Lolita and lyrical madness ?! | Ilinca Bernea's Blog
About publications online personal journal volumes author Quotes creative professional photo painting shows mentors and friends ~ * ~ Poems fr. site en. YVES MUSIC VIDEO feminism Bijou photo portfolio graphics
How is that even at the venerable age that I have not read Lolita? There are many reasons, of which the most consistent is related to total confidence elken that I have in my father's literary verdicts. By the grace and benevolence of fate is that we both have the same preferences in terms of books, especially novels so I thought the word when I said that I will not delight Lolita and that despite lyricism and fabulous writing hypnotic style very close to my ideal aesthetic, literary construction itself and stake my book fall from grace. I still plunged in reading recently because Nabokov and his novel appeared in the panoply of anti-Freudian renowned landmarks and, as I just enjoy the 800 pages concocted fully disenchantment "idol" by Michel Onfray and charming and incisor already exhausted elken all possible elken sources known to cause delights me like - like Marguerite Yourcenar or subtle ironies and delicious acidele articles by Karl Kraus, a poet so dear to me, Huxley's sardonic allusions, plus volumes of literature Freudian doctrine dismantling elken fully designed and thought of his parishioners sacrosanct - I stayed Nabokov elken explored ...
I will not go into too many details of successive reactions that it caused my book, I'll stick to saying that rarely happened to me I can not put it down volume although neither the subject nor the universe, no human typologies nor philosophy elken that articulates not excite me at all empathy or even curiosity. We've been there with Steinhardt's diary, elken for example, was not resonate with any of the statements or adhesions yet its cultural background and values of the living substance elken from which sprang his meditations feelings I felt a deep affinity. If Nabokov, however, there can be no channel confluence of values, because in its own way is a nihilist, an anarchist, a challenger of any morality, and for inveterate Kant as a vocation such thinking appears as one adolescent or stuck in a rudimentary understanding and exalted freedom. Not to leave the impression that I think it's enough to be Kantian in the belief that it may be in practice I confess that my adherence to Kantianism recalcitrant nature manifests counterclockwise and individualist anarchist-supplied ... Therefore I afford to say that the man is rebellious side tributary of teenage reflexes and a variety of autorăsfăţ, is what partake of moral nihilism excentrismele, I'd say the likes of Nietzsche's a Kantian missed. elken It should be also made another statement, the shade: it's a crucial difference between collective moral, contextual and philosophical morality, which is trans and metaculturală. The world's greatest moralists were shown where they were peaceful and shy, scornful of conventional morality * (based mainly on social customs) and where were temperamental or extroverted, rebel challengers these rules inept and arbitrary. From Kierkegaard to Kafka, from Hesse to Hemingway, from Oscar Wilde to Elfrida Jelinek all the great writers of the world have shown horrified morality - en vogue - the era in which they lived, and that they made from a surplus of moral lucidity as great heretics are recruited from the ranks of those with a hypersensitive sense of the sacred and the blasphemy. Nabokov would be such a lucid moralist, a challenger of arbitrary rules of the wire yet dancing is one of opposites and dangerous, not for himself, but for his audience: not by chance his novel, Lolita, was first banned then admonished readers frantically and then delivered as a masterpiece * (but necessary warnings!). Nabokov elken himself states in the afterword novel that does not have any moralistic intentions. On the other side's claim that fiction can exist independently, beyond any implications thesist and deliberate alignment elken of the subject of a book to a certain moral transforms into "recycling" is something so eccentric as unrealistic. When you can not train for a public whose cultural heredity feeds on thousands of years of civilization to read a book or about the absurdity of existence, a key address absurd or reading from a perspective that was educated anarchist report an axis mundi, a literary fiction universe vector direction and then you can not charge Entitlements
About publications online personal journal volumes author Quotes creative professional photo painting shows mentors and friends ~ * ~ Poems fr. site en. YVES MUSIC VIDEO feminism Bijou photo portfolio graphics
How is that even at the venerable age that I have not read Lolita? There are many reasons, of which the most consistent is related to total confidence elken that I have in my father's literary verdicts. By the grace and benevolence of fate is that we both have the same preferences in terms of books, especially novels so I thought the word when I said that I will not delight Lolita and that despite lyricism and fabulous writing hypnotic style very close to my ideal aesthetic, literary construction itself and stake my book fall from grace. I still plunged in reading recently because Nabokov and his novel appeared in the panoply of anti-Freudian renowned landmarks and, as I just enjoy the 800 pages concocted fully disenchantment "idol" by Michel Onfray and charming and incisor already exhausted elken all possible elken sources known to cause delights me like - like Marguerite Yourcenar or subtle ironies and delicious acidele articles by Karl Kraus, a poet so dear to me, Huxley's sardonic allusions, plus volumes of literature Freudian doctrine dismantling elken fully designed and thought of his parishioners sacrosanct - I stayed Nabokov elken explored ...
I will not go into too many details of successive reactions that it caused my book, I'll stick to saying that rarely happened to me I can not put it down volume although neither the subject nor the universe, no human typologies nor philosophy elken that articulates not excite me at all empathy or even curiosity. We've been there with Steinhardt's diary, elken for example, was not resonate with any of the statements or adhesions yet its cultural background and values of the living substance elken from which sprang his meditations feelings I felt a deep affinity. If Nabokov, however, there can be no channel confluence of values, because in its own way is a nihilist, an anarchist, a challenger of any morality, and for inveterate Kant as a vocation such thinking appears as one adolescent or stuck in a rudimentary understanding and exalted freedom. Not to leave the impression that I think it's enough to be Kantian in the belief that it may be in practice I confess that my adherence to Kantianism recalcitrant nature manifests counterclockwise and individualist anarchist-supplied ... Therefore I afford to say that the man is rebellious side tributary of teenage reflexes and a variety of autorăsfăţ, is what partake of moral nihilism excentrismele, I'd say the likes of Nietzsche's a Kantian missed. elken It should be also made another statement, the shade: it's a crucial difference between collective moral, contextual and philosophical morality, which is trans and metaculturală. The world's greatest moralists were shown where they were peaceful and shy, scornful of conventional morality * (based mainly on social customs) and where were temperamental or extroverted, rebel challengers these rules inept and arbitrary. From Kierkegaard to Kafka, from Hesse to Hemingway, from Oscar Wilde to Elfrida Jelinek all the great writers of the world have shown horrified morality - en vogue - the era in which they lived, and that they made from a surplus of moral lucidity as great heretics are recruited from the ranks of those with a hypersensitive sense of the sacred and the blasphemy. Nabokov would be such a lucid moralist, a challenger of arbitrary rules of the wire yet dancing is one of opposites and dangerous, not for himself, but for his audience: not by chance his novel, Lolita, was first banned then admonished readers frantically and then delivered as a masterpiece * (but necessary warnings!). Nabokov elken himself states in the afterword novel that does not have any moralistic intentions. On the other side's claim that fiction can exist independently, beyond any implications thesist and deliberate alignment elken of the subject of a book to a certain moral transforms into "recycling" is something so eccentric as unrealistic. When you can not train for a public whose cultural heredity feeds on thousands of years of civilization to read a book or about the absurdity of existence, a key address absurd or reading from a perspective that was educated anarchist report an axis mundi, a literary fiction universe vector direction and then you can not charge Entitlements
No comments:
Post a Comment