128
JK Rowling is a special kind of fucked up
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
128 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13484 readers
896 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
You do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to that book
The problem isn't the book inherently, but the inevitable reception when put in the hands of pedophilic cultures like those of the anglosphere. Nabakov was adamant, for example, that the cover should not depict Lolita (the character) in any literal sense (or any person, iirc), for obvious and correct reasons. You can look up what cover art has nonetheless been used if you are feeling masochistic.
I blame Kubrick. He brought in the heart shaped sunglasses.
The book is fine. It does not at all empathize with the pedophile, it doesn't sexualize Lolita. Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation however, is totally fucked up. The book is about a fucked up subject for sure, but it absolutely condemns it.
Whatd Kubrick do to the adaptation?
From what I understand, while the book is told from the perspective of the pedophile, who is proven to be lying or wildly distorting things in a brief moment when the victim gets to speak, the movie mostly plays it straight, with the child seducing a grown-ass man.
Someone else got to it first. The movie is where the heart shaped sunglasses and lollypop imagery came from and absolutely sexualizes a child.