Lolita
discussion
Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.
It would be interesting to know if those defending him and blaming her would also defend a confused mildly contrite otherwise helpful priest who connived to help a family in order to abuse a beautiful unknowingly seductive 12 year old child.The cloying language is a clever demonstration of his sliminess.
Anthony wrote: "It isn't that the actions of children are innocent, it is that a 12 yr olds judgement and sense of moral values is considered to be much less well developed. So it is the responsibility of the adul..."The rescuers in Lord of The Flies as I recall are not described as doing anything except becoming embarrassed. The irony of the end of that work is that the boys have behaved as adults do, (the adults have been tearing the world up ina nuclear war). There is nothing about the rescuers assuming responsibility. What is string questioning and what has it to do with apportioning blame?
Anne wrote: "It would be interesting to know if those defending him and blaming her would also defend a confused mildly contrite otherwise helpful priest who connived to help a family in order to abuse a beaut..."I do not remember Hubert using especially cloying language but it is 40 years since I read the book so maybe he did. I have not seen anyone here who is defending HH but it is signifcant that you assume that blaming one means defending the other. In "Lolita" it very definitely took two to tango.
Esdaile wrote: "Anthony wrote: "It isn't that the actions of children are innocent, it is that a 12 yr olds judgement and sense of moral values is considered to be much less well developed. So it is the responsibi..."typo string should read strong
So I take it we don't have many Humbert Humbert fans here. I do think that one scene in the book is flat out rape. The bit where it was described as " Fancy of a madman." The other times, though still rape because she is a minor, does seem to be rather consensual. I don't think Humbert is a monster although I do think he is a pedophile. He was very sweet to her. Yes he got a little possessive of her and yes a little rough at times, but if she were an older woman many people would not think that it was as bad as they think it is because she is pubescent.And what of Lolita? I've read the book twice and both times I thought that she was very aware of what she was doing to him. Perhaps he shouldn't have encouraged her or even acknowledged her little girl wiles but she should have been careful with the seduction of men. Something she never learned because her mother wasn't very motherly.
Why does everybody keep arguing the guilt or innocence of either HH or Lolita? "The sins of the father (or mother) etc" probably has more to do with the behavior of both HH and Lolita. Children who receive the attention, love, discipline, encouragement and guidance to make their own decisions so long as the take responsibility for them, of a good loving family, rarely turn unto "needy" people, if ever.
wow! you both sound like you want to exonerate HH because lolita is flawed because of poor parenting! really. if someone has been given a disadvantaged life, its ok to take advantage of them? really?is it okay to steal from a blind man, too?
This thread is about hating Humbert and I must say I never have. (Okay in that one rape scene I did, but overall I liked him.) He was misunderstood and damaged. So was Lolita. I kinda thought that they were perfect for each other, but Lolita couldn't see it because she grew resentful, which is 100% understandable. I loved how he found her at the end and wanted her to come with him. She was a woman grown, which means he loved the person not just the little girl body.
I agree with Anthony. For me HH is deeply unlikable (hateable) due to his narcissism and sliminess and his utter disregard for Lolita's well being. Would people still be understanding of him if Lolita was a boy? The fact that she is 12 and starting to be sexually curious, or even if she was downright sexually precocious, adults are supposed to be mature and help her rather than take advantage. Any parent of a 12 year old knows they are still very emotionally immature. HH reminds me of one of those people who would be rounded up in a child porn sting nowadays or travel to Bangkok for the weekend to have sex with impoverished children.
Anne wrote: "I agree with Anthony. For me HH is deeply unlikable (hateable) due to his narcissism and sliminess and his utter disregard for Lolita's well being. Would people still be understanding of him if Lol..."exactly! though, in the story, while HH is telling his story, so to speak, he is charming, but there again, the grown up, the decent person sees thru his sicjness, his monstrosity for what it is and no matter what his parents were like, no matter how poor of a parent charlotte is, there is no one to blame for his actions except himself. that is the moral play here. we may be, for whatever reason, be tempted by whatever is our weakness, money, sex, power, or whatever, but in the end, we either have to overcome our flaws and do what is right, or be held responsible for our actions. of course he had a natural attraction for little girls, and of course Lolita, in her state of exploring her sexuality comes on to him, if not, there would not have been a story.
if I would like lots of easy money, so I robbed baks, would it be the banks' fault if they did not builds a system I could not overcome? no, if I was that smart(I am not) and that determined to have other people's money (again, I have no interest in other people's money, just as I have no interest in having sex with their 12 yr old daughters), I would be guilty of theft, and it would not be mitigated by the fact that I found robbing banks technically easy.
Anthony wrote: "wow! you both sound like you want to exonerate HH because lolita is flawed because of poor parenting! really. if someone has been given a disadvantaged life, its ok to take advantage of them? reall..."And if they have a disadvantaged life they are excused for their faults?
Anthony wrote: "Anne wrote: "I agree with Anthony. For me HH is deeply unlikable (hateable) due to his narcissism and sliminess and his utter disregard for Lolita's well being. Would people still be understanding ..."Anne wrote: "I agree with Anthony. For me HH is deeply unlikable (hateable) due to his narcissism and sliminess and his utter disregard for Lolita's well being. Would people still be understanding of him if Lol..."
Anne wrote: "I agree with Anthony. For me HH is deeply unlikable (hateable) due to his narcissism and sliminess and his utter disregard for Lolita's well being. Would people still be understanding of him if Lol..."
There is a significant difference between HH's crime and that of robbing a bank, which does not have to be understood as exonerating him, but the distinction is deep. It is this. Crime arising from sexual compulsion unlike the crime of robbing a bank is overwhelmingly unreasonable, by which I mean that in terms of reason nobody in their right minds would commit the kind of crime which HH commits, because the risk of being caught and punsihed is too high for the reward of pleasure. In utilitarian terms it makes no sense. By contrast, robbing a bank or train (eg Ronald Briggs) does make amoral utilitarian sense. That is a very important difference. Sexually, we are to a large extent all compelled by a force of nature beyond our rational or utilitarian control. In Terms of robbery man is able to make a cold utilitarian calculation. These caluclations are muted in matters of sexuality and passion.
Brad wrote: "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" t..."I do not buy that. If somone smokes a lot, there is some blame for subsequent lung cancer, they have been involved in a choice. (I write that as a smoker incidentally!) Life is often unfair but not always quite as unfair as people think.
Esdaile wrote: "There is a significant difference between HH's crime and that of robbing a bank, which does not have to be understood as exonerating him, but the distinction is deep. It is this. Crime arising from sexual compulsion unlike the crime of robbing a bank is overwhelmingly unreasonable, by which I mean that in terms of reason nobody in their right minds would commit the kind of crime which HH commits, because the risk of being caught and punsihed is too high for the reward of pleasure."I think that you've expressed quite neatly the range of issues when it comes to things like "intent" and "responsibility" in crime. The range does appear to be from issues of sanity to a cold assessment--the "amoral utility" in your words--when it comes to how we assess the motives and treatment of those who break the law. However, I'd take issue with how you apply that range in this particular case.
Interestingly enough, I think a lot of bank robbers might disagree with you about their own motivations. At least, from my understanding of the actual motivation of such crimes (which, I happily admit, is limited) the "thrill" and "excitement" of such a crime, is doing something that is, itself, counter-culture and aggressive, and that is much of the appeal. The pleasure of the act becomes as much an addiction as a drug.
I'd also argue that one of the things Nabokov is pointing out with his long, narrative rationalization of Humbert's behavior is that the motive of the pedophile (at least in this case) is very much a cold, calculating amoral utilitarian endeavor. It's couched in his elaborate justifications, but if we look at the events and the amount of effort he puts into the sexual abuse of his step-daughter, Delores, then it begins to look very much like a scheme. In that sense, it is not a crime of passion. Humbert has not only control, he's taking control.
Of course, in the real world it is very difficult to decide if an individual breaks the law for passion and pleasure or out of amorality and calculation. But I would argue that Lolita is a recipe of calculation, hidden in language that is meant to characterize it as a passion. The actual plot disagrees with the voice.
Anthony wrote: "wow! you both sound like you want to exonerate HH because lolita is flawed because of poor parenting! really. if someone has been given a disadvantaged life, its ok to take advantage of them? reall..."With respect, I think my point has been missed or I haven't explained it well. Of course bad parenting doesn't excuse crime, but I was referring to the cycle perpetuated in families that have come from an unfortunate upbringing where love was absent and preservation of the self was paramount.
I don't think jail will cure HH nor will empathy with Lolita cure Lolita of what is missing in their emotional development. However, we don't live in a perfect world, but it would be nice if society could staunch bad behavior at the root rather than playing the blame game.
Our prisons are full of offenders, many of whom wouldn't be there if they had emotional intelligence. This does not excuse any particular crime, it is just a fact of life. Some of these people could be productive members of society if we could only break the cycle of families living in abusive & uncaring families.
Having said that, paedophiles in general, can't be cured and need to be kept out of society as they are far too dangerous. I just don't see that HH is that type of perpetrator; one without redemption.
A lot of people forget that, while H.H. does muse on the qualities of nymphets in general, he is interested particularly in Dolores because she reminds him of a lost love.
Scott brings up a great point. Humbert wanted Lolita specifically. He never went about kidnapping little girls in general. She sang to his soul. And nobody brings up Clare Quilty. He was a pervert that I hated from start to finish because his intentions with Lolita were always malicious.
Esdaile wrote: "Anthony wrote: "Anne wrote: "I agree with Anthony. For me HH is deeply unlikable (hateable) due to his narcissism and sliminess and his utter disregard for Lolita's well being. Would people still b..."why is gaining wealth one does not have a right to morally different than having sex one is not entitled to? I will grant you that the damage done to Lolita is likely greater than the damage done to the bank depositor/tax payer/warrantor, but the moral equation is very much the same
Laureen wrote: "Anthony wrote: "wow! you both sound like you want to exonerate HH because lolita is flawed because of poor parenting! really. if someone has been given a disadvantaged life, its ok to take advantag..."agreed on all points, except the last. we have his story, basically his lie to defend himself to make us feel, as he feels, that he is special, he is different than "regular" pedophiles. I do not know a single person that I know to be a pedophile, but, I know human nature enough to speculate that almost every pedophile thinks they are special, that what they want is normal and just misunderstood.
Anthony, If we are relying on the "the truth" of the narrator, perhaps seeing himself as special is his justification. Again I think it says something about his warped emotional intelligence. However, I am not making dogmatic statements here; it is like 40yrs ago since I read the book. I am only going by the feelings that have followed me through life about this book. I guess that says something about Nabokov - he stays with you!
Anthony wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Anthony wrote: "Anne wrote: "I agree with Anthony. For me HH is deeply unlikable (hateable) due to his narcissism and sliminess and his utter disregard for Lolita's well being. Woul..."One would need to define moral equations, but the motivation is very different between bank robbery and what HH does because one (bank robbery) is a rational amoral calculation and the other is submission (whether morally reprehensible or not is another matter) to a sexual compulsion, and sexual compulsions defy rational calculations of self-interest. Rationally, it makes no sense to succumb to sexual urges which are heavily penalised. If people were motivated by rational self-interest alone, the number of sexual crimes would drop dramatically.
How is submitting to sexual desire different from submitting to greed?
Anthony wrote: "How is submitting to sexual desire different from submitting to greed?"First off, "submitting to sexual desire" isn't an accurate characterization of the issue. It's not like someone broke down and slept with a co-worker. At best, we're talking about a sexual assault on someone who lacks the perspecacity to make a reasoned decision on the subject.
With that in mind, one does not invade the body of a person one steals from (though certain muggings might be physically damaging) so there's the physical violation that is at issue.
Are we missing the point here does anyone else think, like I, that this is about H.H.'s need to 'control' and 'own' Lolita, rater than just a 'sex' issue, when he looses that 'control' he goes berserk .
Gary wrote: "Anthony wrote: "How is submitting to sexual desire different from submitting to greed?"First off, "submitting to sexual desire" isn't an accurate characterization of the issue. It's not like som..."
I disgaree. I think that the issue in "Lolita" is very much about submitting to sexual desire. I have never understood the assuredness with which descisions are reached in human society down the ages (and very different decisions too!) as to who is or is not able to make reasoned judgements and at what age children magically (overnight?) turn into adults and achieve an age of reason/ responsibility. I suppose every society needs some sharp dividing line, but those lines are social and cultural as much or more than biological or psychological constructs. These days, where children are idolised by a society which is itsself rapidly becoming infantile (the tabloids are aimed at readers with a mental age which does not have to be higher than ten years) society wants to let children have it both ways: they are allowed every possible indulgence because they have a "right" to education and sundry other "rights" yet at the same time are regarded by the same infantile society as so immature that they have no responsibility for their actions! From my reading of the novel, I should say that Lolita shows more perspecacity than many adults usually do and has at least as much awareness of the consequences of her behaviour as the besotted HH.
You also wrote, "One does not invade the body of a person one steals from"-I read that several times I do not have the remotest idea what relevance this comment has or what you want to say by it. Could you enlighten me?
So well said Esdaile. I agree with you and wish I could have said much the same.
Esdaile wrote: "Gary wrote: "Anthony wrote: "How is submitting to sexual desire different from submitting to greed?"First off, "submitting to sexual desire" isn't an accurate
characterization of the issue. It's..."
Lets put this in perspective, I understand that Vladimir Nabokov started Lolita in 1949 . only 20 years after 1929 when the age of marriage was changed from 12 for females and 14 for males in England (I believe these young brides would not have described themselves as "Lacking the perspicacity to make a reasoned decision"). I believe that in some southern American states the age of marriage was still this low in 1949.
We can not judge this story with todays morals . Even when we get into the 50s/60s it was excepted for 14/15 year olds to live as 'married' with older men (Elvis Presley, Bill Wyman & Jerry-lee-lewis etc).
H.H. is a bully & control freak, Lolita discovers she has trapped herself like a fly in a web, she has tried to be grown up, but has played with the wrong fire. H.H. takes advantage, he is a nasty predator, but not necessarily a pedophile.
Esdaile wrote: "I think that the issue in "Lolita" is very much about submitting to sexual desire. I have never understood the assuredness with which descisions are reached in human society down the ages (and very different decisions too!) as to who is or is not able to make reasoned judgements and at what age children magically (overnight?) turn into adults and achieve an age of reason/ responsibility."I think you're combining two different ideas here in a way that is confusing the issue. The first is the freedom of people to express their sexuality, and the second is the age of consent. I'm going to deal with them in reverse order (partly because I think that reversal is part of the problem.)
So, first off, regarding the age of consent and the age at which society delineates such things. Yes, that has changed over time and, yes, there are reasonable arguments to be made about the particulars of when that should be set. Different nations have sometimes different standards. However, Nabokov is not addressing any of those gray areas. Lolita/Delores is 12 at the time Humbert's sexual attraction begins, and that is an age that is generally accepted to be too young to make a decision about participating in sex acts. I'm certain there are nations where that age is considered acceptable, and in the past it certainly was in Western society, but one of the themes of the book is the perversity of that Old World "rape" of youth--he was well aware of the debate, and was weighing in with this book. Lots of people seem to think he was weighing in ambiguously or apologetically on the side of Humbert, but I'm confident that's the exact opposite of what he really meant.
The particulars of when things like the age of consent should be set are probably outside the scope of what I can really outline in a message board dedicated to discussing books. If you're really interested in that topic, I'd refer you to some developmental psychology and childhood development texts. However, I'm going to have to suggest that outside of that research, it is commonly accepted that a pre-pubescent girl/boy is not considered to have that capacity, and if anyone would care to argue the point, I think it is incumbent upon them to provide their research/argument rather than question the validity of that given concept, and their evidence must be weighed against several decades of research, observation and documentation that would support the current standard.
As for the second issue, regarding "submitting to sexual desire." That term is extraordinarily mild when the issue is the rape (Nabokov's word) of a pre-pubescent child. So mild, in fact, that I think it conveys a very different sense than what Nabokov was describing. Submitting to sexual desire implies mutuality, conscious decision making, perhaps a positive developmental moment in a person's life.
Yes, adults can "submit to sexual desire" in ways that range from positive to negative. However, given the plot of the story (a twelve-year-old girl, raped by an adult) that language isn't accurate, and doesn't convey the difference that I think you were trying to make yourself earlier (see below.)
Esdaile wrote: "You also wrote, "One does not invade the body of a person one steals from"-I read that several times I do not have the remotest idea what relevance this comment has or what you want to say by it. Could you enlighten me? "
That was in response to Anthony's question (originally in post #230 and quoted in my response) "How is submitting to sexual desire different from submitting to greed?" which he asked in response to your comments about the difference between the motivations for robbery and rape (post #229.)
I don't know if I can use plainer language to clarify what that means, but I'd refer back to your example to begin with. My point was that the physical violation of a sexual assault differs materially and psychologically from a bank robbery (your example.) So, the motivation of greed differs from the motivation of sexual assault just as the physical nature of both crimes differ.
it was my example, I think, and while I hold rape to be a more horrible crime as it violates the person, my point was that to see that taking from another person, but it their physical integrity or the money they have saved is in both cases the taking of something that does not belong to the taker, because they WANT it. there is no justification for either except that MY wishes are paramount to everything, including your rights, your property and even your body. from the perspective of the taker, it is the same. from the perspective of the victim, it may be quite different.
Thanks for the points made. It has been suggested that Nabakov sided with HH and now suggested that he sided against him. IMO he leaves it to the reader to side with or against the narrato r; this ambiguity contributes to the power of "Lolita" and helps to explain why it has established itsself as a classic and is not a manifesto or Moral plea of any kind. The notion of confrontation between Old and New World is certainly there in "Lolita" but in this parable of Old and New World it is unclear who is seducing whom. Regarding the term "rape" I know that statutory rape is part of many legal systems and is used particularly when there is a sexual relationship involving a person below the age of consent as defined by a given country's laws, in which rape as it would be defined in a relationship between two consenting persons does not take place. This may be a useful legal distinction but suffers from being shortened just to the one word "rape", as it has been in the contributions here, so that effectively little or no distinction is drawn in the case of sexual relationships under an age of consent between rape as it would be defined in the case of an adult and non rape as it would be defined in the case of an adult. All sexual relationships involving persons under an age which itself shifts up and down in the course of time, is lumped together as "rape". This undermines the importance of violence and force as a defining feature (including etymologically) of rape.
"submitting to sexual desire".I stand by the definition of submitting to sexual desire. It is exactly what HH does. To submit suggests that one is under the power of the desire. HH submits to his desire. It defines what happens to a t and I see no reason for changing that choice of words. If you submit to a criminal impulse you commit a crime. If you submit to a sadistic Impulse you commit a cruel act. If you submit to a generous act you commit a generous act. The word "submit" does not radically change the meaning of what is stated, but it does infer that the act committed was one of compulsion more than rational choice. HH to a t.
Regarding Anthony's point, yes except if the person from whom something is taken does not object to the thing taken, then condemning the act involves a third party who may well be anything but disinterested in conferring judgement. Orthodox Islam for example, defines all adulteresses as "whores". Adulterous women so described may wish to contest that definition.
Considering the prisons built as the result of "submitting to sexual desire" works, I think, but it by no means is the only way we build those prisons, and not the only prison explored in Lolita, although maybe the prison of suburbia and it's white-picket-fence morals may spring from a reaction to sexual desire.
Once again I find myself on team Anthony/Gary but yet rate the book quite differently than they do. Also though I personally dislike HH, I don't assume that Nabakov was an apologist, though he might have been, just that he wrote the book that way. I don't agree with the infantile society argument. Government control perpetrated through poor education and for the purpose of corporate gain does not equate to infantile society. Sometimes you really are a victim. Poor people are not that way because they are lazy and girls don't get raped because they want to. Talk to a statutory rape victim, even a physically nonviolent case, after they are mature and see if they don't feel victimized. There is a ton of research on this.
Regarding rape vs greed: Bank robbery is business to some people, sleeping around is not immoral to some people, but taking advantage of a vulnerable person in your care is fairly universally considered immoral. Is he mentally ill? Yes. Does he submit to his mental illness and consequently carry out rape? Yes.
We are at an important moment in history when it comes to acceptance of rape and that makes this conversation especially topical. Boys will be boys and so called 'slut shaming' as justifications for rape just aren't acceptable anymore.
Side point, I can't post a link but there is an interesting review of the book that came out in 1958 shortly after it was published, if interested google: The Tragedy of Man Driven by Desire - The New York Times.
Anne wrote: "Once again I find myself on team Anthony/Gary...."Let's hope that term, "Team Anthony/Gary" doesn't become a thing.
Anne wrote: "Side point, I can't post a link but there is an interesting review of the book that came out in 1958 shortly after it was published, if interested google: The Tragedy of Man Driven by Desire - The New York Times."
Thanks for the reference. Interesting review.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/02...
By and large, I think I agree with her. I do have some quibbles/disagreements, but they aren't particularly dire. For example:
He is grotesque and horrible and unbearably funny, and he knows it.I don't think he really knows it. I think he sometimes gets a glimpse of himself--like most people--but he can't really face the truth of his own character--like most people.... Usually, that results in just a kind of hypocritical selfishness and making a fool of oneself. We all do that. Unfortunately, Humbert's perversity is more profound. He's deeply mired in his own little fantasy world. The glimpses that he gets of his own character (those that he describes) come from a much deeper, darker place than most people start out from, so they are less revelatory.
Nonetheless, she is right about him being grotesque and horrible and funny. The humor is all over the book. Dark, horrific humor; the kind that offers you a choice: laugh or cry.
Humbert is the hero with the tragic flaw. Humbert is every man who is driven by desire, wanting his Lolita so badly that it never occurs to him to consider her as a human being, or as anything but a dream-figment made flesh 3/4 which is the eternal and universal nature of passion.I think Ms. Janeway got the book in a way that a lot of people don't. I would quibble with a bit of her language there, but she's certainly right on the major themes.
Personally, I'd revert the description of Humbert. He's not a hero with a tragic flaw, he's a villain with a hero's inner voice.... He's not "every man driven by desire" so much as Captain Ahab if the old man loved the whale rather than hated it.
However, I think she's quite right about the nature of his passion. Though, maybe, not ALL passion. Most probably are about 50/50.
Gary wrote: Let's hope that term, "Team Anthony/Gary" doesn't become a thing.
Does that mean you won't be buying one of the 'team anthony/gary' t-shirts?
Gary wrote:
"He is grotesque and horrible and unbearably funny, and he knows it."
I don't think he really knows it.
This is why I didn't like hh. The denial and justification is revolting.
Regarding Ms. Janeway, I had a similar mixed reaction to the review. I find the last line to have a redemptive quality that actually makes me like the book a tiny bit better:
"As for its pornographic content, I can think of few volumes more likely to quench the flames of lust than this exact and immediate description of its consequences."
Anne wrote: "Once again I find myself on team Anthony/Gary but yet rate the book quite differently than they do. Also though I personally dislike HH, I don't assume that Nabakov was an apologist, though he migh..."I do not know what you mean by "infantile society Argument" . Who is questioning that there are victims? Life in its essence a perpetual struggle for power and control from the smallest amoeba or even virus onwards/upwards. Nothing new there. Statutory rape and rape are not the same, how ever many people, for whatever motivation, claim that they are. Rape, as understood for hundreds of years, is the use of violence by a stronger party to make a weaker party submit to sexual demands against the express will of the other. It is an act of usually intended abasement and especially favoured in war time as a symbolic act of crushing an opponent, for example turning wives of the enemy into chattels. In prisons male rape is used to crush the independence and self-respect of the "newbie". Rape is frequently, I would say usually, an exercise of conscious contempt and personality destruction carried out against the victim, who is seen as the incorporation of a despised race, tribe, nation, class or gender. In the broadest sense of the word political, many rapes are "politically motivated". I see none of this in Hubert Humphrey. Call his seduction "rape" if you will, and the law in most countries these days will support you, but his act of Violation or ravishment is essentially different to rape which constitutes violation of women (less often men) in war or a racially or class motivated or gender motivated violent sexual assault.
The first and only thought that cross my mind when I read the title of this discussion is "No shit Sherlock". I'm sorry for the language.
Nah, not really.
I think the main focus of Lolita is only one: how a great author can make you feel sympathetic for an absolute monster.
I mean by that the following:
- I consider rape the worst thing that you can inflict upon another conscious being,
- I consider paedophilia the greatest crime ever to exist.
So,continuing...
That's the true beauty in Lolita. It's so beautifully wrote that you laugh and even consider what Humbert says as a possibility.
Of course, it's not.
He's a monster. He knows that. He's trying to convince you that its justifiable. But it's not.
And that about it.
I really don't get why all this big fuzz about the book.
Ingo wrote: "That's the true beauty in Lolita. It's so beautifully wrote that you laugh and even consider what Humbert says as a possibility. Of course, it's not.
He's a monster. He knows that. He's trying to convince you that its justifiable. But it's not. i>
that's why
Anne wrote: "Gary wrote: Let's hope that term, "Team Anthony/Gary" doesn't become a thing.Does that mean you won't be buying one of the 'team anthony/gary' t-shirts?"
Depends on the graphics....
Anne wrote: "I had a similar mixed reaction to the review. I find the last line to have a redemptive quality that actually makes me like the book a tiny bit better:
"As for its pornographic content, I can think of few volumes more likely to quench the flames of lust than this exact and immediate description of its consequences."
I suspect a lot of my issues with that review have to do with the vocabulary and literary criticism of the time she was writing. The "hero" stuff has to do with how people were reading. The "pornography" term, for example, doesn't really jibe today (at least, not in my sensibilities.)
Gary, I have marketing working on a really cool logo... you have any color preferences?:)
Anthony wrote: "Gary, I have marketing working on a really cool logo... you have any color preferences?:)"An erotically posed pubescent girl would be appropriately inappropriate... and probably equally misunderstood as ironic. How about Nabokov outlined like that Che Guevera iconic photo? I'd wear that.
Embracing the pre pubescent girl like a motorcycle:)
Yipes, looks like team anthony/gary may need a publicist. I used to think like Ingo but then got the impression that people defended hh's compulsion and actions as not that bad, hence my portion of the fuzz.
Regarding the comments of team Esdaile/Lareen/Janet, would you concede that it is rape in terms of how we define it as a culture now? Why isn't he a pedophile? I am not distinguishing a pedophile from a hebephile here because I don't see a big difference. They are both preying on children. Is hebephile supposed to make it more palatable? We used to think 12 was an okay age for marriage but we also used to think women should not vote. Times and minds change.
I must have misunderstood the infantile society comments as it sounded a little like a personal responsibility argument (atlas shrugged type thing) and that Dolores brought it on herself.
Sorry about all the team business, just kidding around. :)
Of course, but you should see the new bikes for the Esdaile/Lareen/Janet team, they are 100% composite, cherry red with subtle gray pit striping...:)
sorry, I have a sick mind, in case no one noticed, not about little girls, but about word play...
Anne, you bring up something close to my heart. We know that the definition of words do change with the times but I find this fact hard to accept. I won't buy a modern dictionary because of the change of meanings and because of made-up words. I love our language and most words do not need to have their meanings changed."Rape" in my Macquarie Dictionary means primarily "the crime of having sexual intercourse with a person against their will" and "the act of forcing someone to consent to anything against their will". There are other meanings mentioned by Esdaile relating to war etc.
"Carnal knowledge" is "sexual intercourse esp. with one under the age of consent" which is closer to what happened in 'Lolita' and what so many seem to be referring to in this discussion and, yes, it is against the law.
Paedophilia is another kettle of fish. The sexual attraction of adults for children - not pubescent youths or teenagers. Whether you agree or disagree with the arguments in this discussion, I feel that these definitions cover three separate types of unpalatable behavior but the should be named for what they are.
Lareen, I feel I must point out that ALL words are made up!!!Why not stay in middle English, or even Old English, or maybe ancient German? Seriously, why do you turn your nose up at "made up" words? English (and any language that is alive) adds new words, new meanings, new pronunciations, and even considers perfectly good words or a generation or a century ago as archaic. Please elaborate.
maybe we will just have to paint your bike all gray:)
Anthony wrote: "Lareen, I feel I must point out that ALL words are made up!!!Why not stay in middle English, or even Old English, or maybe ancient German? Seriously, why do you turn your nose up at "made up" wor..."
Does that include changing my name from Laureen to Lareen? I have not got an issue with adding new words to the English language provided they are complimentary to our language and don't change the meaning of existing words. Old English was a cumbersome language but it still had something poetic about it.
I love reading historical fiction and the classics because the language is clear and precise. I like to understand what I am reading which I don't with some of the gobble-gook spoken and written today mostly coming from the Cyber fanatics who are too lazy to punctuate.
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...
Grown ups who will not take responsibility for themselves or the young people around them. Being seduced by a 12 yr old shows an incredible lack of maturity and responsibility on the part of a grown man