This discussion is for talking about Lolita. Please do not include any spoilers.

This is a big and weighty book. Anyone started it yet?

So, I read Lolita years ago and probably won't read it again (basically what I'm saying is don't expect my input to be too in depth). But I distinctly remember feeling sorry for Humbert. I think it would be interesting to discuss how you feel about him upon your first impression and then again later when you finish the novel. If anyone should so choose to discuss this.

I've got the annotated version on it's way too my library so hopefully I should get it tomorrow or the next day. I can't wait!

I have just started the book. I am about fifty pages in or so. At this point I don't feel sorry for Humbert. Mostly I find it hard to relate to him, but then again, I am early on in the book. I do like the language in the book and think it will be a good read, but I think I will need to read it to the end to decide how I really feel about Humbert.

I don't think this (a few lines down is a spoiler (if it is/moderators delete it or tell me to delete/edit it):







Well, I read it at 13-14 and I was much too young. I took it at face value and believed HH and exactly what he was saying. It gives me the shivers now to think about it.

Don't worry, Lisa, not a spoiler. :)

I've started reading the annotated copy and I warn anyone who has not read it that the annotations contain MAJOR spoilers. The annotations are very helpful (particularly in translating the French) but they do assume you know the story already.

Once I start reading it, I find it hard to put down. However, the subject matter is so difficult emotionally that I find myself hesitating to pick it up. I also kind of feel like a voyeur and it's creepy.

Interesting comments by high school kids about banning Lolita in high schools:

http://beyond-school.org/2008/04/22/stud...

More on why the book was banned:

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita
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.[2:]

From Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packag...

French officials banned it for being "obscene," as did England, Argentina, New Zealand and South Africa. Today, the term "lolita" has come to imply an oversexed teenage siren, although Nabokov, for his part, never intended to create such associations. In fact, he nearly burned the manuscript in disgust, and fought with his publishers over whether an image of a girl should be included on the book's cover.

I agree with the subject matter being difficult emotionally and I also feel kind of voyeuristic reading it. I hope I am not giving too much away but I feel like the way Humbert justifies his actions it's as if he is convincing himself that what he does is ok. I don't think the author intended for us to sympathize with him necessarily but I just really find myself disliking him.

I don't think we're supposed to like HH. And I agree--I don't at all. It would be way worse if I did like him given the theme of the book. Ugh.

Was anybody thrown by how Nabakov meant "Lolita" to be pronounced? The lol is supposed to be like "lollipop" with the emphasis on the first syllable and the "t" soft. It's very distracting as I think of it every time I read her name.

Kelly wrote: "Was anybody thrown by how Nabakov meant "Lolita" to be pronounced? The lol is supposed to be like "lollipop" with the emphasis on the first syllable and the "t" soft. It's very distracting as I thi..."

Mostly I was confused by how he ever got Lolita out of the name Delores. It doesn't seem like it is a logical nickname for that name.

Yeah, I don't really see how "Lolita" is a nickname for "Delores" either.

HH mostly comes across as pompous and self-centered.

I have heard the name Delores shortned to "Lolly" and "Lolita" would be a deminitive of Lolly. It's a Spanish thing, the "ita".
However, it would be pronounce with the long sound 'o' in Spanish, not like lolipop, so yes, HH was showing his pompousity when he said her name outloud.

Her mom calls her Lo which is short for Dolores. Then adding the diminutive "ita" as Katharine said.

It was Nabakov who said it should be pronounced LOLLeedta, I'm pretty sure. I think Nabakov is kind of pompous, too. He's very judgmental to judge by the conversations he had with the annotator. Some of the "humor" is so obscure, I am surprised it's supposed to be funny.

Kelly wrote: "Was anybody thrown by how Nabakov meant "Lolita" to be pronounced? The lol is supposed to be like "lollipop" with the emphasis on the first syllable and the "t" soft. It's very distracting as I thi..."

Humbert was the victim. Lolita planned what she did. It is made very clear in the end. Humbert always ends up paying ... he had no chance against her 'charms'.

Private Lives and Public Personae
Dr. Susan Martin
University of Tennessee
Studies of Roman evidence have shown that young women in the upper classes married young, even as early as 12.

The idea that age (after the onset of adolescence) has something to do with responsibility is a farce. It is no accident the US has the highest drinking age in the world ... all such age-limits removed from the states where they once resided. And the results are predictable ... the false social system of the schools. In other countries it is not unusual to have a beer at 16 ... and causes no problems. To put 'sex' beyond the understanding of a 12 year old girl ... or 14 ... or 16 ... or whatever is not realistic.

Many women were once wives at 16 ... nowadays in the US that would/might be child abuse.

William, I don't think you and I agree on anything!

I work with kids who are aged beyond their years, who are sexualized too early because of what they have seen and I can tell you that every single one of them have been harmed by it. My own foster daughter began having sex at 13 with significantly older males and is a lot like Lolita but she is a product of the trauma she experienced in early childhood. Her abnormally early extreme sexuality has been part of all of her issues such as major drug abuse, running away and selling her body. She just turned 16 and has to go to inpatient drug rehab.

HH is not a victim. I haven't finished the book yet but I don't care whether she gets him to kill or what. He is an adult with free will. He has all of the power in the relationship. He tells her over and over that he will send her to a horrible boarding school if she lets on whats happening. He bribes her and manipulates her even though she cries afterwards frequently until she can't tell right from wrong.

He starts out luring teenage girls to bed. He made all of the first moves.

Just because things happened historically does not make them right. Lots of children are married off as early as 6 years old in some cultures. That doesn't make them capable of consent. As females they are just property, nothing more. In the FDLS, they routinely marry off young girls but read the stories of the girls that have escaped and how they felt about such a thing. It was rape and unacceptable.

As the US has raised its drinking age, alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths have declined. Studies show that the human brain doesn't stop maturing and growing until around age 25.

There is a huge problem with alcoholism and problems stemming from teenagers drinking in other countries such as France, Italy, Scotland and Ireland. Just because it is legal there doesn't mean there aren't problems. Just because it is socially acceptable doesn't mean it's okay.

Children mature at different ages. My ex began dating a 18 year old when he was 36 and I think she's more mature than he is. But I do not think that a 12 year old is capable of making a rational choice about sex with a man three times her age. He has power and control over her and that makes it wrong. She can have sex with a 13 or 14 year old (although I would wonder why she is so sexually advanced at a young age) but no way is it appropriate for her to have sex with an adult.

So what experience do you have with adolescent girls that makes you believe that this is appropriate?

Kelly wrote: "William, I don't think you and I agree on anything!

I work with kids who are aged beyond their years, who are sexualized too early because of what they have seen and I can tell you that every sin..."

So I guess all the women who were married at 14 - 15 -16 .... which was quite common once ... were all sexually abused?

LOL And at some 'magic' age of 21 or so they suddenly awake with the ability to make good decisions about sex?

Both my grandmothers were married at 16. My mom was married at 17. My grandmothers loved their husbands and their marriages lasted more than 50 years each.I raised two daughters .... one married at 21 one is still unmarried at 27.

The common nonesense that age has something to do with 'understanding' and that a 'magic' age exists where you can marry and drink and whatever is just so much propaganda. We are not talking about 6 year old girls here we are talking about adolescence on.

YOu sound like the typical arrogant and apologetic American who's system is superior to everyone else's in the world.

Why 21? Why not make it 41? Should be wiser at that age .... right?

You are welcome to your (foundationless) beliefs, but you aren't welcome to impose them on everyone in the world. People are going to act as they wish ... whether they are 12 or 80.

Kelly wrote: "William, I don't think you and I agree on anything!

By the way ... I wonder if you actually read the book or saw the movie adaptation.

Humbert picks Lolita up from camp, telling her and the mistress of the camp that her mother is desperately ill in a hospital. He then takes her to The Enchanted Hunters, a nearby hotel, where he meets a strange man (later revealed to be Clare Quilty), who seems to know who he is. Humbert attempts to use sleeping pills on Lolita so that he may molest her without her knowledge, but they have little effect on her. INSTEAD SHE CONSCIOUSLY SEDUCES HUMBERT THE NEXT MORNING. At breakfast he discovers that he is NOT HER FIRST LOVER, as she has had a sexual affair with a boy at summer camp.

The novel is a tragicomedy narrated by Humbert, who riddles the narrative with wordplay and his wry observations of American culture. His humor provides an effective counterpoint to the pathos of the tragic plot. The novel's flamboyant style is characterized by word play, double entendres, multilingual puns, anagrams, and coinages such as nymphet, a word that has since had a life of its own and can be found in most dictionaries, and the lesser used "faunlet".

Nabokov's Lolita is not an endorsement of pedophilia, since it dramatizes the tragic consequences of Humbert's obsession with the young girl.

In 1959, novelist Robertson Davies excused the narrator entirely, writing that the theme of Lolita is "not the corruption of an innocent child by a cunning adult, but the exploitation of a weak adult by a corrupt child".

Humbert is USED by Lolita throughout the book. He is a weak charactor, but had Lolita been the 'innocent child' you insist on portrarying her as, then none of the (evil) events would have ever happened.

For some reason you just don't want to accept that a 12 year old female has the mental ability and understanding about sex that women are endowed with.

I think your viewpoint is far from reality Kelly.

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 matter what Lolita did, HH was not justified in taking advantage of Lolita or whether Lolita was taking advantage of HH

also the time frame of the book did not allow marriage of 12 yr old females in the US/Europe

what society condoned/encouraged at earlier times seems irrelevant to me - it seems that you have to look at the mores at the time of the book's action



what else has any one read of the author's?

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.

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 reasons. I think I would read something else of his if I knew it was about a different topic.

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.

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 just watched the movie. I asked you what your direct experience with young girls is and you didn't answer. I have empirical evidence on my side. A 12 year old is VERY different than a 16 or 17 year old. She is not legal to marry in this society and what is okay in another society is based on how those people are raised. It is completely inappropriate to say that because it's okay for 12 year olds to be wed without their consent in other countries it's therefore okay here for 12 year olds to have sex with their mother's husbands.

I really hope no one lets you anywhere near young girls if you really think it's okay for a 12 year old to have sex with an adult. In this country, were you to do that, you would go to jail. And I never said they were innocent. I said they were victims. There is a HUGE difference. These girls had their innocence taken away from them.

My viewpoint is reality because I work directly with these girls and have for the past decade. I also LIVED in group care with them when I, myself, was a teen in group care (I was so much more fortunate than most in that situation.) How can you claim that's not reality? And don't quote some sexist novelist from 1959 at me. I want to hear experts in modern psychology and sociology.

YOU are the one who have no idea what you're talking about. Thankfully the law is on the side of the girls. But it is not surprising to see that you are as out of touch with the actual reality of those who are downtrodden in this instance as you are in the other arguments we've had.

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 that of COURSE HH is going to maintain that she's a nymphet and that she seduces him. I can't speak for the world in general, but how many people look around and proudly think "I'm a bad, bad man." when they do something like rape or murder or kill or molest a child? It's much easier to justify actions when you make them someone else's responsibility. I think the person who is out of touch with reality is HH; whether Lolita is sexually precocious or not, he needs for her to be seductive to justify and validate his behaviors and desires, so of course he's going to interpret everything she does or says as the way he wants to hear them. I think that he is a sick, sad man, and that is illustrated by the fact that he DOES let her talk him into murder, etc.

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

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 believe that's what the author intended to communicate.

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.

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.

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!

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 about the characters and plot?!

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 pedofile -

it..."

I don't think You have much understanding of how society has changed even though human motivation is still very similar

we don't cut off a person's hand for stealing nor imprison people for being debtors today

you're point about arbitrariness also seems limited to things like being arbitray about driving on one side of the road and not about matters involving some moral or societal value/choice

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.

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.

sorry, I am late to the thread.
Has anyone discussed the symbolic meaning of these two main characters? One would rightfully be repulsed by two humans behaving in this manner, (particularly an old man having sex with a 13 year old.) Consider the 2 "people" in the story in allegorical terms, however, HH = the Old World (Europe et al) and Lolita = the New World (indigenous Americas) The "rape" becomes a figurative act. I believe this was the author's intention.
Not that contemplating the "rape" of the "americas" is any more or less pleasant, but this might make those sensitive to the abuse endured by teenage girls able to process the novel from another place.
I love the book (and most by Nabokov - he is easily one of my favorite authors). Through his rich language, the author creates a shadowy world (outward and internal) that explores the darker sides of obsession and greed. Sometimes we need to face that dark side.
happy reading,
Kenneth

William wrote: "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..."

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

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.

William wrote: "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..."

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

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?

William wrote: "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...."

I'm not much for anyone thinking they have the "TRUTH"
and that includes You

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

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'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 discussion of ideas, politics, philosophy are the point of those groups but I thought this thread was to discuss the book Lolita. Since I can't contribute a lot I hate to try to steer the direction back to the book, but I am perplexed.

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 think you have a point there. I am more interested in talking about the book than politics etc.

Does anyone know if the film version compares well to the book? I have never seen either version. (I think there are two that I know of)

Also I do not have the annotated version so I am just skipping over the French parts. Do these French comments make a significant difference to the story or is it just HH showing off a bit?

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.

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 not enjoying this discussion much and, given how long ago I read the book - over 40 years ago, I think I'll wait for our next book to do the book discussion. There are other interesting threads here where I might participate should I have the time.

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

Adam wrote: "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 gro..."

I really enjoyed the version with Jeremy Irons. I felt that it captured more of the moral ambiguity of the work.

Kelly wrote: "I don't think we're supposed to like HH. And I agree--I don't at all. It would be way worse if I did like him given the theme of the book. Ugh."

I do think that we are, to an extent, suposed to "like" HH. This doesn't, of course, prevent us from loathing him as well. Don't you think that HH's beautifully lyrical prose is intended to ingratiate him to the reader? Also, compare him to other adult characters (e.g. Lolita's mother). Isn't he more "likeable" or do you think that this is just his chariterization of himself v. others? I think the reader's feelings toward HH is the central conflict of the novel. Are not we, as "ladies and gentlemen of the jury", written into the novel, key characters ourselves?