that bombshell of a book, Nabokov's Lolita

[stlukesguild]

And Humbert Humbert is not only a terribly unreliable narrator, he's an incredibly unlikable human being.

Exactly! He is the villain... and one of the greatest in literature.

It's not like the book is trying to make you sympathize with and like this man who has a thing for little girls... quite the opposite.

Here I must disagree to a certain degree. Humbert is one of the most seductive villains is all of literature. The closest character I can think of is Milton's Satan, who like Humbert, can almost seduce the audience into liking him in spite of our better judgment. Nabokov is certainly playing with the reader here...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Humbert is one of the strangest characters in fiction, because he's a character you hate but at the same time (at times) sympathize with, at least I did. When you think about it, Nabokov pulls off quite an amazing feat by making the reader side with Humbert and dislike Lolita, the real victim! But he does it, and what's more is that he does it mostly by letting the reader into Humbert's mind--Lolita never really does anything horrible to him, just manipulates, and when in comparison, the "meanness" she directs at Humbert is minor to what Humbert does to her.

Cacian, how do you think this book is "at the heart of or merging on child abuse"? Your reasons must go beyond that it's own the book, or every book about war would be promoting war, every book about drugs would be promoting drugs, etc.

P.S. I love Milton's Satan. I was rooting for him throughout Paradise Lost.

[Easter]

Here I must disagree to a certain degree. Humbert is one of the most seductive villains is all of literature. The closest character I can think of is Milton's Satan, who like Humbert, can almost seduce the audience into liking him in spite of our better judgment. Nabokov is certainly playing with the reader here...

Well, the interesting thing about Humbert Humbert is how simultaneously repulsive and fascinating he can be...

I think the original point I was trying to make with the other poster was that Nabokov wasn't trying to make pedophilia into a sympathetic subject... he wasn't condoning it. There's a difference between making Humbert into a seductive character and making the subject itself into one.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think the original point I was trying to make with the other poster was that Nabokov wasn't trying to make pedophilia into a sympathetic subject... he wasn't condoning it. There's a difference between making Humbert into a seductive character and making the subject itself into one.

Very true. Still, I did find my self aroused several times in the book (while simultaneously be repulsed, an odd combination).

[Easter]

Very true. Still, I did find my self aroused several times in the book (while simultaneously be repulsed, an odd combination).

Part of that could simply be the language Nabokov uses! He intentionally used such sexual language for the most mundane activities... things weren't spat out, they were ejaculated... such a great use of language to evoke an atmosphere.

And I think there's a difference between being aroused by the thought of being with a young girl and being around (and repulsed!) by Humbert's own lust and obsession... the way Nabokov writes it, it's almost impossible not to feel how Humbert feels things.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Part of that could simply be the language Nabokov uses! He intentionally used such sexual language for the most mundane activities... things weren't spat out, they were ejaculated... such a great use of language to evoke an atmosphere.

And I think there's a difference between being aroused by the thought of being with a young girl and being around (and repulsed!) by Humbert's own lust and obsession... the way Nabokov writes it, it's almost impossible not to feel how Humbert feels things.

Exactly. Nabokov could make one aroused by describing the phone book.

[cacian]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;1135091Did you at any time thought it was may be slightely perverse?
After all Lolita was only 13.
Books such as these are contreversial and are at the heart of or merging on child abuse for me anyway.
I can understand literature at its best but when it is done using/decribing children in this way it makes wonder whether the reader and the writer have forgotten where to draw the line for the sake of art and literature.
Just an opinion but a very poignant one I feel it needs to be pointed out.[/COLOR]

No... it's not a poignant point at all. It's simply misses out on the fact that what Nabokov was writing was fiction. The character Humbert Humbert does not represent the thoughts or desires of Nabokov any more than Lady Macbeth represents Shakespeare, Judge Holden represents Cormac

To me it is a poingnant point because the focus of this book is about a girl aged 13 being lusted over with by an adult, in all countries this is considered child abuse. The author is fully responsible for the content of his books and for him to indulge in such perversity is not something I share and so I hold him as responsible for his thoughts as his character. I tend to keep my reading clean. This is how I view literature.
As to fiction well a book is ficition yes but lots of fiction finds itself in main stream reality because of it. Many books are being filmed and acted out by real people for real audiences, what happens after one has been exposed to contreversial topics such as violence, death hatred lust and child abuse, is anybody's guess.
Media and televisions shape our psychological well being and affect our thoughts and behaviour later on in life.
Many case of child abuse still go on to this day and many famous people such gary glitter and other writers stanlye kubrick are being prosecuted for literally abusing children aged 13 or less. This is fiction/reality and this book in my eyes only goes on reinforcing this utterly wrong attitude and carelessness towards the welfare of children.

McCarthy, or the rapist and murderer in this painting represents Goya:

one word Jack the Ripper and still goes one to this day.

Have you actually read the book?

have I the read book?
I could not possibly say I could but I had to flick throughout quickly because the pages I have seen and the perversity of it I could not possibly allow me to pursue it any further.
I have children and I have to think their welfare and for me to read a book such as this would mean I have let my children down.
I have no desire to share any of nobokov fantasing about a child. I draw the line and yes he might have had the most incredible amasing style of his language I am afraid he has not my attention because of the prolific topice he chose to use to write about.
Had he chosen somethin less contreversial something more educational and imaginative then yes I would have given the time of the day and so no I have nothing to say about him apart from his imfamous fame of being the one with a contreversial topic on his name.
So no he does not get my votes.
Of course this is my opinion and I am entitled to it and you have your views on the subject and I am respective of them.
Each to their own.

[Easter]

To me it is a poingnant point because the focus of this book is about a girl aged 13 being lusted over with by an adult, in all countries this is considered child abuse. The author is fully responsible for the content of his books and for him to indulge in such perversity is not something I share and so I hold him as responsible for his thoughts as his character. I tend to keep my reading clean. This is how I view literature.
As to fiction well a book is ficition yes but lots of fiction finds itself in main stream reality because of it. Many books are being filmed and acted out by real people for real audiences, what happens after one has been exposed to contreversial topics such as violence, death hatred lust and child abuse, is anybody's guess.

I think you missed the point St Luke was trying to make earlier... just because a painter paints a rape, or a writer writes about child abuse doesn't mean that they want to rape or abuse children. And they don't want to encourage these things either. But they DO want to raise awareness of them. Just because something is controversial or uncomfortable to talk about doesn't mean that it shouldn't be addressed.

Controversial art does not create these issues. These things have been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years. But they do raise awareness of them, they create a dialogue about them, and make them so that they can't be ignored. Problems with society can't be fixed if they're ignored.

Many case of child abuse still go on to this day and many famous people such gary glitter and other writers stanlye kubrick are being prosecuted for literally abusing children aged 13 or less. This is fiction/reality and this book in my eyes only goes on reinforcing this utterly wrong attitude and carelessness towards the welfare of children.

I would point out that until fairly recently (within the last few hundred years), 13 would not be considered a child. The notion of adolescence is a fairly recent (and extremely correct) construct. Before that there was just childhood and then adulthood.

In fact, Lolita stands as testament to how we have evolved as a society. Just a few hundred years or so ago, Humbert lusting after a 13 year old would not have even been considered child abuse. But Humbert DOES know he's wrong. He knows it, and he agonizes over it. He knows others know it's wrong as well. Were the book to treat the subject cavalierly or carelessly, this notion of being wrong wouldn't even be introduced.

have I the read book?
I could not possibly say I could but I had to flick throughout quickly because the pages I have seen and the perversity of it I could not possibly allow me to pursue it any further.
Had he chosen somethin less contreversial something more educational and imaginative then yes I would have given the time of the day and so no I have nothing to say about him apart from his imfamous fame of being the one with a contreversial topic on his name.
So no he does not get my votes.
Of course this is my opinion and I am entitled to it and you have your views on the subject and I am respective of them.
Each to their own.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion! In fact, the beauty of this topic (or any controversial art!) is that it creates this dialogue of disagreement. It creates awareness of a subject. How could we learn anything about each other (or about ourselves) if all we read was perfectly nice, safe literature?

Although, to be fair, I do think to properly comment on a book you should have read it... there's a lot more to Lolita than the controversial subject matter. Lolita is not a comfortable book with a comfortable topic, but I do think that it has something to say, and that that something is worth reading.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yeah, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Unfortunately, though, it's the type of opinion that leads to censorship and suppression of free speech and artistic expression.

[cacian]

Yeah, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Unfortunately, though, it's the type of opinion that leads to censorship and suppression of free speech and artistic expression.

the point of freedom of speech is that I am entitled to say what I think and if that is your view that my opinion leads to censorship then those are your words not mine.
An opinion regardless of what it carries is an opinion and just because you happen to like something and I do not does not give you the right to make a negative comment about it.
I am stating what I consider to be right and you state what you want without infringing on mine. That is the definition of freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is not about exposing perversive thoughts in a book of fiction , it is about the ability to express any perversion in a real life statement and ensuring that it does not infect our societies.
If one really cared about children welfaire one does not start by making a fiction of it and selling it to gain reputation and status.
One way of doing is to declare it openly and to the public by making a full and proper realistic statement to engage others's awarness of it. Beating around the bush about it in perverse fictional story where characters engage in full erotic twisted description at the benefit of children aged 13 or more is not what I consider proper.
That is my opinion.

[Easter]

Well, in the interest of clearing up the "censorship" issue, cacian... is it just that YOU don't want to read the book, or that you think the book SHOULDN'T be read by anyone?

MM wasn't denying your right to have an opinion on the book but he (she? sorry... I don't know! lol) was pointing out that oftentimes people use their negative opinions of books/art to crusade against them being read/seen at all. I'm a huge anti-censorship person, myself, so I can see where MM was coming from. I think it's dangerous for anyone to say that just because something has disagreeable subject matter it ought to be eliminated from the sphere of public discourse. (Note: I'm not saying that YOU'RE saying this, I'm just saying that is the danger of censorship)

Also, point of interest, freedom of speech doesn't just protect speech you like, it protects speech you hate as well.. so if we all want to enjoy this right, we need to maintain our willingness to have this dialogue, especially if someone says something we don't agree with.

That being said, I DON'T think Nabokov wrote Lolita to capitalize on the shocking subject matter in order "to gain reputation and status." I think he wanted to write a story about lust, love, and obsession... and he did that. In Lolita, Humbert Humbert doesn't just use Lolita.. he is madly, passionately, (and improperly) in love with her..

Once again, though, this might be easier to point out had you read the book... and not just expressed your assumptions about it based on what you've heard about the plot...

[stlukesguild]

I love Milton's Satan. I was rooting for him throughout Paradise Lost.

Yes. Quite often I find myself agreeing with the Romantic interpretation and concurring with Blake who insisted that Milton was really of the Devil's party. It certainly is easy to see Satan as rebelling against the old order... not unlike Milton himself rebelling against the English crown. Indeed, it's quite hard not to imagine Paradise Lost as being quite akin to Shelley's Prometheus Bound... in which the poet's sympathies are clearly with the rebel. But the Romantics lived in the age of rebellion and revolution... and this carried over to religion as well as the question of the aristocracy and government. Milton's faith was unshakable. He may have questioned the Papacy... but certainly not the divine order of the universe. God was unquestionably good and Satan evil. I suspect that Milton portrays Satan as such a noble... even sympathetic figure in order to convey just how seductive and dangerous Satan and sin is.

[stlukesguild]

To me it is a poingnant point because the focus of this book is about a girl aged 13 being lusted over with by an adult, in all countries this is considered child abuse.

The subject of pedophilia served Nabokov merely as a formalistic challenge. In no way does he set out to explore the realities of pedophilia or the horrific experience of child abuse. Rather, the subject was merely a challenge to his skills as a writer. Could he write a novel about such a theme without falling prey to the pornographic? Could he actually make the predator a sympathetic figure? Language, comments on American and European culture, age and youth, etc... are equally important themes... and in many ways are explored in far more depth than the realities of child abuse.

The author is fully responsible for the content of his books and for him to indulge in such perversity is not something I share and so I hold him as responsible for his thoughts as his character. I tend to keep my reading clean.

You have a truly naive concept of art. If we were to eliminate every character from literature that was flawed... or even "evil" we'd pretty much be left with little more to read than Green Eggs and Ham and Dick and Jane.

have I the read book?
I could not possibly say I could but I had to flick throughout quickly because the pages I have seen and the perversity of it I could not possibly allow me to pursue it any further.

Then you have absolutely no business commenting on it because all you have to bring to the discussion is hearsay and personal assumptions.

[cacian]

The subject of pedophilia served Nabokov merely as a formalistic challenge. In no way does he set out to explore the realities of pedophilia or the horrific experience of child abuse. Rather, the subject was merely a challenge to his skills as a writer. Could he write a novel about such a theme without falling prey to the pornographic? Could he actually make the predator a sympathetic figure? Language, comments on American and European culture, age and youth, etc... are equally important themes... and in many ways are explored in far more depth than the realities of child abuse.

I am afraid I have to completely disagree, for someone to be so knowledgable about lust and peodophilia with children that age and in a literary sesne one needs to have thought, experienced or felt them in one way or another in order to be so eloquent about such subject. No smoke without fire or thereabouts.

You have a truly naive concept of art. If we were to eliminate every character from literature that was flawed... or even "evil" we'd pretty much be left with little more to read than Green Eggs and Ham and Dick and Jane.

Please do not assume that I am naive. You know notthing about me to assume such conclusions. Another way of putting might that you are the naive one to assume that bad/contreversial art exposed publically in this way has any benefit other then to encourage participation of some sort, I don't consider sharing twisted ideas a good way of raising awarness. My opinion my choice.

Then you have absolutely no business commenting on it because all you have to bring to the discussion is hearsay and personal assumptions.

I am afraid you are again very wrong to assume that one needs to have read an entire book to know whether it is any good or not.
I have seen enough of it to know it is not a book I aspire to or admire, not my fault if the few pages I have seen of it failed to convince me that it was worth it.
One is able to make up one's mind about any book by reading one or two pages and looking at the summary and reading critics of it. I know whether a book is worth reading or not at a glance. Maybe it takes you longer but that's you. Please do not make any more assumption in a disrespectful way if you have n othing else different to add.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Cacian, how are we supposed to not think you're naive? You're constantly talking about what you think is inappropriate and what you don't read because you find it offensive, and you're saying here that Lolita condones pedophilia. What other conclusion are we supposed to come to?

the point of freedom of speech is that I am entitled to say what I think and if that is your view that my opinion leads to censorship then those are your words not mine.
An opinion regardless of what it carries is an opinion and just because you happen to like something and I do not does not give you the right to make a negative comment about it.
I am stating what I consider to be right and you state what you want without infringing on mine. That is the definition of freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is not about exposing perversive thoughts in a book of fiction , it is about the ability to express any perversion in a real life statement and ensuring that it does not infect our societies.
If one really cared about children welfaire one does not start by making a fiction of it and selling it to gain reputation and status.
One way of doing is to declare it openly and to the public by making a full and proper realistic statement to engage others's awarness of it. Beating around the bush about it in perverse fictional story where characters engage in full erotic twisted description at the benefit of children aged 13 or more is not what I consider proper.
That is my opinion.

So, you can state your opinion, but I'm not allowed to state my opinion that I think it's completely off-base? I'm confused.

Easter pretty much nailed what I was trying to say (and I'm a guy, Easter, ). I never said you didn't have a right to your opinion, just that opinions like that are what leads to censorship. Opinions like that are what leads to books, paintings, movies, or anything else, being banned. Opinions like that lead to idiotic decisions like replacing the word "nigger" with "slave" in Huck Finn. So, yeah, IN MY OPINION, your opinions, when widespread, are dangerous. And I have just as much a right to express my opinion that condemns your opinion, capiche?

And, I must agree with the consensus here--you really need to read the whole book if you want your opinions to hold any weight.