First Person Deviants

[heslopian]

I've recently been reading Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, a novel told in the form of a memoir by Humbert Humbert, a sexual deviant who has an affair with his landlady's twelve-year old daughter, and it's started me thinking: are stories told from the first person perspective of monsters strictly moral?

Lolita I think transcends such questioning because of the seriousness and beauty of its aesthetic; it's intended as art, not titillation. Commercial fictions worry me more.

Take, for instance, the Dexter series of crime novels by Jeff Lindsay. They're narrated by Dexter Morgan, a Miami blood spatter analyst who moonlights as a vigilante serial killer, gorging his passion only on those he deems deserving (murderers, people traffickers etc.). He allegedly has no emotions whatsoever, but I would argue it's impossible to write a first person narrative from the perspective of someone without feelings about anything. At least not an interesting narrative. So Dexter is hinted as having some human qualities, including a camaraderie with his adoptive sister and an incorruptible reverence for her biological father, who helped channel his psychopathic tendencies into vigilantism. Whether intentionally or not this serves to water down the monster and make him a kind of anti-hero, implicitly condoning his actions.

Humbert Humbert, though we see his actions only through his eyes, is not an overly likeable man. For all his talents as a poet he is selfish, vain, pathetic and weak, and when he lusts after Lolita from his vantage point of lodger in her mother's house, we shiver with disgust, not suspense. We can pity him, even enjoy his company, much as one can pity and enjoy the occasional wit of a doomed dictator, but from the first paragraph he is what he is; a freak, a monster, a pervert.

Dexter, on the other hand, is handsome, virile, tough, even generous. Thus, when he strangles a paedophile priest or disembowels a child killer (crimes against children seem especially prevalent, perhaps capitalising on the still present hysteria over paedophilia) we're invited to look over his shoulder and grin. As this is all presented as casual entertainment, like Poirot and Miss Marple were to our grandparents, it gives me the creeps.
What are you thoughts?

[Todd]

I read Lolita to write my poem Hood. I had a similar reaction to Humbert Humbert. Lolita is a disturbing book but yes I think it's art. Nabokov's writing and how he handles the relationships elevates the piece.

When you look at this modern shock fiction like Dexter it taps into a vigilantism root. I mean look at recent trial verdicts. People cry out that justice was not done. I charactr like Dexter acts like a modern day wrath of god for a people that say you will get what you deserve. If you study sociopaths (who experts tell us are 3% of the population) even while most are non-violent thei inability to form emotional connections makes them truly alien to the majority. To hint at true emotions in Dexter is trying to give the audience a touchpoint that really wouldn't exist in the real world but is ironically needed to get us to care about the character.

But if you stretch the talk beyond the Lolita relationship even to consenting adults of various stripes you realize that there seems to be a greater acceptance of violence and revenge fantasies is our entertainment then there is for those of a sexual nature.

Interesting thoughts Jack

[billy]

this is a hard one for me, basically i don't read that sort of stuff, not because i'm a prude but because i just don't read it.
i have seen dexter on tv and i see nothing wrong with it. i don't enjoy watching or reading about pedo activity but if it's done as a story with a sensible rationale behind it i wouldn't burn it.

one author recently had a book taken down from amazon for writing a bout how children love adult and adult love. i think that was proper and that the guy should be garotted after getting his testicles torn off. i saw taxi driver and was impressed with the premise. (i think it may have been adapted in part from lolita. others may find such works okay of stimulating. but it's not something i'm into. I'm moe you meat and potato guy hehe. i don't think whether what person it comes from makes it moral or immoral. what if the the first person viewpoint is the victim as well as the monster? as simply a 1st person pov it wouldn't bother me. we all have sick fantasies. that they put them on paper isn't a problem. i would be against 1st person pov were they based on that 1st persons truth. they were a molester, killer, rapist etc. jmo and i hope i got the question right .

[heslopian]

one author recently had a book taken down from amazon for writing a bout how children love adult and adult love. i think that was proper and that the guy should be garotted after getting his testicles torn off.

I heard about that book. Understanding Loved Boys and Boy Lovers, I believe it was called. Of course the piece of shit who wrote it hid behind the catch all argument of free speech, like most neo-fascists.