and have never made it through. Between the turgid prose, the abominably horrible narrator, and the pedophilia, I simply lack the endurance and interest. My daughter had to finish it for a uni project and she confirmed for me that the depressingly boring tone continued to the morally inadequate end. I’ve read a few of the “greatest” books of the last 200 years and simply cannot…
Perhaps, one has to realize that the artistry here is clever cloaking of the most repugnant motif with the equal and the opposite - utterly beautiful prose that captivates the mind. So, in a way, Nobokov masterfully created this intense tension in the reader between the foreground and the background. If this book was a painting, it'd be right up there with Hieronymus Bosch[1], visually the most contrasting thing one…
I like your take. I agree about the status of the novel: it’s taken a permanent place as one of the supreme artistic monuments in the history of the English language. Like much of Nabokov’s work, Lolita is in part a puzzle, with traps set for the hasty reader. It may not be about what it seems to be about.
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#9Quite interesting to frame this one person's censorship power, deciding what a billion people can or cannot read, as 'a rare example of statesmanship'.
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#10I’ve tried to read Lolita a few times, and have never made it through. Between the turgid prose, the abominably horrible narrator, and the pedophilia, I simply lack the endurance and interest. My daughter had to finish it for a uni project and she confirmed for me that the depressingly boring tone continued to the morally inadequate end. I’ve read a few of the “greatest” books of the last 200 years and simply cannot…
I'm not sure we've read the same book if someone considers Lolita 'depressingly boring' in tone. The book is full of sly and dark humor and at times satirical, Nabokov has a lot of fun with language (in particular ambiguous puns), addresses the reader directly, and so on.
One of the central points of the book is that art and fiction deals with the imagination and the aesthetic (mirrored in the fantasy or fairy tale like descriptions of landscapes in the book), and that moralizing has no place in it. This idea that novels need a moral end, or that the protagonist needs to be either moral or disowned that has become so commonplace is just an absolutely annoying feature of a puritan culture.