Lolita
discussion
Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.
Xdyj wrote: "Humbert is supposed to be a horrible person & IIRC I don't think it's Nabokov's intention that readers would sympathize w/ him at all."I agree. I think the point of the book was to instill a sense of disgust, not sympathy. You don't always have to be on the side of the main character of a story...
I feel tagging Humbert as a rapist and insane is bit too harsh as its crime "maybe" but it should also be taken into context that he was still in his obsessed child hood frame of mind. Which makes his adult socialized and conscious sense of thinking dead. He takes a step ahead and lives his part of life which was unsatisfied, However my intention is not to support humbert but it cannot be denied that his maturity fails infront of his obsessed childhood tales which gives you a thin hairline between a rape and obsession which the author tries to portray in the whole book
Ashok wrote: "I feel tagging Humbert as a rapist and insane is bit too harsh as its crime "maybe" but it should also be taken into context that he was still in his obsessed child hood frame of mind. Which makes ..."Much of what you say is true, but I'd adjust a bit and say that tagging HH as a rapist and insane is letting him off too easily. He was well aware that he was doing something despicable. It is my understanding that if a person is truly "insane" they are not aware that what they are doing is wrong.
when you are obseesed with a thought in mind you rather push yourself into the position that your main goal being is to reach or achieve it in various ways ..Humbert though was a scholar.. was a divorced husband and also changed his country ..inspite of the scenario given the narration takes a different tone when associated with lolita ..it would be tender and something which is unheard and senstive to Humbert.. It might be four years before or after given the situation Humbert would have fallen for lolita like character becoz he had to. Humbert had this corner saved untouched despite of his mental agility or maturity ..so instead of judging the deed what he does in the plot if we can understand the physic of the character..i feel thats what the novel is all about ..then it would be a different prespective..to all above readers .. its just my prespective not an argument..
Ashok, You present a fine case. Different opinions are wonderful fodder for discussion. The heart in fact. :)
Its not symapthy or empathy with the writing i am just trying to bring out the essence of the author ..and my thinking also points me that Humbert has or must have shared a part of the author himself ..well Lolita for me is treat for literature and i found lots of joy in reading that piece ...i appreciate for your inputs Cateline ..and it will be great if could discuss different aspects of the book
:)
"If you look at the examples in the book, he was attracted to prepubescent children as well."But he had also been with mature women too. So he was attracted to lots of stuff, really. What he was really pursuing was his childhood love.
"I rolled over him, he rolled over me, we rolled over us."..."
Oh sure that's really convincing.
He was not really attracted to grown women if I recall correctly. At more than one occasion he states that in fact he finds them repugnant, even if they were attractive according to "normal" standards. He has sex with grown women, that is true, but his true attraction is to children. He mentions explicitly his "age range" at one occasion - and that starts at 9 years old. At one point he also worries that Lolita is slowly aging out of his range and fantasizes about having a daughter with her, who would then be another perfect nymphet for him.
This shows in my opinion in a gruesome way that he doesn't love her as a person, but his idea of her, the perfect nymphet. His "love" (lust/obsession) is subject to her meeting his age requirements (children on the brink of puberty).
This also shows in his choosing to pursue revenge out of jeaulousy on Quilty (her other abuser when she was nymphet-material) instead of attacking her husband, when he meets her again at age 17. She chose both men over him, but only Quilty is worthy of his hate.
I also can imagine that this book is indeed a kind of test - some will argue love and buy into HH's arguments. For me this is not love. It is abuse and manipulation.
Regarding the childhood "love": To me it read like something totally blown out of proportion by the narrator. His memory and nostalgia make a short acquaintance and tragic death into some kind of legend. I could imagine that her death is what seals her importance for him, as she stays young and desirable in his memory. And also it serves as some kind of twisted justification as he bends something totally normal (crushing on someone of the same age in childhood) into a reason for his pedophilia.
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...""A twelve year old cannot be held responsible for her actions"-do you really believe that? So no 12 year old should ever be punished for anything they ever do?
by saying that " Humbert" shouldnt be tagged as a rapist the view in itself is not a defense of his actions..but indeed it just draws a thin line of between offence and obsessed illusion he had ..for the girls of that age...lolita was just an episode which he associated for along time ..it doesnt show the lust but the author ..wants to drag is left overs of his love ...and then he cherish that in mind seeing the girls of that age...point being said its still wrong on ethical grounds but still he does it at age to an age which always will raise questions ..irrespective of doing that ..the love has tenderness and being physical is just a side effect of there closeness ..but if it was not closely associated then humbert for sure would be the one sided lover or admirer in his thoughts...So i felt its too harsh to nam him as rapist rather his intentions are tender and innocent in a sub conscious way
Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.And in other news, water is wet.
Harper Lee may be more your cultural speed.
its just the way you feel and respond..King kong we are talking about a scary baboon in which the heroine is factually kidnapped..and put into hostage situation..and then loved ..and then scarfice is given ...but for the film director who creates this situation sympathy for a baboon ...was the catch and as audience i can see an ugly baboon getting horny ..or reflect real love ..unbounded selfless love ...
i would like to add kingkong is the best love story ever created ..atleast i think like tht ...
hahaha great reader
Simone wrote: "Yes, Nabokov himself has said in the past that Humbert is in fact a monster and Lolita is a victim, and that he made everyone feel sympathy for a monster.That is what I feel is one of the achieve..."
This, this, this and this.
Lolita is a book about reading and writing. Nabokov gives us an unreliable narrator and expects the reader to question the account that the narrator gives.
i doan know where to start on dis one - just read th damn buk - isn't that what YOU PEOPLE do?!..
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..."Now, before even starting to argue on hot topics like pedophilia and all that, you must understand this is fiction...and its based on that premise that all the values arise in the characters and in the book itself. If it was for me, id have a book like Lolita be even more reckless and straightforward, because the writer spent only 30% of the novel be about their relationship...and the rest on a useless load of fancy words, static descriptions of even the most irrelevant things such as "who was doing what at that place in that specific way". Of course i have to credit that to the fact that it was the 60s back then and even that ammount was controversial enough. If Lolita was published today, it would have been more direct, more shocking, and overall even more exciting without the useless sugar coating that was provided in the old one because of worrying not to shock people "too much". And please dont make the assumption that one must be a pedophile or a serial killer to like a book about a pedophile or a serial killer, cuz that is so NOT the case. The special thing about a book is that it gives freedom to the reader to indulge in ideas and fantasies that otherwise would be catastrophic in real life, a consequence-free roaming in that special second life that only books provide. And if someone wants a book to be as bland, as politically correct and "right" as real life is supposed to be....then i feel sorry for that persons level of imagination and standard of entertainment. Thats all i had to say, and on a side note, i think this book was amazing even though at times it turned a drag because of the things i just mentioned above. I just wish there were more books like these where "wrong" is right for entertainment and fantasy's sake.
You wrote'If Lolita was published today, it would have been more direct, more shocking, and overall even more exciting without the useless sugar coating that was provided in the old one because of worrying not to shock people "too much".'
What you call 'useless sugar coating' is the reason why some of us read Nabokov. And Nabokov had a long writing life, largely immune to the dictates of fashion and commerce.
It's good that you've begun reading great literature at such an (apparently) early age, but you won't understand Lolita until you've done a lot more quality reading than you perhaps have.
Palmyrah wrote: "You wrote'If Lolita was published today, it would have been more direct, more shocking, and overall even more exciting without the useless sugar coating that was provided in the old one because o..."
Listen, Nabokov is clearly a damn good writer, nobody is criticizing that. If you'd have taken a quick glimpse at the books ive read, you'd see that they are mostly classics or from the 30s and 40s so im very well aware of what you call "quality books". However, my critic comes not to the book per se, but rather to the experience it gives me while reading it. And unfortunately that experience was like watching a favourite movie through a tv with bad signal, you get to only take short glimpses at your favourite scenes…only to be quickly replaced by blurry visions. So, normally I wouldn’t criticize a book for being descripitive and rich in language…but when there’s a topic like this one, you want to tone down the secondary elements and focus mainly on the primary one…which was his relationship with Lolita, and not the relationship of him and ¾ of the planet, because that’s why the reader took the book in the first place.
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..."This is clearly the difference between the 20th and 21st century. Yes, of course rapes Lolita. He's 47 and she is 12! That is not the point. The language is the point. The language makes the novel into a love story despite the powerful dislike all sane people have to pedophiles. Nabokov was making a point. Language is a poweful tool. Hitler used it; McCarthy used it; Bush used it--or Cheney speaking for Bush used it to get us into a war we had no reason to be in. Language has lost its importance, to some degree, in this new century and this new technology. This is a lovely story because the language is as beautiful as the most wonderful piece of music. Lo-li-ta, the tongue trips along the roof of the mouth and ends at the teeth. Paraphrase, I don't have a copy next to me.
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..."Hy, to start this reply I need to say that I open my goodreads profile just to be able to comment this.
This is a story, from the very begining to the very end about love. Love about Anabel. I am surprised nobody is actually refering to the very clear line: if it wasnt for Anabel, there might not be Lolita at all.
Middle age man, a lonesome and lost writter (no matter what they say just like Nabokov himself) starts to reflect his long life search for his past love. The only he ever felt love for, the only thing that has meaning for him in his life. He finally finds it, it happens in a girl that is more then just a girl. He describes her as a little deamon, a different perfection he was waiting to meet since his childhood.
Thing you have to know about man is that we often have our first love idealized and it is by this love we compare all others. All man do that, psychotherapist usually analize persons behavior by the events in the childhood, specially love. Lolita represents pure nature in its fullest, an angel as seductive as a endless ocean, a perfect girl that is not a woman yet. She has no regret, she has no past, she is clear of all boredom...she laughs and dances, she doesnt care what other people say, she is our youth we want to go back so much.
Knowing this is it really surpising Humbert is falling in love at first sight. I think it was natural and some girls are just special. Im saying this cuz I was in a similar situatio as him and Anabel, without that kind of end, but stil, a true love echoes in eternity and all I ever searched since than in life for a girl like her. No, im not an old man. Im in my mid 20-s and Im a writter myself..and the spring of my soul will alway be that girl and that street.
Humbert says he will love her forever no matter how she looks or gets old..if he trully means that, and I think he does..it is a real love. And i feel the same.
But then there are some things that do point he has a jealous nature. He is scared and dosent want to lose her so he is closing her freedom at the time girls should be and feel the most of life. The end is clear and he knows its not gonna be happy and its not gonna lust long. I find this disturbing and wrong. She should be free to dance and he should just enjoy his heaven of being near her. I do not support sexual relationship with a 12 year old, I think 14 is much more acceptable as I am a bit conservative man. Still, Lolita has all sexual elements a man would consider naturally attractive, her lips, her breasts and her long, long legs. So it does not make him padeophile (it is a person who is attractive to non-sexual behavior and looks in minors). In my mind he shouldnt have sex with her that young, but I dont blame him that much as others do. Once, when i was younger I was like most of you and was shocked by this book, even when I met love. Now, some years after, I understand more and more, my melancholy is making me feel and see more into desire to go back to the first and only real love.
If you dont understand love, you will only judge people. You may say he ruined her life, but that is not true. She loved him back and it had the same influence on her and she felt it. And it wasnt all about sex. It never really is. You might say he was the father she never had, but I wouldnt say it like that either. She was something more and the book Lolita is really all about her, a testimony of perfection, of a mans desire to travel to the past, but among all other things it is a story about love. There is no greater gift then the gift of love and I am glad, with all the dark skies above and all my lonely nights, that I have it. Love is all.
"I do not support grown men having sex with 12-year-olds... however..."Dude.
Great post, Michel.
Welcome to the (pseudo) "it's totally okay" society, the self-deluding "we uphold diversity and embrace differences" society; the phony "be whatever you want to be" society. Pseudo-society, because the proponents of this nonsense really can't handle everybody's differences. They just want to sound like they can! Ha
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..."
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..."Hi Fatin! Yes, of course he is an abuser and scoundrel narrator. But please have in mind this is Art, not shrinks debate. We are talking about Obsession and the Aesthetic Ideal, not flesh and bones characthers portraited in a novel. And as a novel, Humbert is a Modern Troubled Hero and Lolita a Timeless Masterpiece
Why so many references to rape? It has been many years since I read this novel, like 40 years ago so forgive me if I am wrong in my assessment. I remember feeling sorry for Humbert Humbert. He was very mentally confused about his desires and feelings but he truly seemed to idolise this young girl. He definitely didn't cause her any physical harm and we must remember that rape is a vicious, brutal assault.Yes, I believe now, that he was portrayed as a paedophile although I was only about 20 years old when I read it and I'd never heard of that terminology. I seem to remember feeling that young or old, we can be very self-serving in obtaining what we most desire - perhaps with Lolita it was to feel a sense of maturity and freedom and with Humbert, probably lacking maturity in the love department, saw Lolita as non-threatening and she had the appeal of sexuality and innocence.
As I said, I don't have a lot of confidence in my assessment, but I am keen to see what others think who have recently read it. Maybe I was too young and idealistic when I read it.
That is the correct definition of rape but these days people use it to refer to "any sexual relationship I don't approve of."
Scott wrote: "That is the correct definition of rape but these days people use it to refer to "any sexual relationship I don't approve of.""Thanks Scott, I think I get you!
" we must remember that rape is a vicious, brutal assault." - um, no. That is often used in court cases as a defence against rape "she isn't that badly injured" or "she froze up and didn't say no" but that isn't what rape is.Rape is having sex with someone without their lawful consent. This covers when someone was too drunk or drugged to give consent and when someone is too young to give their consent.
Humbert most definitely raped Lolita. He didn't just do that with the physical act of rape itself, but also by erasing her personality entirely and ascribing her with the traits he wanted her to have. I don't know where people get the idea that she loved him back - she did what she had to do to survive and escaped from him as soon as she felt able.
I think the author is very skilled (too skilled perhaps if people are using his work to justify having sexual relationships with children) at writing as the unreliable narrator. Throughout the book Humbert refers to the readers as his jury, he knows what he has done is wrong, and he tries to make excuses for himself "I loved her, she was a willing participant, I wasn't even her first" because he knows what he did was horribly wrong. He had so many opportunities to do what was right by Lolita, and he chose to keep her for his own selfish needs instead. That isn't love - it is abuse.
Kenia wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Why so many references to rape? It has been many years since I read this novel, like 40 years ago so forgive me if I am wrong in my assessment. I remember feeling sorry for Humber..."Lovely to hear from you, Kenia. I had forgotten HH's reference to nymphets. That, indeed, is telling. My memory only took me to a belief that both parties were getting something out of this relationship and I seem to remember thinking that Lolita had the upper hand; i.e. that she was wiser, and that HH was a bit of a simpleton which is why I felt some sympathy for him as he thought he was controlling the situation.
However, I think I need to read the book again as it was so long ago and my perspective may have changed greatly. May I congratulate you on your intelligent analysis. Not in a condescending way, it's just that I didn't start reading until I was about 18 so I am genuinely impressed that you are reading such thought provoking classical literature.
I do think, however, that no matter how old we are, we are still innocent children at heart. For the most part, our life experiences govern our judgement of others and that judgement is not always accurate. Did the novel explain Lolita's background OR Humbert's childhood? I know that society has become very apologetic for the bad behaviour of people that commit hideous anti-social behaviour, so I don't want to appear to be excusing it in terms of the harm it does to others but we are each responsible for our own behaviour, and we all slip up, but for someone that has been subjected to a dysfunctional family or childhood trauma, one can see how such an experience can lead to a damaged psyche.
Victoria wrote: "" we must remember that rape is a vicious, brutal assault." - um, no. That is often used in court cases as a defence against rape "she isn't that badly injured" or "she froze up and didn't say no"..."Do you really think I am justifying having sexual relationships with children? I am doing nothing of the sort. However, if you assume that "children" or teen or just pre-teen age youths are incapable of malicious or clandestine acts, then maybe you are mistaken. Remember that horrific instance in the UK involving two ten year old children murdering another child? Evil persists amongst most ages. I am not saying that either Lolita or Humbert were particularly evil, just that there was self-interest for both these characters.
I would love to ask Nabokov what he was intending with this novel but that is why we enjoy trying to interpret his message - maybe he doesn't have a clear objective either? Perhaps we are just meant to dwell on it and interpret it as we will. I think that Humbert is still a pathetic character warranting some pity. At least he appeared to be aware of his wrong doing - most paedophiles believe they do no wrong.
I wasn't responding to you in particular Laureen-more to the commenter who said " I do not support sexual relationship with a 12 year old, I think 14 is much more acceptable as I am a bit conservative man." (!) I also don't assume that children are incapable of malicious acts. I just think in this case that Lolita had a serious lack of choices. She was groomed for a while before she suddenly found herself alone but for Humbert in an area that is completely alien to her. I did say I think she did what she needed to to survive - she played the part of a besotted young woman to keep herself safe until she could escape. So yes, I suppose you could say that she was acting in self-interest (but even a normal 12 year old who isn't being abused will act in self-interest - empathy and social contracts are things we learn as adults, generally speaking).
My opinion is that Humbert, as the narrator, was trying to convince us that this twisted relationship was based in ove, and his choice of language makes it seem dreamy and languid like many love stories, but that we as the readers are supposed to see through the cracks of his story, to see how unhappy she was, and how she was robbed of childhood by a predator. Take Anabel as an example. He justifies his lust for Lolita by claiming it stems from his love of his childhood sweetheart (already robbing Lo of her sense of self to an extent). But don't most children have a crush on another child? We are supposed to grow out of that as we mature. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that he didn't seem very mature - I think he had the very self-centred attitude one would usually associate with a very young child. Perhaps the trauma of losing Anabel arrested his development, or perhaps he used it as an excuse because he did know what he was doing was wrong. That is the beauty of this style of writing, I think, it leaves so many things ambiguous and unanswered (just as they would be in this situation in real life). If you like that sort of story - where you never really get a definitive answer to the question "why?" or "what motivated that character?" then I'd strongly recommend We Need to Talk About Kevin. It is another book that takes a situation with unanswerable questions and explores it. Again, much like in real life, it leaves those questions unanswered, and brings up things to think about :~)
Victoria wrote: "I wasn't responding to you in particular Laureen-more to the commenter who said " I do not support sexual relationship with a 12 year old, I think 14 is much more acceptable as I am a bit conservat..."Hy Victoria, you really missunderstood me, and as english is not my first langauge maybe Im the one to blame. :)
I mean to say, for me it is normal that first sexual experience should be only after 14th birthday for girls, anything younger I would not accept (so 12 yeard old Lolita is just wrong). Of course I do not mean that somebody older should have sex with a 14 year old, it is ilegal after all and not for discussion at all..but I focused on love more and as you are woman, its natural you dont really understand Humberts side, and in this novel it is only his side.
He was def. selfish, but arent we all sometimes..when Anabel died, lets be poetic and say his heart stopped growing and he just wanted to go back and feel the same as before. He found that in Lolita.
btw. peadophilia is an attraction for girls younger then 11 years old...this would be more ephebophilia - attraction for girls (or boys) from the 14 to 19 years old.
For the end I dont see him as predator, at the end he confesses his true love to her and it has nothing to do with age or appereance..but she didnt feel the same.
Love is impossible to describe, but one thing is sure, it always leaves reason way behind.
"I looked and looked at her, and I knew, as clearly as I know that I will die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth. She was only the dead-leaf echo of the nymphet from long ago - but I loved her, this Lolita, pale and polluted and big with another man's child. She could fade and wither - I didn't care. I would still go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of her face."
I don't deny that he says he loves her. I don't deny that maybe he feels like he loves her. But what he felt wasn't love, because to truly love someone else means to put their needs before your own and do what is best for them. He knew right from the beginning that he was attracted to Lolita, and if he truly loved her he would have done what was best for her and left well alone, given her space to grow up, maybe tried to find her again when she was an adult. Instead he married her mum to be close to her, and then kidnapped her after her mother died. That doesn't seem like love to me.
Victoria wrote: "I don't deny that he says he loves her. I don't deny that maybe he feels like he loves her. But what he felt wasn't love, because to truly love someone else means to put their needs before your own..."Yes, I agree. His "feelings" are probably more about obsession and the power to be in charge of the "thing" he is obsessing about. It reminds me a little of the novel "The Collector" by John Fowles (I think that is the correct spelling). I haven't read that book yet but I saw the very disturbing movie a long time ago. The perpetrator collected butterflies and ended up abducting a young girl who he kept imprisoned. His obsession was beautiful things.
Unrelated to this story, but I'd like to make a observation, is that a few "new age" men appear to have trouble relinquishing the role of provider and the dominant force in a relationship. That control is an obsession in itself that can lead to horrific outcomes - like child homicide. Maybe, to be a man, still has some long term genetic connection to our stone-age forbears with a club!
I keep going back in thought to the question: what was HH's parental background? Did he have a domineering father, or mother? If mother, perhaps he can't relate to mature women so is sexually more attracted to young girls so he can feel more in charge.
I have just finished reading "Gone Girl". I don't usually read "Who done it" crime novels as I find them generally so predictable and they have nothing really to say about the human condition. This novel does have something to say which has me believing how important good parental guidance and nurturing are to the development of young minds into adult relationships. One can only ask "who is the real perpetrator?"
Thank you for your recommendation "We Need to Talk About Kevin". I have read it and it does indeed cause lots of speculation. I find, however, that the classics like Lolita leave you feeling so connected to the characters that it takes a lifetime to forget the feelings generated while reading them. Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment is another that similarly affected me.
Kenia wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Kenia wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Why so many references to rape? It has been many years since I read this novel, like 40 years ago so forgive me if I am wrong in my assessment. I rem..."Thank you for your comments, Kenia. I am really loving this discussion. I had, for instance, forgotten about Lolita's relationship with her mother AND that HH had married her. That's very telling. Perhaps that explains why Lolita is so wilful.
If you haven't already read Dostoevsky's "Crime & Punishment" please give it a go. It is a different theme, but I love the Russian novels. They really make you think about the behaviour of people and help us understand the reasons behind these horrible crimes. Perhaps it may lead us to be better people ourselves if we can get to the bottom of what makes people do the things they do. Like, are some people born evil? Or are we products of our environment? An age old question, but what do you think?
Micky wrote: "Lolita is a vixen, she consumes Humbert!"I think you are being a bit soft on Humbert, Micky. He is supposed to be the mature adult here and her step-father which gives him a huge responsibility when her mother dies. He is now her prime carer and should be setting Lolita straight - not taking advantage of her. He could do much to see that she is loved paternally and that she gets a good education. I.e. In a normal world.
Unfortunately, Humbert is a mess himself. Probable because he had a dysfunctional home life - and the circle continues!
Laureen wrote: "Victoria wrote: "I don't deny that he says he loves her. I don't deny that maybe he feels like he loves her. But what he felt wasn't love, because to truly love someone else means to put their need..."I think you raise some very good points there.
Perhaps if we had heard more about Humbert's background (learned that he had a domineering mother who intimidated him, or that he suffered abuse himself as a child, or had some other event that caused him to link adult sexual relationships with some kind of trauma, for example)the book might lose some of its magic, because it would be too cut and dried, the question "why" is then effectively answered. Now we get all the fun of wondering why he needs to be in contol, without compromising the unreliable narrator.
Perhaps if he had gone into more detail about his past we would instead be wondering if his testimony of his past could be relied upon or if it was some kind of excuse. I think the debate would be less about his relationship with Lo and more about how to spot and break cycles of abuse.
Those themes crossed my mind when we found Lolita to be pregnant near the end of the book. I wonder how she will cope with parenting when she has had such skewed models to work from.
I think that is the beauty of classics like this - it isn't just about what you read on the page, but what you pick up on between the lines, and the new lines of thought and questions that opens within us. I find that it stands up to multiple readings, because each time you pick up on something you maybe hadn't thought about before.
I could almost cry when I read all the comments about this masterpiece! This isn't a book about pedophilia, rape, abuse...it is a book about language and how it can manipulate issues that seem so settled and incontrovertible. How could an entire nation murder 6 million Jews save for the fact that language was used to sway what was obviously a horrible, horrible wrong! Please take note that Nabokov saw the political wranglings of both Russian and Germany first hand. He knew the effect of language and his novel is a reaction and poignant example to that powerful tool.
Pessoa wrote: "'I don't understand HOW anybody cannot see that he does rape Lolita.' Everybody sees it is a rape. The author's intentions was not to glorify the act, but write something that would stand out beaut..."Yes!
Gerry wrote: "This isn't a book about pedophilia, rape, abuse...it is a book about language and how it can manipulate issues that seem so settled and incontrovertible."Pardon my making the distinction, but what you're talking about is the theme of the book, and other people are talking about the plot. Thematically, you're quite right. One of the ideas that Nabokov was trying to relate is the fugue state of rationalization and delusion that people live in. That state means that even monsters are the heroes of their personal narrative.
However, in order to do that he tells us story about a pedophile. The plot is the story of a repugnant man doing despicable, depraved things. Many people have trouble seeing the forest (the themes) for the trees (that plot) but because Nabokov is so successful in couching the plot in language that is abjectly elegant and psychologically astute, a similar number of people have trouble seeing the trees for the forest....
Yes, Gary, so true. I think my point was: the plot is secondary to the theme. The plot is a device used to push the theme forward. Humbert's despicable behavior is only a strategem for Nabokov to prove that language can obfuscate the most heinous crimes. "I looked and looked at her, and I knew, as clearly as I know that I will die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth. She was only the dead-leaf echo of the nymphet from long ago - but I loved her, this Lolita, pale and polluted and big with another man's child. She could fade and wither - I didn't care. I would still go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of her face." LANGUAGE AT ITS MOST POWERFUL!
Absolutely. That's a gorgeous passage. Nabokov does put together achingly beautiful prose.... I can't think of anyone who surpasses him.Unfortunately, that has led to people saying things like Lolita is "the only authentic love story of the 20th century."
I think that's a very problematic thing to say. Aside from how it dismisses a century of English literature during the explosion of psychological development and massive cultural progress, it's wrong on its face. Lolita is presented as a love story with utterly convincing tone and language... but it's really closer to a crime novel than a romance. Calling it an "authentic love story" completely misses the point.
Nabokov wouldn't be a genius if he had wrote a certainly guilty, awful, crazy, pedophile character for you to hate it. That's too easy, isn't?
Less important than the moral questions, but I thought I'd ask:John Steinbeck wrote a story about a guy named Humbert. I read it recently and wondered if it was a coincidence. It's not a particularly common name.
Monica wrote: "John Steinbeck wrote a story about a guy named Humbert. I read it recently and wondered if it was a coincidence. It's not a particul..."
maybe it's a classic? that name is unusual but it WAS used in older times...
Dumbest theme ever...Yes he is, that is the purpose of the story. Don't shove biggotery into litterature, which only describe the human experience.
Victoria I'm sorry for spoiling this to you but Dolores died. She died after giving birth to dead girl baby .
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Enchanter (other topics)
Hannibal Lecter and Philosophy: The Heart of the Matter (other topics)
My Story (other topics)
Lolita: A Janus Text (other topics)
More...
Harriet Beecher Stowe (other topics)
Jon Ronson (other topics)
Rebecca Solnit (other topics)
Rebecca Solnit (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Crime and Punishment (other topics)The Enchanter (other topics)
Hannibal Lecter and Philosophy: The Heart of the Matter (other topics)
My Story (other topics)
Lolita: A Janus Text (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Elizabeth Smart (other topics)Harriet Beecher Stowe (other topics)
Jon Ronson (other topics)
Rebecca Solnit (other topics)
Rebecca Solnit (other topics)
More...
and anything to escape the situation she was in.