Graham
- Saturday, May 17 2008
|
With paedophilia around, and a big issue right now, I wonder what the reaction would be if it were first published this year?
|
|
|
Where is a child called Lolita depicted in the novel?
|
|
Graham
- Saturday, May 17 2008
|
I haven't read 'Lolita', Elena, but I had the idea that she was only 12 years old.
|
|
|
have you read Reading Lolita in Tehran? Good companion read. I'm sorry but having worked in the area of sexual assault I could not get passed the 'yucky' factor-- some of the language was amazing tho.
|
|
|
Cause i haven't read it
|
|
|
I've read quite a few so-called classics and am never surprised how let down I've been. During a phase of Russian reading I chanced upon Lolita and quickly shied away-this is art loosely masquerading as porn-and if you think I mean it the other way round, think again. Nabokov does not come close to understanding his own Russian dressing. In Dostoyevsky's Possessed the anti-hero molests a young girl, this chapter was excised and now appears as an appendeum to most books. The point is that 80 or so years has show a decline in the understanding and recognition of what we should term as smut, dressing up genitalia in fancy names will never remove that instinctual drive in us to humilate our better selves. The anti-hero of Lolita is the foil of the liberal establishment but on the street we would say, hey Humbert Humbert, watchout, jailbait! but it's him who does the seducing and it's Lolita who appears to get all the blame. A book written by a man.
|
|
|
I agree that it is a masterful piece of literature. I do not feel that in anyway Nabokov condones or is promoting pedophilia. Quite the opposite. He takes care great care to show how the abuse ultimately affects the girl and her life. The book is masterful because it is told from the perspective of the pedophile. Nabokov's Humber x2 not only tries to seduce poor Lolita, but the reader as well! We only see Lolita from Humbert's point of view, never hers. He even renames her "Lolita" to further separate the reader from the reality of her being. I am writer and I can't imagine how difficult it would be to maintain that underlying current of horror in the victim while soliciting the compassion and understanding of the reader for the perpetrator. It's not an easy thing to do. If we were to dismiss all books that are written about unpleasant things (like slavery in Huck Finn), then we would be unable to remind ourselves of the great capacity for humankind to be deviant and cruel. What is that saying...."Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it"?...something like that. Books like Lolita and Huck Finn are excellent sounding boards for discussion, education and awareness.
|
|
|
Huck Finn and Lolita seem to make the banned book lists quite frequently. I used to teach Huck Finn, as well as many others that make the banned book lists. It all has to do with whether people feel they have the right to impose their specific moral, religious and other beliefs upon people through the banning of suspect books. I don't care for Lolita at all, as I feel it is degrading and morally reprehensible, however, I would not ban adults from reading it. Reading requires freedom.
|
|
|
True but freedom should breed responsibility. Noone suggests we should ban literature that most find distasteful, even political garbage like Mein Kampf should be judged on its content and merit but it is the justification for the reading of this type of material that should be challenged. Rushdie's Satanic Verses purports to show an "imaginary" opinion of the Qur'an but this freedom of the artist only helps to confirm the lack of moral and sensible guidance in western culture. Nabokov, the Russian, writes at a time when the Soviet Union was accusing the capitalist west of decadence, and in those "liberating" times Nabokov is esteemed as the guardian of freedom and truth. Take away the ambiguity and you will see Starvogin running his instinctual urges over every written page. This you defend for the sake of the right to freedom of expression, but next week you may be defending even more subversive and destructive matter.
|
|
|
Javacat--it is: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
I do so love that quote. I'm with you on this one, Javacat--we need to learn from literature and art. Is writing about child sexual abuse fictionally somehow a crime? I dont think so. Lolita is a fascinating character study--from Dolores (aka Lolita) to Charlotte to Humbert. Our children had a very sexy teacher at the school for about 6 months--guess what her name was? Dolores Hayes!(no 'z' though) I am not kidding! Weird. I doubt even she knew she shared her name with one of the most provocative characters in literary history! She was about 25...
I also love Huck Finn and feel the same way about it--sure, slavery is an unpleasant part of our history, but we need to deal with it.
I first read Lolita when I was in high school and have never felt the least bit offended by it. I've read it several times since then also. No change in how I feel about it, and I'm a woman with young daughters myself now. Maybe this book should be read more as an indictment of poor parenting (on Mrs. Haze's part) than on Lolita's kittensih and seductive behavior with Humbert and Humbert's opportunistic criminality. That's pretty much how I feel as a parent, a citizen of the US with all the protections of the Constitution, and as a student of literature.
|
|
|
The past is a cloud in the sky, one gust of wind and you're all looking for the next one. Marquis De Sade they say, these libertines, hated the sight of blood and was using his extreme writing to educate about the natural repression of the citizens. De Sade was a poisoner of women, the worse kind of sexual sadist, for his sexual frustration could only be vented through the mind. Nabokov talks about Lolita as a possession, as something to be attained, and those of us who think similarly have given in to that natural repression. Neither of these men liberate with their "art", instead they cage and denigrate those they abuse and ill-conceive. This is not literature but a pretence at so-called emancipation of the moral strictures the "authorities" impose upon us. For my part xH2 would get the thrashing of a lifetime for his behaviour, because the truth is how many of these defenders of this book would allow such a type near their daughters.
This is not to infuse emotion into the arguement but to step back and see in the cold light of day what you truly value. And not what Nabokov values.
|
|
|
elena_roxana
Whew! Very interesting discussion here. Reading what all of you had to say about LOLITA I decided to see if I could find any comments or literary criticism targeting the issues you all bring up.
IMHO Nabakov was one of the most brilliant writers the world has been honored to be graced by. His use of language, his writing style and his characterizations are all perfect. What was your experience when you first sat down with the book or the original film and met the four characters.
I never thought of Humbert as a pedophile ... DUH ... I always considered Lolita the one who did the initial seducing ... what else did she know with a mother like she had? Ironically Humbert falls deeply in love with Lolita which blinds him to her age and what they are doing. But she never asked for help (if i remember correctly) or tried to get away from him. I think the need for love, coupled with vulnerability, low self esteem, circumstances, and lives lived in a vacuum play a big role in the story of Lolita and Humbert and Quilty. Let's not forget too, that Quilty is rather over the edge mentally, is dangerous and has a few loose screws.
Is it possible to consider that Nabakov's message was other than that of pedophelia in the shape of Humbert? AFter all Lolita was exposed to Quilty before Humbert came on the scene and he is a bona fide pedophile. Nasty nasty all over town.
I found this on an interesting site: MOST SHOCKING TRUTV CRIME LIBRARY
"In spite of legislation and many other state laws prohibiting the possession and use of child porn, some critics charge that society actually tolerates pedophilia. Beauty pageants for children have come under greater scrutiny only since the Ramsey murder case appeared in 1997. These so-called “beauty shows” seem to exploit the bodies of children, showcasing kids as young as 6 with elaborate hair, lipstick, false eyelashes and satin high heel shoes. They are extensively coached, trained in adult posture and taught how to parade down a runway for maximum effect. A show, which many say, contains strong sexual connotations that do not belong in children’s events. Ironically, these pageants could not exist without the cooperation and financial support of adults including the parents of the children involved(11).
Lolita Ad
Hollywood has also come under attack for its periodic displays of the child as a sex object. Director Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita (1962), originally made as a dark comedy, featured an adult’s obsession with his girlfriend’s teen-aged daughter. Of course, author Vladimir Nabakov’s Lolita has been the unintended recipient of the pedophile’s attention for many years, although the novel was never written for that purpose(12). Nevertheless, the book received widespread attention. “By the time Americans read the teasing tale of Nabakov’s preadolescent Lolita in 1958 and watched it on the screen, the sexual possibilities of young girls found fertile soil amid the many baby dolls of the American imagination” writes author Paula Fass in Kidnapped: Child Abduction in America."
I understand the outrage and in some cases repulsion you feel about LOLITA but I hope we are all open minded readers/film buffs and can see teh artistic merit in both mediums in this case.
Graham
You asked 'what would the reaction be if it were first published this year?'
I'd say just look around you ... turn on your TV and take a close look at the commercials that use almost naked women to sell everything from cars to KY-jelly. The viagra and cialis commercials are obscene IMHO and I am very very broad minded. One commercial has a group of cowboy types sitting around singign about viagra and winking about their women.
I apologize if I am going astray here ... but I am passionate about censorship and imposing one's views on another. How do you all feel about this information?
|
|
Graham
- Thursday, May 22 2008
|
I agree Barbara. Though I haven't read 'Lotita', what other novels are there about a supposed paedophile seducing a sexually aware 12 year old. In this day and age, girls are sexualised much earlier with what you describe is around. With that in mind, and things like 'Megan's Law' to protect children, it is interesting to think what the reaction would have been if Lolita had just come out now. Then, paedophilia was unknown, as were sexually aware 12 year olds in society.
|
|
|
This is not a new debate about censorship, and several of the comments on this thread are spot on. Lolita is not about liberty and freedom of choice, and the notion that a 12 year old girl/boy is responsible for the sexual urges of jaded adults is beyond belief. A closer perusal of this liberal book and "film" reveals a pattern of intelligent degeneration.
We have James Mason, villain and him of the velvet voice, taking on the role of Humbert and Sellars, ever the opportunist to publicity, taking on Q. Now Mason was a pacifist in the war, one of those conscies, who'd expect others to fight and die as his mother and family were ravaged by nazi stormtroopers, because his pathetic pacifist rules dictated sonme kind of moral high ground. This is the actor who would go on to play several nazis throughout his career. Years after Kubrick's film he appeared in another lolitaesque film "Age of consent", again about the moral depravity of an elderly man. This pattern can only serve to show that there is a sub-consciouess element within the arts that purports to freedom but really is indicative of moral bankruptcy. Claiming Nabokov is a brilliant writer is like saying Hitler knew how to run a concentration camp. The art does not justify the content. Kubrick himself, no stranger to controversy, would lift his adaption of Clockwork orange, for reasons he kept to himself, no doubt the wolf barking at his door was oddly uncomfortable. Viewing Lolita as an insightful study of a mans love for a girl is the limit in this arguement. You see, Sodom and Gomorrah, I see you're back in town.
|
|
|
I loved the name/word play throughout the story. I don't see that Nabakov was writing about sex at all, I believe he was chronicaling Humbert's slow but constant descent into madness. The entire story is shown through the eyes of a madman. Amazing how society feels compelled not only to drag the poor child into it but to hold her accountable for his perverted perception of her actions.
|
|
|
WOW! I don't want to get into a fight with anyone but TINY D your take on the book is one I have not yet come across. I have read your post several times along with others who conclude that NABAKOV somehow blames LOLITA for HUMBERT'S perversion. IMHO both Lolita and Humby played off each other for very selfish and frightening reasons. His decent into madness and obsession ... her need to be loved in a 'normal' way.
(I plead a bit of space for my comments ... I read the annotated edition at least 25yrs ago. I can't get to it at the moment but I remember teh book adn the movie well enough to comment. I have also read much lit. crit. on Nabakov and this novel.)
QUOTE: This is not a new debate about censorship, and several of the comments on this thread are spot on. Lolita is not about liberty and freedom of choice, and the notion that a 12 year old girl/boy is responsible for the sexual urges of jaded adults is beyond belief. A closer perusal of this liberal book and "film" reveals a pattern of intelligent degeneration.
We have James Mason, villain and him of the velvet voice, taking on the role of Humbert and Sellars, ever the opportunist to publicity, taking on Q. Now Mason was a pacifist in the war, one of those conscies, who'd expect others to fight and die as his mother and family were ravaged by nazi stormtroopers, because his pathetic pacifist rules dictated sonme kind of moral high ground.
[I admit I did not now this ... but please tell me how it relates to LOLITA. I CLAIM COMPLETE IGNORANCE!)
This is the actor who would go on to play several nazis throughout his career. Years after Kubrick's film he appeared in another lolitaesque film "Age of consent", again about the moral depravity of an elderly man. This pattern can only serve to show that there is a sub-consciouess element within the arts that purports to freedom but really is indicative of moral bankruptcy.
[Would you agree that this problem has grown to enormous proportions over the years since LOLITA was written and filmed? I agree with SIDNEY SHELDON who said many years ago that the "ARTS" or entertainment industry is fueled by "POWER, SEX, MONEY" That had to be in the late 60s or 70s. To say that a sub-consciouness ... of moral bankruptcy is woven into books and films arbitrarily or for demonic reasons is just going a little too far for me. I deplore so much of what is called and sold as 'art' that I no longer am as free with my energy to even watch or read trex. But I would never want the freedom of speech impinged upon for these people to do what they want.]
QUOTE Claiming Nabokov is a brilliant writer is like saying Hitler knew how to run a concentration camp. The art does not justify the content. Kubrick himself, no stranger to controversy, would lift his adaption of Clockwork orange, for reasons he kept to himself, no doubt the wolf barking at his door was oddly uncomfortable.
[I don't understand this I am not familiar with the material]
QUOTE Viewing Lolita as an insightful study of a mans love for a girl is the limit in this arguement.
[I believe I posted that at the end Humbert does fall in love with Lolita ... as a father would fall in love with his child. He understands the damage he's done to her and to himself and realizes he cannot make it right. His soul is soiled and we see a broken man and a girl who never had a chance. I dont understand what you mean by 'the limit in this argument' ... arent we just sharing ideas? Yours are so deeply heartfelt, sincerely stated, and very thought provoking. I think most people 'get' that HUMBERT is the villian of the piece but are distracted by a visceral reaction to LOLITA and her antics ... what seems to shadow the story is: would any average man take advantage of her and yet not be a pedophile?]
You see, Sodom and Gomorrah, I see you're back in town.
[Did they ever leave?]
I hope we can further discuss this. What do the rest of you think?
|
|
Tiny D
- Saturday, May 24 2008
|
TO BG. Any society must flourish within a set boundary of rules. Since the end of the Second World War there has been a gradual erosion of the "common sense". This slow but unfortunately inevitable decline in our duty to eachother is a process whereby the destruction of man's process to self realisation is stifled by the continuous calls for liberalisation. This freedom of expression and so-called human rights springs out of the creation of tyrannical monster institutes like the United Nations, which preach a distortion in the nature of man and his relation to the world. Saying Mason was just doing a job, by acting, does not cut it. His influence on the screen by portraying the character of Humbert is another indication of his desire to create a world that does not exist. In bleating on about pacifism and peace the very people he purports to speak for are the ultimate victims in his politics. The increase in moral degenerancy is acute in the west, and now the west desires that the rest of the "unenlightened" world must have democracy as the idea political system. This infringement of belief systems will only have negative effects, with the other countries adopting democracy and falling into the morass of western culture. I speak from a personal opinion, but I only have to look out of my window to see the perverts and filth creeping all over the neighbourhood, all the while I'm protected by our precious governments.
The understanding to this arguement is in the character of Nabokov. He lived a loooong time in America which was his adopted country, but upon completion of his book, he becomes a Russian writer. This is the west subverting their own degenerancy and placing it on the "other". Now, sexual perversion is part and parcel of human nature, and is worldwide, but until recently we all knew what was right and what was wrong. My contention is that with books like this the truth is fogged and people's own moral safeguards are compromised and doubted, leading to backwardness. Fifty years ago if a man came out as a homosexual, his parents would disown him, now they love their son no matter what, is this without consequences to the greater society, when the fundamental bricks that hold the human race together are destabilised?
|