Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.

[Mickey]

Does anyone have access to the dsm 5? The dsm 4 says the cut off age for pedophilia is 13 and under. Also, Humbert is attracted to prepubescence by his own admission.

[Karen]

Janet wrote: "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 - sex..."

I don't think that's true- I would have to look at the laws of the time. You may be right, but 12-13 is a child under the law isn't it?

[Karen]

Mickey wrote: "Does anyone have access to the dsm 5? The dsm 4 says the cut off age is for pedophilia is 13 and under. Also, Humbert is attracted to prepubescents by his own admission."

Is there one online?

[Mickey]

Karen wrote: "Is there one online? "

I looked, but I could only find the DSM 4.

[Mickey]

Janet wrote: "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."

Where are you getting the 10-12 years of age? Most places I've seen says the average age is 12-13. The age when girls start has been getting younger, so in Lolita's time, she was probably not getting her period yet.

[Karen]

Mickey wrote: "Karen wrote: "Is there one online? "

I looked, but I could only find the DSM 4."

That one is good enough

[Dushyant]

I believe the author has his victory over the reader both ways, even when he is convinced by HH in justifying himself as well as even when he dismisses him as a pedophile. The subtlety with which the character of HH is sculpted is where the mastery of Nabokov lies. It makes the readers struggle with their sympathy.

[Karen]

Dushyant wrote: "I believe the author has his victory over the reader both ways, even when he is convinced by HH in justifying himself as well as even when he dismisses him as a pedophile. The subtlety with which t..."

Absolutely!!

[Gary]

Mickey wrote: "Does anyone have access to the dsm 5? The dsm 4 says the cut off age for pedophilia is 13 and under. Also, Humbert is attracted to prepubescence by his own admission."

According to Wikipedia, it hasn't changed from DSM-4 to DSM-5.

As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.... It is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)....

However, it goes on to note that in common usage

the word pedophilia is often used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. For example, The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary states, "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." This common use sometimes conflates the sexual interest in and sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors.

The article goes on to describe the issues with the terminology, though not in a lot of depth. There are other articles (hebephilia) that do a better job.

Full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophil...

Personally, I don't see the merit of parsing the term further than the common use definition for literary purposes, even if--as you note--the situation in Lolita didn't already qualify.

[Anne]

It would seem that the laws regarding age of consent were established to deal with this conundrum.

[Janet]

Mickey wrote: "Janet wrote: "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..."

Janet says - Where do I get this from!!!!!!! I HAD PERIODS, I was 11 when i started my periods so were my two close friends Terri who was a month older than me and Brenda four months younger (the year was 1960). My mother who is 92 now was two months off of her 11th birthday (1933), she started her periods without knowing about them and thought that she was bleeding to death!!!
I had been to her's today and picked up a dictionary from the 30's, remember we are looking at the law when the book was started 1949, it has not got the word 'pedophile' in there at all!!! the nearest is pedobaptism, pedagogue. Paedagofy, paepagogics, Paedobaptism. Does anyone know when paedophile/pedophile enter the English Dictionary ????

[Janet]

Gary wrote: "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 state..."

Sounds like a rape what ever the age of the victim.

[Janet]

Dushyant wrote: "I believe the author has his victory over the reader both ways, even when he is convinced by HH in justifying himself as well as even when he dismisses him as a pedophile. The subtlety with which t..."

YES. It is a work of art.

[Janet]

Gary wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Does anyone have access to the dsm 5? The dsm 4 says the cut off age for pedophilia is 13 and under. Also, Humbert is attracted to prepubescence by his own admission."

According to ..."

And we must remember Lolita ages between 12 to 17 in the book so not just 12 but 13,14,15,16,& 17.

[Esdaile]

You write, "I don't understand why it's important whether Lolita wanted sex or not. It seems like a pointless, unending debate." So why do you go on debating it? In my opinion, it is important because the illusion that children are not responsible for their actions in any way has marked many comments in the thread and is a common pernicious misapprehension in modern society which has arisen out of an understandable but nevertheless wrong-headed reaction to making children fully responsible for their actions, which was the norm in centuries gone by. The truth is surely in between. Children should be made to carry the burden of increasing responsibility for their actions with increasing age; a child of 12 does have free choice and does know a great deal more about life than many adults wish to credit.
Some people try to justify actions they think are wrong, more often they do not. However, people who are convinced of the rightness of their actions also try to justify their actions, so that does not get us further.

[Mickey]

Janet wrote: "I HAD PERIODS, I was 11 when I started..."

So, you are getting your information based on four women? I thought when you said that "most of us start between 10-12 years of age," that you had looked up some statistics. WebMD says the average age is 12-13 now and I've heard that this average age has actually been getting younger due to growth hormones in milk.
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/2...


ETA: Here is a study done by a group the shows the median age for starting your period is 12 years and 11 months. It says that these results were consistent with an earlier study with girls born from 1950-1965.
www.bmj.com/content/322/7294/1095

[Poindexter]

Esdaile wrote: "You write, "I don't understand why it's important whether Lolita wanted sex or not. It seems like a pointless, unending debate." So why do you go on debating it? In my opinion, it is important beca..."

From the perspective of the book, and as a response to the original post, it is not important whether Lolita wanted sex. HH's actions were wrong, regardless - whether he raped her or not, he definitely kidnapped her, used her, abused her and ruined her life. We don't know whether she really did want sex, because the story is told by the "unreliable narrator", but even so it was quite clear that he was going to drug her and rape her if she hadn't chosen to cooperate at that particular time.

In real life, then of course it's an important question to ask, I'm not going to deny that.

[Janet]

Mickey wrote: "Janet wrote: "I HAD PERIODS, I was 11 when I started..."

So, you are getting your information based on four women? I thought when you said that "most of us start between 10-12 years of age," that ..."

Janet says Hi Mikey
BUT Lolita was a "LOLITA" she was most likely one of these. 25% of females having periods BEFORE 12., FROM YOUR OWN LINK. XXX
I also had a friend who did not have her period until 18 years of age !!!!

Quote :- The percentages of girls who reported having had their first period by their 10th, 11th, or 12th birthdays were 0.8, 3.6 and 21.7, respectively; 11.8% had their first period before leaving primary school. Median ages of menarche were similar in different regions (table) and did not differ by social class or ethnic group (see table on website). Non-responders closely resembled responders in age and geographical location.

[Mickey]

I'm curious, Janet, why would you guess that Lolita would have her period sooner than average? (I just want to say that I don't agree with the idea that once a girl gets her period, she is "fair game" for men. I think that Humbert was obviously a pedophile. He had a sexual attraction to children 13 or younger, which is the cutoff.)

[Gary]

Mark wrote: "To focus on the subject matter is to blind yourself to the absolute lyrical beauty this writer creates. He was a foreigner, new to the English language describing what must have seemed a decadent and shocking new land, America. And he nailed it."

I think you make an important point, Mark. When reading someone like Nabokov in particular, one has to have a sense of balance between the profundity of his prose and the particulars of the plot, if you will. (Sorry for the alliteration, but I couldn't resist.) I'd suggest that the power of that prose isn't fully appreciated without a careful consideration of that plot, but tipping over to one side or the other is going to lead to a misreading or, at least, incomplete experience of the text. Having that balance is key.

Mark wrote: "The girl dies in "The Lovely Bones", but the description of her journey to Heaven is why writers do what they do. "In Cold Blood", "Helter Skelter", both horrible events but so brilliant in the telling. My feeble and curious mind expands because writers can make the evil, the morbid, understandable. And the world is not all unicorns and rainbows. I love writers who look into the dark places of the human heart. It's just a book, something to occupy your mind on a hot summer day."

Aside from being great examples to support your argument, those books make for a pretty good reading list. There's been some talk about reading Lolita in high school in another thread about this book, and it seems to me that one would want students to get through those books first before trying to tackle Nabokov. One needs to work one's way up to his prose.

However, even with that in mind, for a lot of folks, there are "trigger" words and "trigger" issues that are going to be difficult for them to balance when it comes to a book like Lolita. Sexual assault of any kind is one of those triggers, and I don't think it behooves anyone to try to argue with that reaction. Aside from being definitively personal and private and, therefore, subjective enough that we have to put it down to an individual's perspective, we should consider that it may be based on personal experience. It's simply not decent to contradict or even confront that experience with something as trivial as the "proper" way to read a novel....

[Janet]

Mickey wrote: "I'm curious, Janet, why would you guess that Lolita would have her period sooner than average? (I just want to say that I don't agree with the idea that once a girl gets her period, she is "fair ga..."

Hi Mickey
Who said she was fair game? I have already been through all that a few days ago. NO female is "Fair game" EVER.
Look up the English definition of the word "lolita" . That is why her hormones would have been working, Nabokov described her as such, did she not play with a boy at the school when 12/13?. Or does Nabokov want us to believe that everything written in the book should be taken as a Humbert lie?.

All of the girls in our gang had the 'curse' by 12, perhaps it is the "People are like water, they find their own level" syndrome.
Interestingly in New Hampshire, where the book is set, it is still today possible to marry at 13.

Quote;-

New Hampshire

The law is complicated in New Hampshire. Individuals under the age of 18 may not marry in New Hampshire without parental approval and a judicial waiver. Brides must be at least 13 years of age and grooms must be at least 14 years of age before their parents can apply for a judicial waiver.

[Mickey]

Janet wrote: "Who said she was fair game? I have already been through all that a few days ago. NO female is "Fair game" EVER."

I never said you did. I just wanted it known that, even though we are discussing whether Lolita had her period or not, I don't think that this changes matters. It's still pedophilia, in my view. According to the DSM, it's still pedophilia. Because a girl gets her period, this does not change her status from a child. Although we are parsing whether or not she probably had it or not, it doesn't change matters. What drew me to reply was the inaccuracy in the data that most girls get their periods between 10-12, which is not true.

Janet wrote: "Look up the English definition of the word "lolita" . That is why her hormones would have been working, Nabokov described her as such, did she not play with a boy at the school when 12/13?. Or does Nabokov want us to believe that everything written in the book should be taken as a Humbert lie?.

All of the girls in our gang had the 'curse' by 12, perhaps it is the "People are like water, they find their own level" syndrome. "

Very young children experiment with sex. This is not a sign of physical maturity. As early as kindergarten, I had boyfriends and we would imitate what we saw on TV. However, I was 13 when I got my period. I don't think there is this connection that you're thinking there is between sex play and getting your period.

I think a more likely influence is Lolita watching and imitating her mother and the movie magazines that Humbert always credits as a source of inspiration for Lo.

Janet wrote: "The law is complicated in New Hampshire. Individuals under the age of 18 may not marry in New Hampshire without parental approval and a judicial waiver. Brides must be at least 13 years of age and grooms must be at least 14 years of age before their parents can apply for a judicial waiver."

What does that have to do with Lolita's case? Both of her parents are dead.

[Janet]

Mickey wrote: "Janet wrote: "Who said she was fair game? I have already been through all that a few days ago. NO female is "Fair game" EVER."

Mickey says
"I never said you did. I just wanted it known that, even though we are discussing whether Lolita had her period or not, I don't think that this changes matters. It's still pedophilia, in my view. According to the DSM, it's still pedophilia. Because a girl gets her period, this does not change her status from a child. Although we are parsing whether or not she probably had it or not, it doesn't change matters. What drew me to reply was the inaccuracy in the data that most girls get their periods between 10-12, which is not true".

Janet says
OK a quarter of females begin their periods before 12 years of age.( I did not know of anyone who was over 13, so perhaps my peers were liars) .
This period question was due to the "1986" Oxford Dictionary description of a pedophile (I will leave the a out as i do not have a key on this computer to join the a & e together and the spell checker is getting tiresome.)

What we need to know is ;- Was Humbert a "pedophile" according to the law in New Hampshire in 1947. Not if we with our 2014 eyes THINK that he was. Different countries and times live by different rules and we need to think objectively. Were the medieval Kings thought of as pedophiles at the time of their marriages (not now, but then) ?.

Times were different, so we need facts.
( At 12/13/14 I was not only on motor bikes, and jiving with the rocker gangs at dance halls,, but also enjoying "flirting" with the pop stars of the day in their dressing rooms,... and I enjoyed it. now days you would say that they were pedophiles and it must have "Changed my life for ever" Rubbish! just a different time). Another example of how times change - I have an ancestor born 1779 who went to sea on a battle ship at the age of 9, making his way up to 'Lieutenant in 1796 on HMS Thunderer. in charge of 600 men, aged 17!!! (becoming a commander in 1819). how many mothers would in 2014 send a 9 year old to war on a battle ship and how many 17 year olds would be mature enough to be in control of 600 men on a battle ship? It was a different time.

So basically we need to know if in New Hampshire in 1947 the character in this book would have been called a pedophile.

Mickey says
"What does that have to do with Lolita's case? Both of her parents are dead"
Janet says -
Because you seem to be saying that all of the people in New Hampshire that have married 13 year old brides must be Pedophiles .

Are you still saying that 14/15 year olds, in 1947, are 'children' .

[Janet]

Esdaile wrote: "You write, "I don't understand why it's important whether Lolita wanted sex or not. It seems like a pointless, unending debate." So why do you go on debating it? In my opinion, it is important beca..."

I loved your post. So true.

[Janet]

Was Humbert Humbert a pedophile ? I say No.
I believe in todays eyes he was a Hebephile and a Ephebophile.
I watched the interviews withe Nabokov (below) and the word "pedophile" was not used once. Neither did Vladimir say anything about the book being a 'Humbert lie'.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-wcB...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldpj_...

[Mickey]

Janet, I have been wondering why you've been so interested in trying to normalize the relationship in the novel. I still don't have a clear picture of why. Most of the posters that I've seen that try to do that are men who rant about age of consent laws as if busybodies and matrons are trying to ruin their fun.

As far as using the dictionary, the dictionary is probably not the best resource for an accurate view of pedophilia. As a psychiatric disorder or as a legal term, it is too complex to get a good sense from the dictionary entry. However, if pedophilia is "sexual love directed towards children", then this fits Humbert. He said himself that he was interested in girls from 9-14. He discusses being aroused by body parts that are prepubescent. There is no doubt in the story that Humbert is attracted to children. This attraction to this age group makes him a pedophile in the medical sense without him ever touching an under aged girl.
I found a history of the age of consent. Since this was set in the US, state laws are in effect, so crossing a state border may have changed the legal terms and likely punishments, although there was no state where Lolita was of legal age to consent. The New Hampshire age of consent from 1920 onwards was 16. Here,s the linkhttp://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modu...
I think it's a mistake to pretend that a 12 year old having sex with a man in his late 30's in the 1950's was not shocking. If it was so commonplace and accepted in the 1950's, why was there immediately so much controversy? To claim that we are looking at this with contemporary eyes and that this is just the way things were back then doesn't explain why the novel was so controversial. When it was written, it was set in contemporary times. If the pairing were so conventional, why the outcry?
As far as your life experiences, I'm not sure you should trust them as absolute guides on what was normal. We've already discussed how your personal data (of when you and three other women got their first periods) wasn't average. There's just not enough data there to take an average.

[Karen]

Janet wrote: "Was Humbert Humbert a pedophile ? I say No.
I believe in todays eyes he was a Hebephile and a Ephebophile.
I watched the interviews withe Nabokov (below) and the word "pedophile" was not used onc..."

In today's eyes he would be considered a pedophile. Mickey is right. Isn't this why HH considered himself a loathsome person? And any 12 or 13 year old girl in the 1950's who went out and did the things you claimed to have done should not have been doing those things at that age, regardless of the time period. I did things too at a young age, in the 1970's- my parents were not that great at parenting.

[Janet]

(1). Oh come off it, look at any old film of the Beatles, do you honestly believe that the girls screaming their heads off were women of 18???? and how many of them were there Screaming?…. Thousands, thats how many, thousands of young girls. Where have you been?

(2) when did Lolita become 13 in the book? we keep harping on about this "12" but she wasn't 12 for the whole book, she must have gone through 13/14/15/& 16 to get to 17 perhaps not, this is, after all just a fairy tale.

(3) If "in todays eyes" being obsessed with a 14-17 year old is still "pedophilia" where you come from, where would you place hebephilia (not to mention ephebophilia.)
Also what do you call a person interested in little children then , from birth to puberty? here we call that "Pedophilia".

(4) Why does Vladimir not once mention pedophilia in his interviews? I take it that you have seen the interviews. He calls "Lolita" a love story that he knew would enrage/ cause comment. not once does he mention the unreliable narrator or sexual perverts, why? is Nabokov a closet pedophile?

(5) So if you are saying that a 13 year old is a "child" in America today fine I agree with that, it is here also today (they stay at school until at least 18 ),
BUT WHY for goodness sake are people allowed to marry in some American states at 13 even TODAY????, are they backward!!!! (we got rid of that in 1929) or is America still a land where pedophiles can grab a 13 year old??

[Laura]

Janet wrote: "BUT WHY for goodness sake are people allowed to marry in some American states at 13 even TODAY????, are they mad!!!!"

Hum... yes?

Janet wrote: " or is America a land for what you call pedophiles?? "

Not all of America, just the ones who think like that and defend this notion.

[Janet]

Mickey says---Janet, I have been wondering why you've been so interested in trying to normalize the relationship in the novel. I still don't have a clear picture of why. Most of the posters that I've seen that try to do that are men who rant about age of consent laws as if busybodies and matrons are trying to ruin their fun.

Jan says
You know as well as I do that I am not trying to normalise the relationship in this novel, I live now, I have ' todays eyes ' for goodness sake !!! I can not believe this…. i will start again.

We are trying to find out if Nabokov wrote this novel about a "pedophile". WHEN he wrote it in 1947/50 was HE creating a "pedophile" knowingly?.

The question being discussed is "was H.H. a pedophile", as H.H. was created in 1947/50 it is to that time we have to look.
The examples that I have put up, of how time changes thinking and attitude, are to make people think objectively, in other words outside the box.
A parent sending a 9 year old son into battle on a man of war nowadays would be locked up, in the 1790's, when my ancestor went, they would have been very proud of the fact. As were the families who's 15 year olds went to fight in WW1 after lying about their age.

If we all respected other people's attitude/culture, even though we do not agree with them, and if we tried not to think that our thinking is right and the only way all the time (cocksure ignorance ) there would be less wars in the world.
I am trying to respect the New Hampshire attitude in 1947, it must have been different to today (even though they are still marrying 13 year olds!) The question is….. H.H. was a character from a 1947 book, would he have been a Pedophile at that time? NOT would he be a pedophile/hebephile now.

[Mickey]

Janet wrote: "(1). Oh come off it, look at any old film of the Beatles, do you honestly believe that the girls screaming their heads off were women of 18???? and how many of them were there Screaming ?. Thousands, thats how many, thousands of young girls. Where have you been?"

I don't think anyone is saying that young girls do not get crushes on grown men. When I was in the 5th grade, I had a big crush on my teacher, Mr. Santos. I don't consider this an unusual thing. When I was very young, I had a crush on Bo Duke from the TV show Dukes of Hazard. (Both were happening way before I got my period, btw.) It's not the girl's responsibility to make sure that she's not victimized. It's the adult's. It does not matter if she swoons over the male in question. An adult male is supposed to be responsible enough not to take advantage of young girls, and if he is not, then he can get in trouble with the law.

Janet wrote: "(2) when did Lolita become 13 in the book? we keep harping on about this "12" but she wasn't 12 for the whole book, she must have gone through 13/14/15/& 16 to get to 17 perhaps not, this is, after all just a fairy tale."

Do you think that because she ages, this changes the fact that he had sex with her when she was 12? If a child is raped at 10, let's say, and she doesn't tell anyone for 7 years, does this mean it is not a crime because she is now "of age"? This doesn't make sense.

Janet wrote: "(3) If "in todays eyes" being obsessed with a 13-17 year old is "pedophilia" where you come from, where would you place hebephilia (not to mention ephebophilia.)
Also what do you call a person interested in little children then , from birth to puberty? here we call that "Pedophilia"."

Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children 13 years of age or under. By Humbert's own admission, he was attracted to girls from 9-14. If you look through the book, he looks for women with prepubescent characteristics, not pubescent. When Lolita was 14, he called her "my aging mistress" and discussed how she was exhibiting characteristics that no longer attracted him. He might be a hebephile as well as a pedophile, but in no way could he be called a ephebophile (which is an attraction to 15-18 year olds). That's way too old according to him. This isn't about Lolita specifically. It's not as if this attraction only manifested itself with her, so it is not changed as Lolita gets older.

Janet wrote: "(4) Why does Vladimir not once mention pedophilia in his interviews? he calls "Lolita" a love story that he knew would enrage/ cause comment. not once does he mention the unreliable narrator or sexual perverts, why? is Nabokov a closet pedophile?"

He doesn't need to mention pedophilia. I'm not sure why this would mean he's a pedophile. I really think that Nabokov was not the sort of writer who would "make it easy" for his readers. He's always appeared to me as someone who likes to give people a puzzle and have them figure it out. Did he mention hebephilia or ephebophilia? I don't think he cares for medical labels.

Janet wrote: "(5) SO you are saying that a 13 year old is a "child" in America today fine I agree with that, it is here also (up to the age of 16),
BUT WHY for goodness sake are people allowed to marry in some American states at 13 even TODAY????, are they mad!!!! (we got rid of that in 1929) or is America a land for what you call pedophiles??"

In some states, they are allowed to marry with parental consent and judicial approval as low as 13. Perhaps it has to do with pregnancy. I doubt it is an instance of a 12 year old marrying a 36 year old. Both partners are probably underaged. Now, why any parent would agree to this (the only thing I can think of is for health insurance) is beyond me. I'd be curious as to what the circumstances generally lead to using this law.

[Janet]

Karen wrote: "Janet wrote: "Was Humbert Humbert a pedophile ? I say No.
I believe in todays eyes he was a Hebephile and a Ephebophile.
I watched the interviews withe Nabokov (below) and the word "pedophile" wa..."

Sorry to hear that, I had lovely parents, mum at 92 is still quite with it. xxx

[Gary]

Mickey wrote: "Mickey Janet, I have been wondering why you've been so interested in trying to normalize the relationship in the novel. I still don't have a clear picture of why. Most of the posters that I've seen that try to do that are men who rant about age of consent laws as if busybodies and matrons are trying to ruin their fun."

At this point, it is getting a little weird. Aside from how disconnected it is from the novel, the arguments that are presented are getting increasingly odd. The clinical definition of pedophilia still fits, but it's being presented as if it didn't.... The most brutal standards of history are presented as if they were norms, and should be emulated. I suspect this is mostly a sort of academic exercise for a lot of folks making those arguments, but it is a strange one. Maybe it's the nature of the book that inspires it? Nabokov was successful in getting into the mind of a depraved man, and it's the appeal of that talent that on some level inspires these kinds of arguments?

[Mickey]

I could agree with the statement that there are some differences at different times that should be kept in mind when reading. For instance, I remember watching an adaptation of Jane Austen's Persuasion on Youtube where the male lead says that he is ready to settle down and says something like, "Any woman from 15-25 is put on notice...", someone put the message that he was a pedophile, not considering that women often got married at that age. Another example would be Sherlock Holmes' cocaine use, which does not have the same connotations as it does today. In the BBC update, Sherlock is addicted to nicotine instead. Smoking has undergone a huge transformation in the last few decades.
However, it is a mistake to say that when it was set, Lolita does not deal with illicit and taboo subjects knowing full well that they are. The story is framed in such a way, Humbert's caginess, his paranoia and his secretive nature is confirmation of that. Humbert knows he's doing things against the law. I don't see how anyone can remark that it is not so. BTW, you did see where the age of consent in 1950 in New Hampshire was 16, right?

[Karen]

Janet wrote:
"Oh come off it, look at any old film of the Beatles, do you honestly believe that the girls screaming their heads off were women of 18???? and how many of them were there Screaming?…. Thousands, thats how many, thousands of young girls. Where have you been?"

What does that have to do with anything? Where have I been? Oh, I've been around too. You seem angry, so I don't really want to engage anymore. Have a nice day.

[Karen]

Janet wrote: "Karen wrote: "Janet wrote: "Was Humbert Humbert a pedophile ? I say No.
I believe in todays eyes he was a Hebephile and a Ephebophile.
I watched the interviews withe Nabokov (below) and the word ..."

Oh my parents are lovely now too. :)

[Karen]

Janet wrote: "Mickey says---Janet, I have been wondering why you've been so interested in trying to normalize the relationship in the novel. I still don't have a clear picture of why. Most of the posters that I'..."

That is an very old law- no one here marries at 13.

[Cristina]

"Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita. "

Well, yes, but the art is to make readers sympathize with Humbert.

[Gary]

Here's a passage from Lolita of particular note in the context of this thread:

At other times I would tell myself that it was all a question of attitude, that there was really nothing wrong in being moved to distraction by girl-children. Let me remind my reader that in England, with the passage of the Children and Young Person Act in 1933, the term "girl-child" is defined as "a girl who is over eight but under fourteen years" (after that, from fourteen to seventeen, the statutory definition is "young person").

The Children and Young Persons Act of 1933 is a real thing, though it was really for the most part about child labor, not the age of consent. It actually just describes "child" as a person under fourteen years old, not 8-14, nor does it describe a "girl-child" in particular.

Here's a link to the text of that legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/G...

Clearly Nabokov was well aware of that definition, and I'm quite sure he read that act. With that in mind, I'll include this bit from that document:

“Guardian”, in relation to a child or young person, includes any person who, in the opinion of the court having cognisance of any case in relation to the child or young person or in which the child or young person is concerned, has for the time being the [F276care of] the child or young person;

So, Nabokov doesn't just have Delores fit the definition of "child" but Humbert that of "Guardian" in the novel.

Interesting that the definition pre-dates the book by a few decades, that Nabokov would specifically cite it, and that it hasn't changed (per the DSM-5) in the years since.

He goes on in that chapter (Chapter 5) in somewhat exhaustive detail to make much the arguments/analysis that some folks have made in this thread.... By the time he cites that Act he's already given his own definition of a "nymphet" that coincides with that (not quite correctly related) legal definition:

Between the age limits of nine and fourteen there occur maidens who, to certain bewitched travelers, twice or many times older than they, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac); and these chosen creatures I propose to designate as "nymphets."

Of course, he also variously describes Delores/Lolita as taking on "adolescent" qualities in her behavior and demeanor, but specifically calls her pre-adolescent in Chapter 16:

The hollow of my hand was still ivory-full of Lolita--full of the feel of her pre-adolescently incurved back, that ivory-smooth, sliding sensation of her skin through the thin frock that I had worked up and down while I held her." [emphasis added]

There's a lot more text that indicates Nabokov was quite aware of what his protagonist was doing, but those quotes are the most expressed ones that I've found.

[Janet]

Mickey wrote: "I could agree with the statement that there are some differences at different times that should be kept in mind when reading. For instance, I remember watching an adaptation of Jane Austen's Persua..."

Hi Mickey, no I missed the link, sorry. Well done, finding the list, this is great. top marks. so age of consent is 10 in 1888 (or something don't have it in front of me at mo') and 16 in 1920's ( can't remember exact,). I have book marked the page, it could be a help with my work, (genealogy) you never know!
So yes he was a criminal, it was against the law. next step is do we know if the word 'pedophile' was in use in 1947, or would he be called a molester of underaged girls or something like that? As I wrote some time ago the word does not appear in the 1930's English dictionary. can we find out when it was added to the English language and if before 1947 what was the meaning of pedophile then. If it was added after 1947 what were these guys called in 1947?
This is great, I love research (well it is my life).
just in passing the girls that married at 13 after 1920 should not have offspring until 3 years afterwards, when they were allowed to say 'yes' to their husbands. something to bear in mind .
Well done again.

[Janet]

Gary wrote: "Here's a passage from Lolita of particular note in the context of this thread:
At other times I would tell myself that it was all a question of attitude, that there was really nothing wrong in be..."


Yep this is good, thank you Gary. love the bit in the : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/G…
link that says the constable or park keeper must take the cigarettes away from under 16's ….. they would have a field day outside the school gates here they would need a skip . Kids have alway broken the rules, and why not, shows spirit.

I'm getting to feel Dexter (jeff lindsay) is like Humbert different crime but the author tries to makes the reader feel empathy with the perverted perpetrator by allowing them to listen to the perverts thought process .

[Kimberley]

I think we are forgetting that Humbert is rationalising his decisions throughout the narrative. It in no way promotes or suggests he is in the right just gives you an account of events to read it in any other context is asking for trouble. It is quite obvious that the protagonist is an unreliable narrator and the book from Lolita's point of view would be a whole other story. Lolita is not the most relatable character as she is shallow and just a child teenager, with temper tantrums and 'seducing of an older man', allowing the reader to relate to Humbert. It is not an easy read and I personally found the nature of the narrative disturbing but its a book that highlights a darker side of this world and allows the reader insight into a disturbing tale of kidnapping and raping a minor of their innocence. Humbert is guilty and this is his account of event from a judge and jury to decide whether an insanity plea is a just one. Humbert's charisma can sucker the reader in to a false sense of security but it is the readers job to see through the lies and come to their own conclusion.

[Laureen]

Kim wrote: "I think we are forgetting that Humbert is rationalising his decisions throughout the narrative. It in no way promotes or suggests he is in the right just gives you an account of events to read it i..."

You are presuming to know which are the lies? I do agree with the first two thirds of your analysis

[Kimberley]

Not at all but I feel the reader is supposed to try and distinguish between the truth and lies to get whatever understanding they can from the character of Humbert.

[Kimberley]

Laureen wrote: "Kim wrote: "I think we are forgetting that Humbert is rationalising his decisions throughout the narrative. It in no way promotes or suggests he is in the right just gives you an account of events ..."

Not at all but I feel the reader is supposed to try and distinguish between the truth and lies to get whatever understanding they can from the character of Humbert.

[Gary]

Picking out the lies in Humbert's narrative is a whole exercise in reading Lolita. There are a couple of techniques that Nabokov uses to cast doubt on what Humbert has to say. I'd suggest a few things:

1. Look for inconsistencies, particularly in the timing and plot. Sometimes Humbert actually brings up a topic before he as a character in his narrative would know about it. As the "author" he subverts the plot of his story for the sake of his characterization. This happens often when he's trying to vilify someone or cast that person's actions as immoral, particularly Delores/Lolita herself.

2. Watch for his characterization. When Humbert characterizes Delores/Lolita in particular.

3. Whenever he describes himself. Humbert's narration ranges between describing himself in heroic (but probably dishonest, egotistical) terms and monstrous, delusional/fantasy terms. Women find him attractive, he says, but other than Charlotte and Delores/Lolita, he gets very little attention from women in the story. At some points, he's a "vampire" or a murderer. He can't really be both the hero and the villain....

4. Watch for strange statements of "fact" that often aren't actually factual. His reference to the Children and Young Person Act, for instance, is not accurate.

I think we can believe very little of what Humbert has to say. Other than things like her height and weight, I don't think we can believe ANY of what he says about Delores, for example. I don't think her dialogue is even truthful. It's what Humbert says she said... and highly suspect given the nature of his character and the purpose of the story he's telling.

[Michael]

Generally, Gary, I agree with the points you make. However, when you state:

"I don't think her dialogue is even truthful. It's what Humbert says she said..."

Isn't this true of any narrator? Do we ever know what characters really said, other than as reported by the narrator? And do characters have any reality beyond what appears on the page?

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "Isn't this true of any narrator? Do we ever know what characters really said, other than as reported by the narrator? And do characters have any reality beyond what appears on the page?"

It's true of any first person narrator, though at various levels of reliability depending on the book. Lots of novels don't have a narrative voice in particular, though, so we can take that dialogue as intentional and express by the author. That is, the deceptions and characterizations of the dialogue are the author telling us about the characters through their speech.

In a lot of books with a first person narrative, I think we can be accepting of the dialogue as truthful with some conditions. I don't think Nick Carraway is particularly deceptive in his description of how the characters in The Great Gatsby speak, for instance.

When it gets to books in which the protagonist is more deceptive, however, I think we have to get more and more careful in our reading. There's a book I read this year called Pimp: The Story of My Life. That book has a definite agenda, and one has to read the dialogue with a little "He says that this character says..." mental note on almost every passage.

Humbert is even more doubtful. Humbert is a self-professed kidnapper, rapist/molester, and murderer who is in a mental hospital writing a confession to justify his crimes. That's pretty definitively doubtful. When he says something comes from Lolita I think we can first assume it came from Humbert the kidnapper of Lolita, then Humbert the mentally ill, then Humbert the criminal confessing/rationalizing his crime, then Humbert the egoist narrator....

[Petergiaquinta]

Michael wrote: "Isn't this true of any narrator? Do we ever know what characters really said, other than as reported by the narrator? "

I'm with Michael on this. What's to keep us from dismissing her words as mere crackpot fantasy on the part of a miserable old spinster when Jane Eyre tells us, "Reader, I married him"?

HH is a moral monster, but I accept much of what he tells me, just as I do with most first-person narrators, unreliable or not. (And all first-person narrators are unreliable, aren't they?) I wouldn't dismiss nearly everything HH says, as Gary suggests.

HH is pretty straightforward in acknowledging his lack of morality. I don't get the feeling he's sugarcoating much of the story for us. It's ugly. He's a creep, and he knows it, even if he presents himself to us in gallant terms from time to time. That's part of his game. But he also tells us he's a rather hairy man, and that's not so suave. The Haze woman has a circle of female friends, and they seem to find HH attractive in a European kind of way. Why wouldn't they? He's sort of the embodiment of the man in their bad novels and soap operas...Lolita writes "HH" on an advertisement with a male model ripped out of a magazine that she tapes on her wall, doesn't she? Why would he invent that? His doppelganger, physically and morally, is the repugnant Clare Quilty, who is apparently also a physically attractive man.

I'm not excusing HH by any means, but I think we can take much of what he tells us on face value.

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote; "The Haze woman has a circle of female friends, and they seem to find HH attractive in a European kind of way. Why wouldn't they?"

But how do we know this? Didn't HH tell us those friends found him attractive, and if so, it isn't necessarily true.