Topic: Stephen King's IT removed from Russian bookstores due to 'that' scene.
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc started this discussion 2 months ago #131,039
https://www.rt.com/russia/628082-russia-pulls-stephen-king-it/
There'll be no moral degeneracy in our book shops thank you very much Mr King.
There'll be no moral degeneracy in our book shops thank you very much Mr King.
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #1,403,042
Amusingly, Nabokov's Lolita is still for sale everywhere.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 6 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,043
Which scene?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 13 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,048
@1,403,042 (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
Lolita isnt pornographic in the same way amd is a morality tale
Lolita isnt pornographic in the same way amd is a morality tale
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 35 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,049
Will this lower their AIDS rate? Will they leave the degenerate Baltic countries for glorious Russia for this?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 months ago, 29 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,050
@1,403,043 (B)
The scene where multiple 13 twelve year old run a train on another 12 year old. There's also a scene where two teen boys give each other handjobs in a garbage dump
The scene where multiple 13 twelve year old run a train on another 12 year old. There's also a scene where two teen boys give each other handjobs in a garbage dump
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,051
@1,403,048 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> and is a morality tale
Nabokov would strenuously disagree with this. He says as much in his afterword to the novel. He loathed didactic fiction more than any other.
> and is a morality tale
Nabokov would strenuously disagree with this. He says as much in his afterword to the novel. He loathed didactic fiction more than any other.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,052
@previous (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
I say this because its absolutely written to show that Humbert is a monster and Lolita did not seducing at all
It also has heavy ties to a real life kidnap and rape case of a child during that time
I say this because its absolutely written to show that Humbert is a monster and Lolita did not seducing at all
It also has heavy ties to a real life kidnap and rape case of a child during that time
(Edited 7 seconds later.)
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 6 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,059
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> I say this because its absolutely written to show that Humbert is a monster and Lolita did not seducing at all
Ok but again, the author disagrees with you. Your perception of his work wasn't his intent. That needn't mean anything to you but it does to me when assigning the 'moral intentions' of the writer. Plenty who read that book won't be confident saying how it was "absolutely written" to be interpreted.
> I say this because its absolutely written to show that Humbert is a monster and Lolita did not seducing at all
Ok but again, the author disagrees with you. Your perception of his work wasn't his intent. That needn't mean anything to you but it does to me when assigning the 'moral intentions' of the writer. Plenty who read that book won't be confident saying how it was "absolutely written" to be interpreted.
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,060
@1,403,052 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> It also has heavy ties to a real life kidnap and rape case of a child during that time
And this point, again not backed up by anything Nabokov ever said or wrote, is irrelevant to interpreting the novel.
> It also has heavy ties to a real life kidnap and rape case of a child during that time
And this point, again not backed up by anything Nabokov ever said or wrote, is irrelevant to interpreting the novel.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,061
@1,403,059 (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
Art becomes its own things after a while
And the themes I mentioned are very much there. I'm unconcerned with my original wording
Art becomes its own things after a while
And the themes I mentioned are very much there. I'm unconcerned with my original wording
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 months ago, 23 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,062
@1,403,060 (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
It doesn't need to be
He specifically referenced the real life victim on that book
It doesn't need to be
He specifically referenced the real life victim on that book
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,064
@1,403,061 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
For sure, I'm just saying that I would be more cautious saying how a book was "absolutely written" to be interpreted, especially when your interpretation is diametrically opposed to what the author himself wrote. I'm certainly not saying you need to be cautious about it.
For sure, I'm just saying that I would be more cautious saying how a book was "absolutely written" to be interpreted, especially when your interpretation is diametrically opposed to what the author himself wrote. I'm certainly not saying you need to be cautious about it.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 14 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,068
@1,403,052 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> I say this because its absolutely written to show that Humbert is a monster and Lolita did not seducing at all
>
> It also has heavy ties to a real life kidnap and rape case of a child during that time
If you want to read a fucked up and modern version of Lolita check out The End of Alice.
> I say this because its absolutely written to show that Humbert is a monster and Lolita did not seducing at all
>
> It also has heavy ties to a real life kidnap and rape case of a child during that time
If you want to read a fucked up and modern version of Lolita check out The End of Alice.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 months ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,071
@previous (E)I own it but I haven't read it yet
If you want to read a really fucked up book in the same vein, read Tampa
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
boof joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 4 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,100
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 7 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,145
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 months ago, 6 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,231
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,252
Anonymous G replied with this 2 months ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,311
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,312
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 months ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,313
Anonymous G replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,315
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> You're gross with gross ass fantasies. Get a life.
so you realize that your lusts are evil and yet continue doing them. such purity of intent is rare.
> You're gross with gross ass fantasies. Get a life.
so you realize that your lusts are evil and yet continue doing them. such purity of intent is rare.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,356
@1,403,061 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
What do you believe King's intention was in writing IT?
What do you believe King's intention was in writing IT?
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 months ago, 15 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,437
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 months ago, 36 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,438
@1,403,356 (I)
Possibly to get out his dark thoughts during his multi chemical addictions. Or he wanted to sell books
Possibly to get out his dark thoughts during his multi chemical addictions. Or he wanted to sell books
anon joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,439
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Possibly to get out his dark thoughts during his multi chemical addictions. Or he wanted to sell books
you speak from experience ?
> Possibly to get out his dark thoughts during his multi chemical addictions. Or he wanted to sell books
you speak from experience ?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 months ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,442
Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,444
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Its weird that you fantasize about this so hard
you speak the lingo, so you know
> Its weird that you fantasize about this so hard
you speak the lingo, so you know
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,446
Book banning is one of the most pathetic tactics of those who lack imagination, whether Church ladies, Woke retards, or Russian fascists.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 months ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,452
Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,454
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 months ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,456
Anonymous G replied with this 2 months ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,488
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 months ago, 22 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,642
Anonymous G replied with this 2 months ago, 29 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,650
Anonymous I replied with this 2 months ago, 1 day later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,403,887
@1,403,042 (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
Hey Dave: can you weigh in on topic 131076?
https://minichan.net/topic/131076
I'd like to get your perspective on the "Soviet Paradise" video.
Hey Dave: can you weigh in on topic 131076?
https://minichan.net/topic/131076
I'd like to get your perspective on the "Soviet Paradise" video.