3 ms·
Most of these are a bit pop sciency. Idk why people say they like Lolita.
by adamnemecek 8y ago
Most of these are a bit pop sciency. Idk why people say they like Lolita.
- wodenokoto 8y agoYou could argue that Pinker too is a pop-science writer.
- iainmerrick 8y agoUnless you have training and experience in the specific topic area, you probably won’t get much out of a “real” science book. We all need pop science. (There’s good and bad pop science, of course, just as with anything else.)
- hsitz 8y agoWell, it would be extraordinarily difficult to argue that he is only, or even primarily, a pop-science writer. If you take a look at his CV you see that he is clearly an expert in his field with plenty of work directed at scientific audience: https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/cv_steven_pinker_updated_sept_2018.pdf https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/cv_steven_pinker...
- sfsylvester 8y ago> Idk why people say they like Lolita. Why not read the pdf Pinker linked to then [0]. It's a very interesting psycho-analysis of a fictional character. [0] https://www.dropbox.com/s/3y1c9mbe8x1v51y/Brown%20Lolita%20Review.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3y1c9mbe8x1v51y/Brown%20Lolita%20R...
- freddie_mercury 8y agoHe includes a link explaining why he likes Lolita. The only reason you don't know is because you didn't click the link and try to learn. Or is "idk" your considered reply to the 7 page review?
- FabHK 8y agoThere's an annotated version of Lolita that might help you understand its richness [1]. FWIW, Wikipedia states (with source) that "Many authors consider it the greatest novel of the 20th century". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-679-72729-9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-679-7272...