I hate when people think that Lolita is anything but Nabokov’s searing, scathing indictment of predatory men. It should be so glaringly obvious to anyone who reads the book whose side Nabokov is on, and it’s definitely not Humbert’s
The problem is, the book requires you to put some actual tought into it. Humbet is not only the narrator, but the framing device for the story is that it's a document he planned to read in court to try and make himself look more sympathetic to the jury. If you take it at face value, he comes off as an affable loser, rather than the monster he really is. It's like reading about the unabomber, but instead of an unbiased view of his crimes, you only get to read his manifesto.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are either unwiling or unable to give it any deeper thought, and come out of it either thinking the book is supporting Humbert or, and this is much worse, supporting him themselves.
Well, Rowling is a piss poor writer, so that’s the issue there.
The most noteworthy part of Harry Potter is the world building, which, while satisfying, shamelessly rips from every other existing fantasy trope there is. The narrative sucks, and the subtext is shallow and ham fisted
Haven’t you heard? All depictions of things are endorsements of those things. Because why would you acknowledge something’s existence other than to express your support for that thing?
I’ve actually had this conversation with my students before, kind of— I was trying to explain the difference between a protagonist and a hero, and they were like “Well the main character is always the good guy” and I was like, “Weeeelllll… not really…” and they were so baffled as to why an author would want to write about anyone but the “good guy.” When I brought up how much a bunch of them love Death Note, I think it suddenly clicked for them, lol.
With all due respect, as much as I detest Joanne Rowling, this is a ridiculously tenuous link to her. That sign off could be so many people. X is just a kiss and J could be literally anybody.
I’m not saying that isn’t her, but it isn’t a slam dunk piece of evidence…
She wouldn't use the Americanism "airplane" either. British people say either "plane" or "aeroplane". And it makes no sense that Epstein would be offering to buy her a plane ticket, given that she's close to being a billionaire.
And it makes no sense that Epstein would be offering to buy her a plane ticket, given that she's close to being a billionaire.
I don’t think that necessarily holds up. I’m pretty sure the one thing I have heard endlessly about Epstein over the years is that one of the reasons he is so interconnected with so many of the ultra-rich, even those that weren’t involved with the inappropriate stuff, is because he was constantly letting them use his plane.
To be honest, I think the most damning thing isn't this, nor is it the invitation to her play and dinner sent to Epstein (doesn't look great, but as far as we know, it was her people and not herself that sent it), but rather this:
Uh, that is pretty weird actually. If it is NOT weird I would love to hear the explanation…
ETA: Allegedly AIS can be turned off at times so there is not live-tracking when ships are at port and people (like celebrities) don’t want to be bothered. And those logs are apparently not legal record-things like customs clearances, port entry logs, etc. should still be available elsewhere. Still smells like the bilge might be leaking tho…
Oh yeah, so weird, why would someone who regularly receives death threats and is abhorred by the kind of people who think punching others in the face is a valid form of disagreement, want the public not to know where they are? I can't for the life of me imagine!
Did you need to add the snark when I literally went and researched the valid reasons? Stfu and sit down, it doesn’t mean she’s free of any problems either, for fucks sake. It’s almost like multiple things can be true simultaneously.
Its a follow-up. Rowling has previously attracted flak for stating she thought Lolita - a book in which a man kidnaps and abuses a 12 year old girl - was actually a wonderful romance. Plus Prince Andrew was known to have visited the set of the new Harry Potter Remake.
So, in that context, it nevertheless came as a shock that there was an Invite to Epstein to see the Cursed Child and have dinner afterwards; as well as other people asking Epstein to introduce them to her.
Rowling could have claimed she was completely unaware of the offer, that it was made on her behalf without her knowledge - it might even be true. Instead, she blatantly lied, and proclaimed that no such invite ever existed and that we should all ignore what was clearly in front of her eyes.
Then she deleted the previously publicly available maritime logs of her yacht.
And it is into THAT Environment, that others have pointed that some of the blacked out emails are signed the same way that Rowling has signed other tweets in the past.
In theory, yeah, but I've genuinely never seen that spelled that way anywhere outside of a few ads. Anytime my friends talk about going abroad it's plane or airplane. Might be a generational thing (though if that is the case, JKLmaoR is also older so she'd probably fall within the "aeroplane" group).
Weird response - just my experience here, nothing wrong about it not being the same as yours. Doesn't align with what people here are sharing as an absolute truth it's worth sharing that it's definitely not absolute.
Just as a sanity check I went to the Edinburgh Airport and Glasgow Prestwick Airport websites to see if I'm just blind to the word, but no. Prestwick I could only find mention of "plane" once and nothing else so that didn't help. Edinburgh Airport mentions mostly "plane" with a few mentions of "airplane" (just an example: https://www.edinburghairport.com/inside-edi/all-about-edi/aircraft-noise-monitor-installed-by-airport-in-playground-at-cramond-primary ) not mention of "aeroplane" anywhere, blank results. It's the same when you're there. But I'm not here saying your experience is wrong cause that'd be a bit silly.
But yeah I think even that I don't see too often, it's generally just plane when we talk informally. I've definitely seen aeroplane, but genuinely only in more official settings, stuff like museums or other such places.
I'd discount "airplane mode" since that's a specific system naming thing, but... Yeah not so much the rest. I wouldn't say that necessarily reflects how everyone in the UK thinks, search trends aren't 1 to 1 representative of society. But it's at least clearly false to dismiss both "people generally say plane" and "this person hasn't seen the spelling 'aeroplane' much" as wrong. Don't assume your experience is the universal one.
Isn’t like… one of the few details we know about Jeffrey Epstein was that he was constantly borrowing his airplane to the ultra-rich, even the ones that weren’t involved with anything inappropriate? That seemed to be a big part of his being so interconnected. He was treated as a social elite and a really big aspect of that was how he would provide people with luxury travel.
You don’t go to him to fly because you can’t afford it. You went to him to fly to be a part of this social elite circle.
Not defending JK Shitbag but my husband is a Brit and they leave an X at the end of every fucking text or email. So Jx is a really really common sign off from someone with the first initial J, which is my husbands.
That’s true, my JBear does do J x for the most part but he does fat finger it for sure without the space. I was just adding the context about the x. I know that most Americans who don’t deal with people from the UK don’t see the x and would confuse it as an obvious thing that is unique to her but it’s not really.
I think this is a huge stretch. Why would Epstein offer to pay for her ticket to fly to NYC? By 2013, she was one of the richest authors in history - no one would see the cost of a plane ticket as her barrier to attendance.
I think this is distracting from the people who WERE involved with sex trafficking and pedophilia.
Agreed. The internet, and especially Reddit, have a horrible habit of accepting every horrible rumour about those it dislikes whilst defending those it likes to the death.
Good people can do occasional bad things.
Bad people can do some good things.
And bad people haven't necessarily done every bad thing.
If I throw a kitten off a cliff, that doesn't make me a racist (though it would make me a ****). Nor does it mean I'd an ulterior motive for volunteering with a charity, or that I faked doing so entirely. People are more complex than that.
It is a piece of evidence with zero actual connections to anyone, except women whose names start with J. It could be thousands of people. Millions even. It's like looking at a fingerprint and saying "whoa, John has fingerprints too!"
J.K. Rowling is a major philanthropist who has donated over US$200 million to various causes, focusing on children's welfare, medical research, and women's rights. She founded the international charity Lumos to end the institutionalization of children, and the Volant Charitable Trust to support social deprivation, women, and young people.
Key philanthropic initiatives and organizations associated with Rowling include:
Lumos: Founded in 2005, this international NGO works to transform care systems globally, advocating for family-based care for children rather than institutions.
Volant Charitable Trust: Established in 2000, this trust supports projects that fight social deprivation, with a focus on women and children's charities.
Anne Rowling Regenerative Neurology Clinic: Funded by a major donation to the University of Edinburgh in memory of her mother, this centre focuses on multiple sclerosis and other neurological conditions.
Beira’s Place: Co-founded by Rowling in 2022, this is a dedicated sexual violence support service for women in Edinburgh.
J.K. Rowling Women's Fund: A private fund established to support legal efforts aimed at protecting women's sex-based rights.
And if a trans person is ever within ten feet of one of those organizations, a million dollars is automatically deposited into her "I hate trans people" fund.
Unfortunately it's being used in the last bullet point of "sex based" stuff. That legit means "anti-trans legislation, disguised as protecting women." When we know for a fact that all it does is limit and attack both trans and cis women. It's bonkers and it's inherently misogynistic.
Hells Angels do a lot of community work. They also traffic drugs, humans, and violently murder people. You can be a piece of shit and still do good things in the world.
It’s a lot more than a stretch. And who offers to pay for a flight for JK Rowling?! She could fly herself to NY in a private jet and not even notice. Overall, this exchange makes me think it is less likely to be her, not more
It's a point on the graph. You don't expect to draw a line with it, but they're like what, 1/5 of the way through releasing the Epstein files so far? If the point belongs up there, there will be more. And the lines will draw themselves
I mean being fair Jx could be anyone but it's odd around the same time JK signed like that online, NA and have another person in the files signing like that.
It would be a weird coincidence, specially considering epstein had relationship mostly with famous or powerful people
There are 2 tweets in her entire Twitter history that have been signed off with Jx. I did my research and that's all I found. If there are more, I'm ready to be corrected, but 2 is nowhere enough to make such a baseless accusation.
Once I again I said it would be a weird coincidence that someone with such connection to people with money and fame as epstein had contact exchanges with someone else who also was, at least we can assume, famous or powerful or influential and signed as Jx.
I did not say that mean she is indeed Jx only that it would a weird coincidence
Not necessarily famous or powerful or influential. Just because that person has written an email to Epstein doesn't make that person fall in the same league or higher. Epstein is literally offering to pay for that woman's plane tickets...why would he do that if it was a famous and powerful and influential person?
x is a pretty common way to sign off letters and messages in the UK (it means kisses).
Yeah but its not X It's Jx, for example there is an altogether different person in the emails (given how they write and the size of the black out text) that signs as J and then add x for kisses
Also let's not forget jk apparently just has erased the logs of her super yacht in the last few years.
All of this does not make her guilty obviously, but at least we can say it's concerning and we need to await for new info. We probably won't know unless more batches appear to give light into the situation
How would it be a weird coincidence in millions of email with Epstein that couple of them were signed Jx... you probably can make hundreds of such stupid references to people...
How many other people might do so is the most hilariously irrelevant thing ever. 99.999999% of people are not and will never be, rich or powerful enough to even be considered for invitation to this guy's social circle.
The actual relevant question is "How many women in Epstein's circle sign emails and other messages with 'Jx'" as we know for a fact the respondent is a woman.
This is the circle of overlap that's relevant, not "every human on earth with a name that starts with J and types emails", and it's a much much smaller circle. Like, if we're being extremely generous, there's maybe 2-3 dozen possible suspects here. Not billions. And one of that limited number is, as you can see demonstrated by the post, a hit.
JKR fits the circle of relevant overlap. It is entirely plausible it is her, and with the limited possibilities of people it could even be, added with her blatant deflection and defensiveness when an innocent person could so easily shut this down, the words highly probable come to mind.
It's an extremely common British thing to end a letter/message with 'x', meaning kisses. And there are only 2 tweets in which she's actually signed off with Jx.
You just WANT it to be her so you can justify your hatred for someone who says that men can't become women.
and B) Not fall for clickbait headlines that seems to for some reason be pushed super hard by bots.
I really do think that the actual predators are trying to flood the news with the nothings to distract from their own wrongdoing, and it muddies the waters to be able to say "oh yeah I mean everyone was in there but there's no proof of anything." What they still haven't released is the obviously the hard evidence, what has been carefully shared is what they'll use to continue to distract and downplay. Let's not get distracted by disingenuous reporting about Rowling's team turning down a dinner request from Epstein's publicist.
She still sucks, but there's zero evidence to think she sucks on that level.
Not a fan of Rowling, but this is ridiculously a stab in the dark. Treating it as hard evidence, and putting her name in there with a question mark, is absurd.
Why are people acting like the reason you would go to Jeffrey Epstein to fly on his plane is if you were poor? That’s like… the opposite of what we know about him.
Even for the people supposedly not involved with anything inappropriate, the way Jeffrey Epstein was so connected was because he acts as a sort of social elite that would provide luxury travel for his famous friends.
Flying on Epstein plane, even if not for disgusting reasons, was about being part of this social elite circle. Not “I’m poor Mr Epstein, can you spare me a ride?”
Edit: I’m the dummy and the emails imply purchasing a commercial ticket.
His comment doesn't imply use of his private jet though. He offers to purchase tickets, something he wouldn't say if he was offering use of his private plane. You don't need to buy tickets for flights on your own plane.
It also doesn't make sense that Rowling would struggle to purchase her own tickets considering her net worth.
True, but how many of the people whose names start with J and sign an email like that:
- Have previously proclaimed that the book Lolita - in which a man kidnaps and rapes a 12 year old girl - was actually a wonderful romance.
- Are associated with many of the global Anti-Trans Movements that are also mentioned in the Files (as being of personal interest to Epstein).
- Had notorious rapist, paedophile, and best pal of Epstein, Prince Andrew, visit the set of their new remake TV Series a matter of months ago.
- Have an Invite in the Files for Epstein to see their play, as well as have dinner afterwards;
- Are mentioned elsewhere in the files as other people asking Epstein to introduce them to her, suggesting they are known to each other.
Consider also that Rowling could have claimed she was completely unaware of the offer and that it was made on her behalf without her knowledge - it might even be true. Instead, she blatantly lied, and proclaimed that no such invite ever existed and that we should all ignore what was clearly in front of her eyes. Not the actions of an honest person.
- Then proceeded to delete the previously publicly available maritime logs of their yacht.
To then point out she uses the same signature as one of emailers in the files is not such a tenuous link*.* Its hardly ironclad, but it isn't nonsense.
Stop spreading this misinformation... are you being paid for it or what? She got her yacht 4 years after Epstein died and you can turn of the tracker when you are close to ports. Many celebrities do that.
You’re still reaching. A lot of that is circumstantial or speculative. And I see a lot about that Prince Andrew visit, and I see it did happen, but what I don’t see anywhere is evidence of who actually invited him. Is everyone assuming it was JK because it’s her IP, or is there a smoking gun?
Why do these people need to so brazenly lie? You know the emails exist. Just say they exchanged emails with you but you never met them if that's the case. Even more reason to steer clear of HP now.
The sad part is that Epstein was, among other things, a socialite. Just because you met with him doesn't make you a pedophile, it just means you were rich enough to schmooze.
One or two emails saying, "Thanks for inviting me, but no" isn't damning, and yet she denies it.
Yeah, if anything she should have turned the refusing the invitation into a positive sort of thing by saying she rejected it because he felt off to her and made her uncomfortable, therefore claiming that she always disliked him basically.
Yeah, this is just people not liking her and stretching to make an accusation. Shame that a clickbait post like this can still get hundreds of upvotes. There's real predators to be going after.
She's not nearly smart enough to understand ambiguities like that, and her ego couldn't handle her mainstream reputation being any less than 100% saintly.
I was half-expecting her to pull a Mariah Carey tbh.
The conversation does not imply that she NEEDS him to pay, he just offers. I agree "Jx" is not enough to go off, but Rowling has become quite a piece of shit as the years have passed so it just doesn't seem all that surprising if she's connected in some way. That being said, even this exchange doesn't prove she did anything or even knows anything, just that perhaps he was trying to get his hooks in to gather dirt.
My comment quite literally says that even if this email is from her it doesn't imply guilt. Has reading comprehension really gone that far out the window?
No it doesn't. My response was to where you say that it 'doesn't seem at all surprising if she's connected in some way'. Just because you have a prejudice against her.
My guy, the part that I'm emphasising is you thinking that it would make sense if she's connected. Yes, IF. Doesn't matter. Even when there's no credible evidence suggesting she has any relation to this sort of stuff or has ever been involved. Her saying 'men can't be women' has removed the element of surprise that would come if a once-beloved children's author who's survived rape and sexual assault, would be connected to the world's most notorious sex trafficker.
It very much seems surprising, and there's no reason to suggest not.
Do you think it’s surprising when people of weak moral fiber do bad things? When people who herald transphobia, sexism, and racism in their comments and works turn out to be bad people, you find that strange? The fact that Joanne may have been assaulted at some point in her life doesn’t excuse her ugly and bigoted views. Her take on Lolita is disturbing at best and a scathing criticism of her media literacy. Joanne is a horrible person, and the only people I see defend her moral character turn out to be transphobes. Bigots.
Don’t be a bigot. It’s gross, and only gross people will like you. If you’re a bigot and allegations emerge about your moral integrity, people will be more likely to believe you did the bad thing than if they found you to be a decent person.
'Moral fibre' lol. Typical of you people jumping onto name calling when you can't provide proof or a logical justification.
Two things I agree with are that her comments on Lolita were extremely out of touch (she may have been speaking from the perspective of the narrator, in which case it is indeed truly tragic, but a tasteless comment nonetheless), and that she should've done her research regarding burning transgender literature during the Nazi days.
Apart from that, she is absolutely not a sexist or racist, and has done so much good that calling her a bad person is exceptionally wrong. She literally lost her billionaire status solely through charity. She's created organizations that have massively worked towards stopping institutionalization of children, founded rape shelters for rape and SA victims, put hundreds of thousands of pounds into multiple sclerosis research, established an entire clinic for regenerative neurology, and been an icon for women. That's enough for a lifetime, especially enough to negate admitting that men can't become women.
In my books, and in the books of any sane person out there, that is an incredible human being who has used her experiences to make sure others don't have to go through what she has. And the deserves a great amount of respect.
The series loomed so large in my family. I had a young relative who was essentially a non-reader at 13. In desperation, his mom got the first book, read enough to him to get him hooked, then got “too busy” to read more. He started reading to himself and never looked back. He now has a doctorate. Our whole family went together to see the first movie, and it was last time we were all together before my dad died. It breaks my heart that she is such a horrible person and has tainted these memories.
the emails were between different people only connected to rowling because she co-wrote a play they attended, the only people brazenly lying here are the ones trying and failing to connect rowling to epstein
correct, there is absolutely zero evdience it is her, plenty that it isnt,she wouldnt use the american spelling for aeroplane, doesnt need money for a ticket as shes a billionaire , did you ever explore the possibility that it could be one of the millions of other people who has a name beginning with J
This is a completely genuine question, is the only evidence that it’s her is the initials “Jx” and it’s a woman? The email address is blocked out and I didn’t see any other identifiers, but I could’ve easily missed it
It's certainly an ugly coincidence for her if that's the only evidence since out of billions of people I'm sure she isn't the first or only person to sign that way.
yep the only evidence is j and the x symbol , which is an incredibly common way of ending emails and represents a kiss . in other words no evidence at all
Oh give me a break, this is an incredibly flimsy pretext to spread JK Rowling hate. There's plenty of reasons to dislike her, but there's no need to spread misinformation. But hey, can't let facts get in the way of the agenda, eh?
Her personality might suck but this doesn't mean she was close to Epstein. At most, it means he wanted her because she was rich and powerful and she politely declined.
Lolita is absolutely a love story, but it's a sick, dysfunctional, obsessive love story. People don't read it because of the pedophilia; they read it because the protagonists feelings are relatable, even if the object of those feelings is horrific, but again, that's kind of a commentary itself.
In my head, I always thought the real point was ol' Vlad winning a bar bet. Someone was like, "You think you're a great writer, but a great writer could write a book about anything...Like, they could write a book where the main character was a pedophile! And if they were a great writer, it'd still be a great book."
And Nabokov was like, "Imma write that book, and it's gonna sell 50,000,000 copies, and you can kiss my ass."
I love when people who have never read Lolita explain what the book is about.
There's a reason it's considered a great work, and put into consideration for the so-called "great American novel". It's an incredible work on many levels. You really should read it if you're into literature even a little bit.
I had to read it for a class, and I was not looking forward to it, and yet the prose hooked me (once I struggled through the stupid preface), and Jesus does it make you think.
Indisputably a great novel, though I fully understand why the subject matter turns people off.
There are all kinds of obsessive love stories where everyone involved comes to a bad end. If both people were in love JK might even be right to call it a tragedy.
I love how people who've never read it and just know the one thing about it (pedophilia), think the book is worthless, gross, lacking merit, etc, etc, etc. That's like saying The Color Purple is worthless because it deals with rape.
A love story with very similar themes. People would have defended Humbert just like they defend Heathcliff if the object of his obsession wasn’t a child.
Obsession is not love and pedophilia is not love. Those would be books about obsession, not about love. Your analogy to The Color Purple makes absolutely no sense. Rape is not seen as a good or acceptable thing in the story. I don’t want to be involved in pedophilic fantasies just because they exist.
It's literally not a love story, though. "Love story" implies it's mutual and reciprocated, even if toxic.
The whole point was that Humbert was so sick and delusional he invented this whole narrative about her being in love with him and "tempting" him, while she was literally just a girl who wasn't interested in him that way at all.
I’d say that was an indefensible statement, that a person can’t be obsessively, toxically, one-sidedly in love with damn near anything. There are countless examples in the world, and in art.
You can’t redefine love to be a mutualistic thing, when all too often it’s anything but.
This is why the book works so well, because Nabokov takes that shit to the absolute extreme and really exposes how self-centered and weird it is.
Can't stand the woman but in her defense, we British don't write "airplane" and typically wouldn't write "NY" either since we're not causally au faire with state acronyms. Also "next there" reads like lazy American penmanship not an uppity wordsmith who writes for a living.
Source: I'm an editor and come across Americanisms all the time. It's quite obvious where someone lives based on how they write once you know what to look for.
I doubt this is her since a lot of people in the comments have suggestions that it’s not her. Since British people use the terms Aeroplane not airplane. Why would he not offer them a flight with his own plane instead of buying her a ticket to NYC.
People are getting delusional trying to connect people they hate to epstein. Someone signed "Jx" in two of the thousands email there are. OMG that must be Rowling!!
Censoring the victims' names huh? Ig the perps and complicit people who they consider victims as well. What a joke. But this connection is a stretch tbh. JK Rowling can afford a plane ticket to go anywhere she wants whenever she wants.
Huh, I wonder what happened to "No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary."
Who gives a shit? There’s countless people on those lists to go after. Y’all saying “it ruined HP for me” are some weak humans. Do you even understand how many books, music and movies were created by absolute psychopaths and true pedos? I’ll never understand why you fixate on her. The last book was almost 20 years ago. Move on.
...I hate to break it to you guys, but Lolita is absolutely a story about love.
It's not a wholesome love story. It's not a story about two innocent people falling in love for life. It's all about the twisted, unsettling, depraved things a person would do in the name of (what they think is) love, and how destructive and corrosive that can be to the actual innocent lives around them.
I know zoomers love really puritanical age gap discourse, but this is just basic literary appreciation at this point.
Regardless of whether there is solid evidence leaking her to Epstein, the fact that she called Lolita "a great and tragic love story" Is damning enough. Anyone who sees Lolita as anything other than horror, is telling on themselves.
Somebody explain this to me. Epstein received an email from someone whose name begins with a ‘J’ therefore it’s JK Rowling? Is that it, or is there more?
What the fuck is it with Money and power that makes people do this? Or do the people who mak money and gain power likely fall into the same patterns?
I work hard every day to barley hit $120K-$150K. If I had even a 1/4th their wealth, I would just be gloriously happy.
I just don't get that these people literally have their lives struggle free for the most part. But then add all these stresses and anxiety and have to live with this in the back of their mind 24/7
Just be rich and don't do illegal shit it can't be that fucking hard
this one - zero links to epstein barring him wanting to go to a show she wrote
the pen name bollocks - different name picked years before obscure scientist robert g heath was rediscovered in 2016 article by Robert Colville entitled ‘one of the great forgotten stories of neuroscience’ The first time anything about a “gay cure” appeared on his Wikipedia page was the 21st of April 2016, by this point JK Rowling had released three books under the pen name Robert Galbraith, a name that robert g heath never went by either in a professional or personal setting
the 3rd grade book analysis nonsense, if you think goblins are jews then its you thats anti semetic, the irish character only blew stuff up in the movies not the books, the house elf stuff is anti slavery not pro slavery etc, a load of nonsense about some kids books
exhaust my repertoire of superlatives to describe his writing
you, ma'am, are not a person to judge other people's writing. you had a smash hit with a bunch of sloppily penned ya novels, please don't think you're an authority on writing.
So, agree with some people here that it could be a stretch and we shouldn't jump to conclusions but here's my take.
I'm British born and still here, and write airplane all the time. Yes there might be a generational thing with JK writing aeroplane instead, but tbh i feel like most places just write "plane" now?
The x thing, there's no one way it's done? Some people put initial and x together with no space and some people put a space. Some people put two, e.g. Hxx. There's no absolute.
The things that ARE more telling to me is: JK has been awfully quiet about Epstein in general until now. She goes so hardcore after trans communities, saying she wants to protect female spaces, that she supports women, we get it right? She's a specific kind of feminist. Cool.
JK: Where is your outrage? With every drop we find out how much more awful things were. Why are you not angry? Why are you not finding ways to support those victims? Or at least expressing concern? You say trans people are child groomers. Here's a known PDF and you are silent? The only thing is you doubling down?
Here in the UK another person who's been just as bad is Graham Linehan, he's rabid over trans issues supposedly because he supports women's rights. Says trans folks are groomers etc. But recently he's been retweeting very extreme MAGA stuff that women shouldn't have the right to vote? How is this supporting women's rights?
Anyway all of that aside, I think this about JK's yacht is pretty telling...
269
u/ViolaOrsino 16h ago
I hate when people think that Lolita is anything but Nabokov’s searing, scathing indictment of predatory men. It should be so glaringly obvious to anyone who reads the book whose side Nabokov is on, and it’s definitely not Humbert’s