Salient: Victoria University Students' Newspaper. Vol. 24, No. 11. 1961
Sir.—.Jancist cannot hope to set my mind at rest (as she attempted to* in Salient 9) by avoiding the question "How did Jancist get a copy?" Did she go overseas as she attempts to infer? And to a country where Lolita was not banned?
Jancist defends the lavatorial humour on the grounds that any family anywhere keeps itself amused with dirty stories. This is a sweeping, general, and I feel, unjustified statement.
The final claim is that the book gets its humour by making the pervert ridiculous. It seems that it is Jancist rather than the judges that should have her sense of humour questioned. Finally, may I repeat my former comment, a legal proceeding is not to exercise the judges sense of humour but to decide whether the book came within the provisions of the indecent publications act.
[In reply to R.J.P.—I did go overseas—as R.J.P. well knows—now just shut up will you?
Let us agree to differ on our ideas of "family jokes." I think that if a survey was to be conducted throughout the world, on this subject, the result would be that there was a certain element of lavatorial humour in the majority of family circles, especially those with young children (heavens, it's essential!)
The exception does not prove the rule.
And just to conclude—maybe I have an unique sense of humour—and I'm proud of it!