Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.

[Lindsey]

Humbert is a man obsessed with nymphets. He is a pedophile, he does abuse Lolita. The difficult part is, he does not believe he is abusing her. Due to his trauma with Annabelle, he is burdened with a raw infatuation for young girls. Lolita, his victim, was abused. Only at the end of the novel, while Humbert stands on his lofty slope listening to children at play does he show any real empathy toward Lo. He's such a good liar, the reader doesn't even really know if that is real. He does not love her, he needs her for biological reasons unknown to those who have not experienced a trauma.

[Janet]

Lindsey wrote: "Humbert is a man obsessed with nymphets. He is a pedophile, he does abuse Lolita. The difficult part is, he does not believe he is abusing her. Due to his trauma with Annabelle, he is burdened with..."
I agree except i think he is more of a Hebephile, a pedophile is usually very young children.
Note:
Hebephilia is defined as a chronophilia in which an adult has a sexual preference or exclusive sexual attraction to individuals who are of the early to mid (or sometimes late) stages of pubertal development, generally aged 11–14, although the age of onset and completion of puberty vary.

[Gary]

Lindsey wrote: "The difficult part is, he does not believe he is abusing her. Due to his trauma with Annabelle, he is burdened with a raw infatuation for young girls."

One of the things that folks struggle with in Lolita is the truthfulness of Humbert as a narrator, which is something of a constant in the discussions of the book. I mention it because--at the risk of invoking that issue again--in a recent re-read of the novel I found myself doubting that Humbert's story of the origin of his attraction to young girls is truthful. I'm not sure it even really happened at all; that the experience with Annabel happened the way he describes, or that she even existed. His account is so full of "fantasy" metaphors and subtle inconsistencies that Nabokov seems to be indicating that Humbert is making up at least some of that encounter and/or attaching a significance to it that doesn't add up.

If so, that makes Humbert's attraction to young girls something more than a childhood developmental issue. He might simply be depraved and evil....

[Michael]

Gary wrote: "One of the things that folks struggle with in Lolita is the truthfulness of Humbert as a narrator, which is something of a constant in the discussions of the book. I mention it because--at the risk of invoking that issue again--in a recent re-read of the novel I found myself doubting that Humbert's story of the origin of his attraction to young girls is truthful. I'm not sure it even really happened at all; that the experience with Annabel happened the way he describes, or that she even existed. His account is so full of "fantasy" metaphors and subtle inconsistencies that Nabokov seems to be indicating that Humbert is making up at least some of that encounter and/or attaching a significance to it that doesn't add up.

If so, that makes Humbert's attraction to young girls something more than a childhood developmental issue. He might simply be depraved and evil...."

Bingo! Beautifully rendered, Gary.

[Lindsey]

I agree, Gary worded it all so well. Really makes you think!

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "Karen wrote: "Lol. A Steinbeck comparison to Nabokov. Is there one?"

"I can only dig up one connection, Karen.
Lolita went on to become one of two bestselling novels of 1959, outsold only by Boris Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago. Nabokov was critical of that novel, finding it filled with nostalgia for stereotypes of the Revolution. "Compared to Pasternak," he told a reporter, "Mr. Steinbeck is a genius." A backhanded compliment, I'm afraid, but he was known for liking very few authors."

Yep- that's Nabokov for you- he also said that Faulkner was a corn cobby writer. As brilliant as he was, Nabokov was quite arrogant.

[Michael]

That's for sure. He even despised Dostoevsky.

[Michael]

Has anyone read Ada? Some consider it Nabokov's greatest novel, but I'm 100 pages into it and am ready to throw in the towel.

[Lindsey]

I was going to read Ada next...

[Lindsey]

I was going to read Ada next...

[[deleted user]]

Lindsey wrote: "I was going to read Ada next..."

Ada is fabulous, but only, I think, if one can give oneself over to him and live in the diaphanous world and shifting time Nabokov uses to express the story of Ada and Van over decades. It's a question, I think, of suspending one's own expectations. Exquisite language and metaphor. Battle of memories, his and hers, so one is left off balance as to what is true in remembrance, what is embroidered recollection. I read it when I was young and malleable.

[Michael]

Thanks, Ellen. Unlike the other novels of his I've read, I find this one confusing and can't get my bearings, almost like reading Joyce.

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "Thanks, Ellen. Unlike the other novels of his I've read, I find this one confusing and can't get my bearings, almost like reading Joyce."

Oh, yeah, excellent comparison. As soon as Van writes something, you've got Ada correcting him in the margins. I did begin a reread of this a couple years ago, lost interest. Odd. I do love Nabokov, just not in the mood, I reckon.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "That's for sure. He even despised Dostoevsky."

He really did. I wonder if it has something to do with Russia, or just that he hated his writing. I can't remember how he felt about Tolstoy.

[Michael]

Although he appreciated his humor, Nabokov thought Dostoevsky was a cheap sensationalist, sentimental and vulgar, his works filled with "blood and tears and hysterical and topical politics."

Tolstoy was one of his favorite authors. Also, in no particular order: Shakespeare, H.G. Wells, Lewis Carroll, Kafka, Joyce, Gogol, Borges, Salinger, Updike. (Not a bad list...)

[Lindsey]

Ellen, that was amazing. Could not have said it better. I agree with everything you said, spot on.

[Michael]

You make some interesting points, Ellen, but I think what you’ve written is a vast oversimplification of a complex matter: the meaning and implications of this magnificent novel. No great work of art can be reduced to a single interpretation. It’s much more multifaceted than you suggest, and this thread has certainly demonstrated that different readers draw widely different inferences from the narrative.

In my own view, the novel isn’t about Lolita or Humbert Humbert. It is about language and literature, about storytelling and the profound ambiguity of the so-called real and the imaginary.

Some further points:

Where in this thread did anyone suggest that Lolita is Nobokov’s response to the Alice stories? I’m pretty sure that I’m the only one who has mentioned Alice, and this is what I wrote:
“Nabokov also translated Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass into Russian, and was particularly fond of those works. He is said to have had a life-long preoccupation with Lewis Carroll, and said in a Vogue interview: "I always call him Lewis Carroll Carroll because he was the first Humbert Humbert." This apparently refers to Carroll's infatuation with Alice Lidell (Although modern scholarship refutes the notion--held by Nabokov and many others--that Carroll was a pedophile.)”

I think if Nabokov intended the story to be about the girl, he would have titled the novel “Delores.” Lolita is HH’s name for the girl, and Lolita only exists in HH’s mind. Although she is an essential character, and one who elicits deep concern and compassion in most readers, as the protagonist and narrator, Humbert is the central figure in the story.

Is Delores seductive in any way? Is she superficial and bratty? How deeply damaged is she by the relationship? I don’t believe we can know any of this for sure, since we only see the girl through the eyes of HH, who is perhaps one of the most unreliable narrators in the history of literature.

As Gary wrote above:
"Humbert is a character who starts out insane and becomes progressively more insane throughout the story until he finally pens the narrative AFTER his ultimate act of insanity, gets caught and is thrown into a mental institution. The reader can't take his prose at face value from sentence 1 of chapter 1. The Foreward already tells us the circumstances under which the narrative is taking place. You should no more take Humbert's statements as truthful than one should believe the self-serving confessions of the Menendez brothers, Charles Manson or any other raving loon. The book is an exploration of Humbert's madness and the progression that takes place into paranoia, delusion through ultimately homicidal rage."

Lolita is also about Nabokov, since novels are always an expression of the author’s unconscious and creative process. That is why I have brought Poe and Carroll into the discussion. Nabokov was highly interested—perhaps obsessed--with these two authors, both with their writings and biographies, and the novel contains numerous references to Carroll and Poe, both of whom fell in love with young girls. (Nabokov once mentioned that he would have loved to have photographed Poe’s wedding to his 13 year-old cousin.

Nabokov initially planned to publish the novel under a pen name, but he was convinced otherwise by an editor. He was clearly uneasy about publishing this novel, knowing that it was bound to attract enormous attention, be considered immoral by some, and probably banned. But when interviewed he would laugh about it, claim that people had misunderstood the work, and state that the moral of the story is perfectly clear, which I doubt he truly believed.

I leave you with this quote from Nabokov:

"We shall do our best to avoid the fatal error of looking for so-called “real life” in novels.”

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "You make some interesting points, Ellen, but I think what you’ve written is a vast oversimplification of a complex matter: the meaning and implications of this magnificent novel. No great work of a..."

You're absolutely correct. I posted to the incorrect thread. I apologize and am duly chastened.

I will remove this book from my read list and not incur anyone's re-educational efforts again.

[Michael]

Huh. I'd prefer that you engage in this discussion, but do whatever you wish. I'm sorry if I came across as chastising you. That was not my intent.

[[deleted user]]

No, I know it wasn't. But I try to balance the deconstructionist view with the innate humanity, and actually turn to the deconstruction only when the humanity eludes me. I've read so much Nabokov, and treasure his language and his games, for that's who and what we are. But I made a mistake in threads, and after three or four Lolita readings, and being my age, I'm ready to talk about the human. And because I spend my days with criminals, I need to find the human and cling to it in my private time. So I will leave you to your worthy and wonderful discussion of allusion and influence, I've learned much. Thank you.

[Karen]

Michael wrote;
"Tolstoy was one of his favorite authors. Also, in no particular order: Shakespeare, H.G. Wells, Lewis Carroll, Kafka, Joyce, Gogol, Borges, Salinger, Updike. (Not a bad list...) "

I need to read Tolstoy, it's a commitment- long books. I wonder what his criteria was for liking an author. Something to research.

[Roberto]

Nabokov's various opinions and statements were interesting to say the least.

Here's an interview with him from the 60s

http://www.theparisreview.org/intervi...

You have to take a lot the things he said with a grain of salt though because he was known for intentionally saying or doing controversial or absurd things just to mess with people.

[Michael]

Roberto wrote: "Nabokov's various opinions and statements were interesting to say the least.

Here's an interview with him from the 60s

http://www.theparisreview.org/intervi......"

Thanks, Roberto. I hadn't come across this interview. My favorite exchange:

INTERVIEWER

E. M. Forster speaks of his major characters sometimes taking over and dictating the course of his novels. Has this ever been a problem for you, or are you in complete command?

NABOKOV

My knowledge of Mr. Forster’s works is limited to one novel, which I dislike; and anyway, it was not he who fathered that trite little whimsy about characters getting out of hand; it is as old as the quills, although of course one sympathizes with his people if they try to wriggle out of that trip to India or wherever he takes them. My characters are galley slaves.

[Karen]

Some of the interviewers questions were dumb, especially the ones about critics and editors, but it got interesting.

[Michael]

Here's a great and tragic example of how much the reader contributes to the "meaning" of a text:

During his murder trial in November 1970, Manson explained his interpretation of Helter Skelter to the court.

"Helter Skelter means confusion. Literally. It doesn't mean any war with anyone. It doesn't mean that those people are going to kill other people. It only means what it means. Helter Skelter is confusion. Confusion is coming down fast. If you don't see the confusion coming down fast, you can call it what you wish. It's not my conspiracy. It is not my music. I hear what it relates. It says, 'Rise!' It says 'Kill!' Why blame it on me? I didn't write the music. I am not the person who projected it into your social consciousness."

[Karen]

Michael wrote;
Here's a great and tragic example of how much the reader contributes to the "meaning" of a text:

"During his murder trial in November 1970, Manson explained his interpretation of Helter Skelter to the court."

"Helter Skelter means confusion. Literally. It doesn't mean any war with anyone. It doesn't mean that those people are going to kill other people. It only means what it means. Helter Skelter is confusion. Confusion is coming down fast. If you don't see the confusion coming down fast, you can call it what you wish. It's not my conspiracy. It is not my music. I hear what it relates. It says, 'Rise!' It says 'Kill!' Why blame it on me? I didn't write the music. I am not the person who projected it into your social consciousness."

This is similar to how some readers interpret Nabokov's writing of Lolita as if he had an obsession with 12 year old girls, or as if his "message" was to bring awareness to pedophilia, which was not his intent.

[Michael]

Here is a fascinating article: Lolita and The Genre of Literary Doubles: Does Quilty Exist?
by Priscilla Meyer
http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/vi...

If you don't have the time or inclination to read the whole thing (18 pages), here's how she ends the piece:

"Whether or not Humbert invents everything after September 22nd, levels of reality are so interrelated that assigning
one to the realm of fiction may have consequences for the others; calling on authorial intervention here, or Humbert’s unreliability there, affects the whole interpretation of the novel. Whatever else can be said, the fantastic murder of
Quilty, in keeping with the double genre, remains ambiguous.

Conclusion
Dolinin writes that Humbert “ascribes the role of his main adversary, the mastermind of the plot to kidnap Lolita, to one of her idols…But…Humbert fails to notice that in portraying him, he only creates a caricature of himself” (38). The evidence of Humbert’s highly conscious use of the Doppelganger genre suggests that, on the contrary, Humbert is aware of precisely this incriminating resemblance and seeks
expiation through the conventional culmination of the double tale—the destruction of the “evil” double by his host. Not just Nabokov, but Humbert too parodies this convention,
suggesting that at least on the subconscious level, but more likely consciously, Humbert knows he has behaved like Quilty and is not the Romantic poet in quest of his ideal, as he
initially claimed. His narrative itself makes possible a growth of self-awareness. 18

While Humbert uses the doubles tale as part of his repentance, Nabokov renovates the convention by creating multiple layers of doubles, and it is the layerings that are
unresolvable, not the psychological conflict within the protagonist. Nabokov allows Humbert is partial redemption through his growth of self-awareness, not only of what he
has done to Lolita, but of his confusion of art and life to the detriment of both. He had imposed one Romantic myth on Dolly Haze. When he recognizes this, he imposes
another Romantic genre on himself. Humbert concludes by affirming a third Romantic idea, that the refuge of art is “the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita”
(309). Thus Nabokov shifts the duality of “mind and body, creation and creature” (Bullock 202) dominating Humbert’s narrative to the eternal doubling of life and art, and of this life and the next."

She also refers to this intruiging quote from Nabokov:

"You can get nearer and nearer, so to speak, to reality; but you never get near enough because reality is an infinite succession of steps, levels of perception, false bottoms, and hence unquenchable, unattainable."

[Anne]

Excellent piece on this topic:

http://lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-...

[Michael]

Interesting piece, Anne, although I don't believe it's helpful to make broad generalizations about any demographic, including white males.

But I'm not clear on what she's saying about the novel, other than that females are more likely than males to identify with Delores. (Which may be true, but she seems to imply that male readers do not identify with her, which is highly questionable.) In addition, she fails to offer much about how such an identification alters one's reading of the novel.

Here's what she does offer:
"It’s just when you identify with Lolita you’re clarifying that this is a book about a white man serially raping a child over a period of years. Should you read Lolita and strenuously avoid noticing that this is the plot and these are the characters? Should the narrative have no relationship to your own experience?"

The answer to both questions is clearly "no." So what point, exactly, is she making about the novel? I'm unclear. Plus, her piece does to men precisely what she accuses male readers of doing.

As a blogger calling herself Nicole writes in reaction to Solnit's piece:

"The constant psychopathologizing is, let’s say, just not to my taste. Passages like this seem so obviously hypocritical that it’s hard to see how others found the essay:
http://www.bibliographing.com/2015/12...

'Saying this upset some men. Many among that curious gender are easy to upset, and when they are upset they don’t know it (see: privelobliviousness). They just think you’re wrong and sometimes also evil.'

If the entire piece isn’t about how her interlocutors are wrong and sometimes also evil, I don’t know what it is about.

Because I have no idea what Solnit thinks of Lolita and why. Perhaps if she herself had a clearer opinion on the book, she would understand better when others defend theirs like they actually believe in them."

[Anne]

If Lolita was a painting, would it be hanging in the Louvre?

Thanks for your thoughtful response Michael.There is a bit of the "but some of my best friends are white males," annoying isn't it? She seems to satire with role reversals that way.

I like the Solnit piece because for me the take away is not so much about Lolita, though it is a good example, but about having direct experience of something and being schooled on the topic by someone who does not necessarily have that same direct experience. It is bizarre for a woman to be told by a man what it is like for a woman to be raped by a man.

Regarding the point she is making about the actual reality of the plot, the point she made with me is that the people represented by Delores are closer to her heart and more deserving of empathy than those represented by HH, and this is more imporant than the 'beauty' of Nabakov's words. My take away was that some of us don't find it beautiful and we are not wrong.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "Interesting piece, Anne, although I don't believe it's helpful to make broad generalizations about any demographic, including white males.

But I'm not clear on what she's saying about the novel, o..."

Thank you Michael, I have the same opinion of this as you do, but on another thread concerning this piece, I have been accused of not reading this essay correctly, but I see that others like you have a problem with it also- maybe you said it better than I did.

[Petergiaquinta]

Yeah, it'd be hanging in the Louvre, why wouldn't it?

Last time I was there, the Louvre wasn't taking down paintings because they hurt some tender, mistaken sensibilities. The Louvre was, and I'm pretty sure still is, filled with beautiful works of art.

[Petergiaquinta]

Unless this is a trick question...?

I don't think the Louvre displays works from the 20th Century...but if it did? Yeah, for sure.

[Michael]

Do you also disapprove, Anne, of novels focused on a murderer, such as Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment? Should we discount the brilliance of that novel because the text might be upsetting to someone who has lost a loved one to homicide?

Or how about adultery ( Anna Karenina and The Scarlet Letter) or serial killers (American Psycho and Silence of the Lambs.)

In my opinion, there is no aspect of human experience that cannot be fruitfully explored in a well-conceived and well-written novel.

As for the Louvre, the museum displays paintings that portray enormous pain and brutality. Not all art is pretty.

[Gary]

A painting version of Lolita would probably be at the Met, but only because they'd have got their hands on it first.

From what I understand, this is at the Louvre: http://www.louvre.fr/sites/default/fi...

It predates Lolita, of course, but it's similarly evocative in my mind.

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "As a blogger calling herself Nicole writes in reaction to Solnit's piece:

"The constant psychopathologizing is, let’s say, just not to my taste. Passages like this seem so obviously hypocritical that it’s hard to see how others found the essay:
http://www.bibliographing.com/2015/12..."

That is, without a doubt, the most whiny, pathetic and idiotic response to Solnit's article that I've yet read. So idiotic, in fact, that I'm not even going to bother explaining why it is idiotic. If the idiocy isn't readily apparent from a first reading then an explanation will be beyond the comprehension of anyone reading it.

[Michael]

Duh... I'll take your word for it Gary. And thanks for not taxing our feeble brains, you supercilious horse's ass.

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "Duh... I'll take your word for it Gary. And thanks for not taxing our feeble brains, you moron."

You're very welcome. Good luck to you.

[Anne]

I am sorry to cause negativity, I hope you are jesting with one another.

I don't object to the book, I just don't like it and don't recommend it for a reading list. Sometimes if you say you don't like it, it is like saying you don't like art. One point Solnit makes and I agree is that if the book was about repeated castrations it might not be so popular.

I agree with Gary but don't mean any disrespect. My problem with nicole's critique is that she wants an opinion on the book but Solnit is making a social coment about patronization that goes beyond the book.

[Michael]

You have every right to your opinion, Anne. I just don't understand what you dislike about the novel, other than that it deals with a repulsive subject matter, told from the point of view of the perpetrator. I find the whole idea of slaughtering whales repulsive, but still enjoy Moby Dick.

Find me a great novel that deals with castration and I'd be happy to take a look. Gary apparently has no cajones, so he should have no problem with it.

[Petergiaquinta]

I'm still worried that thing about the Louvre is a trap for rubes like me, but here goes anyway, some of the paintings/statues that crossed my mind when I read the above comment:

Rape of Persephone
Rape of Ganymede
Rape of the Sabines
Rape of Europa

Now most likely none of these are actually in the Louvre as I type, but they could be and perhaps have been at one point or another over the past couple hundred years since the Louvre has been in the fine arts business.

Beautiful art has been created from troubling subject matter for centuries, especially in response to rape. And art has been created from far worse. (And how about Diane Arbus or Cindy Sherman, lest anyone think I'm being too phallocentric here? I attended a retrospective of Cindy Sherman's creepy work here in Chicago about ten years ago. I don't find it so "beautiful," myself, but I've heard that's all in the eye of the beholder anyway.)

[Gary]

Anne wrote: "My problem with nicole's critique is that she wants an opinion on the book but Solnit is making a social coment about patronization that goes beyond the book."

I do like the software/setup she's using for her blog. It's very easy to navigate, presents stuff simply.... Nice.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "Duh... I'll take your word for it Gary. And thanks for not taxing our feeble brains, you supercilious horse's ass."

Lol.

[Michael]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "I'm still worried that thing about the Louvre is a trap for rubes like me, but here goes anyway, some of the paintings/statues that crossed my mind when I read the above comment:

Rape of Persephon..."

Another one, my fellow rube, is The Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus by Rubens.

Unlike these paintings that portray what has been termed "heroic rape," I don't see how anyone can maintain that Nabokov glorifies or justifies rape in Lolita. Just the opposite: he portrays the pain and destructiveness, as well as the delusional rationalizations of the perpetrator.

[Anne]

petergiaquinta - You are right. I realized after writing that plus the bible is full of it. there is probably plenty of child rape in the Louvre.

Michael I don't like the book because the revulsion is too great and there is an insurmountable smarminess. The author would probably be pleased with such a strong reaction.

[Karen]

Michael wrote;
"Unlike these paintings that portray what has been termed "heroic rape," I don't see how anyone can maintain that Nabokov glorifies or justifies rape in Lolita. Just the opposite: he portrays the pain and destructiveness, as well as the delusional rationalizations of the perpetrator."

I am convinced people see it this way because HH is portrayed as a very human character, he's too three dimensional and this makes people so uncomfortable they wonder how Nabokov could have done this. HH is supposed to be a terrible scary monster. He's not- we are supposed to be able to identify men like this, but we can't.

[Laureen]

Michael wrote: "Do you also disapprove, Anne, of novels focused on a murderer, such as Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment? Should we discount the brilliance of that novel because the text might be upsetting to so..."

I can agree with all you say Michael.

[Mickey]

Thanks for including that essay into the discussion, Anne! Very interesting, although I have to say I don't agree with a lot of it personally. However, it was more thought-provoking than the previous discussion on here. Good save!

I think it brings up the discussion on whether having a gag reflex reaction based on certain material is a valid reaction or not. I don't agree with her assumption that women are uniquely sensitive to the subject of rape or childhood sexual abuse. Men are raped and are as vulnerable to being molested as youngsters. Men can have a negative visceral reaction to a book told through the point of view of a pedophile. This "privilege" she speaks of is not as clearly defined as she makes it out to be. There are plenty of men who would have a reaction as well as plenty of women to whom such vulnerability is an empty concept.

Although I do find there is a tendency not to respect that reaction in others to the point of being told that they are not reading it correctly and I find that message is usually delivered in a condescending way. A person who has gone through a murder in the family may react in a way to Crime and Punishment that someone without that history would not. Is such a reaction valid? Would it be a worthwhile one to share? Or would having such a reaction necessarily be disqualifying? Does bringing in real-life scenarios enhance the literature or not? Is a blank-slate reader the best kind of reader there is?

I think the lyricism of the prose in Lolita may dazzle some people to discount the content and to think that those who pay attention to the content are "less worthy" readers. That arrogance is pretty repugnant to me, simply because it usually does arise from a privileged viewpoint. It's a luxury to be able to pay attention to pretty words because you don't find the content to be a distraction. But is having the ability to discount such content as murder or sexual abuse or rape a sign of a good reader? It seems to me that one who does that usually views such content in a more abstract and superficial way.

[Anne]

Hi Mickey,
Thanks for the discussion. I don't find it so much a question of a bad reader but rather a bad recommended book reading list. I would not add this book.

There is just no accounting for taste. What one finds lyrical, another finds smarmy. Environmental and experiential factors no doubt inform those opinions. There are times in the book when the abuse is very casual and detailed which is hard to view abstractly and the level of empathy for Delores is so high as to negate anything else.

Sometimes it seems like the book's proponents want to convince non-fans like me (and maybe Solnit) that we secretly like the book but just don't know it.

There are so many stories in this world. I'm tired of rape as a framework. I should probably move to a different thread but I like this group.

Happy Holidays folks.

[Uğurcan]

Fatin wrote: "I don't understand HOW anybody cannot see that he does rape Lolita. Yes, she's attracted to him, yes she makes moves on him. She's a twelve year old! In the beginning of the book, she's compared hi..."

NO SHIT SHERLOCK? I am thoroughly impressed with your sharp wit.