Are there any works that are morally ambiguous or sympathetic when it comes to pedophilia?
>>8105373
>morally ambiguous
I happened to glimpse from the bathroom, through a chance
combination of mirror aslant and door ajar, a look on her face . . . that
look I cannot exactly describe . . . an expression of helplessness so
perfect that it seemed to grade into one of rather comfortable inanity just
because this was the very limit of injustice and frustration--and every
limit presupposes something beyond it--hence the neutral illumination. And
when you bear in mind that these were the raised eyebrows and parted lips of
a child, you may better appreciate what depths of calculated carnality, what
reflected despair, restrained me from falling at her dear feet and
dissolving in human tears, and sacrificing my jealousy to whatever pleasure
Lolita might hope to derive from mixing with dirty and dangerous children in
an outside world that was real to her.
HH is a horrible person who stole lolita's childhood and innocence
At every step of the novel he is just consumed by his lust, and when she gets old enough he simply doesn't find her attractive anymore. He even calls the other children "dirty and dangerous" when in fact he is the source of the danger and all of the hurt in her life. oh also kill yourself pedo scum
My diary desu senpai
Deuteronomy
>>8105373
I believe someone created a chart.
Lolita, the only book I dropped because it's too good at portraying the though of a pedo.
>>8105373
The Quran.
The mudshit's bible
>>8105509
Are you referring to this?
>>8106315
wth is that? shits retarded
Why is Lolita universally liked on /lit/?
>>8107727
Lolita is universally liked. Because it's good. The author is one of the literary giants. His prose is critically acclaimed and his themes are potent and relevant. Stop reaching for the "lit just likes it cuz pedo reasons" low-hanging fruit.
>>8107741
Why does /lit/ get weird and defensive when the question of why Lolita is universally liked on /lit/ is brought up?
>>8107741
> Low-hanging fruit
Excellent choice of words.
>>8107746
because they don't have the ability to think for themselves so instead they regurgitate vague acclimations for a book they half-read just so they can put it on their favorites lists and book shelves for proof on how intellectual they are
>>8105416
What OP means is, Nabokov counters the established idea that pedophilia is wrong with the rich, insightful narrative through Humbert's perspective. Nabokov does not 'defend' pedophilia nor does he try to mask that it is depraved. He is showing that even the worst of monsters among us are still human and have the same thoughts and emotions as we do.
>>8107741
his prose is awful and confusing,explain to me why do you think his prose is great.(or maybe you just believe in what some critic fag says and take it as the absolute truth.)
>>8107773
Awful and confusing makes great stories.
>>8107785
then I'm the next dickens motherfucker
>>8107785
not really,in lolita case it only dragged the novel around and made it boring without giving any relevant information to the reader.
Some psychology books are objective.
>>8107804
Well maybe you didn't pick up some plot clues. I'm about 100 pages in and it feels like it's kept its pace.
>>8107812
by clues you mean his stupid rambling that does nowhere?
>>8107810
If it's a science it better be objective.
>>8107815
*goes
>>8107815
Yeah exactly. Maybe it's just not the story you wanted/expected.
>>8107816
Science isn't objective.
>>8107824
i want a story wilt relevant paragraphs,not pointless drivel
>>8107852
Pleb books
>>8107840
Of course it is. If it's done right.
>>8107856
lol,so mature and refined your tastes on novels are.
>>8107868
Says the guy who doesn't understand perspective narration.
>>8107881
says the guy who thinks stupid rambles will contribute any way to the story
>>8107897
Says the guy who can't make sense of ramblings that aren't his own.
>>8107773
>his prose is awful and confusing,explain to me why do you think his prose is great
no wonder you found it awful and confusing: your own english is fucking awful.
>>8107910
ok smartass,give me a detailed explanation of why my english sucks.
>>8107921
Lol autist
>>8107923
i love when plebs resort to cheap insults
>>8107924
Snap.
Sorry,i don't understand your ramblings; They are not furthering the plot.
>>8107921
>detailed
Well, in the part of your post I green-texted, there's a comma splice, i.e. you separated two independent clauses with a comma rather than a period or conjunction, a nontrivial mistake which actually affects the cadence of the reading itself. Also, you included an unnecessary "do" in "explain to me why do you think." It should read "explain why you think." This error, in particular, I notice with a lot of non-native English speakers.
Furthermore, in >>8107868 you wrote:
>lol,so mature and refined your tastes on novels are.
First of all, the correct idiom is "taste in," not "tastes on." "In," not "on." Singular, not plural. Second of all, the syntactical construction of "so mature...your tastes are" is noticeably awkward to anyone with a reasonable grasp on English grammar. Lastly, in both posts, you failed to put spaces before and after your commas. While I acknowledge this doesn't really affect the way the posts are read, it does betray a lack of understanding of basic English language conventions.
Considering all the above, you have to forgive me for finding it a bit ridiculous that you're shitting on Lolita for having awful prose, while your understanding of the English language is so obviously lacking.
>>8107967
Omg he did it.
[Not that guy]
>>8107967
Whoops, my bad. You don't need spaces before commas. Silly me.
>>8107815
The rambling serves as characterization. Literature isn't simply about driving a plot forward. If you wanted only plot-relevant text, you'd end up with a summary.
>>8108065
>The rambling serves as characterization
anything a character says or does could count as characterization
i'm not saying you're on the wrong side, i'm just saying that stating something like its a fact doesn't make it true
>>8108090
How does what you said make what I said "untrue"?
>>8108105
Not the guy you responded to but most people look to the dialogue (or inner monologue) for the meta-narrative. I mean for most people the story of the wizard of oz isn't about a girl in another world looking for the wizard in the city of oz, it's about "there's no place like home". Plot alone wont get you there.
>>8107773
Read it aloud. It's poetry.
death in venice
>>8105373
>Lolita is morally ambiguous or sympathetic when it comes to pedophilia
>>8108443
what a cute bebe
>>8108443
Dat baby tho
>>8105373
Ask your dad
