William's comments

William's comments from the Banned Books group.

Note: William is no longer a member of this group.

Catherine wrote: "Unfortunately, I can't view the video until later, but I'm sure we'd be cracking Carlin up, as much as he always cracks us up and makes his point as well.

William, whether accurate or not, Wikipe..."

Catherine it is not at all clear what your point is beyond shutting down the thread. It is illegal in several countries to import material which criticizes govt or the ruling religion. You are welcome to believe this or not. If you think pointing out the loss of personal rights is grandstanding and rabble rousing well then I am in good company with those who grandstanded and rabble roused against the British govt and fought for an independent 13 colonies. The ideas to overcome it are in the book ... I don't think you really expect me to post 900 pages in this thread. Don't worry about the low sales ... those that read it understand the issues.

I guess here in the thread what is right and wrong is measured by how many people know about it and believe it.

I think Lisa is right. Stop posting to the thread.I will. I have found these discussions here and in other Banned Books threads to be mostly a waste of time. It isn't clear what people are looking for here, but it's clear enough it is not anything which is controversial or informative. Barbarossa's post was the nearest to any kind of meaningful dialogue.Carlin was right on. Maybe that should have been the only post here.

Barbarossa wrote: "William wrote: "My remarks are to point out the references to Constitutional rights are only platitude ... they do not exist as written and adopted, and have not for years."

I think the late Geo..."

This is perfect Barbarossa ... I wish I'd said it! Carlin is right on point!

Catherine wrote: "My point is that this is supposed to be a discussion about a book or a group of books. Many discussions in this group become political, or moral debates, etc. But they are supposed to begin with a ..."

Catherine. I would agree with you that Wikipedia is not a valid primary source for many subjects. However I think if you do a search for the number of Senators and Representatives you will find the material accurate. You will also find that the numbers of population and registered voters is accurate. You will also find that except for a couple of times the number of Representatives is/has been fixed at 435 since 1911 and by law since 1929. I think it is interesting that people talk about rights and democracy in a country run absolutely by 536 people.

The quote regarding this comes from the First Edition of Fe Fi FOE Comes which is my own book, and did not wish to seem to be promoting that. The material in my book is considered anti-government and anti-religion where religion becomes a political party. As I said in another forum, the book has only sold a thousand copies or so since publication in July of 2008, which means it is not banned by name but by content in certain countries.

I think you have to realize in a forum about banned books and threads within about 1st Ammendment rights any material which illustrates the loss of fundamental rights is or should be fair game.

I cannot think of a book banned specifically to circumvent the 1st Ammendment, but much material has been banned because it is labeled something which is (supposedly) outside material covered ... such as pornography.

My remarks are to point out the references to Constitutional rights are only platitude ... they do not exist as written and adopted, and have not for years. For this reason the thread is about that which is non-existant.

Barbarossa wrote: ".Willaim, you seem to quote a lot of things but aren't referencing them. As I'm not from the US it would help me follow things if you could include sources, either as links or just titles.
"

Guilty Barbarossa ... some of the plain-fact quotes come from Wikipedia ... the rest come from my own book. I did not wish to come off as if I were promoting my book, but used some of the salient arguments/passages that are in it that I consider relevant to the topic. That's why I did not identify the source.

Catherine wrote: "Kaila, William is just one person with strong opinions. He has offered a lot of information that you should study. But Kelly and others have different opinions and their own experiences and researc..."That said, I'd really like this topic to return to books. This isn't a political forum. If you have controversial books that you would like to discuss as sources for conversation, great. If not, I would recommend that after 2 years this topic be closed, as the discussion seems complete.


You make good sense Catherine, but I'm afraid I don't see how threads about 'Banned' (controversial) books could be anything other than a political forum. Controlling what people see/read/do is political.

Politics is a process by which groups of people make decisions.

Much of what you call my opinions come from books ... banned and controversial. Mostly they are aren't really opinions, but facts. Such as:

Take the U.S. as an example. There are one hundred Senators and four hundred thirty-five Representatives, and the number of Representatives has been locked in place by law since 1929. That means that if/when the U.S. has a billion people, there will still be only four hundred thirty-five Representatives. With one President, that’s five hundred thirty-six people (536) who rule (authoritatively) 303,824,640 people at last estimate. Of those three hundred million or so, 225,499,000 are registered voters. That means the ratio of represented to representing is 566,837 to 1, and the ratio of representatives to voters is about 421,493 to 1. Considering that the U.S. began with a ratio of 30,000 to 1, what is the value of your vote?

This is not an opinion it is a simple fact. In 1929 the U.S. population was 121,767 or a ratio of represented to representatives of 279,924 to one ... so representation is about half now what it was then.

It means talk about U.S. democracy is nothing more than platitude. Does this have to be written in a book and banned to be controversial? Or worth discussing in the Banned Books group in a thread about First Ammendment Rights?

Well maybe so ... but that's sort of a 'ban' itself, as is closing the discussion IMHO>

Kaila wrote: "William wrote: " Can they change the Constitution?

So in other words they can do whatever they want and we can't do jack about it.<.i>

Yes!

Can they change the Constitution?

The Constitution is virtually meaningless regarding rights. Thousands and thousands of laws and regulations have/are passed. I think the US has something like 30,000,000 laws on the books. Very few ever reach the level of a Constitutional challenge ... it is a difficult and expensive process. Unconstitutional laws/regulations mostly go unchallenged. Additionally the Supreme Court almost always holds for the state, even to stating that plain english rights do not mean what they say, and granting the government the unlimited power to tax, and almost unlimited power to regulate.

Lisa wrote: "I don't believe in banning any book, Lolita or any book. Lolita is one I did read, but I believe no book, whether I want to read it or not, should be banned from publication/distribution. But, I'm ..."

I never thought you were of the book-banning spirit Lisa, nor that you made any inappropriate comments.

I think I'll follow your lead. I was never able to get my point across that in another place and another time few if any would have found Lolita something to ban ... or even interesting. Neither Humbert nor Lolita was a very nice person, but their 'relationship' (for which the book was banned) was not particularly worth comment in another time and another place.

From Glory Road

BRITANNUS (shocked). Caesar: this is not proper.THEODOTUS (outraged). How!CAESAR (recovering his self-possession). Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

Caesar and Cleopatra

Lisa wrote: "I'm not participating much because I read Lolita so long ago and my memory is fuzzy. But, what does all this have to do with discussing the book, I wonder. There are many Goodreads groups where dis..."

I find this thread to be curious. The overall group is 'Banned Books' and this thread is 'Lolita' yet the vein of the discussion is more in line with 'that which should be banned' from print or speach, etc.

I've seen the movie Lolita and read the book. Here's the reception:

Due to its subject matter, Nabokov was unable to find an American publisher for Lolita after finishing it in 1953. After four refusals, he finally resorted to Olympia Press in Paris, September 1955. Although the first printing of 5,000 copies sold out, there were no substantial reviews. Eventually, at the end of 1955, Graham Greene, in an interview with the (London) Times, called it one of the best novels of 1955. This statement provoked a response from the (London) Sunday Express, whose editor called it "the filthiest book I have ever read" and "sheer unrestrained pornography." British Customs officers were then instructed by a panicked Home Office to seize all copies entering the United Kingdom. In December 1956 the French followed suit and the Minister of the Interior banned Lolita (the ban lasted for two years). Its eventual British publication by Weidenfeld & Nicolson caused a scandal which contributed to the end of the political career of one of the publishers, Nigel Nicolson.

There is much of the same in this thread. When I pointed out the obvious ... that beyond adolescence women/girls are NOT uniformly ignorant about sex, that women/girls of Lolita's age have been involved in sexual relationships virtually forever, and that Lolita in the book and movie manipulated Humbert quite as much or much more than Humbert did her ... I was virtually declared in favor of pedophilia.

When I pointed out the obvious ... that social mores were arbitrary I was told "I don't think You have much understanding of how society has changed even though human motivation is still very similar". When I countered that with (also) the obvious that 'society' remains primitive in many ways, and that people have traded one form of slavery for another I was told "If You think paying taxes to the state makes You a slave, I don't think You have any idea about what real slavery is". When I countered that with (also banned material)that clearly links taxes to slavery I was accused of 'meglomania'.

Of course in any discussion ... whatever the topic ... the discourse cannot be limited to only things said in the book (movie) and be devoid of any comments on the values/themes expressed ... unless you are strictly controlling the discussion. If the latter is the case then you can only say Lolita should have been banned because it contained (what some) consider pedophila, or it should have been banned because 'times have changed' and Humbert was a criminal.

However, the whole discussion is fundamentally hypocritical, since any discussion of reality or disagreement with current beliefs and institutions is immediately attacked. The hypocrisy of course is that the subject is 'Banned Books' and the basic assumption is that books should not be banned, yet any disagreement with (some) thread's participants is criticized.

Is this really appropriate in a group/thread about Banned Books? It appears we have a majority on the side of doing the banning.

this will be my last response because I can see You're more on the meglomania end of the spectrum

It's always easier to attack the messenger than deal with the message.

Your paystub is my 'meglomania'.

The truth hurts doesn't it Jim? No ... don't reply, it would be a total waste of time.

I learned long ago not to care what people thought and that just because someone thinks something, it doesn't make that thought true

I guess neither of us thinks much of what each other thinks.
"

True enough.But reality is what it is. The reality here is what I told you is the truth. You can choose not to believe it, but it will not change the reality.

If you work for a living and get a paystub of your deductions then the truth is there for you, and has nothing to do with whether I believe it or you do either.

If you think you aren't a slave to taxes then just stopping paying them. That's freedom isn't it?

If You think paying taxes to the state makes You a slave, I don't think You have any idea about what real slavery is

“Why would you say modern government just prior to the coming of the Imperials should be included?” Jack asked. “Slavery was not an attribute of those societies. They were democracies. Slavery was left behind, like in parts of the old United States, where people were held as slaves. Even there it was stopped long ago.”
“What exactly was the revenue base for the democracies, Mr. Dawson?” Claire asked.
“Well, it was the taxes levied on the members. Taxes levied by laws enacted by the democratically elected representatives of the people.”
“And should the people not pay these democratically levied taxes?” She asked.
“Judgments followed, and people’s property was confiscated to pay them,” Toni answered.
“But that was the nature of a democracy, Toni,” Jack turned to her. “That was how the state raised the money for public services”.
“Yes,” Claire responded. “Curious, isn’t it? If those services were so valuable to the people, why was it necessary to force the people to pay for them? Why wouldn’t they have voluntarily done so?” Jack began to speak, but she spoke first. “No, don’t answer. The point is that all so-called private property and all individual labor was universally encumbered by government lien. Everyone came into the world indebted to the government, and a substantial amount of everyone’s time was required to pay his or her debt to the state. In some jurisdictions it was as much as eighty percent of their income, maybe even more. Where’s the essential difference between a person held on a plantation and required to work for the master every day, and a member of the democracy who was forced to work much of his time for the state? Even the slaves of the American South had lives beyond their workdays, such as they were. I’ll even answer the question for you. Those who worked to pay off the state did so because their educational programs and their media told them from the cradle to the grave that they were supposed to. Their government ensured they would pay, either by force or the threat of force. They took their slavery for granted. They were essentially no better than any other slaves. Maybe they were pampered more, but that’s not a fundamental difference--many slaveholders pampered their slaves.”

I don't think you have any idea what Freedom is.

Jim wrote: "William wrote: "Jim wrote: "I listened to LOLITA awhile ago and loved the book but it was difficult to do because I have a 14 yr old daughter

whether HH was weak or not, he was still an adult p..."

Actually much worse things happen in the world every day.There is state sponsored slavery, people are thrown out of their homes, women are raped by troops fighting over territory .... and on and on.

If you are caught in some places you could be be-headed.

I don't think you realize how primitive much of the world still is.

Social cultures are arbitrary .... there is no 'rule book' that defines human behavior that everyone would agree with. If you define a cultural truth then you must be able to enforce it ... otherwise you are just speculating.

The defining culture of today is slavery (taxes) to the state ... which most everyone is okay with. But that doesn't mean it is right, it just means that's the arbitrary culture of today. Enforced by small groups of people that control things like police.

Lisa wrote: "Novels are fictional, not real, but it doesn't mean they don't contain truths, and it certainly doesn't mean we can't have feelings about what happens. What's the point of reading if we don't care ..."

Of course you can care and of course they contain truths. but you cannot completely discribe a person in a novel ... fiction or otherwise ... so you get a snapshot of the person.

Lisa wrote: "William, Being concise in our comments doesn't mean we have to come across as anything other than respectful.

William, Are you saying you don't think that HH is an unreliable narrator? I do believ..."

HH is a fictional charactor that was conceived to create the story. There is no such 'real' person with limited horizons. That is not to say there are not monsters in society ... there are, many much much worse than HH who is pitiful for his 'darkness'.

There is nothing 'disrespectful' about discussing reality. There are HH's ... there are Lolitas. There is no way to blame one and forgive all from the other. They are both without rational morals. But then that's the fictional story ... it isn't real!

Delanie wrote: "I have a really hard time with this book. It took me at least half a dozen tries to finish it, just because I find the subject matter so distasteful.

Personally, I've always interpreted it th..."

Yes he is a sick person ... that is the point of the story. That has nothing to do with whether young (12+ year olds) are available for sex in this world. Whether you find this distasteful or not the reality is horror is real.

Kelly wrote: "William, why are you always so nasty? I'm going to be more direct since you seem to think it's okay to be outright mean and rude.

I said clearly I am reading the book. How insulting to suggest I..."

You have yet to discribe an adult or a child. Lolita is not a child. Humbert is a pitiful excuse for an adult.

The 'law' has nothing whatsoever to do with what happens in society. It is illegal to speed. Does no one speed? It is illegal to steal. Does no one steal? It is illegal to murder. Does no one murder?

You cannot 'control' human nature with laws. Where I live there is actual slavery ... probably where you live also ... it is just hidden better.

You are transferrring my view of reality to the worse case that I personally could take it to. This is simply ridiculous. I do not condone Humbert ... I do not condone Lolita. I emulate neither. That does not mean I accept your version of 'innocence' for any female 12 or older ... or 'evil' for any male who would have sex with them.

Lolita is about the 'dark' side of relationships between the sexes. It is not about any particular person ... it is fiction.

It's time you understand that. I have no sexual experience with 12 year olds ... or anyone under 30 for that matter. But sex with 12 year olds is a fact of life ... laws nothwithstanding.

Kelly wrote: "William, why are you always so nasty? I'm going to be more direct since you seem to think it's okay to be outright mean and rude.

I said clearly I am reading the book. How insulting to suggest I..."

Kelly ... you are transferring from print without foundation. I am not mean, nasty, or rude. Within the context of these comments you have to get your point across ... it has nothing to do with you, or being 'mean' it is just me getting my point across in the most narrow time. If we were sitting across from each other sharing a drink or two you would not be offended ... I promise you.

Don't take my comments so seriously. They are just comments on the subject edited to get the point across. I don't ask or expect you to agree with me ... you think I am nasty and mean ... this is not me ... it is your impression from a few lines in print.

biLL

Adam wrote: "I haven't read anything else from Nabokov but I have wondered if his other books are similar to this one. I like his style of writing but I find the material somewhat disturbing for the obvious re..."

He wrote several short stories ... mostly in Russian then translated to English.

Lolita is not a particularly 'good' story IMHO, but the topic made it a literary 'don't do this' manuscript ... I've read nothing else of his.

Jim wrote: "I listened to LOLITA awhile ago and loved the book but it was difficult to do because I have a 14 yr old daughter

whether HH was weak or not, he was still an adult pedofile -

it doesn't mat..."

No. Adult pedophiles are not seduced by young girls.

The time frame is irrelevant. You think the human mind has changed in the last few generations? Think again. Go back a couple of thousand years and read what people wrote ... there has been no fundamental change of human psyche.

That's like saying those in the book 1984 had to be treated the way they were because times had changed. People have changed little in thousands and thousands of years about the way they think. Social rules are arbitrary now and they were arbitrary then.