Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.

[Sheila]

Gee Karen.

I thought the beauty of Lolita was that the story WASN'T about this.

[Karen]

Sheila wrote: "Gee Karen.

I thought the beauty of Lolita was that the story WASN'T about this."

Wasn't about what?

[Sheila]

Pedophilia. Rape.

Remember? You spelled that out quite clearly for me in our other thread when you suggested that maybe Nabokov wasn't for all readers, including me. :)

I just find it amusing how your perspective changes depending on the thread you're on.

[Karen]

Sheila wrote: "Pedophilia. Rape.

Remember? You spelled that out quite clearly for me in our other thread when you suggested that maybe Nabokov wasn't for all readers, including me. :)

I just find it amusin..."

What on earth are you talking about??? I never claimed the beauty of Nabokov's novel was because it was about rape and pedophilia. What? Gary's post above is sarcasm- is that what made you direct your post at me? Of course there was rape and pedophilia in the novel, I never said there wasn't. Do you have proof that I said there wasn't?

[Sheila]

Karen wrote: "Sheila wrote
"The title of this book is LOLITA, the name with which HH labels his victimized "fantasy girl", and yet you don't get why so much discussion takes place about his illicit relationship with her?"

If some are preoccupied with that, then they miss the beauty and mastery of Nabokov, that's all.

Those things did happen in the novel, and it is a travelogue. You can look at it symbolically as tradition vs trashy America, a fascinating character study, and there are those who say that Lolita was using HH as much as he was using her. I haven't read this in 25 years, but I don't ever remember thinking that this book was just a travelogue, pedophilia story. Maybe the writer is not for you, and that's okay."

[Karen]

Sheila wrote;
Karen wrote; "Those things did happen in the novel, and it is a travelogue. You can look at it symbolically as tradition vs trashy America, a fascinating character study, and there are those who say that Lolita was using HH as much as he was using her. I haven't read this in 25 years, but I don't ever remember thinking that this book was just a travelogue, pedophilia story. Maybe the writer is not for you, and that's okay."

I said above that Lolita is not JUST a travelogue, pedophilia story- because it is not. I NEVER said that there was no pedophilia or rape in the novel.
Now I remember you Sheila!! You're the one who kept twisting our discussions into arguments to serve your own agenda- constantly insisted we said things that we did not. Goodbye Sheila, I will no longer discuss with you.

[Karen]

Cemre wrote: "I think getting angry at people who think that "Lolita" is about the rape of a little girl is ridiculous beyond belief. People are all like "Ohh you're not sophisticated enough to understand it. Th..."

I hope this was not directed at me, I wisely ended the argument with Sheila, as it was an old one and I needed to defend myself.

[Sheila]

Cemre wrote: "It was directed at Sheila."

Then I'll just say I agree with you. :)

[Sheila]

Edward wrote: "Sheila wrote: "Pedophilia. Rape.

Remember? You spelled that out quite clearly for me in our other thread when you suggested that maybe Nabokov wasn't for all readers, including me. :)

I just..."


No, Edward. I agree. This book is absolutely about pedophilia, rape, AND abuse.

That was the crux of my previous argument with Karen, when she and a few others decided to pile on those of us making exactly that point.

[Sheila]

But i have to say this is a great example of how misunderstanding and mis-interpretation constantly challenges us in these threads. :)

[Michael]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this discussion. Gary has provided an excellent one-line summary of the novel: A book about a deranged child molester narrating the story of his rape of a 12-year-old as a romantic tale of love lost.

Yes, the novel is about rape, among many other things. Crime and Punishment is about murder, among many other things. Are you suggesting that this makes them bad novels, or that Nabokov and Dostoevsky are somehow reprehensible for writing about rape and murder?

[Gary]

Cemre wrote: "Ok, maybe that was a bit harsh. But they're delusional at least."

For the most part, I think they've just misread the text. That can be unsettling, but it's not all that hard to do if one takes Nabokov's talent into consideration. His skill with the language and understanding of character is profound enough that I think a lot of people miss the nuances he throws in to illustrate that he's really doing a deeply satirical and biting commentary on the ideas presented.

On the other hand, I'm an awful lot less sympathetic to those who rationalize such a misreading. The arguments sometimes presented in this thread that support the ideas presented (parsing the term "pedophile" or suggesting historical examples that stand out even in their own time as unusual, or ignoring the actual historical context) is closer to reprehensible....

[Sheila]

Michael wrote: "I'm not sure I understand the point of this discussion. Gary has provided an excellent one-line summary of the novel: A book about a deranged child molester narrating the story of his rape of a 12-..."

Gary did provide an excellent summary of the novel.

But it's amazing how many people out there will still deny that all the pretty words of Humbert actually cover up a pretty ugly story.

[Sheila]

Can anybody understand if I draw a comparison between Lolita and
Breaking Bad? Or Dexter?

It's hard, because I haven't seen much of either TV show (limited cable, you know); only read about them. I'm sure there's a million different reasons why they're not like Lolita.

But this is how I think they're alike.

We, as a society, condemn the crimes in reality, and yet we are asked to identify with those committing them, in these shows. The victim is given the minor part.

Then we all stand around shaking our heads when's someone's empathy with the character blinds them to the actuality of the crime. Or someone goes so far as to COMMIT a crime, and somehow justifies it through that fictional character.

What Nabokov did was no different, as far as I perceive it.

I hate what Nabokov did to Lolita. I hate that despite the fact that SHE was the victim (that we, as a society, mandate through the enforcement of our laws) she's used and then tossed aside and dies at the end of the book. Her only use seems to have been the minor part of the victim.

And yet, so many people's attention is trained on HH.

[Karen]

Cemre wrote: "It was directed at Sheila."

I'm sorry then, :)

[Karen]

Cemre wrote: "I'm not switching positions. My post was directed at people who minimilize HH's crimes (sorry Sheila if you weren't one of them.) Why am I always misunderstood ? Is my English that bad or is it bec..."

I think sometimes your positions aren't clear, it could be language but I'm not sure. It's hard to post on a forum, when you do see a quote sometimes it is hard to know who the quoted is.

[Michael]

Here is an interesting excerpt from NPR's All Things Considered, July 7th, 2006. The piece, Why 'Lolita' Remains Shocking, And A Favorite, is by Bret Anthony Johnston. I don't agree entirely with the argument, but I think it's worth considering.

"The book, which can be viewed as an allegory for Europe's relationship with America, offers a depiction of love that is as patently original as it is brutally shocking.

More shocking, though, is the reaction the author somehow manages to elicit from his readers: empathy. Readers always read, I think, out of a tremendous curiosity about other human beings, we're looking for another soul on the page, and that's what Nabokov has so fearlessly, so complexly, so gorgeously given us. In a lesser writer's hands, we could easily dismiss Mr. Humbert as a monster, but Nabokov denies us that all-too comfortable option. Even if we would never condone his vain and deadly infatuation, we understand it. We're complicit in his sins, and our complicity is seductive and terrifying. "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury... look at this tangle of thorns."

To be sure, this novel isn't for the faint of heart, but neither should prospective readers retreat to any kind of moral high ground. Nabokov, in fact, threads an unexpected and affirming emotional serenity through his portrait of obsession. His enigmatic narrator leaves us in spellbound rapture. Because for all of its linguistic pyrotechnics — as Humbert confesses, "you can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style" — and for all its controversial subject matter, Lolita is one of the most beautiful love stories you'll ever read. It may be one of the only love stories you'll ever read. This is the most thrilling and beautiful and most deeply disturbing aspect of the novel — and it's what most persuasively recommends the book — that in addition to finding Humbert's soul on the page, we also find, like it or not, a little of our own."

[Sheila]

Cemre wrote: "I also hated how Dolores was denied to tell her own story. That being said while I don't find HH that interesting (though I find the book interesting), I can understand why are people fascinated by..."

A good point. Really. The victim just isn't interesting to us.

Here is a quote from Reading Lolita In Tehran that I think really captures my thoughts:

"...The desperate truth of Lolita's story is not the rape of a twelve-year-old by a dirty old man but the confiscation of one individual's life by another..."

She literally had to ESCAPE HH to begin having a whole life. Then she struggles and she's poor and unsuited for anything. Then she dies.

Too close to the women we hear about nowadays, trapped inside by some rapist, for YEARS.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "Here is an interesting excerpt from NPR's All Things Considered, July 7th, 2006. The piece, Why 'Lolita' Remains Shocking, And A Favorite, is by Bret Anthony Johnston. I don't agree entirely with t..."

I have read this- the only part I don't agree with is what I quoted from it below-
"and for all its controversial subject matter, Lolita is one of the most beautiful love stories you'll ever read. It may be one of the only love stories you'll ever read"
I have never thought of it as a love story; a lust, obsession story yes.

[Michael]

But aren't most "love stories" about obsession and infatuation? When we are "in love"--in the romantic sense--how often do we fully perceive the other person as they are, rather than a projection of our needs and ideals?

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "But aren't most "love stories" about obsession and infatuation? When we are "in love"--in the romantic sense--how often do we fully perceive the other person as they are, rather than a projection of our needs and ideals?"

I think you raise a very good point that illustrates another source of the confusion regarding the way people read this book. If one reads a progression of "love stories" culminating in Lolita it's easy to see it as part of that genre rather than a parody of it.

The problem with words like love, obsession and infatuation is that they have a range of expression that makes it difficult to be clear when one uses them. Obsession is probably the one that is most often negative, but we often have to qualify those words--like "romantic love" or "personal obsession."

So, I would agree that obsession/infatuation are part of most love stories, but where they exist in Lolita Nabokov was illustrating the excessive, deranged version of those emotions, not the (relatively) happy one we might get in a more conventional love story. We get dark, excessive versions of those emotions. Where one might say Humbert was "obsessed" another person might call his version a mental disorder, and "infatuated" might as easily be called "lust."

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "But aren't most "love stories" about obsession and infatuation? When we are "in love"--in the romantic sense--how often do we fully perceive the other person as they are, rather than a projection o..."

Yes I guess that's true, I am just uncomfortable calling it a love story. HH could very well have loved Lolita in his warped way, but I don't think she loved him.

[Traveller]

Edward wrote: " As deplorable as it is, murder puts the victim out of his-her misery. Pedophilia often condemns the victim to a lifetime of misery. Perhaps as odious as weekly visits to a perv psychiatrist's office. "

Or worse - cutting, self-mutilating, self-hate, washing the erogenous zones with bleach, attempting suicide repeatedly... suffering from PTSD...and a rage that may never be conquered in an entire lifetime, even with medication and regular psychotherapy. Absolutely. I agree that the rape of a child is in most cases worse than killing them. It is a much longer and slower death.

However, do you really feel that murder and rape should never be portrayed in fiction? Wouldn't you say that Nabokov demonstrated at least some of the terrible consequences of such acts sufficiently in the novel? What with Lolita ending up ruined and pregnant and not making it past 17 years of age? Perhaps not... perhaps Nabokov needed to see what really happens to boys and girls who are raped at such an early age - the terrible psychological trauma and self-hatred that they live with. ...and that he did indeed rape her, was completely obvious from the novel, to me. But then, I think the readers who don't see this, have difficulty in recognizing in Humbert the typical unreliable narrator.

We are not supposed to believe everything that Humbert tells us. The hint lies at the very start of the novel where he tells us that he is mentally ill. A further hint to the fact that he is a sick, narcissistic pedophile is given to us where we see him ogling schoolgirls. There are so many hints in the novel as to Humbert's 'real' nature. The novel is a first person narration, so of course he is not going to tell us straight out in so many words that he see sees himself as a sick pedophile. He himself does not have that insight at the start of the novel. But towards the end of the novel, he clearly comes to that realization and concedes that he is guilty and that he has ruined Lolita's life.

He knows that she was only going along with him BECAUSE SHE HAD NO CHOICE. The kind of thing that Humbert did to her is sometimes called institutional violence. She is a child. She has nowhere to go. He acts as her father. He tells her that the police will put her in a home for juvenile delinquents if she tries to escape from him.

So what choice does she have? So badly does she want to escape Humbert the monster who would even stoop to having sex with a feverishly ill child that she eventually does escape despite his threats.

I feel aghast that anybody's interpretation of this novel could be anything other than that Humbert is a completely narcissistic psychopath - he even says so, for Pete's sake! ..and even more aghast that anybody can condone the rape of a 12-year old, or worse, could entertain a creepy fantasy that a 12- year old has anywhere close to the emotional maturity to cope with a sexual relationship of the kind that Humbert was foisting upon her, whether she had been experimenting with sex or not. And I must say that in retrospect, I'm starting to think that the fact that she apparently did, is probably enough to count for a strike against Nabokov. He shall be demoted from my favorites shelf.

After reading the novel, I rated it 5 stars, because to me it was pretty obvious that the novel portrayed the man as a complete monster. But after seeing so many people apparently unable to read this interpretation, I'm wondering if I shouldn't just simply remove my rating completely, lest it gives people who seem to think the book is a vindication of pedophilia the wrong idea.

[Somerandom]

Traveller wrote: "Edward wrote: " As deplorable as it is, murder puts the victim out of his-her misery. Pedophilia often condemns the victim to a lifetime of misery. Perhaps as odious as weekly visits to a perv psy..."

I think because it's a fictional setting, people allow their morals to be twisted a little. Because it's essentially safe to do so, Lolita (although obviously ruined by HH) is still fictional. Nabokov's writing is dazzling, it's enticing and I think people are sometimes a little blinded by it at first. HH is reprehensible, but he's pathetic enough to entice some readers to sympathize with him, he's also cultured and intelligent enough for people to perhaps blur their lines a little bit, so to speak.
Some people are just too "into" the dazzling wordplay of Nabokov that they are ultimately romanced by it and in turn their interpretations are skewed and romanticized.

Personally I agree with you, HH is evil and I was happy to learn from the foreword (that I accidentally skipped at first) that he had died. I wanted to do my happy dance.

[Gary]

Traveller wrote: "After reading the novel, I rated it 5 stars, because to me it was pretty obvious that the novel portrayed the man as a complete monster. But after seeing so many people apparently unable to read this interpretation, I'm wondering if I shouldn't just simply remove my rating completely, lest it gives people who seem to think the book is a vindication of pedophilia the wrong idea."

If you think that would serve a particular symbolic purpose, then I say go ahead. However, as a general rule, I wouldn't revise your assessment of the book based on the misunderstanding of other readers. At least, I don't think it follows necessarily to demote a good book/writer because readers don't seem to understand it any more than it would make sense to rate a bad book higher because it is popular amongst folks whose reading skills aren't all that great.

[Traveller]

Gary wrote: "Traveller wrote: "After reading the novel, I rated it 5 stars, because to me it was pretty obvious that the novel portrayed the man as a complete monster. But after seeing so many people apparently..."

Hmm, though would you say to completely remove a star rating is to demote it? For me the worst rating is a 1 star. To abstain from giving a star rating feels more to me like saying: "It doesn't make a lot of sense to rate this with stars: Read my review rather" ? I wish the Goodreads rating was different; that is to say, qualitative instead of quantitative; because after all, people could be giving those stars based on widely differing criteria.

[Traveller]

Somerandom wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Edward wrote: " As deplorable as it is, murder puts the victim out of his-her misery. Pedophilia often condemns the victim to a lifetime of misery. Perhaps as odious as weekly vi..."

But what I meant was, to me it seems obvious that the author, Vladimir Nabokov, wanted us to see Humbert as "evil" or at the very least as a damaged person who does things that are immoral and who also thinks in ways that are amoral or immoral.
..because like you say Humbert does try to make you see things like he sees them, just like a typical psycopath does in real life - though surely when he starts talking about how he sees little girls, and
his callous feelings about people and the way he just uses people, should make a red flag go up for the reader that this is really not a very nice man.

In fact, at the very start of the novel, Humbert mentions that he has been institutionalized for bouts of insanity, and already shows a sociopathic tendency by mentioning the games he likes to play with psychiatrists and therapists.

Also, I wonder if some readers don't tend to confuse the narrator's voice with the author's voice. (In other words, sometimes people feel that because a narration is in first-person (the "I" voice), that the person speaking (the narrator) is the author himself. Do you see what I am trying to say? That we should not be taken in by what Humbert says and just believe him blindly.

[Somerandom]

Traveller wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Edward wrote: " As deplorable as it is, murder puts the victim out of his-her misery. Pedophilia often condemns the victim to a lifetime of misery. Perhaps as ..."

Oh mate, I agree with you. I was just offering some musings as to potentially explain why a person might sympathize with Humbert more (in my opinion) than they should. As awful as he is, he is quite the spin artist.

I was repulsed by Humbert throughout the novel and I agree, Nabokov was clear that Hum is not a good guy. We should not find his actions anything less than reprehensible. Humbert has some charm, but we should be careful not to fall under his spell. I mean the guy rapes a child, even criminals consider that crossing the line.

Yes, people have an unfortunate tendency to conflate the author's voice with that of their fictionalized character/s. I mean people call Mark Twain a racist for Huckleberry Finn to this day. So I guess that's where this whole idea of "defending pedophilia" comes from. But Humbert destroys pretty much any person within a mile radius of him. And his destruction of Lolita is all but ignored by him and his pretty words of self justification and rose tinted glasses. I don't even buy that their last exchange was as pleasant as he says it was. (Well at least not until she has the money.) I was waiting for her to throw something at him, to call him out to ask him point blank why he had chosen to destroy her. Maybe he omitted that part, maybe she was just too dead inside. I don't know.

Perhaps Nabokov's prose is just a little too dazzling for some eh?

[Traveller]

Somerandom wrote: "Perhaps Nabokov's prose is just a little too dazzling for some eh? "

He does have a way with words, indeed; and what's even more amazing was that English was his second language.

[Somerandom]

Traveller wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "Perhaps Nabokov's prose is just a little too dazzling for some eh? "

He does have a way with words, indeed; and what's even more amazing was that English was his second language."

Indeed!
I find that non native English speakers tend to lean more on the academic and "expressive" side of English than most native speakers. Like my mother's second language is English and she speaks better than a lot of native English speakers I know! Perhaps because they do not rely on the vulgar aspects like us natives? Or maybe a lot of native speakers just tend to be lazy =P

[Traveller]

Ha, good point. I never thought of it that way before, but that's true...

[Gary]

Traveller wrote: "Hmm, though would you say to completely remove a star rating is to demote it? For me the worst rating is a 1 star. To abstain from giving a star rating feels more to me like saying: "It doesn't make a lot of sense to rate this with stars: Read my review rather" ? I wish the Goodreads rating was different; that is to say, qualitative instead of quantitative; because after all, people could be giving those stars based on widely differing criteria."

Giving things stars is probably not a particularly meaningful rating system when it comes to something like a book, so I don't think it's a huge deal or anything.

Sidenote: I watched a documentary about Roger Ebert last week, and other film reviewers in that film were talking about how meaningless "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" was to something like a movie--and they have a good point. It's a highly insubstantial way to go about a "review" of a work of art. That binary "up/down" is only marginally less meaningful than 1-5 (or 0) stars.

That said, it is YOUR impression/rating, and though Goodreads has a set of ideas on how you assess using the system they put in place, it is up to you how you want to interact with it. So, if you have a rationale for changing that evaluation, then I say go for it. Personally, I really try to avoid changing things unless I have a good reason, but what is "a good reason" is up to you.

For example, I read Ender's Game long before I knew anything about Orson Scott Card's attitude towards sexual politics. (He's a particularly vehement wingnut.) I wasn't wild about the book. I found it something of an obvious, melodramatic, wish-fulfillment exercise. The writing and storyline were often juvenile, and there's a whole creepy homosexual subtext that I thought was purposeful by the author--but it turns out almost certainly was not. I gave the book three stars. It was probably really about a 2.5 star effort, but I figured I'd round up. Knowing what I've learned since, I probably should go back and change that to two stars. But I don't have a really compelling need to do that even though it would take all of about 20 seconds.

So, if you think it's worthwhile, then sure. If "the Spirit moves you" as religious folks say. My advice (which is pretty much the same as I give to most things) is to make sure you have a reason thought out. A rating of a book on GR is, of course, not a particularly important thing, but it's not really about that. It's about how you're going to conduct your reading/reviewing and, in a larger sense, thinking.

[Gary]

Traveller wrote: "He does have a way with words, indeed; and what's even more amazing was that English was his second language."

Nabokov didn't exactly learn English as a second language. One of the fascinating (to me, at least) things about Nabokov is that he grew up trilingual. His family spoke Russian, French and English at home. Reportedly, he could read & write English before Russian. I have no doubt that trilingual background affected his overall writing ability. However, he never really seemed to lose his accent when speaking English, and he had a somewhat odd, mannered way of speaking, which makes it seem like he hadn't mastered English entirely.

I think for Nabokov we have a unique combination of factors that contribute to his writing:

1. His trilingual upbringing.
2. His synesthesia.
3. His multi-cultural life.
4. A native talent for language.

But most relevant to this thread is

5. His personal experience as a child

There's an interesting video up on Youtube that was posted in this thread: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... that theorizes a sexually abusive relationship between Nabokov and his uncle. It's a compelling argument--if an unproven one.

[Traveller]

Gary wrote: "Nabokov didn't exactly learn English as a second language. One of the fascinating (to me, at least) things about Nabokov is that he grew up trilingual. His family spoke Russian, French and English at home. Reportedly, he could read & write English before Russian.."

Ah, yes, you are correct. I think I misinterpreted the following quote by Nabokov himself:

"My private tragedy, which cannot, and indeed should not, be anybody's concern, is that I had to abandon my natural idiom, my untrammeled, rich, and infinitely docile Russian tongue for a second-rate brand of English, devoid of any of those apparatuses — the baffling mirror, the implied associations and traditions — which the native illusionist, frac-tails flying, can magically use to transcend the heritage in his own way."

I think he is here rather speaking about the fact that his English work was the most successful. Plus of course, his family emigrated from Russia when he was still quite young, and yeah, living in America, (eventually) he wasn't exactly going to be writing much in Russian if he wanted to keep the pot boiling.

Maybe the following quote by Nabokov sums it up more effectively:

“I’m an American writer, born in Russia, educated in England, where I studied French literature before moving to Germany for fifteen years… My head speaks English, my heart speaks Russian and my ear speaks French”.

[Gary]

Great quotes. He was such an odd beast.... Kind of hard to picture that combination occurring again any time soon.

[Somerandom]

Wow. Nabokov's languages skills were badass!

[Petergiaquinta]

Gary wrote: "The writing and storyline were often juvenile, and there's a whole creepy homosexual subtext that I thought was purposeful by the author--but it turns out almost certainly was not. "

Hey Gary, don't be too quick to back off that insightful observation there...like so many of the most virulent voices against homosexuality and gay rights, there's probably some self-hatred motivating our little friend, Mr. Card.

If you ask me, the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Janet]

Last year I posted several times to this thread saying that I thought that Humbert was not a pedophile but a "hebephile"

quote…... "A hebephile is a person who is primarily attracted to adolescents, or children who have at least started puberty and have signs of adult sexual maturation, but are still young and developing both mentally and physically. Generally this means teenagers and preteens between 11 and 14 years old.

I got into some heated discussions !!! However I recently read about Franklin Floyd and felt sick to the teeth. He had copied Humbert in his vile crime, apart from the fact that Sharon was THREE when she was taken by her 'stepfather', plus in his jealously he murdered Sharon and her child.
Read about Franklin Floyd the real Humbert and you will see that this is not a lovely story at all it is a book about a sick mind..

[Michael]

Are you saying that you can't have a great novel about a protagonist with a disturbed mind? What about Don Quixote? Crime and Punishment? Moby Dick? The Picture of Dorian Gray? Under the Volcano? The Catcher in the Rye? The Bell Jar? Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? A Clockwork Orange? The Shining? The list goes on and on.

[Janet]

Sorry, I was not hitting the book, if you read my reviews and comments you will see that I thought that the book was written beautifully. As with the other books mentioned.
However I just wanted the people that I debated with, on here last summer, to know that my view of H.H. was knocked sideways by the way F.F. kidnaped his stepdaughter, travelled for years around the states with her, calling her his daughter then his wife, and finally killing her when she planned to escape with a boyfriend.
As I read about F.F. I got that feeling of desa vou.

[[deleted user]]

Fatin wrote: "Yes, I completely agree. And of course the book is about so much more than just paedophilia. But my problem is that I've read a lot of reviews and discussion threads where people are defending him ..."

Fatin, you are correct in so many ways. Don't let it drive you insane. There are people who read above their level, and people who are formally educated beyond their intellectual level. That's life. You just have do do what you do, speak up against it, because these people whom you decry are the ones who will take every opportunity they can to control what you read. So good for you!

[Dagwood]

Regarding the discussion title. Lest we be so shortsighted as to forget that but a few generations ago 13 was a prime age for marriage. As recently as the inception of our own country (America) in the 18th century it was not ususual for a young lady to marry at 12 or 13 years of age.

Science has shown us that evolutionary traits take substantially longer to change than our arbitrary social mores. For example the male attraction to a biologically maturing female approaching reproductive functionality.

Put simply, men are instinctively attracted to teenage girls! It is only modern social customs that prevent us from acting upon it.

[Gary]

OK, this is going to be blunt, but your statements require it:

Thirteen was never a "prime age for marriage" and certainly not "a few generations ago." In fact, in most places, the average age of marriage hasn't changed much in over 100 years:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A000506...

That's for the U.S. and things do vary in time and place, but this perennial argument that marrying children was a standard is simply not supported by the data:

https://historymyths.wordpress.com/20...

Of course, marriages to children did happen, and in various times and places the lowest age of marriage varies, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule, and generally not "marriages" at all in the sense we understand the term but socio-political allegiance contracts made amongst the aristocracy. Even in those situations, the standard of behavior assumed that an adult marrying someone before the age at which they could bear children meant that the consummation of the marriage was expected to wait for the parties to mature.

Last, I would suggest you speak for yourself rather than make so broad and deeply offensive a statement as to suggest that all men are "instinctively attracted to teenage girls." If that's an issue that you struggle with then you should seek therapy. It's an intensely bad idea to parrot the rationalizations of pedophiles at all, let alone pseudo-scientific "biological" ones. Simply stated, conflating the male sex drive with the sexual predations of pedophiles is on its face false.

How this kind of nonsense gets propagated would be a good topic for an academic paper or ten. I suspect it has a lot to do with the more salacious presentation of history combined with the way fiction itself functions: a focus on extremes and readers failing to comprehend that what they are reading isn't a "norm" but the breaking of a norm.

Nonetheless, I'm very confident that Lolita was written as a counterpoint to that historical/literary confusion. That means regurgitating the false arguments made by those who prey on children is (in addition to being factually wrong and morally bankrupt) to be a bad reader of this particular book.

[Mickey]

Dagwood wrote: "Regarding the discussion title. Lest we be so shortsighted as to forget that but a few generations ago 13 was a prime age for marriage. As recently as the inception of our own country (America) i..."

I don't see how an evolutionary traits defense could be used to explain Humbert's preference for children from around 9 years to 13-14 (when he finds them too old). This excludes the majority of a woman's reproductive time which would make no sense from a biological standpoint. A woman's peak reproductive time is in her 20's and mid 30's which should mean that men would be hard wired to be attracted first and foremost to older women, not teenagers.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "OK, this is going to be blunt, but your statements require it:

Thirteen was never a "prime age for marriage" and certainly not "a few generations ago." In fact, in most places, the average age of..."

Nicely done!

[Dagwood]

First let me say that I am not defending pedophilia, just stating biological and historical facts. Second, the 18th century is the 1700's, not 1890.

"A few generations ago", refers to that since the beginning of the human race up until about 300 years ago marrying and/or "reproducing" (think cavemen, excuse me, cavepersons) was carried out sometimes as soon as a female became fertile. The "age of consent" is a relatively brand new concept in the grand scheme of human evolution.

"Census answers place the average age of marriage at 26-27 years old, depending on which half of the 1700's they are referring to. Calculations due to life expectancy place the average age of marriage at 12-15 (Women) and 15-17 (men). Historical data shows marriages as early as the age of 10, although that may have been an uncommon event."

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230

This discussion is just ripe for controversy, so I will stop here. I do not intend to offend anyone.

[Gary]

Ellen wrote: "Nicely done!"

Thanks for saying so.

You're quite right in your comments in post #574, BTW.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Ellen wrote: "Nicely done!"

Thanks for saying so.

You're quite right in your comments in post #574, BTW."

Well, I know it's possible to be completely pseudonymous on this site, but if Fatin is who she says she is, a young woman in Pakistan, she is not someone you would expect to have read Lolita in as thorough a way as she has, to understand it as well as she does. Apparently there are several people here who don't look into who their hosts are in these threads, and so gave her no quarter in her weighing the evils of rape v. murder. I didn't mean to be patronizing, but I believe in knowing, to some degree, to whom you may be speaking.

Your posts have been very helpful to me, and I thank you for the time they must have taken.

[Laureen]

Mickey wrote: "Dagwood wrote: "Regarding the discussion title. Lest we be so shortsighted as to forget that but a few generations ago 13 was a prime age for marriage. As recently as the inception of our own cou..."

Sorry, Micky, but I have to disagree. The peak child-bearing age to have healthy children and a healthy mum is like 15or 16 to around 27-30yrs of age. It is well known that the older a woman is when she has her first child, the more chance there is in the foetus developing some abnormality. That is nature at work. Fortunately, in this day and age, the problems with gestation for older women is becoming obsolete because of the protective high quality of modern medical science.

For all those who are knocking Dagwood's comments, I have to agree with him that young girls, rightly or wrongly, were prime "meat" in the bargaining power of the parents in all poor nations. It was culturally accepted that once a child reached pubity, they could be offered up in marriage. This is not what I believe should happen, but it is a fact that it did happen - more often than not.

[Janet]

Laureen wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Dagwood wrote: "Regarding the discussion title. Lest we be so shortsighted as to forget that but a few generations ago 13 was a prime age for marriage. As recently as the inception..."

True, I agree with Laureen.
We went through all this a year ago, can't believe that some of the same people are still debating the same points. ( See pages 8 onward of this discussion.)