Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/23/06 06:04 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: Saw the movie by Stanely Kubrick, a bit wierd but nothing horrible.

Kubrick's Lolita intended to be somewhat comedic, I'd suggest the version with Jeremy Irons instead, it's closer to the atmosphere of the novel.

Anyways, I don't see the reason behind this. I mean, I'm pretty sure there are worse books on the shelves, right?

The passages from the book that I have read were very well written. I think its contraversy shouldn't keep it off the shelves. In fact, no book should be taken off the shelves unless it might incite someone to illegal action or something. It's only words, right? And if you read the book you know what you're getting yourself in to.
I suggest you buy any contraversial or banned book over ebay or something and read it for yourself just to combat this retarded censorship.

At 1/26/06 12:03 AM, Empanado wrote:

At 1/23/06 06:04 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: Saw the movie by Stanely Kubrick, a bit wierd but nothing horrible.

Kubrick's Lolita intended to be somewhat comedic, I'd suggest the version with Jeremy Irons instead, it's closer to the atmosphere of the novel.

Anyways, I don't see the reason behind this. I mean, I'm pretty sure there are worse books on the shelves, right?

I hate when these movie directors screw up a book/novel and make it look what it wasn't meant to be . Lolita is far too controversial for your average hypocrite American Audience so you have to water it down and take some of the spice off since leaving it might sexually arouse the pedos too much who would then go on a raping spree and then there wouldn't be any 14 year old pussy virgins left so all the politicians wouldn't have nothing left to molestate besides the economy so they would get bored and go overseas for "untapped resources " and then America would be corruption free for at least a decade or so but then, this is just a speculation and as such it shouldn't be taken seriously since they could be back in less than a decade and just in time for the next presidential election which would really suck and make all this effort useless .

At 1/26/06 02:06 AM, Ape_Lincoln wrote:

:Lolita is far too controversial for your average hypocrite American Audience so you have to water it down and take some of the spice off since leaving it might sexually arouse the pedos too much who would then go on a raping spree and then there wouldn't be any 14 year old pussy virgins left so all the politicians wouldn't have nothing left to molestate besides the economy so they would get bored and go overseas for "untapped resources " and then America would be corruption free for at least a decade or so but then, this is just a speculation and as such it shouldn't be taken seriously since they could be back in less than a decade and just in time for the next presidential election which would really suck and make all this effort useless .

That's about the longest, most grammatically horrid sentence I've seen in some time.

I have yet to read a book I think should be censored. And I sincerly hope that anyone who reads Lolita and gets pedophiliac intentions never has a chance to read A Modest Proposal . . .

No books should be banned. Even books like the turner diaries, Mien Komf (not sure if I spelt that right), or the Anarchist cookbook. Becaue really any book can offend any body.

I am personally am offended by the magic school bus.(jk i am not really)

I think its important in anyones education to see both sides of everything, even things as taboo as pedophilia. Lolita makes you sympathize with the main character and almost understand his attraction to young girls. it allows you to feel what a pedophile feels. Also the fact that the beautiful language in it is written by a man whose native language isn't even english is reason enough to require students to read it. I say don't only leave it on the shelves, but have high schoolers read it and discuss it in their lit. classes.

At 1/25/06 09:41 PM, mjairlax wrote: Censorship is wrong period. First its Harry Potter then its Lolita before any once know it the will be banning the Constitution, Platu, works by Marx and Darwin. If we don't say that banning this book is wrong people will ban books a lot more important then Lolita. Some of the most oppresive societies use book banning as a way to block ideas

Plato wasn't the best philosopher, it was all Aristotle and Socrates. You're taking this a bit too far. Lolitas not even that good of a book, I just found it to be disturbing.

By the way, it still read in Canada. In Highschool, to be more specific. It's just an optional choice between a few other best-sellers.

At 1/27/06 12:11 PM, themagicalpig wrote: I think its important in anyones education to see both sides of everything, even things as taboo as pedophilia. Lolita makes you sympathize with the main character and almost understand his attraction to young girls. it allows you to feel what a pedophile feels. Also the fact that the beautiful language in it is written by a man whose native language isn't even english is reason enough to require students to read it. I say don't only leave it on the shelves, but have high schoolers read it and discuss it in their lit. classes.

It was not that compelling of a read.

At 1/27/06 01:59 PM, Marxist-Leninist wrote: Plato wasn't the best philosopher, it was all Aristotle and Socrates. You're taking this a bit too far. Lolitas not even that good of a book, I just found it to be disturbing.

Actually, it might interest you to know that in a recent survay of acedemic philosophers, Marx was decided to be the best philosopher. Regardless, even if you don't think Plato was the best, you still have to give him props for his thinking.

It was not that compelling of a read.

That's still no reason to ban it. Otherwise you'd ban comic books and most sci-fi novels.

At 1/27/06 02:26 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: That's still no reason to ban it. Otherwise you'd ban comic books and most sci-fi novels.

Way to take what he was saying completely out of context. He never said IT'S A BAD BOOK OMG BAN IT! He's simply saying don't give it more credit than it deserves.

At 1/27/06 03:33 PM, LadyGrace wrote: He's simply saying don't give it more credit than it deserves.

There's an entire marginally-legal porn genre named after the novel. I believe it's got enough credit.

That's about the longest, most grammatically horrid sentence I've seen in some time.

Wow, thank you ! That's very nice of you, indeed ! I try to downgrade my "1337" grammar skils as possible to make it easy to read by the legions of illiterate 14 year-old assholes in NG. ( insert- your mental age group) I believe the result was spontaneous since I just got an angry reply from one of them! :o)

I have yet to read a book I think should be censored. And I sincerly hope that anyone who reads Lolita and gets pedophiliac intentions never has a chance to read A Modest Proposal . . .

I am afraid you will never find a book that you might consider "innapropriate" since "morals" are something that you seem to be lacking. Thus, I could point out a grammatical error that you've made on the sentence above like when you spelled "sincerly" instead of S-I-N-C-E-R-E-L-Y just to blow away your master's degree in "grammarrrr" but you would be better served if you were dry-humped by a goat in front of your biological parents. Have a good day !

At 1/27/06 01:59 PM, Marxist-Leninist wrote: Lolitas not even that good of a book, I just found it to be disturbing.

That's your opinion...
I thought it was amazing because it was visceral in two ways. First its subject, and the way how it's a real love story.

It's more real than Romeo and Juliet, or Troilus and Cresyde, or Titanic, or whatever love story you think.

This man is evil. It's not like you'r reading the book, it's like just dropping in the mind of an evil but charm guy. He plots out the murder of Lolita's mother... just wow.

You can't hate him. You can't love him. It's tragic, but he deserves to be abandoned. Although, it is a book for mature readers. It's not a book where you read with just one hand. It's actually literature with consitant themes, symbols, and other things like that.

Funny how when Lolita came out, it was sold with a green cover. Back in those days, a green cover was meant for pornographic material. How disappointed were those perverts when they read Lolita... it's not an easy trip to take, especially when you don't like your heart jerked around.

But even if this book was on the shelf... I hardly think young people will pick it up because it's so dang thick with lots of tiny words.

I am tired of censorship.

Censorship presents one thing : Fear of new ideas and presentations.

Firstly, if I want to say "FUCK!" to express how I feel in my language, to say that it is innappropriate is an opinionated and objective claim. You don't have to emulate my ideas, you don't have to start saying fuck ( although I do encourage it, I can't make people do anything ).

People fear that they are others and especially children are so impressionable. I do know that children are impressionable, but not to a permanent degree. Hell, I started cursing in 4th grade, me and my best friend would walk around bitching about shit. It was actually an eye-opening experience to bitch for the first time in my life about how the only thing that teachers and everyone cares about is money, and to say fuck in the while of.

Now, I think I advocate against the whole peachy clean childhood. It's too shocking when a child reaches the age of 12 or 13 and learns about blowjobs or sex. I think that enforcing angry, shocking and controversial ideas during encourages a smarter generation.

People claim protectively that things are not for children's eyes. It's human nature to be protective, but just since something is human nature then it does not create it's morality or righteousness.

But of course "Change is bad!!", right? I think we need to move to a new society where people aren't afraid about freely spreading ideas to all creeds, ages and races.

Read Fahrenhiet 451

At 1/28/06 04:12 AM, mofomojo wrote:

Angst ridden pseudo-rebellious shit

Humm... perhaps if you brushed your teeth more you wouldn't have such a foul mouth.
There are things in our society that need to changed but having spoiled little brats running their foul mouthes in public is not by any means a desirable social change , it's just bad parenting .