Fans of that book, or the literati, always say that, and yet its very popular with child abusers. No doubt there are those who read it and were disgusted. Most people however don't need an elaborate fantasy novel to tell them that kind of thing is very very bad.

If I've misunderstood the message, and others have too (it isn't generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least 'controversial'), then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn't be a teacher, and certainly children shouldn't be exposed to it - and the way communities work, children at such a teacher's school would be well aware of any controversial publications they might have made. Personally, I think it is a literary trick (like the 'poverty porn' genre) to justify the promotion of dodgy material to a certain class for titilation, so I'd do a lot more than sack such an author.

[–] Sphere@hexbear.net 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If I've misunderstood the message, and others have too (it isn't generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least 'controversial'), then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn't be a teacher, and certainly children shouldn't be exposed to it

Um, what? This logic could be applied to critical race theory about as easily as you've applied it here to Lolita. Way to prove that you really are a puritan.

[–] Carguacountii@hexbear.net 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

sure, if critical race theory were child abuse, and if the author were a Russian aristo who fled to the US when the commies won. I suppose any logic can be applied to anything if we ignore what's actually being discussed.

It really isn't puritan to dislike Lolita and I think if you think that connection you've made through you'll see why.

[–] Sphere@hexbear.net 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

So, writing anything that multiple people misunderstand and find offensive, especially if it can be called 'controversial,' is an automatic disqualification from teaching, got it. Makes perfect sense, and I'm not at all deeply disappointed to see multiple hexbears upvote this horrifically bad take.

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 6 points 9 months ago

I am absolutely fucking disgusted with this shit

[+] Carguacountii@hexbear.net 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Rom@hexbear.net 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So if someone says "child abuse is bad" they should be banned from teaching, because they said something about child abuse, do I have this right?

[+] Carguacountii@hexbear.net 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Rom@hexbear.net 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Once again, Lolita is not a fantasy about child abuse. Please read the book.

[+] Carguacountii@hexbear.net 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Rom@hexbear.net 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

'Fantasy' implies it was written as an erotic novel, rather than a critique of child abuse. The narrative makes it very clear that the protagonist is a monster and that everything he did was horrible. For the last time please read the book and educate yourself about it before passing judgement, because banning a book you haven't read but you think is pornographic despite everyone telling you otherwise makes you indistinguishable from the GOP freaks who are banning every book from school libraries that so much as acknowledges the existence of LGBTQ+ people.

[+] Carguacountii@hexbear.net 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Rom@hexbear.net 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

First of all, I didn't say Lolita is indistinguishable from novels with LGBTQ+ themes, I said that you are indistinguishable from GOP book banners.

child abuse material

Oh my god shut the fuck up already. You have been told multiple times, in no uncertain terms, that Lolita is not a pornographic novel. Until you read the book, nothing you say matters, because you have made it perfectly clear you are profoundly ignorant on the subject matter, and despite every attempt by other people in this thread who have tried to politely correct you on this misunderstanding, you continue to repeat the same ignorant takes on this novel over and over again. You are, again, indistinguishable from a reactionary who makes up their mind on something and refuses to budge despite all overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

@SineNomineAnonymous@lemmy.ml told you in another part of this thread that "the protagonist is a horrible monster who shouldn't be trusted is literally in the opening. In no uncertain terms" so I'll even share that passage with you:

I have no intention to glorify “H.H.” No doubt, he is horrible, he is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jocularity that betrays supreme misery perhaps, but is not conducive to attractiveness. He is ponderously capricious. Many of his casual opinions on the people and scenery of this country are ludicrous. A desperate honesty that throbs through his confession does not absolve him from sins of diabolical cunning. He is abnormal. He is not a gentleman. But how magically his singing violin can conjure up a tendresse, a compassion for Lolita that makes us entranced with the book while abhorring its author!

Shut the fuck up and read the fucking book. Seriously, I don't want to read another comment from you about this book until you have read it, because you have made it entirely clear you have zero clue what the actual novel is about.

Regardless, I'm done with this conversation. Best of luck, hope you learn something today.