Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

scroll.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#51

Post by neild »

skybrian wrote: post #47
nineplay wrote: post #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 tha…

It's been a long time since I read it, but my impression at the time was that it spent way too much time dwelling on an unpleasant subject, and that one line showing that the author knows what he's doing doesn't redeem it. I came away rather mystified: what's the point of spending so much time in this character's head?

One thing I find fascinating about Lolita is that it is a study in erasure. Society so often tends to erase the victim while giving the abuser a voice, especially when the victim is a child or otherwise powerless and the abuser is powerful and articulate. Lolita gives us a narrative entirely under the control of the abuser and challenges the reader to see through it to the Dolores Haze underneath. Exercising this skill in fiction may encourage us to equally avoid an unquestioning reading of real abusers exculpatory narratives.

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#53

Post by unmole »

hegemon8 wrote: post #52
unmole wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please educate me. Who were this mysterious others?

(1)PV Narasimha Rao (2)Atal Bihari Vajpayee

For PV Narasimha Rao, I can still buy the argument that he set off on dismantling the Licence Raj. What exactly did Vajpayee achieve that came anywhere close? Deciding to go nuclear?

Nevertheless, I don't see how either of them can be considered to have equalled Nehru. For one he remains the longest serving PM during the most transformative period of modern India. During Nehru's term India went from having to import even cars to building jet fighters.

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#54

Post by skybrian »

neild wrote: post #51
skybrian wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been a long time since I read it, but my impression at the time was that it spent way too much time dwelling on an unpleasant subject, and that one line showing that the author knows what he's doing doesn't redeem it. I came away rather mystified: what's the point of spending so much time in this character's head?

One thing I find fascinating about Lolita is that it is a study in erasure. Society so often tends to erase the victim while giving the abuser a voice, especially when the victim is a child or otherwise powerless and the abuser is powerful and articulate. Lolita gives us a narrative entirely under the control of the abuser and challenges the reader to see through it to the Dolores Haze underneath. Exercising this ski…

This seems like a “what if the author is playing 3D chess” kind of excuse. When there’s enough game playing going on, it becomes a Rorschach test where there’s evidence to support multiple fan theories. Like, what if all the intellectual sophistication is a smokescreen for something else?

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#55

Post by archon1410 »

GeorgeBanica wrote: post #50
PeterWhittaker wrote: post #4

I’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…

>morally inadequate end Should books only be morality tales, where Good always vanquishes Evil in the end?

I would be okay even if the evil won, that happens often. but there is something sinister when the book seems to not portray as evil, what is evil, or glorifies it. would you really want the glorified protagonist going around murdering, oppressing, being racist, etc etc with no indication that there's anything wrong with it? whether the book being discussed does so, is a different debate.

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#56

Post by hunter-2 »

newyankee wrote: post #49
haltingproblem wrote: post #34

This 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…

Vijaylaxmi Pandit was the same person who took ahead Nehru's ideas of Hindi - Chini bhai bhai (Indians and Chinese are brothers) when China never reciprocated and instead backstabbed India. Some of Nehru's notable achievements: 1. Not moving fast enough on Kashmir issue after instrument of accession signed by Maharaj Harisingh. If not for Sardar Patel, there would have been multiple festering issues with other areas…

Wish we scrutinized our living leaders as much as we scrutinize those long dead and gone

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#57

Post by turboponyy »

skybrian wrote: post #54
neild wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I find fascinating about Lolita is that it is a study in erasure. Society so often tends to erase the victim while giving the abuser a voice, especially when the victim is a child or otherwise powerless and the abuser is powerful and articulate. Lolita gives us a narrative entirely under the control of the abuser and challenges the reader to see through it to the Dolores Haze underneath. Exercising this ski…

This seems like a “what if the author is playing 3D chess” kind of excuse. When there’s enough game playing going on, it becomes a Rorschach test where there’s evidence to support multiple fan theories. Like, what if all the intellectual sophistication is a smokescreen for something else?

Perhaps even 5D chess with multiverse time travel (https://store.steampowered.com/app/1349230/5D_Chess_With_Mul...).

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#58

Post by scotty79 »

3flp wrote: post #29

"Karaka explained that the book glorified a sexual relationship..." This is the issue. And a misunderstanding. That's not at all how I took the book when I read it. It does not glorify anything - it is quite the opposite. What made the book an interesting read (although I have no interest in revisiting it) was the contrast between the tragedy of the story, and the playful language. The unreliable first person narrato…

> The unreliable first person narrator is trying to make himself look sympathetic to the reader, all the while confessing to all his despicable endeavors.

Do you know any other books like that? About some different topic?

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#59

Post by cinntaile »

archon1410 wrote: post #55
GeorgeBanica wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>morally inadequate end Should books only be morality tales, where Good always vanquishes Evil in the end?

I would be okay even if the evil won, that happens often. but there is something sinister when the book seems to not portray as evil, what is evil, or glorifies it. would you really want the glorified protagonist going around murdering, oppressing, being racist, etc etc with no indication that there's anything wrong with it? whether the book being discussed does so, is a different debate.

> would you really want the glorified protagonist going around murdering, oppressing, being racist, etc etc with no indication that there's anything wrong with it?

If that is what the author wanted to write then I don't have a problem with that. Not every book needs to be a story with underlying morality teachings.

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#60

Post by scotty79 »

GeorgeBanica wrote: post #50
PeterWhittaker wrote: post #4

I’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…

>morally inadequate end Should books only be morality tales, where Good always vanquishes Evil in the end?

When you read the story you kind of want it to go somewhere emotionally and morally (and in other aspects as well) when you are approaching the end.
Post reply on HN