It was banned in (at least) these 6 countries: Argentina, Canada, France, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_govern...
When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
31–40 of 71 posts
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#32Quite interesting to frame this one person's censorship power, deciding what a billion people can or cannot read, as 'a rare example of statesmanship'.
There weren’t a billion people then. Also, he didn’t have censorship power. Rather if you read the article, he convinced the people who wanted to censor it to not do so. We seem to have forgotten what statesmanship is these days. India was and is a very conservative country. For him to not do the easy thing was indeed a reflection of his character. For all his faults, he was a great leader.
[deleted]
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#33I’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…
There are many answers to why Lolita was well received by many people. (It's worth noting that it was certainly not universally well received--many, many people share your opinion of it.) One is that many of the people who like it seem not to have read it; or if they have read it, they did not understand it. Many men have described it as "a love story" or otherwise indicated that they feel the book approves of pedoph…
> Nabokov himself was a victim of childhood sexual abuse.
Is there a definite source for this? I was under the impression this was just a 'fan-theory' of sorts.
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#34This is a fluff piece on a man who was a pox on India's political development in its nascent years. Nehru in addition to being a dynast who doled out plum postings to his family and friends, Nehru was illiberal beyond belief [2]. He gave his sister Vijayalakshmi Pandit, the posting as India's Ambassador to the UN, when she had no diplomatic experience or formal education.
Wikipedia's list of banned books shows that Nehru and his daughter, Indira, were the most prolific banners of books. Nehru's reign saw over 14 books banned or roughly 1 every year. [1]
Since his daughters murder in 1984, by Sikh extremists, whose movement she had originally funded to topple rivals, the pace of banning has notably slowed down. Only 5 books were banned since 1984, 3 for critiquing Islam (including the Satanic Verses) and one for a critiquing some Hindu saints and one by Seymour Hersh, a known political conspiracy theorist.
Amazingly, no books have been banned since 2014, the year Narendra Modi took power.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_in_India
[2] https://www.firstpost.com/india/nehru-was-liberal-no-doubt-b...
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#35Quite interesting to frame this one person's censorship power, deciding what a billion people can or cannot read, as 'a rare example of statesmanship'.
The article offers a good insight of how indian bureaucracy and democracy functioned in India. Lot of representations, actual debate and discussions among the officials and the elected representative and finally a consensus. Ofcourse, Nehru was the most power man in India after Gandhi passed away. He could easily have been a dictator. But the way he nurtured indian democracy and its strong foundation is genuinely commendable.
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#36"her sobs in the night - every night, every night - the moment I feigned sleep"
Just a reminder that this is not a book 'glorifying sexual relationships'. This is not a book about a seductress. This is not a book that plays with ideas of consent.
Nabakov is playing a game with the reader, trying to trick the reader into believing that there is any truth in Humbert's narrative. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that many readers still fall for it.
It's an amazing book, one of my favorites, but it's a book that has to be read - not skimmed.
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#37I read an annotated version of Lolita. I suspect I would not have made it all the way through an unannotated version. The annotations were astonishing to me. Pointing out literary references that were either unknown to me, or that I knew but did not, on my own, connect. I missed a key plot element (being followed), that was illuminated by the annotation. I've also read erotica and a small amount of porn. IMHO, Lolita doesn't come close to being porn. It's just go too much going on _beyond_ the sexuality.
The issue of being drawn to a 12 year old is .... complex. When Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet, 13 was the age of consent, and Juliet was 13. Evolutionarily, once a woman is ovulating, I assert it's 'natural' to be attracted to her, regardless of how young she is or the age difference. BUT in a modern world, the power differential between an adult male and a 12 year old, or 14 year old (Sue Lyons was 14 when she played Lolita in the Stanley Kubrick film) is too large to condone. The potential for psychological damage to the younger person is vast. So we've made it illegal. But my sense is that it has become tarred with too broad a brush. "Unthinkable that any moral person could have these desires" seems to be the theme in much of the book-banning crowd.
And, as others have pointed out, it was rape, which is despicable, and does not 'glorify' the sexuality, but it's done in a complex (literary) way that makes it possible to miss the rape element. !!!
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#38"her sobs in the night - every night, every night - the moment I feigned sleep" Just a reminder that this is not a book 'glorifying sexual relationships'. This is not a book about a seductress. This is not a book that plays with ideas of consent. Nabakov is playing a game with the reader, trying to trick the reader into believing that there is any truth in Humbert's narrative. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising tha…
Yes, I confess I fell for it. Sigh. Good to point out.
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#39I read an annotated version of Lolita. I suspect I would not have made it all the way through an unannotated version. The annotations were astonishing to me. Pointing out literary references that were either unknown to me, or that I knew but did not, on my own, connect. I missed a key plot element (being followed), that was illuminated by the annotation. I've also read erotica and a small amount of porn. IMHO, Lolita…
[deleted]
Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've only seen the Kubrick adaptation but it was very heavily implied that the narrator is impotent. He's shown to be a character to be laughed at, nervous in his behavior, and quite hapless in romantic overtures. Contrast that with the movie Pretty Baby where the main character becomes obsessed with a 12 year old prostitute and then sleeps with her. I find that movie to be more bordering on the obscene than Lolita .
> Contrast that with the movie Pretty Baby where the main character becomes obsessed with a 12 year old prostitute and then sleeps with her. I find that movie to be more bordering on the obscene than Lolita. It surprised me to find that this movie is available on several streaming platforms. Given the content I always wonder how this works within the legal framework of the US. BTW, my take on that movie was that he a…
Brooke Shields' childhood career was very strange. It's like she was the child that America decided that it was alright to be sexually attracted to, and alright to exploit that sexuality to make money on a pretty huge scale.