Lolita
discussion
The judge must've been reading Lolita...
date
newest »
newest »
It seems a pretty amazingly unlikely sentence given the facts of the case and the other information in that article. According to the article, he issued a kind of half-hearted apology as part of a justification of his ruling.I hate to base an opinion about a person on a single event, but this one seems big enough that calls for his resignation seem warranted.
Yeah. I don't remember many of the specifics of Lolita but I seem to recall that was the gist of Humbert's justification for his actions....
Well,the same thing happenned in Bingol,Turkey,where a number of soldiers have been involved in a rape to a 16 years old girl, and the Judge let the soldiers go home...
Apparently, in this case the guy had broken his parole for a previous sex crime. 30 days for someone who clearly has problems managing the conditions of his parole doesn't sound like a good idea to me.I don't know if I'd blame Lolita for it though....
I'm not blaming the book for the actions of a real criminal (although that may apply too). Rather, I'm looking at a real judgment pronounced by a man of the law and noting its similarity to the logic of "the criminal" in a work of fiction.
That may not make much sense, I know. I was kind of throwing it out there to see if anyone else could add to my jumbled observations...
The problem is that there's a whole Martin/Zimmerman thing going on with this one as the girl killed herself, so the position of the accused gets more credibility. I don't know what's to be done in such a situation, but when it boils right down to it being responsible for the death of a child just seems to merit a different standard. Maybe the burden of proof should be somehow altered, or hearsay evidence about the deceased given a different credibility? Maybe the problem is the standard of reasonable doubt, which has already been warped out of perspective to "no doubt at all" from what I can tell. Maybe that should be "weight of the evidence" or something more akin to the civil burden of proof in such cases. I don't know....Clearly, it seems like the kind of situation that doesn't just slip through the cracks of the legal system, but justice is even perverted further by the very nature of the system we've set up to try to reach it.
If juvenile delinquents get lighter sentences due to their under-developed maturity hindering their ability to make decisions; how can juvenile victims be said to be "wiser beyond their years"?
How about not putting literary works on trial? It was illegal, she was below the age of consent, less wordly, and had less life experience. The book Lolita is a fictional work.
If he did, he must not have read it very carefully. Nabokov is not endorsing Humbert squared's behavior. Even Humbert squared realizes, in the end, that though he would like to be able to justify himself, he can't.Maybe he just watched the movie. ;)
B wrote: "How about not putting literary works on trial?"Why not? Isn't this the place to do it? Or is it biblical in nature to you?
I merely drew a correlation between a well-known fictional character's thoughts in a well-known piece of literature and the same thoughts voiced by a real man in a real-life situation.
Are you against using literature to maybe gain insight into the life going on around us?
B wrote: "How about not putting literary works on trial?"Apparently all that'll happen is that it'll get 30 days, so I don't think we should be all that concerned....
The teacher I spoke of earlier is being released this week after serving his 30 days in jail. I was reading public comments about this piece of news, and it took awhile, but I finally saw the inevitable comparison made between the young girl and Nabokov's Lolita, as possible seducer, not victim, of an older man.
So, Nabokov has given us a "language", a filter through which some, anyway, see and define this situation. Oftentimes by someone who probably hasn't read the book. Funny, though, how often the "Lolita" stereotype is invoked by the general public as "seducer" versus "victim".
It is a sad day indeed when the justice system decides to side with an unreliable narrator who conflates a girlish crush with consent and makes it look like an innocent child is complicit in her own abuse.
This just seems like a case of a judge who should no longer be on the bench. I don't see a Lolita reference being necessary, this is obviously someone who is stuck in his small town ways blaming the mishap on the "loose girl."
Urgent bulletin! Evil deeds mysteriously continue to plague globe! Utopia still far-off; legal system still imperfect; human destiny still out-of-control, Four-horsemen still a threat. Details at 11 along with all your local sports traffic and weather
I don't see a Lolita reference being necessary, this is obviously someone who is stuck in his small town ways blaming the mishap on the "loose girl." Except public discourse proves you wrong, as I did see this young girl referred to as a "Lolita". And the judge did make the observation that kicked off this discussion. So why not a reference to a well-loved, well-known book that has apparently shaped (or put a name to) dark cultural perceptions?
Look at the very famous tale of the "Long Island Lolita". She was 16. He was 35. She served 6 years for shooting his wife. He served 6 months for what would now be termed rape. She was "Lolita" the seductress in the public's perception, not "Lolita" the child-victim of a much-older man.
Look at previous Lolita threads here. It's rather fascinating, many people will claim that it's not a rape story, that Lolita and Humbert are somehow on equal footing. Even that it's a love story. Even that Lolita, as being sexually experienced, is not really the 12-year-old victim that we would consider her to otherwise be.How do we as a society consider this book a classic, even as we condemn the reality of the subject matter? And if we do condemn the reality, why do we have to keep battling the mythical Lolita perception over and over again?
I don't think the public discourse proves much of anything. The point Adrienne was making is that the "loose girl" concept far pre-dates Lolita so the association is just a modern, vocabulary convention.Plus, there is the whole underlying theme of that book that Humbert is psychotic, homicidal predator, meaning the modern convention is based on a misreading of Nabokov in the first place. So, putting actual crimes onto the book because of it's use as a mistaken metaphor (or even the alliterative use of a reference as in your example) is an extensive and problematic leap.
The term "lolita" as frequently used in public discourse bears little resemblance to the actual character of Lolita, and is probably used by people who have never read or understood the book.
The term "lolita" as frequently used in public discourse bears little resemblance to the actual character of Lolita...What do you understand the term to mean, personally? Would you use it to describe the child victim of a sexual predator? I doubt it. I wouldn't. That's the reality of what Lolita means to society as a whole....
It is used as a term to describe a young woman who seduces or manipulates an older male.
Scott wrote: "It is used as a term to describe a young woman who seduces or manipulates an older male."Yes, but why? Is it because our society has long misinterpreted a famous work of literature, or did Nabakov do us a disservice by creating an easy label for young girls who tempt older men, thereby making them seem less victims and more temptresses, regardless of youth? Where would we be right now in terms of understanding the immorality of victimization of girls, if we didn't have this stereotype to easily invoke and perhaps (at least) partially absolve the victimizer?
I've never seen (or looked for, honestly) a "feminist" critique on the societal effects of Lolita. Maybe what I'm trying to get at might be better expressed through something like that..
These days my first thought on hearing "Lolita" would be to think of a particular type of cosplayer. Not that that is all that much more positive an association, really....But, still, the point is that before 1955 the term was likely "Jezebel" in the same sort of usage. More recently "Jenny McCarthy" has been used in place of "slut" or similar ideas:
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/mean...
The problem in this case appears to be that the judge is an idiot who read a book once (or heard about it) and made a literary reference, but in the absence of that literary reference I seriously doubt he'd have made a different decision. Doing an end-round the issue (the judge, the law, the actual criminals) to get to Nabokov's book obscures the problem; it doesn't identify it.
Sheila wrote: "Yes, but why? Is it because our society has long misinterpreted a famous work of literature..."Yes. The novel is famous, or infamous, for one aspect, which has been taken out of context and misused. And of course, the longer that goes on, the further away it gets.
I don't think Nabokov intended to create anything other than a good story. It's not his responsibility what people do with it later.
I'm neither a Nabokov or Lolita scholar, but this commentary (in addition to giving me a little more background about the author) seems to better articulate and/or expand upon the concerns I've been trying to voice about the book, its audience, and its implications for society:http://cosynch.com/lolita-nabokovs-gr...
"...As I have documented in Chapter Four of my book, Nabokov's Lolita had an incredibly negative impact on popular culture. Humbert's perverse perception of his flirtatious nymphet Lolita acted like a slow, leaching poison on popular culture. The novel greatly accelerated the inappropriate, exploitative sexualisation of young girls by various mass media.
Despite turning 55 years old this year, Lolita shows no sign of losing her perilous grip on readers, the market and/or consumers. She must surely rate as the greatest literary hoax of the 20th century. Isn't it time Nabokov's timebomb finally went off?"
Sheila wrote: "I'm neither a Nabokov or Lolita scholar, but this commentary (in addition to giving me a little more background about the author) seems to better articulate and/or expand upon the concerns I've bee..."I read the article you linked, and I see no cogent argument in it for her claim that the novel or its eponymous character is a "hoax." All I see is the author beating her own drum and complaining that her "significant discovery" (which she never really describes) hasn't been given the attention it deserves. Given how careless her writing is (for example, she doesn't even use apostrophes on her possessive nouns), I'm not surprised that her brilliant discovery hasn't gained much scholarly attention. (In fact, she even admits that "My case was not helped by the fact that I proved to be an incredibly bad editor and proof-reader of my own writing.")
I'm a bit alarmed to hear anyone here suggest that the novel is in any way responsible for a judge's bad decision or for the way our society sometimes sexualizes children. As at least one poster has already pointed out, anyone who has read the novel knows that Humbert is a homicidal predator. He commits one vicious murder and earlier in the novel plans to commit another. Only an exceptionally poor reader would believe that Nabokov, by inventing this psychotic narrator, was in any manner condoning pedophilia.
Sheila, have you actually read the novel, or have you merely seen the two bad movie adaptations of it?
I HAVE read the novel. I have not seen any movie adaptation.And why on earth would you be alarmed by the suggestion of a single person on a book site?
We as a society go back and forth all the time about the impact of sex and violence in entertainment and how it affects (or doesn't) our collective psyche. How is this any different? Especially since this book has been so deeply incorporated into our lexicon by those who've read it and those who haven't. What makes it so beyond the scope of discussion for you?
"The original Lolita — the 12-year-old Dolores Haze, protagonist of Vladimir Nabokov’s 1955 novel — was a rather different girl. It is clear in the book that she is the powerless victim of her predatory stepfather, Humbert Humbert. Nabokov’s Lolita is a nuanced character whose sexuality is complex: like many preadolescent girls, she is sexually curious — but she has no control over her relationship with Humbert, which is abusive and manipulative.Yet the care with which Nabokov presents her case, and his emphasis on Humbert’s malfeasance, has been overlooked in the years since the novel’s publication. It is as though the very fact of Lolita’s sexuality — the public acknowledgement that a preteen girl could be sexual, the bold focus on an incestuous liaison between grown man and little girl — has made her into a fantasy figure, a simulacrum of Humbert’s projection rather than the sexually abused and tragic figure of the novel.
It is this fantastical Lolita who has entered our culture as a pervasive metaphor. She is invoked in the popular media eagerly, as a sign of the licentiousness that appears to characterize contemporary girlhood. “Bring back school uniforms for little Lolitas!” demands London’s Daily Telegraph in an article condemning contemporary sexy schoolgirl fashions.
Skin-baring and infantile costumes like babydoll dresses and high-heeled Mary Jane shoes are worn by girls to “evoke male Lolita fantasies,” according to a recent New York Times article. Tokyo’s Daily Yomiuri refers to “the Lolita-like sex appeal” of nubile preteen Japanese anime cartoon characters . Even in an essay about a cathedral in Barcelona, critic Will Self writes, “La Sagrada Familia wins me over with its sheer wantonness as a building — this is the Lolita of sacred architecture.... "
http://pjmedia.com/blog/lolita-and-th...
Sheila wrote: "And why on earth would you be alarmed by the suggestion of a single person on a book site?We as a society go back and forth all the ..."
Because I think this sort of reasoning often leads to book banning. As I said before, I don't think any work of fiction should ever be blamed for a judge's bad decision. But if a novel is going to be blamed for the way people behave, I especially don't think it should be a novel with obvious literary value that paints its predator in distinctly unflattering colors by making him a murderer as well as a pedophile. Obviously Nabokov was not trying to paint Quilty-types as appropriate murder victims, nor was he trying to paint Lolita-type teenagers as appropriate rape victims. The fact that the name Lolita has entered our language to mean an overly sexualized teenager doesn't reflect badly on the novel any more than the fact that the name Judas has entered our language reflects badly on the Bible.
Really? Open, honest discussion leads to book banning?Even if it were my choice to ban Lolita (which it's not, I'm not the book police) it's rather late now, isn't it? After half a century.
Actually, I might go the other way. I could say that this book should be required reading in high school. It's too important not to be. What you deem as the "obvious" intent of the author may not be so obvious to everyone reading it.
Educated, rational, careful discussion with our kids of its merits and faults, and our perceptions of Lolita the fictional character, and Lolita society's-bastardized-creation.
Sheila wrote: "Is it because our society has long misinterpreted a famous work of literature, or did Nabakov do us a disservice by creating an easy label for young girls who tempt older men, thereby making them seem less victims and more temptresses, regardless of youth?"Whoa. Rape culture is the logical conclusion to men blaming women for men feeling desire for women and feeling entitled to act on that desire. Nabokov merely wrote about the self-justifications of a man who feels carnally entitled to a 12-year old, and the book has been misread by those who would agree with Humbert Humbert. Nabokov did us as much of a disservice as Jonathan Swift did Irish babies and children when he suggested that they be eaten.
Edit: you seem to suggest that Lolita the book, and Nabokov by extension, is the cause of statutory rape. Not so. Instead of focusing so much on Lolita itself, you'd do better to suggest that teenagers receive proper sexual education. Let's have sex ed with a strong emphasis on consent and not feeling entitled to other people's bodies because you happen to find them attractive.
Aitziber wrote: "you'd do better to suggest that teenagers receive proper sexual education. Let's have sex ed with a strong emphasis on consent and not feeling entitled to other people's bodies because you happen to find them attractive..."While this may be true, I'm not sure it helps in situations such as the case mentioned in the original post, where a minor may indeed have given 'consent.' The problem is not what children are taught but rather that such adults prey on children who are too young to make that decision or deal with its consequences.
I can't see "Lolita" as responsible for any of this, but for those who think HH is an obviously despicable villain, all you have to do is scroll through a few pages of the book's reviews to see that as many people think it's a love story or that Lolita is complicit as think otherwise.
I agree with the post that it should be required reading. A disturbingly high number of readers seem unable to identify an unreliable narrator.
I have to admit that when I read the book in my teens I was at first taken in by the unreliable narrator and believed him, but at least, even then, by the time I finished the novel, I realized he was full of it.
Nabokov merely wrote about the self-justifications of a man who feels carnally entitled to a 12-year old, and the book has been misread by those who would agree with Humbert Humbert. Wouldn't that give even more credence to the idea that kids should read Lolita and learn that this type of person exists ( as well as the Lolita stereotype) and why we as a society unequivocally condemn this kind of erroneous thinking?
Sheila wrote: "Wouldn't that give even more credence to the idea that kids should read Lolita and learn that this type of person exists ( as well as the Lolita stereotype) and why we as a society unequivocally condemn this kind of erroneous thinking?"You are still insisting on the idea that Lolita is the cause, and not a symptom. If children/teens are taught proper sex ed and proper consent, there's no need for people to be made to read the book.
If a child is too young to give consent or deal with its consequences, what makes you think that they're going to understand a book like Lolita, which already seems too complex for adults to grasp? Forget about the book, and focus on objective information.
What I'm insisting is that Lolita is a cultural force that has worked its way into society's collective consciousness, influencing people who "understand" it and those who don't. So why not use it to teach our kids what it's actually about and WHY H.H. is a sick individual, and why Lolita is not a sexual goal to reach for. Why she is a victim of another's sick thoughts (or an author's ambivalence) rather than the temptress stereotype that's been created in her name.
God knows, it's not like we don't see these crimes (cue the above listed article) in society today. If the book is worthy of the title "classic", why not openly discuss it and debate its points, and give it to kids as a tool to better recognize the circumstances of victimization when they see them?
I can't see "Lolita" as responsible for any of this, but for those who think HH is an obviously despicable villain, all you have to do is scroll through a few pages of the book's reviews to see that as many people think it's a love story or that Lolita is complicit as think otherwise. Exactly.
I recommend, for comparison's sake, Sandra-Model: An American Romance by William Legeune, which touts itself as a follow-up to Lolita, some fifty years later.
...A 30-day sentence for a high school teacher in Montana who had sex with a 14-year-old student has sparked protests and calls for the judge to resign, and now, prosecutors in the case are vowing to appeal.
“Certainly I’m disappointed in this sentence, but I have a job to do, and my job right now is to figure out if this case can be appealed because of some legal error,” Scott Twito, the county attorney in Yellowstone county, Mont., said, NBC's John Yang reported Tuesday on TODAY.
The decision to appeal is the latest development in the case, which attracted about 400 protesters to the county courthouse in Billings, Mont., last Thursday, calling for the resignation of state District Judge G. Todd Baugh.
Marching with signs that read "14 IS 14!", the protesters endorsed Baugh's description of himself as a "blithering idiot" for having said in court last week that the victim was "older than her chronological age" and was as much in control of the situation" as the teacher who assaulted her. The girl committed suicide after the assault came to light.
More than 45,000 people have signed an online petition demanding that Baugh, 71, resign, arguing that Baugh has "engaged in the worst kind of victim shaming."...
Any thoughts? Insights?