Awe and exhiliration--along with heartbreak and mordant wit--abound in Lolita, Nabokov's most famous and controversial novel, which tells the story of the aging Humbert Humbert's obsessive, devouring, and doomed passion for the nymphet Dolores Haze. Lolita is also the story of a hypercivilized European colliding with the cheerful barbarism of postwar America. Most of all, it is a meditation on love--love as outrage and hallucination, madness and transformation.
"The filthiest book I have ever read... sheer unrestrained pornography."
- John Gordon, Sunday Express editor
"There is no moral to the story."
- Nabokov
If you don't read this you're a pedophile who is afraid that reading it will make people suspicious.
- Mumei
Or try your local library. Stick with the Kindle edition if you're worried.
Let's read!
Guidelines:
-Discussion of anything and everything is encouraged (er... within reason). It's a book club, let's chat!
-Please use spoiler tags sensibly.
-The milestones are there to help keep you on the path. If you get ahead or behind, don't worry--it will have no impact on your final grade.
Reading Milestones:
July 1-7 - Book 1, Chapter 1-17
July 8-14 - Chapter 18-33
July 15-21 - Book 2, Chapter 1-18
July 22-28 - Chapter 19-36
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.
Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, a certain initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea. Oh when? About as many years before Lolita was born as my age was that summer. You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns.
Ah, the memories of seeing Lolita on the syllabus for a class, walking into the book store and finding the Penguin Modern Classics edition on the shelves, and trying to decide what to do.
Ah, the memories of seeing Lolita on the syllabus for a class, walking into the book store and finding the Penguin Modern Classics edition on the shelves, and trying to decide what to do.
There are gentle souls who would pronounce Lolita meaningless because it does not teach them anything. I am neither a reader nor a writer of didactic fiction...For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm.
I remember when I found this book in a thrift store when I was 13 and buying it because I remembered there was a movie that had been made about it. The book blew my mind.
So I always post this in Lolita threads and mention it conversations about the book. Read only if you've finished.
So a basic premise of the book is that the narrator is unreliable - he lies about things constantly. The book is also his memoir - a recollection of events - and not a narration as it's happening. These are uncontroversial things.
Consequently, I don't think he actually ever had sex with or even molested Lolita. I think it's all in his mind. I think he wanted to, but I don't think he ever carried out the act.
My hypothesis hinges on the fact that Lolita is almost entirely normal by the time she's an adult. She has a husband and a child. In the real world, people who are the victims of sexual abuse as children are usually profoundly disturbed people. In fact, I believe I once read that 90% of pedophiles were actually victims of sexual abuse as children themselves. But again, Lolita is normal. She does mention "not talking about the past" when he visits her as an adult. But that comment is so innocuous and the scene so calm it could be interpreted as something completely different. It's entirely plausible that she simply means the death of her mother or the fact that they travelled around for year, or that she eventually runs away. She also acts normal the entire time she's supposedly in this sexual relationship with the narrator.
Furthermore, she's starts out at 12. Twelve-year-olds might be sexually active in contemporary times, but I have a hard time believing that an educated twelve-year-old from a middle-class family in late 1940s would be precocious enough to voluntarily have sex with an adult man (the first sex scene comes across as almost consensual).
I've found that most people don't agree with my analysis. However, if you don't agree I implore you to explain why she's so normal and why she doesn't seem to have any psychological damage. You could argue suspension of disbelief. But I don't think that's good because the world is so realistic - it's not fantastic at all. It also cherry picks when the narrator is lying and when he's not. Another counter-argument could be that he's lying about her normalcy... I think that's a compelling argument. But my counter is that the narrator seems to lie about specifics not side details. So if he was lying he would be lying about the consensual nature of the relationship, but not in the way she acts outside of that. In fact, he seems annoyed with her (the scene with her friends at the university) towards the end of it. The fact that she's so normal (just a acting like a teenager) and he's annoyed by that seems to suggest that it's her normal behavior that is the truth and not the sexual relationship.
So anyway, Lolita is one of the best books I've ever read. It's also just a book so there's no "true" interpretation. I like mine because it fits in with both the real world (child victims of abuse are traumatized) and the rules Nabokov created for it (unreliable narrator). But it's ok to disagree. A good book will obviously have lots of interpretations!
I think there's one major point on which I have to depart with you:
(Warning, whole book spoilers. Don't click or highlight if you haven't read it yet!)
Lolita is not just a memoir; it was also an exercise in apologeticsm, an attempt at justification. When he makes reference to the "members of the jury" he's making it clear that this is his case. I think you have to keep that in mind when you consider what he is lying about, how he is lying about it, and paying attention to the ways that he tries to manipulate you. There are also ways in which he is unintentionally unreliable, in his delusions about her feelings towards him he misses her manipulations and betrayals. But on the subject of intentional manipulations: He's manipulative almost from the start - the physical manipulation of "Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta." is a brilliant way of immediately forcing you to identify with his perspective on some level. And I think this manipulation, this way of making the reader identify with H.H.'s subjective experiences is a large part of what makes Lolita so disturbing. There's something absolutely erotic about a passage like this:
“In a nervous and slender-leaved mimosa grove at the back of their villa we found a perch on the ruins of a low stone wall. She trembled and twitched as I kissed the corner of her parted lips and the hot lobe of her ear. A cluster of stars palely glowed above us between the silhouettes of long thin leaves; that vibrant sky seemed as naked as she was under her light frock. I saw her face in the sky, strangely distinct, as if it emitted a faint radiance of its own. Her legs, her lovely live legs, were not too close together, and when my hand located what it sought, a dreamy and eerie expression, half-pleasure, half-pain, came over those childish features. She sat a little higher than I, and whenever in her solitary ecstasy she was led to kiss me, her head would bend with a sleepy, soft, drooping movement that was almost woeful, and her bare knees caught and compressed my wrist, and slackened again; and her quivering mouth, distorted by the acridity of some mysterious potion, with a sibilant intake of breath came near to my face. She would try to relieve the pain of love by first roughly rubbing her dry lips against mine; then my darling would draw away with a nervous toss of her hair, and then again come darkly near and let me feed on her open mouth, while with a generosity that was ready to offer her everything, my heart, my throat, my entrails, I gave her to hold in her awkward fist the scepter of my passion.”
And in that haze (dohoho) of words, he makes it extraordinarily easy to lose sight of the fact that he's talking about a twelve year old. You can also see the manipulation in the ways that he largely silences her; you almost never hear something from her perspective, and her specific objections and the things she says when she resists aren't mentioned. They are deemed "unspeakable", while he feels free to justify and romanticize his kidnapping and serial raping of a child. I don't buy that the first scene was consensual. I think he gives the lie away most clearly in the last lines of Part 1: "At the hotel we had separate rooms, but in the middle of the night she came sobbing into mine, and we made it up very gently. You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go."
I agree with you that in spite of such a traumatic experience her reactions to H.H. seemed rather subdued, but I think there are problems with concluding that the rape never occurred. There is no particular way that victims of sexual assault "should" act immediately after the attack, let alone many years later. I have no way of knowing what her issues are, or whether her relatively flat affect is simply her way of dealing with the trauma. I have no way of knowing that his portrayal of their meeting is any more reliable than any of the other plainly self-interested stories he has given us up until that point.
And honestly I think it would sort of ruin the point of the novel for it all have been a lie, if the reader wasn't somehow complicit in identifying with something monstrous because of H.H.'s manipulations.
Anyone read The Enchanter? Supposed to an early draft to Lolita and I got it last friday (together with Ada or Ardor...It was Nabokov friday!), seeing as Lolita is one of my favorite books so I couldn't resist it.
So I always post this in Lolita threads and mention it conversations about the book. Read only if you've finished.
So a basic premise of the book is that the narrator is unreliable - he lies about things constantly. The book is also his memoir - a recollection of events - and not a narration as it's happening. These are uncontroversial things.
Consequently, I don't think he actually ever had sex with or even molested Lolita. I think it's all in his mind. I think he wanted to, but I don't think he ever carried out the act.
My hypothesis hinges on the fact that Lolita is almost entirely normal by the time she's an adult. She has a husband and a child. In the real world, people who are the victims of sexual abuse as children are usually profoundly disturbed people. In fact, I believe I once read that 90% of pedophiles were actually victims of sexual abuse as children themselves. But again, Lolita is normal. She does mention "not talking about the past" when he visits her as an adult. But that comment is so innocuous and the scene so calm it could be interpreted as something completely different. It's entirely plausible that she simply means the death of her mother or the fact that they travelled around for year, or that she eventually runs away. She also acts normal the entire time she's supposedly in this sexual relationship with the narrator.
Furthermore, she's starts out at 12. Twelve-year-olds might be sexually active in contemporary times, but I have a hard time believing that an educated twelve-year-old from a middle-class family in late 1940s would be precocious enough to voluntarily have sex with an adult man (the first sex scene comes across as almost consensual).
I've found that most people don't agree with my analysis. However, if you don't agree I implore you to explain why she's so normal and why she doesn't seem to have any psychological damage. You could argue suspension of disbelief. But I don't think that's good because the world is so realistic - it's not fantastic at all. It also cherry picks when the narrator is lying and when he's not. Another counter-argument could be that he's lying about her normalcy... I think that's a compelling argument. But my counter is that the narrator seems to lie about specifics not side details. So if he was lying he would be lying about the consensual nature of the relationship, but not in the way she acts outside of that. In fact, he seems annoyed with her (the scene with her friends at the university) towards the end of it. The fact that she's so normal (just a acting like a teenager) and he's annoyed by that seems to suggest that it's her normal behavior that is the truth and not the sexual relationship.
So anyway, Lolita is one of the best books I've ever read. It's also just a book so there's no "true" interpretation. I like mine because it fits in with both the real world (child victims of abuse are traumatized) and the rules Nabokov created for it (unreliable narrator). But it's ok to disagree. A good book will obviously have lots of interpretations!
I do remember you posting this in the last thread and I honestly never even considered
that he did not actually have sex with her. Obviously fully aware of him being quite an unreliable narrator as it's painfully clear (and I did get the impression reading that he had more to do with the Haze womans murder than he tells the reader, I certainly don't think it was consensual either but the thought of the whole sex part not actually happening just never crossed my mind. Watched some lecture on the book a weeks time after reading it the first time and realized how much had gone way over my head while reading it, another good reason for a re-read, would like to see if I could spot any of that with your theory in the back of my mind too.
My hypothesis hinges on the fact that Lolita is almost entirely normal by the time she's an adult. She has a husband and a child. In the real world, people who are the victims of sexual abuse as children are usually profoundly disturbed people. In fact, I believe I once read that 90% of pedophiles were actually victims of sexual abuse as children themselves. But again, Lolita is normal. She does mention "not talking about the past" when he visits her as an adult. But that comment is so innocuous and the scene so calm it could be interpreted as something completely different. It's entirely plausible that she simply means the death of her mother or the fact that they travelled around for year, or that she eventually runs away. She also acts normal the entire time she's supposedly in this sexual relationship with the narrator.
I think that's quite an unfair assessment that isn't true to the actual data we have. It is most certainly true that sexual relations between children and adults generally have negative long-term outcomes, definitely to a larger extent than positive outcomes. However, I think you by far exaggerate the harm by claiming it is impossible, or even uncommon, for someone abused as a child to grow up mostly normal. Whereas most studies done have flaws (most tend to focus on parental incest, not to mention the selection process is biased), I think we can draw some truth from them. After all, they're the best we have to go on. Do note, however, that the material I have is quite old! I'd be interested in seeing some newer material. The article I'm mostly using is The effects of early sexual experiences: A review and synthesis of research by Larry L. Constantine. This was published in 1981 so I'm very open to get some more recent stuff; perhaps this has all been throroughly countered in more contemporary research. I just haven't had much time to research this. Sorry.
The effects of early sexual experiences: A review and synthesis of research said:
Landis (1956), drawing on 500 college students who, prior to puberty, had sexual experiences with adults, reported that only 3 percent were permanently damaged and no harm, permanent or temporary, resulted for 81 percent of males and 66 percent of females. Gagnon (1965) found a similar statistical breakdown in 333 women from the Kinsey studies who had reported prepubertal sexual experiences with adults; only 5 percent (18) were severely impaired for any reason, and only three of those 18 attributed their problems to their early sexual experiences. Three-quarters of the total sample had no apparent adult maladjustments. Because the Gagnon sample includes a disproportionate number of college-educated subjects, like the Landis sample it is biased in the direction of including the more socially and psychologically adaptive cases
As the author already states, it is important to consider the bias in the sampling process. If the sample was more akin to the general populace it's safe to assume that the negative effects would be more present. Still, 66 percent of females were not reported to have experienced harm which is a majority, not a rare minority. This does not mean I in any way intend to overlook the harmful effects of child-adult relations. After all, conversely, 34 percent were reported to have experienced harm, which is quite a high number. Given the difficulty in determining said harm, plus the sampling bias, we can expect the true number to be even higher than that!
What is true for all of the research the article compiles is that there is a very wide array of responses to these relations. There is no particular expected way a child should respond. A child may experience great trauma, but even so grow up seemingly normal. Given the frequency of sexual abuse, you probably even know someone personally who was has been abused, either as a child or as an adult, but do not know of it yourself. These are tough conditions, but life does go on.
Additionally, Dolores does exhibit signs of psychological damage (though perhaps only temporary) during their travels. Humbert admits, in a brief moment, that she cries herself to sleep, every night. He only mentions it once, pretty much glancing over it. He says that she does so only after she thinks he's asleep, trying to conceal her emotions toward him. If she does not want to show him (or, presumably, anyone) her distress and psychologial torment, and he is unwilling to notice it (for that would be to acknowledge that he is hurting her), should she show such signs, I think it's fair to say that there can be much more to it than what initially appears.
Similarly, to state that the child could not initiate the sexual contact is false. Again, I refer to The effects of early sexual experiences: A review and synthesis of research:
The article addresses the question of whether children ever initiate or willingly participate in sexual relationships with adults. Stories of the children and adults involved conflict, especially in criminal cases. However, research and clinical reports leave little doubt that some children do initiate the contacts and many participate willingly. Nine studies in the review confirmed this, although initiative on the part of the child was rare in father-daughter incest
Furthermore, we are, again, dealing with an unreliable narrator here. Even though the first encounter may be perceived to be consensual on the surface, I wouldn't put it past H.H. to be much more manipulative and coercive without bothering to mention it in the book. In fact, some statements made in the book fit perfectly with our understanding of such sexual contacts.
As Mumei quoted:
At the hotel we had separate rooms, but in the middle of the night she came sobbing into mine, and we made it up very gently. You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go. [emphasis mine]
This may suggest that what Dolores seeked was not really sexual contact but affection and attention, a desire Humbert mistook and/or willingly abused for sex. This fits very well with what Constantine has to say on the subject:
Various researchers have shown that the adult and the child in such interactions have different interests. The child wants affection and attention, not necessarily sex. Even when the child is interested in sexual activity, his interest is different from the adults.
I must emphasize that I do not wish to underrepresent the negative consequences and lasting damages of child-adult relations. The effects of early sexual experiences: A review and synthesis of research gives a clear picture that the majority of research finds that both long and short-term results range from negative to neutral, with 29 of the 30 studies cited denoting negative outcomes and only 6 denoting any positive outcomes. Granted, most deal with incestuous relations and not those between a child and non-related adult but the consensus is still clear. Such relations are generally harmful.
However, that they are generally harmful does not mean that children who are abused can not or will not develop seemingly completely normally and be able to live normal lives. Similarly, it is undeniable that non-sexual physical child abuse is negative and harmful in the majority of cases, but the majority of children who were given corporate punishment still grow up to be perfectly normal individuals. For the record, I do not wish to compare corporate punishment to child sexual abuse; I am merely giving an example to show that an activity can be harmful and detestable without necessarily damaging the child beyond repair and that children, despite trauma, can overcome it and become well-functioning adults.
With these things in mind, as Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator, it is possible that the events never took place. One never knows. However, Dolores' normalcy is not significant evidence of such an explanation. For it to be such, it would have to be the case that the vast majority of children involved in abuse would not live seemingly normal lives and only a very small minority would do so. Then it would make sense that Dolores' normalcy would be unusual and indicative of untruth, if perhaps not alone sufficient evidence it may at least point in that direction. After all, Humbert may simply be writing her as more "normal" than she is. Let us not forget that Humbert mostly does not write of Dolores. He writes of Lolita, his idealistc impression of Dolores. As such, Lolita may be comprised largely out of wishful thinking (or, as you suggest, even fantasies). However, it is not the case that seemingly normal victims of abuse are such a rare occurance. In reality, they are quite common, maybe even a majority. Thus, I think your argument is flawed.
I acknowledge that a lot of my argument is based on old data, so if you have good data which contradicts mine, I'd be very interested in seeing it. However, let us also note that newer data would not change the views contemporary to Nabokov when he wrote the book. If we go by author-intent (which I don't necessarily think one should), I still think it's most likely that the sex is intended to be real. But I certainly can't claim to know Nabokov's intentions. I know of no interview in which he discusses the realness of the sexual acts.
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (Feb-Mar 2013)
The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (September 2012)
Catch-22, by Joseph Heller (January 2012)
Blood Meridian: Or the Evening Redness in the West, by Cormac McCarthy (Oct 2011)
The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexandre Dumas (Aug 2011)
I should hit up my local library and rent this one. I almost read through the book in May, but I decided reading it during my breaks at work (at a grocery store) was probably an ill idea. But now I am free from there, and I have a lot more time.
Though, I did really want to read World War Z before going back to my Buddha reading...
I won't be reading along with the book club since I've read Lolita before, but I will say in response to your argument that
Lolita's reactions to sexual abuse don't have to fit any sort of guidelines. While many people who have been sexually abused do have trauma from it, they also are capable of living "normal" lives and having families of their own. I think using that as evidence for your argument is a bit problematic.
I think I'll join.
I work in the library I just ordered this from, so I hope my coworkers don't judge me too harshly.
Lolita's been on my to-read list for some time.
Are you saying that since the majority of sexual abuse victims don't exhibit trauma symptoms that it nullifies my point?
If you read up on sexual violence in children the conclusion - that it's associated with considerable psychological trauma in general - is well established. Citation 1.
According to that paper, "Childhood sexual abuse has been correlated with higher levels of depression, guilt, shame, self-blame, eating disorders, somatic concerns, anxiety, dissociative patterns, repression, denial, sexual problems, and relationship problems".
This is all I'm really saying: (aka TL;DR from above in as basic of logic as I think I can make it
It is well established that victims of sexual abuse are more likely to have psychological trauma than those who are not. It is therefor reasonable to conclude that if Lolita was a victim of sexual violence then she should (but not necessarily would) exhibit behavioral patterns typical of this class.
From the sparse evidence in the book Lolita does not seem to exhibit psychological patterns that are any different from other females in her age group. This is curious especially since according to the narrator they had a long-term sexual relationship.
Furthermore, it is an indisputable premise that Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator. Consequently, we can never be sure when he is lying and when he is not.
Since Lolita does not seem to behave characteristic to individuals in her class, and since Humbert Humbert is a unreliable narrator is it reasonable conclude that he may not (but not necessarily did not) have sex with her.
It's as basic as that. I don't see how I'm being "unfair" especially since my logic is so simple. You might interpret the details and facts of the book differently, and come to a different conclusion, but that doesn't mean I'm being "unfair". My argument is based upon reasonability, and does not make an affirmative decision. It's one reasonable interpretation in the sea of other reasonable interpretations.
So to others making your way though the book:
I'd rather this not turn into a black-out thread. Consequently, from now on, I'll refrain from responding to responses that require spoiler markings until spoilers are lifted (? - after the date benchmarks will it be an open discussion? Maybe a mod could illuminate this?)
I won't be reading along with the book club since I've read Lolita before, but I will say in response to your argument that
Lolita's reactions to sexual abuse don't have to fit any sort of guidelines. While many people who have been sexually abused do have trauma from it, they also are capable of living "normal" lives and having families of their own. I think using that as evidence for your argument is a bit problematic.
Then what is your evidence that he does? Other than the fact that he says he does?
If it wasn't apparent in my original post then please read my revised statement.
It's a question of reasonableness. It's reasonable to conclude that she should exhibit trauma. It's reasonable to conclude that in light of an unreliable narrator and the observation that she does not show trauma that there may not have been sexual violence.
Well, it depends on what you mean by that. The subject matter disturbs you or isn't something you want to read about? It's not in the genre you usually read? You find the whole concept dull?
I'd say if it's the second, go ahead and read it anyway. That's the point of these threads, after all. If you think it might be boring, well, do you generally find literary fiction boring? Are you interested at all in beautiful prose? You might try it out and see. If it's the first, well, that's your prerogative.
genjiZERO said:
I'd rather this not turn into a black-out thread. Consequently, from now on, I'll refrain from responding to responses that require spoiler markings until spoilers are lifted (? - after the date benchmarks will it be an open discussion? Maybe a mod could illuminate this?)
Yes, that's generally how we've done it. We do still get stragglers from time to time, so it might be good to keep using spoiler tags for actual major spoilers like character deaths or plot twists.
Yes, that's generally how we've done it. We do still get stragglers from time to time, so it might be good to keep using spoiler tags for actual major spoilers like character deaths or plot twists.
It's as basic as that. I don't see how I'm being "unfair" especially since my logic is so simple. You might interpret the details and facts of the book differently, and come to a different conclusion, but that doesn't mean I'm being "unfair". My argument is based upon reasonability, and does not make an affirmative decision. It's one reasonable interpretation in the sea of other reasonable interpretations.
I suppose 'unfair' was the wrong word to use. English is not my native language so I occasionaly use words with connotations I'm not aware of (and sometimes wrong words altogether). My apologies if I offended you.
It's too late to start writing another lengthy reply now but I may return tomorrow. (If I can get through the material you linked. It's quite a tough read, not because of lacking English skills but because it is a tough subject to read about).
Great post, though this made me laugh just because of how much Nabokov is about authorial intent, at least in his own works*. It's really noticeable, and especially so in Lolita.
* I haven't read his literary criticism so I don't know how much he applies that standard to his thinking about other peoples' works.
I know Nabokov is definitely about authorial intent, which I assume is especially apparent in Pale Fire (haven't read it yet, the library doesn't have an English-language version of it so I'll have to buy a copy (poor wallet )). I don't necessarily think I agree with him on that, though. That's yet another big topic I don't have the time for...
I've read Lolita a long time ago. It was a conflicting read. I love the beauty of its language, but the characters were incredibly disturbing for me. I'll have to reread it, and this thread gave me a good reason to
It remains one of the books in my top list, though.
Not that it makes his achievements any less impressive, but it kind of was to some extend :
Nabokov's childhood, which he called "perfect", was remarkable in several ways. The family spoke Russian, English, and French in their household, and Nabokov was trilingual from an early age. In fact, much to his patriotic father's chagrin, Nabokov could read and write in English before he could in Russian.
Well, it depends on what you mean by that. The subject matter disturbs you or isn't something you want to read about? It's not in the genre you usually read? You find the whole concept dull?
I'd say if it's the second, go ahead and read it anyway. That's the point of these threads, after all. If you think it might be boring, well, do you generally find literary fiction boring? Are you interested at all in beautiful prose? You might try it out and see. If it's the first, well, that's your prerogative.
I suppose 'unfair' was the wrong word to use. English is not my native language so I occasionaly use words with connotations I'm not aware of (and sometimes wrong words altogether). My apologies if I offended you.
It's too late to start writing another lengthy reply now but I may return tomorrow. (If I can get through the material you linked. It's quite a tough read, not because of lacking English skills but because it is a tough subject to read about).
Ah OK, thanks for the clarification. I've noticed on here that sometimes people whose first language isn't English sometimes come across as more agressive than they mean to be. It's cool.
I hope you people are happy. I just placed a hold order on Lolita at my library. I'll get it in a few days when the copy arrives at my local library. Thank goodness for the mythical nature of said place, and for the county shipping books to each other.
Then what is your evidence that he does? Other than the fact that he says he does?
If it wasn't apparent in my original post then please read my revised statement.
It's a question of reasonableness. It's reasonable to conclude that she should exhibit trauma. It's reasonable to conclude that in light of an unreliable narrator and the observation that she does not show trauma that there may not have been sexual violence.
My argument is based upon reasonability, and does not make an affirmative decision. It's one reasonable interpretation in the sea of other reasonable interpretations.
The primary issue I have with the idea that the sexual relationship between the narrator and Lolita was all a fantasy, is that it contradicts the tone the narrator is setting throughout the novel. In a lot of ways, the novel is an attempt to have others understand his relationship with the child, and hopefully (in his mind) paint himself in a way that deserves the reader's empathy. His confessional of the sexual relationship threatens to drive a wedge in that motive. If the relationship did not happen, yet he lied about it happening, it means that his intentions become even more difficult, because in a lot of ways that taboo is probably the most difficult to overcome in the novel. Even murder seems tame by comparison, because of how his victim is painted.
However, if we both accept the idea that he is an unreliable narrator (which he definitely is), I would find that the more common interpretation should be that the sexual relationship did occur, however the unreliable narrator part comes in from where he essentially paints himself as the target of Lolita's sexual charms. By providing the view that Lolita was the one who initiated the relationship either overtly or subtly, he is seeking to become blameless. The truth is likely that he was much more manipulative than what he lets on.
With that said, I don't believe that the adult reaction later in life is a reasonable way to judge the behavior for two reasons. One, the idea of Lolita being well-adjusted and therefore not a possible victim of abuse tends to overlook one thing... In the 1950's, sexuality was still taboo in America. And sexual abuse, when it occurred was often times seen not only as taboo for the person who committed the crime but often times for the victim as well. It was best to "push it aside" and forget about it, then it was to dwell on its occurrence. Furthermore, in a lot of ways victims would often try to destigmatize their relationships with abusers by attempting to justify the abuse that occurs. This fits with Lolita's comments about not wanting to talk about the past. And secondly, the meeting that occurs is only really a fleeting glance at who Lolita has become. I do not feel we can judge all of her personality traits (as well as possible trauma) simply from the meeting and what she says and how the narrator is judging her life. Remember,this is a man who is still viewing his relationship with Lolita not as a relationship with a real person, but as sort of an idea that he lost. Hell, throughout the entire novel, Lolita is never really provided a true voice. She is really tied to a mystique that the narrator has created.
But this post has ended up becoming a lot more black then I intended this early in the reader's club. So I'll just leave my thoughts at that until it opens up later.
Sorry for the large black out here first time readers. It won't happen again.
fun fact: I received more pms from a short story I wrote, which is supposedly remotely similar to this (I don't think it is at all), than any other short story I wrote for the gaf challenges.
I don't see why people think Authors cannot distance themselves from their pieces of work.
,%20London.jpg)
