Is there something in Lolita I am not getting?

[Dark Muse]

It seems to me that Lolita is presented as something of an unconventional/taboo love story about a young girl who is quite promiscuous and seduces an older man whom she falls in love, or thinks she is in love with (as given her age it is questionable how able she can really make these decisions for herself) but nonetheless the general consensus however misguided or mistaken, is that she does actively and willfully pressure Humbert and that she is more or less consenting to his advances.

This has always been my understanding of what the book is about, and I haven't heard anything to contradict this idea. I have in fact watched the movie some many years ago, and though it was a long time if my memory serves me right, I do believe the movie upholds this view in presenting Lolita as the seductress in the affair, and making the story out as a bit of a dysfunctional to say the least morally questionable love story.

The back of my edition of the book presents the story as thus:

"The most tender, shocking, outrageous love story ever told, Lolita has been banned, burned, censored, denounced, and read by more millions than any other book of its kind. It is about a middle-aged man's tormented desire for his nymphet step-daughter. And a honeymoon without a wedding. And a romance as sweet as murder is innocent."

The very name Lolita today seems to be used as synonym for young sexually mature girls who play the role of seductresses and are indeed the little 'nymphs" as Humbert would say.

But in reading the book, I fail to see it this way. Lolita does not seem to me to be the least bit of a consenting partner to Humbert, nor do I see any evidence or suggestions that she actually did actively seduce him and pursue him, or anything to hint at the fact that she has any sort of feelings of love for him whatsoever.

To me Lolita comes off as being quite miserable in her situation, she seems a reluctant partner who simply is given no other options and is forced into a situation in which she has no control or no real choice in the matter. But she does not seem the least bit welcoming or accepted of Humbert's advances and affections. She is defiant, and rebellious, but has nowhere else to go. After the death of her mother she is whisked away far from anyone she may know and thus she is ultimately held hostage by Humbert.

Not to mention the fact that it was his originally plan to actually drug Lolita and rape her while she was asleep, and throughout their so called "relationship" he bribes her, threatens her, tells her a horror story about what will happen to her if she ever does tell anyone about him.

To me it seems Lolita is simply doing what she can to make the best of a situation which has been forced upon her, and which she does not have any other options, or real choices. She comes across as if anything a survivalist rather than a seductress.

I really do not find anything the least bit romantic in the relationship between Humbert and Lolita, but instead to me the story seems to be rather about a pedophile pervert who kidnaps his step-daughter and isolates her from everyone she knows so he can take advantage of her.

[Emil Miller]

This comment contains spoilers

I think that you have missed some major points about Lolita's role in the book. Firstly, she is obviously precocious in the way that she seeks to draw Humbert's attention away from her mother and also promiscuous in her relationsip with Clare Quilty and the boy at the summer camp where her mother sends her to get her away from Humbert. There is nothing in the novel to suggest that she has any love for her step-father but there is a clear indication that he falls in love with her to the extent that he kills Quilty for running off with her.
There have been two film versions made of the story and I am assuming that you refer to the Stanley Kubrick version which is the earlier of the two.
If so, one of the reasons for its failure is because Kubrick felt obliged to use a girl who was obviously more than 12-years-old. Whereas the more recent version was nearer the mark in that regard it still failed to translate Nobokov's novel in cinematic terms.
You are right that there is nothing romantic about it but I think the book is as much about the American ethos and its effect on a European, albeit a paedophile, as his illicit affair with a juvenile female.

[kiki1982]

I have not read this book, but just out of experience...

Could there be a view that states that due to the description of the story by Humbert himself, it is possible that the promiscuousness of Lolita is actually a fabricated notion of Humbert himself? Thus also of course her 'consent'.

I don't know. Just out of experience with narrators who are lying to their public. It is common that they are misinterpreted and that their warped vision is taken for real. However, I have no idea whether this is the case withLolita.

[Dark Muse]

This comment contains spoilers

I think that you have missed some major points about Lolita's role in the book. Firstly, she is obviously precocious in the way that she seeks to draw Humbert's attention away from her mother and also promiscuous in her relationsip with Clare Quilty and the boy at the summer camp where her mother sends her to get her away from Humbert. There is nothing in the novel to suggest that she has any love for her step-father but there is a clear indication that he falls in love with her to the extent that he kills Quilty for running off with her. .

The problem with presuming how precocious Lolita may have been in diverting Humbert's attention is that we only have his word on this and to say the least I do not think that his perception of the situation can be taken at face value. How far can we really trust Humbert on what he tells us concerning Lolita and their so called relationship?

Blinded by his own "love" and desire, his perceptions of Lolita's supposed seduction of him may be a bit off from the truth.

Though there are suggestions that Lolita does try and attract Humbert's attention, I do not think that it is obviously sexual. Considering her relationship with her mother, she could just as well have been acting out to anger her mother and get back at her mother without meaning anything else by it, and it is Humbert whom misreads it, or chooses to see it as something else.

Lolita does out and out accuse Humbert of raping her in one of their arguments and there are several instances in which she shoves him off and tells him to leave her alone when he is attempting to kiss and caress her.

[PeterL]

I think that there was a huge amount of subtleness in the novel that had multiple levels. Humbert and Nabokov both lied constantly. The Author's Afterword is complete falsehood. The book is mostly symbolic, or it is symbolic on one level. On the symbolic level Lolita was the young woman. Lolita had mixed feelings about Humbert and the situation, but remember that she was complicate in starting the physical relationship. Remember when she sat on his lap and moved?

When considering the symbolic level remember that Nabokov was a specialist in the works of James Joyce, and gave a course on Uysses. If someone wanted to he could make a life's work pulling Lolita apart.

[ktm5124]

Lolita is what, eleven, twelve, when she is taken? I wouldn't say she holds any responsibility for her situation. Humbert Humbert, on the other hand, is a sexual offender who uses threats to keep her in line - for instance, he tells Lolita that apart from him, there is nowhere else to go, that foster care is much worse than 'Humbert' care, etc.

The word 'Lolita' is a cultural artifact of the novel, and I think you are letting your preconceptions about the word influence your understanding of Lolita's role in the novel, when in fact you should abandon all preconceptions about the word: the word was conceived in the novel.

Dolores Haze is a 'nymph' and 'seductress' only insofar as the wildly unreliable narrator Humbert Humbert makes her out to be. Objectively speaking, she is a twelve or thirteen year old girl, and twelve- and thirteen-year olds hold no responsibility in their own kidnapping.

[Dark Muse]

Lolita is what, eleven, twelve, when she is taken? I wouldn't say she holds any responsibility for her situation. Humbert Humbert, on the other hand, is a sexual offender who uses threats to keep her in line - for instance, he tells Lolita that apart from him, there is nowhere else to go, that foster care is much worse than 'Humbert' care, etc.

The word 'Lolita' is a cultural artifact of the novel, and I think you are letting your preconceptions about the word influence your understanding of Lolita's role in the novel, when in fact you should abandon all preconceptions about the word: the word was conceived in the novel.

Dolores Haze is a 'nymph' and 'seductress' only insofar as the wildly unreliable narrator Humbert Humbert makes her out to be. Objectively speaking, she is a twelve or thirteen year old girl, and twelve- and thirteen-year olds hold no responsibility in their own kidnapping.

That is more or less what I myself was saying from my experience in actually reading the book but the book is never presented in that way. It is always given the impression of being about a young seductress who is consenting,(and take note by saying consenting, does not mean I am saying it is right or mortal etc...) but the book is preset end as a story about a young girl who is particularly sexually promiscuous and perhaps more sexually aware than most girls her age.

Yet within reading the story while she may perhaps be a bit precocious she does not seem to be consenting in any way or form to the affections of Humbert.

Naturally as a 12 year old she would not hold any culpability, but it is true that there are girls of that age whom may be more aware of their bodies in a sexual way, and may mature sexually more so than others, again this does not mean it is right, mortal, ethical etc... but it would not be completely impossible for a girl Lolita's age to in fact play the role of active seductress but I do not get the feeling that is in fact what takes place within the book from my impressions.

[ktm5124]

That is more or less what I myself was saying from my experience in actually reading the book but the book is never presented in that way. It is always given the impression of being about a young seductress who is consenting,(and take note by saying consenting, does not mean I am saying it is right or mortal etc...) but the book is preset end as a story about a young girl who is particularly sexually promiscuous and perhaps more sexually aware than most girls her age.

Yet within reading the story while she may perhaps be a bit precocious she does not seem to be consenting in any way or form to the affections of Humbert.

Naturally as a 12 year old she would not hold any culpability, but it is true that there are girls of that age whom may be more aware of their bodies in a sexual way, and may mature sexually more so than others, again this does not mean it is right, mortal, ethical etc... but it would not be completely impossible for a girl Lolita's age to in fact play the role of active seductress but I do not get the feeling that is in fact what takes place within the book from my impressions.

The way the book is presented has to do entirely with the narrator, who is a mentally deranged sexual offender. The narrator of Lolita is the epitome of what we call an "unreliable narrator".

But this is also what makes the story so funny and rapturous.

[Wilde woman]

It seems to me that Lolita is presented as something of an unconventional/taboo love story about a young girl who is quite promiscuous and seduces an older man whom she falls in love, or thinks she is in love with (as given her age it is questionable how able she can really make these decisions for herself) but nonetheless the general consensus however misguided or mistaken, is that she does actively and willfully pressure Humbert and that she is more or less consenting to his advances.

Really? I think you're right that this may be how the general public perceives the book, but I think your presentation of the book (in which Lolita does not consent to Humbert and is, in actuality, his victim) is the general consensus of most scholars.

What you described here is how Humbert, our notoriously unreliable narrator, portrays the situation to exonerate himself from blame.

[Dark Muse]

The way the book is presented has to do entirely with the narrator, who is a mentally deranged sexual offender. The narrator of Lolita is the epitome of what we call an "unreliable narrator".

But this is also what makes the story so funny and rapturous.

Well then it seems odd to me that others who have read the book apparently bought into the narrator's version of the story. Because everything I have heard about the book prior to reading it suggests that Lolita was in fact the one to pursue the relationship with Humbert.

I have never heard anyone actually challenge the narrators presentation of the story.


Really? I think you're right that this may be how the general public perceives the book, but I think your presentation of the book (in which Lolita does not consent to Humbert and is, in actuality, his victim) is the general consensus of most scholars.

What you described here is how Humbert, our notoriously unreliable narrator, portrays the situation to exonerate himself from blame.

Well I have not read any actually scholarly critiques on the work but the general opinion of which I had heard any everything I was led to understand about the book prior to reading it seems to support the narrators perception of his "relationship" with Lolita.

[teashi]

I haven't read Lolita, and I don't plan to, but from what I've read here the story sounds rather psychotic and sad, not funny.

When was Lolita published? Maybe in its time a girl like Lolita was considered a seductress.

[blazeofglory]

I have read the book long ago as a boy and the analysis if I will make now will be different from the one I had made then.

This Lolita Syndrome is not uncommon in society. Yes elderly people still may have hormones in their bodies and of course this desire is not an unnatural one. The same maybe true of Lolita too. Age difference is a social and ethical hindrance only, instinctively having affairs against age-bars is a common tendency. An urge that remains suppressed in our ethical or religious social conditions. In the animal kingdom a calf mounting its mother is a natural behavior. There are no religious, ethical or societal restrictions out there. Everything goes instinctively.

Then why should the Lolita issue is considered serious?

[teashi]

I have read the book long ago as a boy and the analysis if I will make now will be different from the one I had made then.

This Lolita Syndrome is not uncommon in society. Yes elderly people still may have hormones in their bodies and of course this desire is not an unnatural one. The same maybe true of Lolita too. Age difference is a social and ethical hindrance only, instinctively having affairs against age-bars is a common tendency. An urge that remains suppressed in our ethical or religious social conditions. In the animal kingdom a calf mounting its mother is a natural behavior. There are no religious, ethical or societal restrictions out there. Everything goes instinctively.

Then why should the Lolita issue is considered serious?Uh, because Lolita doesn't deal with animals, it deals with human beings.:skep: Or 'highly evolved/intelligent animals with conscience and complex feelings' if you prefer that kind of definition.

[Jozanny]

Dark,

Nabokov is a great writer, and Lolita is a master work, and it has been a long time since I've read it, but I generally don't like the novel, and unlike you, I do not see Delores as complicit in her relationship with Humbert. She is a kid just jangling the keys of womanhood who should have never been subjected to Humbert's needs. He interprets her so called hints to justify statutory rape--but this is not in itself why I dislike Nabokov's achievement. I'd have to give it a close reading to allow my hostility to appropriately deconstruct my issues with it, but Humbert is a very unreliable narrator, well within the Jamesian tradition of fantastic incredulity. It is a novel that sometimes needs growing into.

[ktm5124]

I haven't read Lolita, and I don't plan to, but from what I've read here the story sounds rather psychotic and sad, not funny.

When was Lolita published? Maybe in its time a girl like Lolita was considered a seductress.

One reason to like Lolita is because Humbert Humbert is hilarious. Of course, you have to be able to stomach the humor. Nabokov's protagonists are often very funny, in a meek and pathetic way.

I do understand your objection, however. You wonder how can a novel about a criminal pedophile be funny, beautiful, entertaining? What is so interesting about Nabokov's project is that I believe he succeeds in doing just that - making a novel about a terrible person and his terrible deeds into something funny, beautiful, romantic, and entertaining. This in itself is a monumental achievement, and it testifies to the difference between life and literature - we would not sympathize with a real-life Humbert Humbert, but it is possible to do so with the man of fiction.


Dark,

Nabokov is a great writer, and Lolita is a master work, and it has been a long time since I've read it, but I generally don't like the novel, and unlike you, I do not see Delores as complicit in her relationship with Humbert. She is a kid just jangling the keys of womanhood who should have never been subjected to Humbert's needs. He interprets her so called hints to justify statutory rape--but this is not in itself why I dislike Nabokov's achievement. I'd have to give it a close reading to allow my hostility to appropriately deconstruct my issues with it, but Humbert is a very unreliable narrator, well within the Jamesian tradition of fantastic incredulity. It is a novel that sometimes needs growing into.

I'm curious - what other novels by Henry James feature an unreliable narrator, and what you call "fantastic incredulity"? I have only read the Turn of the Screw, and I'd be interested in seeing the development of this theme in his work.

[Dark Muse]

Dark,

Nabokov is a great writer, and Lolita is a master work, and it has been a long time since I've read it, but I generally don't like the novel, and unlike you, I do not see Delores as complicit in her relationship with Humbert. She is a kid just jangling the keys of womanhood who should have never been subjected to Humbert's needs. He interprets her so called hints to justify statutory rape--but this is not in itself why I dislike Nabokov's achievement. I'd have to give it a close reading to allow my hostility to appropriately deconstruct my issues with it, but Humbert is a very unreliable narrator, well within the Jamesian tradition of fantastic incredulity. It is a novel that sometimes needs growing into.

If you read my posts more closely you would see that I was not saying that I found Lolita complicit, but that everything I heard about the book prior to reading it suggested to me that she was supposed to be perceived as being complicit but when I actually read the book I personally did not find that to be the case.

[Bastable]

Dark Muse:

If you're interested in podcasts, Yale put their class "American novel since 1945" for free on their site.

http://oyc.yale.edu/english/american-novel-since-1945

There are two classes where she talks about Lolita. You might find it interesting to hear scholarly perspectives.

[Dark Muse]

Dark Muse:

If you're interested in podcasts, Yale put their class "American novel since 1945" for free on their site.

http://oyc.yale.edu/english/american-novel-since-1945

There are two classes where she talks about Lolita. You might find it interesting to hear scholarly perspectives.

I will have to check that out, thank you!

[Jozanny]

I'm curious - what other novels by Henry James feature an unreliable narrator, and what you call "fantastic incredulity"? I have only read the Turn of the Screw, and I'd be interested in seeing the development of this theme in his work.

ktm, I appreciate your question, but this is obviously not the thread to explore the Jamesian mastery of this technique. I, or you, could make such a thread in the author's list, and it would die an honorable death, but I'll consider it.

Dark, I am not sure what you've read, but my understanding is a small minority of critics do see Delores as a conscious seductress; my problem is even if a case can be made for this, she is still a child when Humbert spins his wheels on procuring her--but again, I know my objection sounds like I take moral offense, and at some level I do--but it is also an aesthetic reaction to making vulgarity a high art.

Certainly, Nabokov is making a high brow satire out of patriarchal exploitation, and the joke plays itself out on Humbert as well, but I think it is a sad commentary on the human condition when one of our most celebrated literary works is an anglo-slavic fantasy of the ultimate lay, and I weary of the flies on its carcass, despite the history of the censorship battle surrounding the novel and the myriad allegories surrounding it. At least a movie like Hard Candy, as brutal and challenging as it is, fights back.

[Dark Muse]

Dark, I am not sure what you've read, but my understanding is a small minority of critics do see Delores as a conscious seductress; my problem is even if a case can be made for this, she is still a child when Humbert spins his wheels on procuring her--but again, I know my objection sounds like I take moral offense, and at some level I do--but it is also an aesthetic reaction to making vulgarity a high art.

I have not actually read any scholastic critique of the work, my impression of the book came primarily just from word of mouth I guess you could say, I cannot pin point anything I have specifically read which stated this view, but it is the impression I was left with before I even picked up the book to read it.

In part it does come from the fact that I recall many years ago having watched a movie about Lolita, though it was quite some time ago, if memory serves me I do recall the movie rather strongly suggested the idea of Lolita as willing seductress.

In addition the back cover of my book seems to take up this view, though of course, that could have intentionally spun to take Humbert's own perceptions for the sake of the book.

And I do know that today people throw the word Lolita around as a description for young girls who are sexually promiscuous and do fit the roll of seductresses.

[ktm5124]

Certainly, Nabokov is making a high brow satire out of patriarchal exploitation, and the joke plays itself out on Humbert as well, but I think it is a sad commentary on the human condition when one of our most celebrated literary works is an anglo-slavic fantasy of the ultimate lay, and I weary of the flies on its carcass, despite the history of the censorship battle surrounding the novel and the myriad allegories surrounding it. At least a movie like Hard Candy, as brutal and challenging as it is, fights back.

I think a novel like this, through its use of vulgarity, allows the reader access to an emotional response he or she would not encounter anywhere else. Where else can you find yourself laughing at a pedophile? It's an experience that you can't recreate in reading Shakespeare or Henry James. As a reader and a person, don't you want access to the full range of affect that fiction has to offer?

[Jozanny]

I do access a fair range of affect that fiction has to offer; not everything. I could close some gaps with modern foreign authors, and I am somewhat indifferent to Irish culture and winsome morality tales, but Nabakov's relish for his subversive cleverness over a hard on for fresh meat simply sticks in my craw. It is a demeaning novel on too many levels for me, with little, if any, redeeming merit. I can enjoy a good romp over a soft smoker like Cinderfella without the pretense of window dressing via which critics offer an apologia for Lolita. I do not care how many Nabokov defenders hate me for saying so, but the novel is still about men carrying their brains in their pants; that the author kills off his characters after this utopian mid-century indulgence doesn't excuse the glorified appetites being toyed with in rhetorical delight.

I do intend to read it again, however--when I don't know, as I think I'm more drawn to The Defense as more in line with my enthusiasm.

[kelby_lake]

Humbert is a delusional lover, a bit like Charles Kinbote in Pale Fire. We know that Lolita is not going to return the love of a creepy man like Humbert and at the end we are proved right and Humbert realises- or claims to realise.

Yes, it's a controversial topic but Nabokov does nicely with it. I didn't like Laughter in The Dark, another nymphet novel, because it was inferior but just because you present a darker side of life doesn't mean that you advocate it.

[Emil Miller]

In thinking further about the relatioinship between Humbert and Lolita it becomes clear that it is an allegory about Europe's fascination with America's post-war wealth and power. Humbert is the archetypal European by virtue of his Swiss nationality; Switzerland being a country made up of German, Italian and French citizens. The more that Europeans admire America the more they become americanized and begin to lose their national identity, which partly explains the anti-americanism prevalent in Europe today.
The amusing parts of the novel are those where Nabokov satirises America from the standpoint of an educated citizen of the old world experiencing the shallowness of the new: a shallowness that is obscured for less educated Europeans by the all too obvious wealth and the lifestyle it affords.
Lolita's early demise indicates that the USA has never grown up throughout its relatively short history. In Humbert's (Nabokov's) eyes it is juvenile in its ethos and will remain so.
It is worth recalling that Nabokov was very much in the mould of European intellectuals before moving to the US. Having been born in Russia then living in England, Germany and France he was steeped in European culture and, despite his cosmopolitanism, moving to a country where the words popular and culture are indissoluble may have been something of a shock.
It speaks volumes for Nabokov's American satire, for that's what Lolita really is, that the rights to print an excerpt from his last and unfinished novel 'The Original of Laura' were acquired by Playboy magazine.

[ktr]

i thought it was about the ridiculousness of holding onto the past and obsessing over crazy **** that doesnt matter anymore. to me he was kind of saying, grow up, you're not a child any more, and he also seemed to be ripping apart death in venice in the process. but what do i know, im retarded.

[ktm5124]

In thinking further about the relatioinship between Humbert and Lolita it becomes clear that it is an allegory about Europe's fascination with America's post-war wealth and power. Humbert is the archetypal European by virtue of his Swiss nationality; Switzerland being a country made up of German, Italian and French citizens. The more that Europeans admire America the more they become americanized and begin to lose their national identity, which partly explains the anti-americanism prevalent in Europe today.

In an afterword to the novel that Nabokov wrote years later, he mentioned a similar thesis made by a prominent critic - if I recall correctly he phrased it, "Old Europe debauching Young America". But then he proceeded to say that while the thesis was admirable, it was not completely correct; more correct, I paraphrase, is that the novel is not about Europe's relationship with America but about Nabokov's relationship with the English language - or something like that.

I don't really know what this means... perhaps it has something to do with Lolita being a debauchery of English literature - a brute creation, a Frankenstein.

[AuntShecky]

Some thoughts on the previous postings:

-first this is a gentle reminder to the posting that immediately precedes this one. Haven't there been enough stories in the news lately about the misuse of the word "retarded"? That's a loaded word that can cause distress among families in which the condition is a life-changing problem and should never be used lightly, if at all. I'm the last person in the world who would advocate censorship but the "r" word is rapidly becoming just as verboten as the "n" word, so again, we should avoid using it, even in attempts at self-deprecating humor.

-now for some quick remarks about Lolita:

--Again, a day seldom goes by in which we don't hear about news stories in which children are sexually abused. Certainly we should be horrified by them, but it may be a mistake to dismiss a work such as Lolita merely because of our justifiable outrage over a heinous crime.
--whether or not the character Delores is complicit in the relationship or not is moot, even in the time in which the story is set. She is underage, and her own feelings toward Humbert are irrelevant.

--Even though Kubrick was a great filmmaker,I hope people who don't think that they've gotten the entire book. Nabokov's verbal skills and sly, multi-lingual humor don't readily adapt into other media.

--As ground-breaking as Nabokov's prose was, this particular work closely follows one of the characteristics of art (including fiction) in the modern age which began at the beginning of the 20th century. Many serious writers (Joyce, Pound, Eliot, and a host of European authors) thoroughly intended to shock the middle class. "Real Art," Susan Sontag wrote in 1960, "has a tendency to make us nervous." Added to that is a reaction to Victorian morality (the prudishness of course was really hypocritical), and especially to America's ambivalence about sexuality, the so-called "Puritanical" culture, which plagued the post-war era with double standards. As a result, the more American culture tried to suppress desire, the guiltier it became. The peak of this notion arrived with Roth's Portnoy's Complaint, but in the decades since the proverbial pendulum has swung the other way. Railing against the vestiges of Puritanism no longer appear as common themes in our important novels and films.

--Another way in which this novel is "about" America is the long road trip upon which Humbert takes Lolita. In every sense it is not a trip toward a destination but an escape from something.

--Humbert's character personifies what D.H. Lawrence called "sex in the head." One could interpret Humbert the same way we interpret Aschenbach's character. Death in Venice is not a story of love or "sex"per se but of obsession.

[stlukesguild]

JoZ... I'm surprised to see this Puritanical streak in you.:biggrin5:

[sixsmith]

I once read Nabokov described as the 'laureate of cruelty' and, apropos Lolita, it is a sentiment with which I agree. Humbert is tremendously cruel to Lolita and Nabokov perhaps equally cruel to Humbert. I share Martin Amis' conclusion that the greatest corruption perpetrated by Humbert is that he attempts to turn his turn his life into art: the artist manque as it were. I suppose the success of the novel, and the ambiguous legacy it owns, is due to the fact that Nabokov (and Humbert as narrator) make such a resplendent go of it.

[Jozanny]

JoZ... I'm surprised to see this Puritanical streak in you.:biggrin5:

And just where have you been?:incazzato:

I am uncomfortable making difficult assessments without the necessary tools at hand--as I pm'd you once, I read an old hard copy years ago and did not take notes and had nearly forgotten the death of the mother, though I vaguely remember it now.

Aunt may plausibly conclude that my objection is based on the harm of sexual abuse--yes and no--on a deeper level the issue is repugnant--but I think Nabokov handles his conceits with a somewhat snide chip on his shoulder, that he is pleased with himself for getting away with it, and for the time being I do not wish to tax myself any further.

It is a great book and somehow manages to capture the undercurrent of the Eisenhower era, but I cannot offer it the hommage I normally would to such a subversive undertaking. Whether I will find this worth writing about eventually I cannot say.

[dfloyd]

To begin with, I have read Lolita twice. Once in a fast read and the second time in a more cognitive read. This is my opinion: Lolita is not a romance; it is a novel about an older man's infatuation for a nymphet. And Lolita reacts to Humbert as many children do to adults, including their parents: they take what they think they can get away with. And give little in return.

Older men have had a fascination for younger women probably since time began. Nabokov has taken the relationship of Lolita and Humbert and made it into a hyperbole of such a relationship by making Lolita's age at twelve years old. With some rather clever writing, he has created a comic farce of sorts. A black comedy, but a comedy none the less.

A great deal of the controversy surrounding the novel comes from women who put themselves in Lolita's position, or maybe worse, put their daughters in her perspective. In recent times, there have been such relationship's in real life. Was Jerry Lee what's-his-name of Great Balls of Fire fame acting any less than Humberet when he married his thrirteen-year-old cousin? And who was promptly kicked out of England while on tour. Strange behaviour from a country whose history revels in the royal killing of wives.

Lolita is not a great novel; not in the terms of Les Miserables or other classic prose. But it is an enjoyable novel if your personal moral code allows you to laugh at the educated pedophile being manipulated by the nymphet Lolita. If not, don't read it, but quit reading into it something which the novel is not.

[kelby_lake]

So you're saying that everyone who read Lolita advocates paedophilia? Right...

[ktr]

Lolita is not a great novel; not in the terms of Les Miserables or other classic prose. But it is an enjoyable novel if your personal moral code allows you to laugh at the educated pedophile being manipulated by the nymphet Lolita. If not, don't read it, but quit reading into it something which the novel is not.

I would put nabokov's prose up against anybody's. in fact, i challenge you to find better prose in les mis than i can dig out of lolita.

{edit}

[wessexgirl]

Strange behaviour from a country whose history revels in the royal killing of wives.

I was just wondering what you meant by this?

[dfloyd]

Of course I don't think everyone who reads Lolita is in favor of Pedophilia. How did you get that idea?

We obviously have different opinions about most things, and I'm not about to get into an argumentative discussion with you.

The line about royal murder was a reference to Henry VIII, totally done tongue in check. I am in reality a great fan of the English, their literature, and humour.

[teashi]

As far as people using the name Lolita to mean 'young girl who acts as a seductress/sex object', well, sometimes things like that just stick. Look at Frankenstein, people still think that's the name of the monster.

[ktm5124]

Lolita is not a great novel; not in the terms of Les Miserables or other classic prose. But it is an enjoyable novel if your personal moral code allows you to laugh at the educated pedophile being manipulated by the nymphet Lolita. If not, don't read it, but quit reading into it something which the novel is not.

According to 200,000 readers, it is a great novel.

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

Lolita is put at #34 by the readers, and #4 by the hand-selected board.

Please don't be so silly. Don't promote your personal opinions as objective truth. Perhaps Lolita is not a great novel in your opinion, but by a critical consensus it is a twentieth-century masterpiece.

[teashi]

^Well, it can be someone's opinion that something is fact. Literature isn't science, it matters a lot on opinion. Does 200,000 readers really make a book a great novel?

[MarkBastable]

Lolita is not a great novel; not in the terms of Les Miserables or other classic prose.

Well, if we're allowed to parade our subjective preferences as critical reasoning, I'll just balance this by saying that Les Miserables is not a great novel - it has its moments if you can bring yourself to wade through the sentimentality to find them - but that Lolita is one of the best ten works of fiction in Western culture.

[ktm5124]

^Well, it can be someone's opinion that something is fact. Literature isn't science, it matters a lot on opinion. Does 200,000 readers really make a book a great novel?

Two hundred thousand readers, and the board of critics selected by the Modern Library (a very respected organization), and literary critics worldwide...

This isn't a battle you can win. Lolita is a great novel by critical consensus. I have my evidence, stated above - dfloyd has no evidence but his own personal opinion.

Clearly you have it in for Lolita because of what it is about. Else you wouldn't keep writing about a novel which you haven't read...

[teashi]

^Right, I'm losing the ferocious battle of the books! :rolleyes5:

This is a discussion, and I don't have to read a book to be able to discuss it. I'm just saying, it's obvious it is someone's opinion, and they can state what they think if they want. This is a controversial work after all. You seem to be saying widespread critical acclaim automatically means Lolita is great, no matter what anyone thinks.

[ktm5124]

{edit}

I guess I'm being a little too vehement in my defense. It's fine if in your opinion you don't think a book with such a story could be a great novel.

[dfloyd]

Get off your high horse. You've called me silly and compared Teashi to a book banner. I't's quite all right to not agree with either one of our ideas, but it is clearly against the forum rules for personall attacks. For personal attacks, the monitors can ban not a book, but you from posting. And attack against the person is the weakest form of argument.

[teashi]

^I think ktm5124 was pretty much apologizing with their last post, but anyway...

I haven't read Lolita, so I'm not saying such a book couldn't have merit. But for me, from what I've heard/read about it, the content/story does turn me off.

[sixsmith]

Lolita is not a great novel; not in the terms of Les Miserables or other classic prose.

:rolleyes:

This has to rank as one of the most bizarre statements I've read on these boards.

[ktr]

hey guys, i didn't actually read any of your posts, but i disagree with you on principal. you're all kind of retarded, im not actually going to read what you have written, but based on the interpretation i'm getting from the feelings that i have from the posts that have been written, i vehemently decry your thoughts as worthless and stupid.

again, i'm not going to read your posts, i know what i'm talking about. i don't have to prove anything to anyone, because i am right. obviously. clearly.

(you see how ridiculous it sounds to have an opinion about something you have not read?)

[teashi]

Nope.

[PeterL]

:rolleyes:

This has to rank as one of the most bizarre statements I've read on these boards.

I agree. Lolita is one of the greatest novels of the 20th century. I can understand people not liking it, but I can't understand anyone not understanding that it is a great novel.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such comments will be deleted without further notice.

[kelby_lake]

But it is an enjoyable novel if your personal moral code allows you to laugh at the educated pedophile being manipulated by the nymphet Lolita. If not, don't read it, but quit reading into it something which the novel is not.

Yeah, that bit. You're implying that to enjoy the book, someone has to have a warped/loose sense of morals.

Forming opnions on books you haven't read is fine and natural but to act as if you have read them and give such strong opinions is silly.

And I think Lolita is a great novel too.

[dfloyd]

One interpretation of Lolita is that Humbert didn't seduce Lolita, but Lolita seduced the pathetic Humbert. Some can't adjust to this interrpretation is all I'm saying, not what you seem to think. There are, of course, other intepretations of Lolita, like that of Kingsly Amis.

What are you taliking about when you say I haven't read the novel? I've read it twice and have read multiple critical articles on it. I have made it perfectly clear that I like the novel, in fact, I like it very much. My tastes just run somewhat contrary to believe that Lolita is the greatest novel of the twentieth century. My tastes are more in line with Hemingway and Scott Fitzgerald, which I believe is my perogative.

[kelby_lake]

One interpretation of Lolita is that Humbert didn't seduce Lolita, but Lolita seduced the pathetic Humbert. Some can't adjust to this interrpretation is all I'm saying, not what you seem to think. There are, of course, other intepretations of Lolita, like that of Kingsly Amis.

What are you taliking about when you say I haven't read the novel? I've read it twice and have read multiple critical articles on it. I have made it perfectly clear that I like the novel, in fact, I like it very much. My tastes just run somewhat contrary to believe that Lolita is the greatest novel of the twentieth century. My tastes are more in line with Hemingway and Scott Fitzgerald, which I believe is my perogative.

What's Kingsley Amis' interpretation? And whoops, the 'not having read it' bit was supposed to be a generally thing as people were talking about that...

I really like Fitzgerald too and I liked Hemingway's 'A Moveable Feast' (not so much his other stuff, which I haven't been able to finish...I think his style works best for journalistic pieces. And it's very masculine). And I don't see how they are wildly different from Lolita (barring the subject but even then Tender is The Night has incest in it) except that 'Lolita' is an outsider's view of America.

[dfloyd]

Amis. Sorry. Martin Amis claimed Lolita was a metaphor for totalitarianism, the Russia which Stalin created, ruining Nabokov's dream of the Russia of his childhood. Sounds a bit far retched to me, but I don't know of another book which has so many different interpretations.

Lolita is not a new novel since it is more than 50 years old, but I think the degree of greatness one perceives in the book is related to age. I was introduced to great literature by Dickens, Hugo, and Flaubert with 20th century novels by Sinclair Lewis, Scott Fitzgerald, and Ernest Hemingway being my primary reading in my very early years. So naturally, I would rather read The Sun Also Rises or The Great Gtsby than Lolita. If I were marooned on a desert island with one book to read, I would prefer The Iliad above all others (the Alexander Pope rhyming version). And you will find your tastes will change as you grow older.

[kelby_lake]

I don't really see the Totalitarianism at all...maybe Amis should look at Pale Fire.

[ktm5124]

I think Nabokov so much as admitted in an afterword that he didn't write Lolita intending any allegory...

Certainly, the novel does offer itself to allegory, intended or not, though I think that connecting the novel with Russia, Stalin, and totalitarianism is a stretch, as these three things are completely absent in the novel. There is simply no mention of Russia whatsoever. I find the allegory of "Old Europe debauching Young America" to be rich because it has a basis in Humbert's European heritage, and because the contrast between European culture and American can be seen in Humbert's interactions. But there is no Russian-American immigrant in this novel; perhaps such a lens of reading would be better suited for one of his novels where there is a Russian presence.

[kelby_lake]

I think Nabokov so much as admitted in an afterword that he didn't write Lolita intending any allegory...

Certainly, the novel does offer itself to allegory, intended or not, though I think that connecting the novel with Russia, Stalin, and totalitarianism is a stretch, as these three things are completely absent in the novel. There is simply no mention of Russia whatsoever. I find the allegory of "Old Europe debauching Young America" to be rich because it has a basis in Humbert's European heritage, and because the contrast between European culture and American can be seen in Humbert's interactions. But there is no Russian-American immigrant in this novel; perhaps such a lens of reading would be better suited for one of his novels where there is a Russian presence.

Or as one person said 'Young America debauching Old Europe'. The afterword for Lolita is great :D

[PeterL]

Or as one person said 'Young America debauching Old Europe'. The afterword for Lolita is great :D

And as fictional as the rest of the book.

[Emil Miller]

Whilst Nabokov may have denied an allegorical connection, we must ask ourselves whether it is likely that someone of his background would sit down and write a story which one would normally expect to find among straightforward pornographic writing.

[ktm5124]

Whilst Nabokov may have denied an allegorical connection, we must ask ourselves whether it is likely that someone of his background would sit down and write a story which one would normally expect to find among straightforward pornographic writing.

That is exactly what he did. He explains himself in the afterword - he was inspired upon hearing the story of a monkey behind bars who, when given materials to draw a picture, drew a picture of himself - or something like that.

Humbert Humbert is the ape behind bars, drawing a picture of his own captivity.

This is the aesthetic appeal of the novel, the reason he wrote it.

P.S. I would substitute "while" for "whilst" in the future. The word "whilst" is archaic.

[dfloyd]

I like words such as whilst, yclept, and erstwhile. They are not used enough.

[MarkBastable]

I would substitute "while" for "whilst" in the future. The word "whilst" is archaic.

Not in the UK it's not. Though it is a bit camp.

[ktm5124]

Actually, I just looked up the difference, and I realize I am wrong. The word "whilst" has survived in British English, though not American English. And since Brian Bean is from London, I have no business telling him not to use it :P

I apologize, Brian Bean.

[Emil Miller]

Actually, I just looked up the difference, and I realize I am wrong. The word "whilst" has survived in British English, though not American English. And since Brian Bean is from London, I have no business telling him not to use it :P

I apologize, Brian Bean.

Apology accepted and, whilst Mark Bastable may think it a bit camp, I'm sure I can live with it.

[ktr]

http://academicearth.org/lectures/vladimir-nabokov-lolita

lectures are also on yale's website and youtube.

[Petronius]

And as fictional as the rest of the book.

I'm very curious where this idea comes from, I don't remember ever hearing it before. Is it something the author explicitly claimed?

I never took the "allegory" interpretation seriously because that would make the book (at least that's the way I see it) contrived, innacurate, vulgar in scope and anchored in its time, which it naturally isn't.

Although amusing at first, seeing two great powers personified as a little girl and a pedophile for the entire length of the book would be too silly for my taste, not to mention the novel would open itself to critique (or sink into irrelevance) for every crack in the parallel between Humbert and Lolita's relationship and the actual historical and cultural subtext of the european-american relations. Sure, the allegory thing sounds pretty high-brow, but if you were to interpret Lolita entirely in light of its assumptions, you'd find yourself with lots of chunks out of place and a less valuable work.

I didn't find it surprising that Nabokov would treat this theory with irony, but then again, maybe I'm wrong?

[ktr]

edit - too confusing to type out now.

[PeterL]

I'm very curious where this idea comes from, I don't remember ever hearing it before. Is it something the author explicitly claimed?

If you are simply asking about my opinion, then it comes from my reading of Lolita. I have not asserted my opinion as to the nature of the symbols here.


I never took the "allegory" interpretation seriously because that would make the book (at least that's the way I see it) contrived, innacurate, vulgar in scope and anchored in its time, which it naturally isn't.

Although amusing at first, seeing two great powers personified as a little girl and a pedophile for the entire length of the book would be too silly for my taste, not to mention the novel would open itself to critique (or sink into irrelevance) for every crack in the parallel between Humbert and Lolita's relationship and the actual historical and cultural subtext of the european-american relations. Sure, the allegory thing sounds pretty high-brow, but if you were to interpret Lolita entirely in light of its assumptions, you'd find yourself with lots of chunks out of place and a less valuable work.

I have seen that allegorical interpretation before, but I find it absurd, and I do not see any justification for it in the text.


I didn't find it surprising that Nabokov would treat this theory with irony, but then again, maybe I'm wrong?

I believe that Nabokov did treat the idea that Lolita was an allegory with irony, but he did not completely dismiss it. It's been a few years since I read the criticism that suggested the America - Europe thing, but he didn't think much of that. I think that Nabokov's interest in James Joyce's writing, especially Ulysses, on which he taught a course for many years, suggests some of what interested him in literature. He said in several places that, in part, Lolita was written to show his love for America, but that is involved with th travel, rather than the sexual part, and it doesn't show through the characters.

One thing that struck me about the Afterword was that he strongly claimed that there was no symbolism, but there were a number of places that make little sense except as symbolism. If he had commented mildly that there was no symbolism, then I might make less of the comment, but he emphasized it by making a denial. It is possible that Nabokov was not consciously aware of the symbolism, and that is not uncommon among authors, but the Afterword was simply another layer of fiction in the novel, and it balances the introduction, which is certainly fiction.

[Petronius]

He didn't say there was no symbolism, but rather that he dislikes symbols and allegories, which he links to "freudian magic" and the generalisations of literary sociologists. In context, I think he means symbols of the universal, psychoanalitical kind, not the personalized literary ones (or, at least, not all of them).

The entire bit is part of a paragraph where Nabokov mentions silly reactions to his manuscript, which seems genuine as a whole. I can agree the afterword is "fiction" in the sense that it is carefully composed and embellished, but I don't think it's meant to be deceptive, nor that it was designed to be integrant to the novel. It's signed November 12th 1956 and the first edition was published in 1955, wasn't it?

[PeterL]

He didn't say there was no symbolism, but rather that he dislikes symbols and allegories, which he links to "freudian magic" and the generalisations of literary sociologists. In context, I think he means symbols of the universal, psychoanalitical kind, not the personalized literary ones (or, at least, not all of them).

The entire bit is part of a paragraph where Nabokov mentions silly reactions to his manuscript, which seems genuine as a whole. I can agree the afterword is "fiction" in the sense that it is carefully composed and embellished, but I don't think it's meant to be deceptive, nor that it was designed to be integrant to the novel. It's signed November 12th 1956 and the first edition was published in 1955, wasn't it?

I don't completely disagree with you, but your comments do not contradict what I wrote. I was just wondering how one balances his assertion that he did not like symbolism against his known liking for James Joyce writing especially Ulysses, which is solid symbolism. If your assertion that he meant only "symbols of the universal, psychoanalitical kind" is correct, then you do not disagree with what I suggested.

[qimissung]

"This is a discussion, and I don't have to read a book to be able to discuss it." (Teashi)

While I think this is one of the most bizarre statements I've read on these boards.

Interestingly, I jsut read an essay by Nabokov called "Good Readers and Good Writers." In it he says "But the real writer, the fellow who sends planets spinning and models a man asleep and eagerly tampers with the sleeper's rib, that kind of author has no given values at his disposal: he must create them himself. The art of writing is a very futile business if it does not imply first of all the art of seeing the world as the potentiality of fiction The material of this world may be real enough (as far as reality goes) but does not exist at all as an accepted entirety: it is chaos, and to this chaos the author says "go" allowing the world to flicker and to fuse."

Of the reader he says "We all have different temperaments, and I can tell you right now that the best temperament for a reader to have or to develop, is a combination of the artistic and the scientific one. The enthusiastic artist alone is apt to be too subjective in his attitude towards a book, and so a scientific coolness of judgement will temper the intuitive heat. If, however, a world-be reader is utterly devoid of passion and patience-of an artist's passion and a scientist's patiendce-he will hardly enjoy great literature."

I thought it worthwhile to include these in a discussion of his most controversial work, "Lolita,"because whatever it might mean (I like the allegory idea), I suppose he wrote it with the idea of creating a new world and leaving it to us to examine Lolita as one would a work of art, (he provides a metaphor of this in the essay) to tease out it's various manings with passion and patience, as an artist and a scientist.

[PeterL]

You might also want to read The Open Work and The Role of the Reader both by Umberto Eco.

[Petronius]

I don't completely disagree with you, but that does not contradict what I wrote. I was just wondering how one balances his assertion that he did not like symbolism against his known liking for James Joyce writing especially Ulysses, which is solid symbolism. If your assertion that he meant only "symbols of the universal, psychoanalitical kind" is correct, then you do not disagree with what I suggested.

I only disagreed about the afterword being fiction and complete falsehood, which held a lot more implications than what you said on the first page (mainly, it would have implied that the author's contempt for the allegorical interpretation is also a lie, and that he may have indeed intended for the book to be read that way).

I must confess you lost me a little with the rest of your symbolic interpretation... First of all, I've only read Joyce's Dubliners (which I thoroghly disliked unfortunately), so, while I know about Nabokov's affinity for his work, I can't comment on the nature of that affinity. I do believe, however, that Nabokov himself didn't want to admit to Joycean influences... if you say he was lying, I don't have the means to counter you.

As far as Lolita being the symbol of a young woman... I can see your point, there are aspects of Lolita's experiences and behavior that can be projected to any young woman of her culture (like the reading of magazines, emancipation) or girl of her age, but do we really need to look at it from a symbolic point of view? Can't we just say she is a girl of that age and culture, and focus equally on her particularities?

Ultimately, you can say about everything that it is "symbolic", seeing how, according to modern psychology (not the freudian kind), our minds operate through symbols. Lolita herself is initially measured against a symbol in Humbert's mind, that of a nymphete, and particularly that of his lost childhood love. But, while the symbolic tool is inevitably used, or present in the foreground given the exquisite craft of Nabokov's characters, that deoesn't mean he used symbolism as the bricks for the novel, or that a certain symbolic interpretation was an expected result. I wouldn't call this overarching feminity symbiolism a focal point of Lolita, but that doesn't mean it isn't inevitably there....

Your position on the original post was a little vague, does your symbolic interpretation of Lolita turn her into a capable seductress? Does it make the debate irrelevant? Or are you victimizing her as well?

[ktr]

did anyone watch the 3 lectures from yale that i posted which focused exclusively on lolita?

i personally believe nabokov's real intent is to screw with people. he purposely lies and misrepresents the truth, it is more than a book - it's a chess problem he has set up, and if you think he's going to give you the answers in a forward or an afterward, in the book, or in interviews, in anything other than clues and codes - you're crazy.

[PeterL]

I only disagreed about the afterword being fiction and complete falsehood, which held a lot more implications than what you said on the first page (mainly, it would have implied that the author's contempt for the allegorical interpretation is also a lie, and that he may have indeed intended for the book to be read that way).

I must confess you lost me a little with the rest of your symbolic interpretation... First of all, I've only read Joyce's Dubliners (which I thoroghly disliked unfortunately), so, while I know about Nabokov's affinity for his work, I can't comment on the nature of that affinity. I do believe, however, that Nabokov himself didn't want to admit to Joycean influences... if you say he was lying, I don't have the means to counter you.

As far as Lolita being the symbol of a young woman... I can see your point, there are aspects of Lolita's experiences and behavior that can be projected to any young woman of her culture (like the reading of magazines, emancipation) or girl of her age, but do we really need to look at it from a symbolic point of view? Can't we just say she is a girl of that age and culture, and focus equally on her particularities?

Ultimately, you can say about everything that it is "symbolic", seeing how, according to modern psychology (not the freudian kind), our minds operate through symbols. Lolita herself is initially measured against a symbol in Humbert's mind, that of a nymphete, and particularly that of his lost childhood love. But, while the symbolic tool is inevitably used, or present in the foreground given the exquisite craft of Nabokov's characters, that deoesn't mean he used symbolism as the bricks for the novel, or that a certain symbolic interpretation was an expected result. I wouldn't call this overarching feminity symbiolism a focal point of Lolita, but that doesn't mean it isn't inevitably there....

Fine, then we agree almost completely. I didn't give my interpretation of Lolita, and I don't think that the details are significant.


Your position on the original post was a little vague, does your symbolic interpretation of Lolita turn her into a capable seductress? Does it make the debate irrelevant? Or are you victimizing her as well?

I was deliberately vague. I see no reason for precision in literary interpretation.

[teashi]

"This is a discussion, and I don't have to read a book to be able to discuss it." (Teashi)

While I think this is.I don't know what you're saying here.

[ktr]

I don't know what you're saying here.

did you read the post?

[Scheherazade]

I don't know what you're saying here.I think what Qimi is saying that without reading the book, it is hard to make valid points based on second/third/fourth hand interpretations.


~

Please do not personalise your arguments.

~

[mona amon]

It seems to me that Lolita is presented as something of an unconventional/taboo love story about a young girl who is quite promiscuous and seduces an older man whom she falls in love, or thinks she is in love with (as given her age it is questionable how able she can really make these decisions for herself) but nonetheless the general consensus however misguided or mistaken, is that she does actively and willfully pressure Humbert and that she is more or less consenting to his advances.

This has always been my understanding of what the book is about, and I haven't heard anything to contradict this idea. I have in fact watched the movie some many years ago, and though it was a long time if my memory serves me right, I do believe the movie upholds this view in presenting Lolita as the seductress in the affair, and making the story out as a bit of a dysfunctional to say the least morally questionable love story.

The back of my edition of the book presents the story as thus:

"The most tender, shocking, outrageous love story ever told, Lolita has been banned, burned, censored, denounced, and read by more millions than any other book of its kind. It is about a middle-aged man's tormented desire for his nymphet step-daughter. And a honeymoon without a wedding. And a romance as sweet as murder is innocent."

The very name Lolita today seems to be used as synonym for young sexually mature girls who play the role of seductresses and are indeed the little 'nymphs" as Humbert would say.

But in reading the book, I fail to see it this way. Lolita does not seem to me to be the least bit of a consenting partner to Humbert, nor do I see any evidence or suggestions that she actually did actively seduce him and pursue him, or anything to hint at the fact that she has any sort of feelings of love for him whatsoever.

To me Lolita comes off as being quite miserable in her situation, she seems a reluctant partner who simply is given no other options and is forced into a situation in which she has no control or no real choice in the matter. But she does not seem the least bit welcoming or accepted of Humbert's advances and affections. She is defiant, and rebellious, but has nowhere else to go. After the death of her mother she is whisked away far from anyone she may know and thus she is ultimately held hostage by Humbert.

Not to mention the fact that it was his originally plan to actually drug Lolita and rape her while she was asleep, and throughout their so called "relationship" he bribes her, threatens her, tells her a horror story about what will happen to her if she ever does tell anyone about him.

To me it seems Lolita is simply doing what she can to make the best of a situation which has been forced upon her, and which she does not have any other options, or real choices. She comes across as if anything a survivalist rather than a seductress.

I really do not find anything the least bit romantic in the relationship between Humbert and Lolita, but instead to me the story seems to be rather about a pedophile pervert who kidnaps his step-daughter and isolates her from everyone she knows so he can take advantage of her.

I feel you've 'got it' pretty well, Dark Muse. I never understood how anyone can believe HH's version of the story. Young Dolores Haze is no Lolita. No one other than HH ever calls her that. We are clearly meant to watch for the other side of the story which we glimpse now and then , even through the distorted vision of the narrator ("Lolita crying in the night, every night").

The books a tragedy, where everyone is destroyed and dies, but an extremely funny tragedy. It would be unbearable otherwise.

[teashi]

I think what Qimi is saying that without reading the book, it is hard to make valid points based on second/third/fourth hand interpretations. I'm not sure if I myself tried making any 'valid points' about Lolita, but I can have impressions of it. I mean how many people decide Twilight is junk without reading it? :wink5: