Quick brain warm-up

I'm writing my final paper for the semester, currently. Well, not at this VERY moment. At this very moment, I'm writing this blog post. But previously, I was writing my layout/brainstorming for the paper. And following this, I will begin the first draft of the paper.

My argument for the paper, and the question I pose to you now, is this: what is the responsibility of art? Does art even have responsibility?

The paper requires the dissection of a movie as it relates to your thesis, and my movie/novel is Lolita.

The questions I am asking are, did Lolita deserve to be banned? Does any art deserve to be banned? And what is the point... to show humanity at its best, at its most ideal? Or should art show the truth, both the lows and highs?

My answer, most simply, is this. Art is an expression of its creator, as as such, should be free of censorship. Art is rarely universally agreeable. Neither is human nature. But to fear art for its portrayal of the darker aspects is to ignore the reality of the problems. The problems exist. They have existed and will continue to exist. But to blame the messenger, the media that examines the issues, is to avoid the infection and blame the symptom.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, is it not?

Now, Lolita is an interesting case. Nabokov claims in the afterword of his novel that there is "no moral in tow." However, despite an artist's intentions, they cannot control the reactions of their audience. One individual could read the novel and be rapturous in its aesthetics, for surely, it is a fabulous exploitation of the English language. Another, however, could be repelled by the subject matter. What it all comes down to, really, is the feelings of the audience. No one can control another's feelings. Feelings are a matter of choice. Do I choose to be so repulsed by the monstrous narrator that I cannot appreciate the beauty of his presentation? I choose to see past the fancy prose of the man who tries to be smarter than he is, to see his true nature as a kidnapper, molester, rapist, and all around violator of the young girl, and the girls before her. He apologizes for his actions, even as he delights in the delicious retelling of them. He victimizes himself to his jury, but critical reading is key, for between the lines of his confessions and excuses, is the truth. The abuse he commits is unforgivable, and is not intended to be seen as anything else.

This is the entire point. This story is no celebration of the joys of pedophilia, it is the troubled confession of a man who loathes his actions and relishes their memories. It does not make it a bad story, or an irresponsible piece of art. But were it pedo-centric propoganda, would I feel differently?

I would probably not read it, and if I had, I would probably not enjoy it. Does that mean that it is any less "art", and does that mean that because I did not agree with it that it should be thrown from the market? I don't know. I want to say no, that it should not. Would such a piece be supporting a violation of basic human rights? Yes, most likely. However, that doesn't mean it should be denied the chance to be accessed and similarly disagreed with. I doubt any such literature would convince someone who was not already prone to the thoughts and behaviors perpetrated therein. Media is not the source of actions or thoughts, and art imitates life. I cannot believe it would be encouraging to anyone but those previously engaged in the thought patterns. Media contributes, this I believe. But to remove it entirely would be more irresponsible and egregious than allowing it to exist in the first place.

If you don't like it, don't partake in it. Simple as that. Ignore it, and move on.

There is no bad press. Drawing attention to the negative with scathing reviews and fear-driven censorship will only draw a larger audience, curious to see what all the fuss is about.