Lolita
discussion
Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.
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..."And Raskolnikov is a murderer. And Madame Bovary is an adulteress. So what? I don't read novels to emulate the behavior of the characters.
Emma wrote: "lolita wasnt really all that innocent"Are you familiar with the "unreliable narrator" concept?
Lolita is an exercise in the unreliable narrator. The only person whose word we have for Lolita's behavior is Humbert--her abuser. The book is the in the form of a long, tell-all confessional written after he's been imprisoned for murder, and it's told in a style that conveys not only his perspective, but his psychosis. The descriptions of Lolita's character are from Humbert's perspective, and told in retrospect, making them self-serving. He is telling the story to justify his own behavior. Maybe Delores had sex with somebody at camp, and maybe she is a seductress... but probably not. Rather, it's more likely that those descriptions of her come from Humbert's perception as a pedophile, and the his desire to rationalize his behavior after he's been jailed for a series of particularly heinous crimes.
Fatin wrote: "macgregor wrote: "Fatin wrote: "But for me rape is a more serious offence than murder."This is a ridiculous statement to make."
What I mean by that is, I would rather be murdered than raped. Of ..."
I have always said, if I was ever raped, I would fight to the DEATH!!!Who could live with something like that!It's a killer of the soul!A man wouldn't understand unless he's had it happen in prison or wherever.
I think that Nabakov is an excellent writer. I read several of his novels before reading Lolita. In my opinion,this book should not be considered literature and be banned. It appears to me he wants the reader to sympathize with Humboldt, a pedophile. I could not complete the novel because I was so upset by his description of Lolita, a CHILD, portrayed as "a loose woman asking for it." For a child like Lolita, she is referred to as "fast". I hear this phrase often in my line of work shifting the blame from the man to the girl. I have an extensive library that I am proud of. I removed this book. Before doing so I gave the book to a man then asked his opinion, not telling him mine. In his opinion, Lolita caused Humboldt to be a pedophile. Do we need a book that encourages sympathy for a crime?
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..."
Well put.
Elisabet wrote: "In my opinion,this book should not be considered literature and be banned. It appears to me he wants the reader to sympathize with Humbert, a pedophile."Elizabet: Would you also suggest banning Crime and Punishment, since Dostoyevsky manages to have us sympathize with a murderer?
To be honest, anyone who takes Humbert's side and believes this story is a romance novel needs to sit back and think because that's the trickery of the story getting you, you're meant to feel sorry for him but keep it in perspective and remember he's a paedophile and what he's doing is wrong, it's obvious what he did screwed up Dolores because she didn't talk to him for a long time and she went and found a spouse and got pregnant, she only really got back in contact with him for money. It is annoying when people misunderstand the book and take it for a romance when it's really a novel about a twisted man who makes it seem romantic when in fact it's not.
It appears Nabokov has achieved something important! Everyone is getting quite pedantic about their opinions of what this great author was trying to convey.
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..."I agree with you 100%.I don't sympathize with him at all.By writing what happened in a poetic way,he tries to justify is actions.This is not a love story,this is a story about a pervert,who corrupts a child.
Elisabet wrote: "I think that Nabakov is an excellent writer. I read several of his novels before reading Lolita. In my opinion,this book should not be considered literature and be banned. It appears to me he wants the reader to sympathize with Humboldt, a pedophile..."Still waiting for your answer, Elizabet: Would you also suggest banning Crime and Punishment, since Dostoyevsky manages to have us sympathize with a murderer?
The whole point of this book is Humbert is trying to make you feel bad for him, that woe is he to have fallen into Lo's trap. Here in reality, however, you are supposed to know that it is being written from his standpoint, a standpoint which thinks some 9-12 year old girls exist only to tempt men, which is ludicrous. Why do people not understand the term unreliable narrator? It is my favorite tool a writer can use and yet some people can't understand that what the narrator says isn't always true or correct.
Dylan wrote: "Why do people not understand the term unreliable narrator?"There's probably not a polite way of saying this, so I'll be blunt: because they're reading past their grade/comprehension level.
Now, with that in mind Lolita is a good candidate for the most powerful and engaging example of the unreliable narrator, so it's understandable that many folks would miss the nuances that indicate Humbert is often lying or characterizing events in a way that is based on his troubled psychology. Plus, I'd argue that the unreliable narrator is something that most folks should know from their sophomore or junior level high school English classes, but I remember very little of my high school Chemistry, so it might just be the literary equivalent of the difference between ionic and covalent bonds....
Gary wrote: "Dylan wrote: "Why do people not understand the term unreliable narrator?"There's probably not a polite way of saying this, so I'll be blunt: because they're reading past their grade/comprehension..."
Oh, how smug we are Gary! Of course it is easier to insult the intelligence or the education level of the reader who doesn't agree with you than have a proper debate.
Just to use a more academic term like "unreliable narrator" you think we don't understand it? I happened to love this book but, besides the viewpoint you have, I also had another possible viewpoint. That is the debate; what was Nabokov intending for his readers? I think he would relish this outcome and have a good laugh. His achievement was great, was it not?
Lolita was a minx and as a woman, I understand the devious nature some young girls have especially when they feel they have been misused and unloved in their upbringing. Why not have the same empathy for Humbert? Who is to say he didn't have a similar childhood? Maybe he felt unloved too! If Lolita was an adult in this story and abused a young boy, the discussion would be about how evil she is.
I get the argument that Humbert is the adult and should have protected a minor. There is evil in the world and always will be but if we intend to try and stop it, it has to be stopped at the source. The mother? She probably had a crap childhood too. Possibly, but I don't intend to be as smug as Gary in what message Nabokov was issuing here, if any. But please get off your high horse, Gary.
So, can we understand from your post, Laureen, that you don't think the book uses the unreliable narrator as a technique?
Gary wrote: "So, can we understand from your post, Laureen, that you don't think the book uses the unreliable narrator as a technique?"Of course It uses the unreliable narrator technique! That was never in dispute.
Gary wrote: "So, can we understand from your post, Laureen, that you don't think the book uses the unreliable narrator as a technique?"P.S. Just because the narrator was the perpetrator, doesn't mean that Nabokov didn't use the unreliable narrator technique to muddy the waters.
Gary wrote: "So, can we understand from your post, Laureen, that you don't think the book uses the unreliable narrator as a technique?"PPS. An observation on your post of 21st March - It is my understanding that pedophiles never try to justify their actions because they earnestly believe they have done no wrong! That is their particular danger to society and why there is a debate about whether they should ever be released from prison. The majority, as I understand it, do reoffend, because they believe they are not committing a crime.
Laureen wrote: "Of course It uses the unreliable narrator technique! That was never in dispute."If you go through this thread, I think you'll find that it has been a point of contention for several people, that they aren't familiar with the concept, or have failed to recognize it's importance in this book. In fact, the post that you took such offense to was an attempt to answer the question posed by Dylan: "Why do people not understand the term unreliable narrator?"
Laureen wrote: "P.S. Just because the narrator was the perpetrator, doesn't mean that Nabokov didn't use the unreliable narrator technique to muddy the waters."
I'm not sure what you're saying here. (Lots of negatives that appear to be cancelling one another.)
If you mean that the narrator being the perpetrator means that Nabokov was indicating that his narrator is unreliable, then I'd have to agree. That seems clear from the "Introduction" by his fictional attorney "John Ray, Jr." that Humbert Humbert isn't even the narrator's real name.
However, if you meant something other than the narrator is a criminal and, therefore, unreliable then maybe restating it in more positive terms would be clearer.
Laureen wrote: "PPS. An observation on your post of 21st March - It is my understanding that pedophiles never try to justify their actions because they earnestly believe they have done no wrong! That is their particular danger to society and why there is a debate about whether they should ever be released from prison. The majority, as I understand it, do reoffend, because they believe they are not committing a crime."
I've met in passing a few pedophiles in my working life... but not enough to speak to their behavior as a group. However, I have known a few psychologists and therapists who dealt with them, and from what I've gleaned from their descriptions, they do indeed spend most of their time justifying their behavior. Claiming that they've done nothing wrong is part of that justification, but not the reason they often re-offend. More often they'll say they have a compulsion or are otherwise not in control.
At a certain point, though, I'm not really worried about the difference between someone who offends because they don't think their crimes are really wrong, and that same argument used as a rationalization. Six of one, half dozen of the other.
Gary wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Of course It uses the unreliable narrator technique! That was never in dispute."If you go through this thread, I think you'll find that it has been a point of contention for sever..."
I am obviously incapable of expressing my viewpoint here. I was merely trying to say that just because Nabokov has used the unreliable narrator to tell his story, doesn't necessarily mean that Nabokov was merely tempting the reader to be feel sorry for him and it was only the "clever" reader who would realize that he was a monster and that Lolita was an innocent victim.
I think that Nabokov's writing is saying so much more. He is trying to show the complexity of the human condition and that you can't take what you read at face value. I understand what you mean by "lots of negatives that appear to cancel one another" - maybe I am just complicating the debate unnecessarily.
Regardless, I just don't think one can simply take a black or white view to this
discussion. I have to be a fence-sitter here and say I reserve my judgement.
Regarding the psyche of pedophiles, I believe people only try to justify wrongdoing when they know they are guilty of something. Pedophiles don't try to justify their behavior except to say they are doing nothing wrong and that they love young people. They truly believe they have some sort right to do what they do and that the law is wrong. The ones that do have a conscience are possibly able to get help and change but I think that an exception to the rule.
"I think that Nabokov's writing is saying so much more. He is trying to show the complexity of the human condition and that you can't take what you read at face value."Go to the front of the class, Laureen.
In discussing Lolita on a wonder clip that is on YouTube, Nabakov mentions that the inspiration for Lolita was the epiphany that came to him of how we create our own prisons.
HH, Lolita, Delores, that's what this novel is about, how each of the characters creates their own cage, if you will.
And, he gives the reader choice. I think those who so easily condemn HH for being a pedophile are building their own cage.
It seems to me that the only way to avoid the trap is to do as Laureen suggests: reserve judgement.
Martin wrote: ""I think that Nabokov's writing is saying so much more. He is trying to show the complexity of the human condition and that you can't take what you read at face value."Go to the front of the clas..."
Oh, thank you Martin. I am so glad someone gets me. I was beginning to feel totally on the outer here.
"Too many have no doubts about their opinions."Takes a little time to get there, no?
Martin wrote: ""Too many have no doubts about their opinions."Takes a little time to get there, no?"
Absolutely! And I don't think a lifetime is enough.
Ha, ha. I almost wrote the exact same thing.
Martin wrote: "Ha, ha. I almost wrote the exact same thing."It's good to be on the same page!
Humbert Humbert reels Lolita in, like an angler reels in a fish. He plays her at her own little game, he is a predator . She thinks that she is going to surprise and shock him by the adolescent sexual knowledge that she has acquired, he pretends to be a sexual innocent and leads her on. She is playing with fire and falls into his trap like a fly falling into a web. He binds her to him, she has nowhere to turn, she keeps him 'happy' to survive and sobs in the darkest hours. He is an immature selfish man.That said the wonderful scenes that Vladimir Nabokov paints so beautifully with words are magical .
Gary wrote: "Emma wrote: "lolita wasnt really all that innocent"Are you familiar with the "unreliable narrator" concept?
Lolita is an exercise in the unreliable narrator. The only person whose word we have ..."
The "unreliable narrator" technique is quite well known and your question to someone as to whether they are familiar with it strikes me as condescending. Of course the tale is told from Humbert's persepctive and of course he is as reliable or unreliable as anyone else would be giving an account of the Events which led up to his finding himself in prison for murder.
Esdaile wrote: "The "unreliable narrator" technique is quite well known and your question to someone as to whether they are familiar with it strikes me as condescending."It is a well familiar technique, or it should be. However, if you go through this thread I think you'll see a lot of people have missed it, and missing it is an issue for people going back to the OP.
Esdaile wrote: "Of course the tale is told from Humbert's persepctive and of course he is as reliable or unreliable as anyone else would be giving an account of the Events which led up to his finding himself in prison for murder."
The issue isn't that Humbert is as reliable or unreliable as anyone else would be under those circumstances. The book is (repeating myself here) an exercise in the unreliable narrator. Humbert isn't meant to be like "anyone else" at all. He's a depraved, vicious, sick, pathetic little man. He's a coward and a predator. He says Delores is attracted to him, because he's such a suave, continental guy, but we have only his word for that. He says she was not a virgin when he first had sex with her (having had sex while at Camp Q) but, again, we only have his word for that. [Edit: Which is, I think, the basis of the original comment from Emma to which I mentioned unreliability.] He says she was a seductress who manipulated him, but we have only his word for that. Those "facts" are all self-serving and/or based on delusional thinking.
All this is nestled in Nabokov's unique, "fantasy" prose. That is meant to indicate the delusional quality of the narrative, and Nabokov uses it throughout the book. NONE of the book can be taken as truthful (though certain things can be argued as factual.)
Well that is true but by the same token it could be argued that his seduction of Lolita was a fantasy and that his account of ending up in prison was a fantasy too! In a sense this is correct, since the entire novel is a fantasy (presumably) of the novelist's. What struck me when I read the book (a long time ago, I was 15) was not the depravity or viciousness or otherwise of Humbert, but what an ultimately decent person Lolita was. She is the heroine of the book and a thoroughly good person, benevolent and ultimately optimistic.
Bernard wrote: "as nabokov said there are false bottoms. how to get to the bottom of Lolita? well first of all. the entire debacle is Humbert's fabrication. indeed is john ray jnr. yet another alias for humbert? ..."This is the best description of why this book exists I've ever read. I only hope it is what the author was thinking.
Anne - I initially entertained such a read, and still think it's a viable take.But after listening to Nabakov talk about Lolita and its origins, I don't think for two shakes of a goat's tale it is what he had in mind.
Yes Martin that is too bad. Apparently the Enchanter is the original on this theme. I guess I should watch the video just to have a more educated opinion. Was Nabakov an hebephile apologist or just using it as a clever way to rile us? I wonder if abuse victims feel differently than others about it. I wonder if Humbert, Woody Allen and Roman Polanski have anything in common?
Mickey wrote: "Cateline wrote: "To my mind, the heaviest blame lies with Charlotte, her mother. It was Charlotte's responsibility to care for and protect Lolita. She failed miserably on account of her own insecur..."wow! first of all, the author clearly does want us to sympathize with his monster, because he wants to explore the part of ourselves that can relate to this horrible rapist. I believe most readers will be both attracted to and repelled by his story.
I do not believe the author is sympathetic to Humbert, but he is willfully creating him as sympathetically as possible. I am amazed to read the above comments. A parent has a huge responsibility to protect their child, but no man, or woman has any right to harm a child due to ineffective parental care. charlotte is guilty of being a bad parent, Lolita is guilty of being a curious manipulative child, which, to any parent of a boy or a girl, they know at about this age a child is trying to assert their adulthood, prematurely, of course. it is the full responsibility of any adult, even an adult who is naturally attracted to this almost woman child to be responsible for his/her action and not molest, assault or rape a minor child, no matter the consent the child offers. to blame anyone but Humbert is to fall into the trap the author has set.
Anne wrote: "Bernard wrote: "as nabokov said there are false bottoms. how to get to the bottom of Lolita? well first of all. the entire debacle is Humbert's fabrication. indeed is john ray jnr. yet another ali...""How to get the bottom of Lolita?" is an inopportune turn of phrase under the circumstances.
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 book a pro- pedos and helps them to continue to use abuse kids!! Its disgraceful disgusting book ..sends the wrong message is deviant ..and somehow young girls glorify this nasty book and even want to have such disturbing "love" there is nothing about love but mental illness & pro rape here.. 1 of the worse books ever
Burst, the book is actually an excellent mirror. No reasonable person should find the book as an endorsement of child rape or pedophillia. The author plays a head game with the reader and takes you to a point of view most of us and revolting and makes us see the humanity in the monster, and more importantly, the monster in us.I know nothing about you, but I would guess your reaction is based on the repulsion you see in the mirror. Think about it.
Anthony wrote: "Burst, the book is actually an excellent mirror. No reasonable person should find the book as an endorsement of child rape or pedophillia. The author plays a head game with the reader and takes you..."Don't assume the revulsion is in the mirror, it might be sitting across the dinner table. Or at school, church, family etc. For some abuse victims and their caregivers the visceral reaction overrides the artistic perspective.
Anne, that revulsion is easy. My point is that we are all flawed, yet we are all human and we all would like to see ourselves in a good light, just as Humbert wants to see. Himself as a good guy when the facts clearly show him to be a monster.
I see your point Anthony. Perhaps for some people Crime and Punishment or other example of human flaw exploration would be a more useful tool for reflection than this book which brings up a lot of personal suffering.
Anthony wrote: "Anne, that revulsion is easy. My point is that we are all flawed, yet we are all human and we all would like to see ourselves in a good light, just as Humbert wants to see. Himself as a good guy wh..."Crime and Punishment is an exploration of guilt. Lolita is not. What exactly is meant by "flaw exploration" here?
Esdaile, you did read it, did you not? It is subtle. A book like crime and punishment is not. There is little internal exploration when the author lays it all out for you, only self righteousness. One is hardly able to learn or even think when one is self righteous
Mickey wrote: "I think many women blame Lolita because they like to think that there are ways to avoid being raped. It's difficult to think that one is entirely powerless, so they develop "rules" that, if followe..."This is very insightful. Blaming the victim is a nice psychological twist that we sometimes use to comfort ourselves.
It needn't be about crime. It can be about anything. "Oh, Joe has cancer, but he was a smoker." That makes me feel better because I don't smoke. But what a selfish way to think about it. Yet, most of us do this in some sense.
As for Humbert, he is a rapist. Rape is a defined crime. And it is his responsibility not to commit a crime. Consent - as someone pointed out - is no defense because the law does not recognize the consent of a minor.
If there is any ambiguity, it has to do with moral turpitude. And that is a harder thing to assess. If Humbert is unable to control himself because of some mental defect (or hardwiring, if you prefer), then traditionally we would regard that as a mitigating factor and we might not blame him with the same vigor as we would another who acted similarly, but who could have controlled himself if he had tried.
"Consent is no defence because the law does not recognise the consent of the minor"-do I take it that you believe that the law is the final point of redress in questions of moral rectitude?
Anthony wrote: "Esdaile, you did read it, did you not? It is subtle. A book like crime and punishment is not. There is little internal exploration when the author lays it all out for you, only self righteousness. ..."Are you asking me if I read Crimem and Punishment? I have read it twice in English and once in German. It is a very subtle book in the manner in which it compels one to confront certain moral dilemmas, not subtle in terms of where the writer wants to take the reader, at least that is how I see it.
Sorry, I meant Lolita
birdy wrote: "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..."Where and when do "young girls somehow glorify this nasty book"?
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..."Do you really think all children are "innocent"? Wiliam Golding knew better when he wrote "The Lord of the Flies" or Musil when he wrote "Die Verzweifelungen des Zörglings Törless" or Kudnera in his short stories. In the past society took too little notice of the child's point of view and opinions, now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction and people take a child's views as Gospel. ("Always believe the child.") Children are notorious liars, manipulators and even sometimes seducers. Have you ever heard of James Bulger? He was a small boy murdered and probably sexually abused not by adults but by two ten-year boys. Children are capable of all kinds of evil behaviour and it is modern society's prejudice that they are always somehow "victims" in every case which is the cause of many social ills. The always "innocent" and "blamless" child is a modern myth. Lolita in this story is not completely blamless for what happens, although not at all a malevolent person.
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...
but doesn't know anything about her. He is obviously very good with language and words ( Lolita is probably the most well written book ı've ever read ) and his writing contains several literary refererences but he still doesn't seem to be extremely passionate about literature either. His childhood wasn't that horrible also , yes his mother died but he seems to be very casual about it and he barely knew Annabell when she died. So the only thing that the guy does is talking about is thanking heaven for little girls and criticising people's tastes and behaviours . Yes it's a very well written novel but ı couldn't care less about Humbert . Perhaps that's why ı liked Dolly so much , ı needed someone for caring .