JK Rowling, Terf author famous for writing about underage children, thinks LOLITA is a "Tragic love story" Not only is she a hateful bitch, she's a STUPID, hateful bitch.
"Lolita Podcast" is a ten episode deep dive into every echo and aspect of this book, its societal impact at the time it came out, the author's horror and amusement at people who misunderstood it, and the self report it has become.
open.spotify.com/show/4dvc06z...
I'll have to listen to it! I read Lolita in high school and once in college. It always really disturbed me how she was treated like an object and those who don't see it baffle me. Especially someone who is a WRITER.
"It's so beautiful and romantic!"
The first line of the book: "This man is a pathological liar and is in prison for confessing to horrific crimes and cannot be trusted. Sincerely, the certified medical psychologist who examined him."
I'm realizing that I just can't really explain people who have a knee-jerk emotional response to something and never examine it.
So like. Yes, I guess so?????
Also this is not a 'mysterious' Lynch-style situation where the author never explains their intent. Why not take in what Nobokov SAID?
This is a valuable observation. As someone who falls all over themselves for some incredible prose, I get that much.
I think there's also a culture thing at work. Boomers are like: any dude creepy obsessed and possessive is beautifully in love.
And millennials etc. are like: ... No.
The interesting thing about Lolita is the fact a bad character can be so eloquent and well spoken. In Rowlings world bad guys are mostly stupid or ugly, short, fat, too skinny. She can only think of evil as unattractive, and that's not only boring but shows how bad her critical thinking skills are.
YES; I found that very frustrating when I read the books. The superficiality of ugly = evil is such an ongoing problem with human subconscious programming and I was annoyed seeing it spelled out so baldly.
She gets away with it because she writes "Kids books" but her adult books fail because they do the same thing and are laughably one dimensional. You see alot of thoughtful essays online about Roald Dahl doing similar shit but he's a much MUCH better writer than Rowling
I never read the books or saw the films, but when the terribly glib and frankly stupid pseudo-Latin spells and other puns filtered down to me, I pegged her as Not Worth Any Time. Witnessing her extreme embrace of TERFism is the worst kind of vindication.
yay, me?
It goes onto this boomer, particularly the thatcher boomers, focus on traditional normalcy and staying in the mold of a good healthy pretty person. Which makes her writing very obvious in what is "good" (the status quo) and why trans people are bad (they don't fit the status quo)
It's funny cause Americans aren't gonna pick up on this shit we all thought boarding schools with houses was some mystical shit Rowling made up instead of just a normal thing in the UK.
i avoided reading it for ages coz of the big ick. i eventually did, and damn, the writing is fucking spectacular. at NO point did i think “wow, what a beautiful romantic story” 🙄🙄
I have kept myself away from that book, but nobody sensible in my life had described this book as a tragic love story. 🙄 it makes me wonder did she actually write all the books under her name or is there any ghost writer?🫠
the writing is brilliant but it makes your skin crawl all the more because of that. then again, i’ve read some of her writing and i guess subtext is not her forte 🙄
Humbert says something along the lines of never trust a murder because they have great prose (it’s been awhile). I wonder if she’s even read it, honestly.
