Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.

[Anne]

Anthony we are duly admonished by your boredom. Scott, I think it matters a lot = stalemate again. No surprises there. No hard feelings in any direction.

[David]

Scott wrote: "I don't know why so many people think he's not telling the truth. It's not as if he's hiding anything that he did."

I'm confused by this sentiment, Scott. Did you read Lolita? Did you think the story of HH about Lolita starting the relationship sounded plausible or fit within the real lives of 12 year olds you know?

Would you have been capable of seducing a 40 year old (or interested in it) at 12? Would you be the one who should be blamed if you had sex with a 40 year old at age 12?

Anne:
I'm glad we're on the same team too! This has been a good albeit at times frustrating conversation.

[David]

Anne wrote: "Anthony we are duly admonished by your boredom. Scott, I think it matters a lot = stalemate again. No surprises there. No hard feelings in any direction."

Anne, I wouldn't call it a stalemate. Scott may be unable to see when he is arguing poorly, but it doesn't make him right.

I think a judge declining Allen visitation rights--and noting that the relationship was inappropriate--is proof enough. While the case was buried, that is a matter of public record. It is hard to read a judge stating that Allen had an inappropriate relationship with Farrow and concluding from it that Farrow is just brain-washed.

Scott, what would I do if someone said I had hurt them? I'd apologize, first. I wouldn't attempt to deny their intelligence and person by claiming that they were brainwashed and incapable of distinguishing reality from fiction. That was wrong, even if he was 100% innocent.

[Scott]

David wrote: "I'm confused by this sentiment, Scott. Did you read Lolita? Did you think the story of HH about Lolita starting the relationship sounded plausible or fit within the real lives of 12 year olds you know?

Of course I've read it, albeit many years ago. It doesn't really matter whether I know anyone like that; this is a story about a fictional person.

What I meant is, HH details his crimes in the book (otherwise we would not know about them), so why should he confess to some things but lie about others?

Would you have been capable of seducing a 40 year old (or interested in it) at 12?

*laughs* I don't think I'd be capable of doing it now!

I can believe that a twelve year-old could act seductively, even if it was just "experimentation," or that she would do it for things like money or gifts rather than the man himself. And I can believe that a man might be taken in by it. If I couldn't, the story wouldn't work at all.

[Scott]

David wrote: "What would I do if someone said I had hurt them? I'd apologize, first."

You'd apologize for a horrible, fabricated accusation?

[David]

Scott wrote: "David wrote: "I'm confused by this sentiment, Scott. Did you read Lolita? Did you think the story of HH about Lolita starting the relationship sounded plausible or fit within the real lives of 12 y..."

The book is one of the most widely praised and well received literary examples of an 'unreliable narrator' of all time. When you ask why would HH lie about somethings and be honest about others, you're literally describing the literary significance of the book and the role that HH plays.

Please, do a search for "lolita and the unreliable narrator" and read just a few of the literary papers written about the novel, the narrator, and the literary techniques employed.

http://www.unz.org/Pub/Encounter-1959...

As to your second note, yes, I would apologize; at the very least for being part of a traumatic, awful, and depressing situation. I wouldn't assume that the woman in question (my ex partner's daughter) was fabricating her memories, and I wouldn't deny her her memories, mind, and knowledge of her experiences in a public letter.

[Scott]

David wrote: "As to your second note, yes, I would apologize; at the very least for being part of a traumatic, awful, and depressing situation. I wouldn't assume that the woman in question (my ex partner's daughter) was fabricating her memories, and I wouldn't deny her her memories, mind, and knowledge of her experiences in a public letter."

Really? Even if you had nothing to do with it?

The most one in that situation could say is "I'm sorry you feel that way but..." which is not the same thing.

Why do you have a problem with a public response when these two have been attacking him in public for years?

[Esdaile]

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" ??

So according to you, if a twelve year old tortures a cat to death (for example) or takes part in bullying which leads to another child's suicide (these things happen) or sets fire to a house or makes a teacher's life misery or just lies, why, poor inncoent little girl, she is only twelve and "cannot be held responsible for her actions" (your words).

[Scott]

Esdaile wrote: "So according to you, if a twelve year old tortures a cat to death (for example) or takes part in bullying which leads to another child's suicide (these things happen) or sets fire to a house or makes a teacher's life misery or just lies, why, poor inncoent little girl, she is only twelve and "cannot be held responsible for her actions" (your words)."

Fortunately, not everybody feels that way, and the two girls who recently attempted to knife their classmate to death are going to be tried as adults.

[David]

Scott wrote: "David wrote: "As to your second note, yes, I would apologize; at the very least for being part of a traumatic, awful, and depressing situation. I wouldn't assume that the woman in question (my ex p..."

If you think that the type of brainwashing which Woody describes is likely or plausible, you might feel that way.

I don't think that if he'd been an appropriate and loving part of the relationship and had a healthy relationship with Dylan & her mother Dylan could be 'brainwashed' against him. Personally, I'm skeptical that the brainwashing he describes is remotely possible; I haven't seen any psychological studies or science to support Allen's conviction that an adult and mother who has had years and years of therapy could be brainwashed in the way he describes.

While you may think he is innocent of committing abuse, the Judge blocking him from visitation & making a recorded note that his relationship was 'inappropriate' is enough to convince me that he at least owes her a sincere apology for prioritizing his fight with Mia over his relationship with Dylan.

Allen's conduct in this entire event has been entirely about him; he hasn't done anything which seems remotely compassionate or respectful towards Dylan, who, if he isn't lying, is a completely innocent person who has been significantly abused emotionally and mentally. If that is the case, Allen definitely deserves some of the blame; instead of focusing on fighting Dylan's mother, he should have focused on caring about someone besides himself.

[Gary]

Esdaile wrote: "So according to you, if a twelve year old tortures a cat to death (for example) or takes part in bullying which leads to another child's suicide (these things happen) or sets fire to a house or makes a teacher's life misery or just lies, why, poor inncoent little girl, she is only twelve and "cannot be held responsible for her actions" (your words). "

I think you raise a valid point. OP did engage in a bit of hyperbole there, and stated an extreme position.

With that in mind, however, I think we should state it more carefully rather than discount it entirely. It should be something more like:

A twelve year old cannot be held responsible for their sexual misconduct with an adult.

So, even if one is to take Delores' behavior as read. That is, she actually does flirt with Humbert and entice him with her feminine sexuality, and it was Humbert who gave in to her, we still have to recognize it as her being precocious and him being felonious. (Note: given the nature of the unreliable narrator theme of the book, that's not really the idea presented, but let's say it is for a second.) As a 12-year-old she cannot reasonably be held responsible for that behavior. At least, not while such behavior remains "misconduct" rather than something felonious or otherwise more serious. If she sexually assaulted some other classmate, for instance, then we'd have to put that in another category.

As an adult, we assume that Humbert is responsible for his own actions, and things like the "nymphette" quality of his victim are not mitigating factors. If Delores straight up asked him to have sex with her, danced around in her underwear and otherwise behaved in a way that is not consistent with her age, we still can't take that as Humbert behaving reasonably. We don't let pre-pubescent children decide for themselves when it is OK for them to have sex any more than we let them drive cars, drink alcohol or vote.

[Gary]

David wrote: "If you think that the type of brainwashing which Woody describes is likely or plausible, you might feel that way."

Are you familiar with the McMartin's Pre-school case?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMarti...

Children in that case did make all kinds of claims, and from the transcripts of the conversations that they had with police and psychologists, it appears that many of those claims were implanted (guided or coached might be a more appropriate word.) Decades later, many still are insistent that they were taken to a secret, underground part of the facility where they were sexually assaulted as part of a Satanic ritual.

For years, people were going over that property excavating and using ground penetrating radar to prove those allegations true, and though they've found enough "evidence" to keep the conspiracy alive in some minds, there's nothing really like proof of any of those accusations.

The whole thing sparked a controversy that really has to be described as a national panic.

I suspect there was no sexual abuse in the McMartin's case. At least, the information out in the public does not indicate that there was anything going on; investigators poisoned the testimony from the beginning. They certainly influenced the witnesses in various ways.

A parent can have an awful lot of influence on the mind of their child in that way. It's a pretty horrifying situation overall, because one really has to view the implantation of a false memory like that as a form of child abuse, mentally if not physically.... So, one is certainly dealing with an abused child in one form or the other.

In the Woody Allen case, I really have my suspicions either way. The testimony is inconsistent on both sides. The timing is suspect on her side, and the way it feeds into the court case that was going on at the time is pointed. On the other hand, his own behavior is peculiar, and given the nature of the break up that led to the court cases in the first place, there's an indication of a pattern of behavior--though only an indication, mind you. Having a relationship with an adult child of a woman with whom one is not married, does not equate fully with abusing an adopted daughter. It's a warning sign, but not conclusive.

So, my "I DON'T KNOW" stamp is still on it.

[Magadored]

Esdaile wrote: "...So according to you, if a twelve year old tortures a cat to death (for example) or takes part in bullying which leads to another child's suicide (these things happen) or sets fire to a house or makes a..."

The statute doesn't exist arbitrarily. If you're going to acknowledge that children cannot fully understand the consequences of their actions, then why does a worse action imply more understanding? Sociopathic behavior is not commonly a byproduct of aging. I did not gain any empathy with cat torturers growing up, did you? I didn't wake up on my 18th birthday and realize that I could justify driving someone to suicide for my own amusement. That doesn't make sense.

I think people would rather blame someone than admit that mental illness exists, much less in children, and isn't well understood. That's not a satifying answer, that something unseen and largely uncontrollable can motivate people - makes it sound too much like the boogeyman did it. Or that children, whose brains aren't fully formed, show some sociopathic tendencies normally (it's why we don't officially diagnose children.) That would mean there's little justice to be had in either case, and that terrible things sometimes just happen.

[Callie]

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'm not defending Humbert but Lolita shouldn't have led him on. She might be young and clumsy but she shouldn't had turned him on thinking that she wanted him. He shouldn't of raped her or even kidnap her but he was mentally ill and in love. He thought that she wanted him as she was the one who wanted to have sex with him too. Humbert did turn himself in to the police in the end since he knew that what he had done was wrong.

[Laura]

Callie wrote: "I'm not defending Humbert but Lolita shouldn't have led him on. She might be young and clumsy but she shouldn't had turned him on thinking that she wanted him. He shouldn't of raped her or even kidnap her but he was mentally ill and in love. He thought that she wanted him as she was the one who wanted to have sex with him too. Humbert did turn himself in to the police in the end since he knew that what he had done was wrong."

WOW... Damn! Not even touching this.

[Janet]

Come on lets put this into context. The novel was written between 1949 and 1953, being finished on 6th Dec 1953 (and published in 1955), 1949 being only 20 years after it was quite legal to marry a 12 year old girl in England. Lolita is 12 years old not 2 years old when the novel starts, and travels through to 17, when she dies in childbirth.
So looking at this with our 2014 eyes are we saying that everyone who had a perfectly legal wife of 12, before 1929, was a pedophile ?

[Karen]

Janet wrote: "Come on lets put this into context. The novel was written between 1949 and 1953, being finished on 6th Dec 1953 (and published in 1955), 1949 being only 20 years after it was quite legal to marry ..."

Good point Janet, my thoughts exactly

[Anne]

IMO people over 20-ish who are sexually attached to 12 year olds are pedophiles, whenever they live(d). Being married is a related legal matter but not the same. Maybe that is one of the reasons we are evolving away from the practice. Yesterday a friend came over with her 14 year old daughter. That girl is stunning and was dressed in a modern way so could be construed as "leading people on." She was the most innocent life loving person absolutely unaware of the attraction straight old men have for her. It seems the Humberts of the world and their apologists will find any way to make it plausible for that young girl to be attracted to them. Hello people, 99.9% of those girls aren't interested in that way. Nature attracts us to a future for our genes. Those girls represent that. Lolita was abused and consequently precocious, that is textbook ptsd, not attraction.

[Gary]

Janet wrote: "So looking at this with our 2014 eyes are we saying that everyone who had a perfectly legal wife of 12, before 1929, was a pedophile?"

Yes, that is an act of pedophilia. Were the vigilantes who lynched black men for talking to white women not murderers despite the social approval that their actions received? Were the men who beat their wives using the "rule of thumb" not abusive? Were the pioneers who distributed pox-ridden blankets to native peoples not genocidal?

There's a common misconception that moral standards were wildly different in the past than they are now. Standards shift back and forth in time, just as they shift back and forth by culture, and in various places, and life has been cheap in various times and places, but this idea that we are somehow judging the character in Nabokov's novel with modern eyes rather than basing it on Nabokov's actual plot, characterization and prose isn't just ignoring the substance of the comments that have been made here, but also ignoring the actual text. Basing a reading of a text on the exceptional standards of a particular time and place is to confuse the extremity with the norm.

Even in medieval times when it was legal to marry someone younger than twelve, it was also recognized that such a marriage was a social and political act, and that sex with a child was wrong, and it was expected that a husband would wait until his wife had physically matured. The age of consent did differ, but please bear in mind that life expectancy was less than half of what it is now in the Western world.

So, Nabokov's novel features a protagonist who kidnaps and rapes a 12-year-old in the 1950's, not an older man of a previous decade who abides by the standards of the culture (which entailed consent from parents and more mature guardians, at least nominally--the predations of class and power being, as always, a huge factor.) The argument that the extremes of past generations somehow should be the basis of all reading of later novels just doesn't add up.

Furthermore, Nabokov was suggesting just what you're saying. HH is the Old World raping the New. The novel is a metaphor for exactly the process you're suggesting we should NOT apply. So, yes, we are supposed to make that supposition from the book. It is a core theme.

[Anne]

Team Gary <3

[Callie]

Humbert was a very attractive man and Lolita was attracted to him. Before her mother died she tried getting Humbert's attention ALL the time but after her mother died she made it seem like he raped her and he is the monster. Yes, he raped her. Yes, he kidnapped her but i don't understand why people think that it's all Humbert's fault. He was led to believe that Lolita wanted his attention and his love and he tried giving it to her but Lolita was too careless. She didn't even care that he loved her. She thought that he was a rapist but to be fare SHE was the one who was touching and kissing him.
In conclusion, Humbert knew he was a monster but Lolita didn't know that what she was doing was wrong and whore like.

[Gary]

Hi Callie,

In the past, folks have gotten mad when I say "unreliable narrator" in a thread about Lolita but I'm going to go ahead and throw it into the mix here and risk the ire of all those folks who think I'm talking down to 'em.

So... Humbert probably isn't an attractive man. Rather, Humbert tells us he's an attractive man. Further, Lolita's behavior probably wasn't at all unusual. Humbert tells us that Lolita was seeking his attention; that she is, in fact, a nymphette--somehow predisposed by her character to seduce older men like Humbert. However, this book is an exercise in the unreliability of that narrative. (A lot of Nabokov's work is.) Much of the narration of the story indicates that not only is Humbert lying, he's also attempting to portray himself in a positive light (he is, by the time of the narrative, incarcerated for murder.)

In short, we can believe that very little of his characterization of Delores is true, particularly the things that indicate that oldest excuse in the book: she was asking for it.

The "facts" of the story contrast sharply with that characterization. If she's a "nymphette" then why does he need to kidnap her at all? If she's been seducing him, why does she go to sleep crying "as usual" as he tells us off hand? (A note that he slips in by accident, Nabokov is indicating.) If he's so attractive and charming, why does he get so little attention from women other than the Haze mother/daughter?

[Laureen]

I agree with Janet. The time in which a novel is set is important. I am reading about the Vikings. They were brutal men way in our past but to try and judge them would be insane. They believed in their Gods and killing was something to be proud of as was dying with a sword on one's hand.

Puberty is natures way of saying a girl/woman is ready to bear children. In the past, this was important because many children died from childhood diseases which in current times can be cured. It was not uncommon for women to have 10 children and only 2 survive. Women, themselves, were lucky to live to 40.

We know that in current times, it is safer to bear children in the late teens or 20s but evolving nature of our thinking and our obsession with status & material wealth has stretched that to 40; a far more risky age but then we have wonderful medical knowledge these days!

Even these days, we have countries where children are married off and other barbaric practices take place. That is were we should be concentrating our opposition. As for HH, Regardless of the "unreliable narrator" argument, I don't think he really believed he was doing anything wrong and his admittance might have been him grieving as I thought he really loved Lolita. He was not an old man in adult terms but, of course, a twelve year old would think so.

Reaching puberty is a bewildering experience but I can clearly remember the power I felt when men of all ages paid me attention and actually drooled. I can understand both the actions of Lolita and HH in this story and it is difficult to lay blame. Men can behave like children themselves! This was a life experience and a time for both of them to learn about consequences of desire and their own actions.

[Anne]

Hi Laureen! Here we go again? lol.

Question: Is puberty also telling boys to father children at 13? I don't see that subject coming up as feasible. Men also had many children that died. "Men can behave like children" sounds a lot like boys will be boys. Do girls notice a certain power over men? YES! Does that mean they desire to bed them? No! And most girls are not in a position to and would not want to benefit from that power.

Side note: I attribute older mothers to longer life, wealth and powerful animal instincts. Why status seeking?

[Janet]

Laureen wrote: "I agree with Janet. The time in which a novel is set is important. I am reading about the Vikings. They were brutal men way in our past but to try and judge them would be insane. They believed ..."

Janet answers
Well said Laureen, buy the way Gary girls were getting married at 7 in the 1700's with parents consent and on the understanding of no sex till 12 years of age, so you do not have to go back to the 1100's for that. Also, although less people got to their 90's in the 1800's many people did. Average age for death at that time may appear lower but of course this is due to the ages of the children' who died being brought into the "average" equation. Back to the 50s/60s look at any old film of pop stars at that time, note the ages of the groupies, 13/14/15. Jerry Lee Lewis married his wife when she was 12. Elvis Presley had Prisilla living with him before she was of marriage age and so did Bill Wyman with Mandy Smith. You can not look at one age through the eyes of another . "children" (in today's eyes) aged 12 worked in factories & coal mines my own grandma was at work aged 12 in 1914. Ann, up untill 1929 the age a boy could marry was 14, a bit older than the girl so he would be earring enough to keep his wife and children. I suggest you look through any old parish register to see deaths of people over 90 years of age and marriages under 12, for females. The guys of the early 1900's would be surprised if they knew that some of our generation did not have children untill we were "granny age".

[Anne]

Question: Do Laureen and Janet find that Delores is in some respects responsible for what happened?

[Laureen]

Anne, thank you- you have given me much information here that I wasn't aware of and one of the reasons I love GRs is because it is a source of learning and gives us ideas for more research.

Janet, I thought it a bit unfair and a stretch to claim I was saying "boys will be boys"!
Boy's generally develop physically a little later than girls and a lot later emotionally and mentally and that is as nature intended. Once upon a time, and indeed in some cultures today, boys had to endure physical & mental tests to prove their manhood before they were considered capable of providing and caring for a family. That made the average father quite a bit older than the female.

No one here is arguing that young girls should be taken advantage of. There is a line and that line includes doing something to anyone "against their will". I felt that Lolita was willing whether to escape her current life or because she enjoyed the power she had over HH or, in fact, she wanted to experience sex, who knows, but she was willing.

In relation to your side note. Why status? I thought that was the reason women today keep complaining about a glass ceiling. Woops! Now I have opened a can of worms.

[Karen]

Janet wrote: "Laureen wrote: "I agree with Janet. The time in which a novel is set is important. I am reading about the Vikings. They were brutal men way in our past but to try and judge them would be insane...."

Not to be too picky, Myra was 13 (legal age to marry in Louisiana) when she married JL Lewis.
Furthermore, in Medieval times it was rare for people to live as long as they do now.

[Laura]

I can't find a polite way to say this, so I will be blunt: whoever thinks a 12 year old girl can be actually willing to experience sex, doesn't have the slightest idea about teenage psychology and zero memory of their own 12 years old, if women. Whoever thinks a woman is ready to bear children as soon as she has her first period, has no clue whatsoever about the very basics of human biology and no power of observation either, because they never looked at the hips of a 12 year-old girl.

I won't even start with victim-blaming, because there seem to be a few around these threads. What's the point of the whole thing again here?

[Laureen]

I can see you are angry Laura and that's understandable when you have a 12yr old. I am a grand mother with a 12yr old granddaughter and no way is she ready for such an experience. We all develop at different stages and I can assure you I could have had a baby at 12 if I didn't have a strict and suspicious mother - I get the blushes just thinking about it. I have always had good hips and I bore my first child at 21 within 4hrs. Others aren't so lucky. As with everything, it depends on the individual.

My daughters all developed a healthy attitude towards sex because I talked to them and most importantly told them they could tell me anything and I wouldn't be shocked but needed to know their thoughts so I could help them during this difficult time. Please don't judge those who hold a different opinion to you. In fact, I married my childhood sweetheart and we are still married and wouldn't have it any other way. No we didn't have sex at 14 but we wanted to.

[Janet]

Anne wrote: "Question: Do Laureen and Janet find that Delores is in some respects responsible for what happened?"
No of course not, just because a girl wears short skirts or wears a "topless dress" as in the early 60's ( or even even goes in a 'older" pop star's dressing room) it does not give the predator the right to rape, imprison, and hurt that person. So no,no,no.
However I do feel there is a difference between a man being attracted to a 12/13/14/15/16/17 year old girl at a time when we mainly married before we were 21 (most of us being pregnant on our wedding day) and a man being attracted to a child of 3/4/5/6/7 . there is huge difference in my mine.
Lolita flirted with an older man who was a controlling predator and she ended in his web of control. as any woman could, of any age.

[Janet]

Laureen wrote: "Anne, thank you- you have given me much information here that I wasn't aware of and one of the reasons I love GRs is because it is a source of learning and gives us ideas for more research.

Janet,..."
hi Laureen i think you have me and Anne muddled up , hee-hee. I am on your team .

[Gary]

OK, this is going to be more than a little direct, but at this point I think there's an issue that really needs to get expressed.

I have to reiterate the these arguments about the age of consent and marriage in history have really no bearing on this novel. Delores/Lolita as a character is not a child bride in what would now be viewed as an unconventional relationship. Rather, in this novel she is a character who is systematically stalked, kidnapped and raped. That's the plot of the book. It's couched in some obfuscatory prose, so I think a lot of folks do misread it, but these arguments about the merits of historical standards are only relevant in that Nabokov was writing a satire of those ideas.

Given the style of the novel, I suppose we can see some sort of basis for those arguments. After all, Nabokov is presenting the rationalization of a depraved man and his perspective throughout the piece, and his skill is such that some folks lose sight of the facts of the plot for the beauty and allure of the narrative. Because we are in that character's head, we get his views directly, and Nabokov is quite good at presenting those views in a way that is comprehensible. His prose is beautiful and funny, even if the subject matter is very dark.

However, I really think folks should consider whether they want to side with that character--and even double down on the rationalization by drawing from history, celebrity culture, and the vagaries of the legal systems in the past in order to support that point of view. It reads like a lot of folks here are parroting the views of NAMBLA. I would really suggest people consider carefully whether they actually want to go into a public forum discussing a work of fiction and express views usually reserved for chickenhawks and molesters.

Throughout his book, Nabokov presents those same arguments, but he's doing it in satire of those views, not support. It's not a matter of "judging" other people who have different opinions. It's a child rape story, folks. It's not about whether you yourself played doctor with a neighborhood friend when you were twelve, but about a fully grown adult targeting children as part of a lifelong obsession. The relative age at which one develops is a consideration when it comes to normative development, but this is not a book about normative development, so that argument misses the point, and expressing it in relation to this novel winds up allying (I suspect by accident) with some pretty vile ideas.

[Laura]

Gary wrote: " It's not a matter of "judging" other people who have different opinions. It's a child rape story, folks. It's not about whether you yourself played doctor with a neighborhood friend when you were twelve, but about a fully grown adult targeting children as part of a lifelong obsession. The relative age at which one develops is a consideration when it comes to normative development, but this is not a book about normative development, so that argument misses the point, and expressing it in relation to this novel winds up allying (I suspect by accident) with some pretty vile ideas."

Yes, that. I would have things to add about development from the medical point of view, but I will just leave it with Gary's post.

In another thread, some people were criticizing the lack of ability to get past the plot... But some people can't even get the plot!

[Anne]

Gary's ability to articulate my views is uncanny and Laura too.

I don't hear anger from Laura but rather indignance. For me as a person that has both raised children and has personal experience with an abusive situation, it can be difficult to hear people diffuse the guilt of someone like HH who is so narcissistic and lacking in any kind of self control or compassion for his victim.

Thanks for the answer Janet. I guess the difference between us is that I put pubescent children up to at least 15-16 in the first of your categories of absolutely off limits. IMO Kids need protection from predators at that age to counter the disparity between their physical and mental development. Teens are incredibly vulnerable individuals and not the violent hormonal mobs our society makes them out to be. Physically mature teens are at huge risk and when raped (or shot) they often end up taking much of the blame for being too sexy or too big and scary. No one protected Delores and her only respite was inside her own head.

What disturbs me is the idea that "she flirted" and this is how it ended up. I am reminded of a Mad Men scene where the neighbor lady is beaten by her husband and they look at her bloody lip and black eye and angrily say "what did you say to him?"

[Janet]

Anne wrote: "Gary's ability to articulate my views is uncanny and Laura too.

I don't hear anger from Laura but rather indignance. For me as a person that has both raised children and has personal experience w..."


Janet says, Yes you are right young people need protection from predators, they need to learn to be 'street wise'. we all do. (a friend of mine, 70, was scammed out of £1500, via the internet recently). "to be forewarned is to be Forearmed).

Do girls flirt????
So you think a female of 13-16 was a 'child' in 1949 !!!! what age did 'preadolescence start? 17 or 18? and what age do you suppose adolescence would start 20-22 ????? I do not think so. I and my contemporaries (born 1945-1955) were all engaged at 18 and married, with children of our own AND a mortgage by 20/21. ( this was 20 years after 1949). A DIFFERENT TIME.

In the Jewish religion an adult is still from the age of 13 after Bar + Bat Mitzvah.

DID LOLITA FLIRT at 13 ????.
I know that some young people are a bit backward now, but at that time we were on the back of motor bikes at 13 & 14 with 16 year olds (Who we flirted with!!!) driving them, , the wind in our hair!!!! We had mod & rocker battles, we were little rebels & we became street wise.

The 50's when the book was written, over 15 years before) would have been Teddy boys & girls aged 13-17. (note: Craige , the teddy boy, who shot the policeman was 16 at the time & Derek Bentley was "backward" to be a Ted as he was older) A completely different time, yes, 13/14 year old girls did flirt.
If you think that young adults do not feel a sexual attraction please read the n.s.p.c.c. site on the subject.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advi...

[Laureen]

Janet wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Anne, thank you- you have given me much information here that I wasn't aware of and one of the reasons I love GRs is because it is a source of learning and gives us ideas for more r..."

So sorry Janet; my only excuse is it was late at night! Following all the posts here is a bit like trying the follow characters in a novel with loads of names, lol.

[Laureen]

Laureen wrote: "Janet wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Anne, thank you- you have given me much information here that I wasn't aware of and one of the reasons I love GRs is because it is a source of learning and gives us id..."

Anne wrote: "Gary's ability to articulate my views is uncanny and Laura too.

Doesn't make them "right" though although this is a discussion and shouldn't be about being right but being heard.

Janet, I loved your last post and agree totally. You have a very good way of expressing yourself. While I don't believe being older makes for being wiser, sometimes life experiences, if we keep an open mind about issues, does lead to tapping into inner knowledge. Some older people get their brains warped trying to follow public opinion.

[Karen]

Laureen wrote; "Janet, I loved your last post and agree totally. You have a very good way of expressing yourself. While I don't believe being older makes for being wiser, sometimes life experiences, if we keep an open mind about issues, does lead to tapping into inner knowledge. Some older people get their brains warped trying to follow public opinion"

Hey young people do that too! :)

[Laureen]

Yes, I meant to add that Janet but something weird was happening to my pre-post where it somehow added some of my comments from my posts on another book which I had to delete and then I was in a rush to get to work.

[David]

People! Of course Humbert is a pedophile who rapes Lolita; that's the point of the book.

He's an unreliable narrator who abuses Lolita and lies about it, spinning a wild story instead, in hopes of convincing you, the reader.

Gary: It may be possible, but this case is very different; instead of a large number of potential collaborators, it's one woman, corroborated by a Judge who said there was an inappropriate relationship. Even if Allen didn't abuse Farrow, he certainly wasn't a good father or influence in her life. I doubt that she could be brainwashed against him if he had an appropriate role in her life.

[Poindexter]

I don't understand why it's important whether Lolita wanted sex or not. It seems like a pointless, unending debate, but what we do know is that it was definitely illegal for HH to have sex with her. "Willingness" has nothing to do with it when she didn't have a choice in the first place, and there were also points in the book when she wasn't nearly so willing. Did we forget the bit where he was trying to drug her so he could have his way with her? That would be extremely questionable behaviour whether the girl was 12 or 20.

Humbert knew what he was doing was wrong, even while trying to make his excuses. That's what people do when they knowingly do bad things - they try to justify their actions, change events in their minds to make themselves appear better, and pretend that they aren't the ones to blame.

If you try to defend him, you're doing the exact opposite of what Nabokov was trying to communicate in the book.

[Gary]

David wrote: "It may be possible, but this case is very different; instead of a large number of potential collaborators, it's one woman, corroborated by a Judge who said there was an inappropriate relationship. Even if Allen didn't abuse Farrow, he certainly wasn't a good father or influence in her life. I doubt that she could be brainwashed against him if he had an appropriate role in her life."

Hi David,

I'm sorry to say that, unlike Lolita, I really can't draw a conclusion on the Woody Allen situation from the evidence and testimony. The real world is just far too messy compared to literature, even a book like this one, which has clearly confused so many. I have to agree that Allen can't be nominated for any Father of the Year awards, but there are enough hinky things about the molestation accusation that I'm not comfortable saying I believe it "beyond a reasonable doubt," with a "preponderance of the evidence" (legal criminal/civil standards) or even on a personal level.

For me, when things get that shaky, all I can do is fall back on stating the facts as we know them and then let folks draw their own conclusions. Given what we know, I just can't draw any of my own. Again, for me personally, I'm comfortable with the uncomfortable status of not knowing, but I can't argue with anyone who sees things differently other than with a sort of point by point look at the facts.

[Callie]

Gary wrote: "Hi Callie,

In the past, folks have gotten mad when I say "unreliable narrator" in a thread about Lolita but I'm going to go ahead and throw it into the mix here and risk the ire of all those folks..."
So was Humbert imagining that Lolita wanted him because he was ill or was he just lying? Why didn't Lolita try running away though? Why didn't she tell anyone?

[Gary]

Poindexter wrote: "I don't understand why it's important whether Lolita wanted sex or not."

It's not important, of course, but it is a common rationalization. It has, I think, two major influences:

1. The nature of human sexuality and courtship.
2. The psychological need for people to feel safe.

There's a long-standing Western cultural construct that women are supposed to be chaste and demure. The argument that she "flirted" or was herself in someway interested in sex is an attempt to color the victim as unchaste and not demure. Therefore, she played a part in her own seduction. This taps into an aspect of sexual relations between men and women in that, despite the social standard of chastity and demureness, women generally initiate sex with eye contact, body language and innuendo. It's amusing if you watch it, anthropology-style, but the human primate mating dance goes

1. female makes eye contact.
2. male responds.
3. female poses.
4. male watches.
5. female gesticulates.
6. male speaks.

...and off we go to the races.

Usually people think of the following banter as "flirtation" but it really starts before anyone starts talking. Because of that human interaction dance, saying "she flirted" is to suggest she invited sex.

Second, people have a need to feel safe. When we see something bad happen to someone else, there's an immediate process that happens: "Oh, that couldn't happen to me because..." When we see a traffic accident we think, "I would never have driven like that" or when someone hears about a mugging we think, "Well, I wouldn't have been in that neighborhood at that time of night." In this case, the rationalization is, "I wouldn't have flirted with that dangerous man."

That second need is so powerful that just the fact that women flirt is sometimes used as a justification for sexual violence. That the leap between flirtation and rape is logically insurmountable really has no bearing on the emotional value of that rationale.

[Ed]

Question for all those throwing around that HH was an 'unreliable narrator' (a term that wasn't even coined until 1961) -

what then are we to believe about Lolita or HH? Everyone seems to want to pick and chose what parts are true and which are lies. How can we be sure anything is true? Dolores' age or that they even actually had sex?

Just wondering.

[Gary]

Those are exactly the right questions to ask, Callie, so I'm going to try to answer them as completely as I can (and I'm going to fail--it would require a whole Masters's thesis to address fully.)

Callie wrote: "So was Humbert imagining that Lolita wanted him because he was ill or was he just lying?

Humbert is both delusional and a liar. He has a broad, elaborate fantasy life in his head that he's living out, and by the time of the narrative, he's trying to justify himself for murder. Consider in this regard his thoughts in which he casts himself as a vampire. Also, take into consideration that we know from the Forward that the narrative is written as "a confession" shortly before his trial for murder was to begin. So, when reading his narration, one has to consider both those things first before deciding on whether he's telling the truth or not. "How does that statement fit into his psychology?" and "Does it justify his behavior after the fact?"

Callie wrote: "Why didn't Lolita try running away though? Why didn't she tell anyone?"

That's a long-standing issue in situations like this, and I have to admit right up front that I'm not fully qualified to give the psychological explanation for why victims of sexual abuse don't come forward. Social pressure, shame, guilt, fear, denial, embarrassment, confusion, trauma, horror? I'm sure there are any number of reasons why one would not speak about that kind of thing. It's probably some combination of those things, plus any number more, and in variations as complex and shifting as any other motivation. In the end, I can only suggest that there are adults who don't tell anyone when they are in abusive relationships. I would expect a child to have the same issues, compounded with their lack of communication skills, and their status as minors.

In the end, she does run away. She runs into the arms of another abuser, which is not from what I understand all that unusual. She does apparently escape that relationship to become part of a seemingly normal marriage. But when she gets the chance to run, she does.

[Gary]

I couldn't find a video on the Internet, but these comments about flirting reminded me of a scene in NYPD Blue Season 4 Episode 12 called "Upstairs, Downstairs" in which Diane makes a painful statement. It's a rough scene to watch, so if you have more success finding it than I did, be forewarned. Here's a transcript of it:

Diane: I didn't know that would happen. I was only 12. I didn't know that would happen! And I don't even think I flirted.

Bobby: Oh, Diane…

Diane: I just… I just woke up and he was finished. I just… I didn't want him to yell at me like Mom and Dougie.

Bobby(whispers): Okay. It's okay.

Diane: I must have flirted, but I don't think I did.

Bobby: Okay. It's out. You know, you got it out.

Diane: I had to keep a secret. Daddy's pretty pet.

Bobby: You got it out.

[Anne]

To hear only HH's point of view one can only imagine how skewed it is, especially in the case of someone that far outside social norms. In doing so N exposes the striking nature of moral relativism. N causes us to examine our ability to justify actions that cause harm.

Regarding Gary's mention of chaste and demure. Please add intact. To this day in many places if a woman is raped, even if she was "chaste" beforehand, she is expected to marry the rapist. Some would even find their relationship pretty normal. Only now is society evolving past that model.

A fitting segue into the capture bonding issue. IMO it all boils down to survival instinct. http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Capt...

[Janet]

Is Humbert a pedophile ? I think was the question, I did digress a little.
Looking at the Oxford Dictionary of 1986 (37 years after the book was written).

What is a paedophile.
PAEDOPHILIA - sexual love directed towards children.

What is a child.
CHILD (pl Children) a young person of either sex before puberty; an unborn or new born human,

So, in 1986, if Lolita had started her menstrual cycle Humbert would not be a pedophile, and if she had not, then the opposite would apply.

As most of us start between 10-12 years of age, this may be why Nabokov placed her age at 12 onwards.
However this does not stop Humbert from being a perverted predator, a bully and control freak, who had sex with an under age girl. It seem that to be a paedophile he would have to have sex with a child between birth and puberty at that time.