"and yet, the representations of the sexy little girl abound"
September 17, 2015 6:15 AM Subscribe
the "lolita" covers. Tubmlr user gowns (reposted by Hark! A Vagrant's Kate Beaton) examines the subject matter, history, and implications of official book covers for Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 Lolita. (some NSFW book images)
(linked to the Beaton repost because the original post doesn't seem to function anymore.)
Judging Lolita by Her Cover
Lolita cover redesigned
Lolita's Wikipedia page
(linked to the Beaton repost because the original post doesn't seem to function anymore.)
here’s a question: if vladimir nabokov’s “lolita” is truly the psychological portrait of a messed up dude and not the girl – let alone a sexualized little girl, as all of the sexualization happens inside humbert humbert’s head – then why do all the covers focus on a girl, and usually a sexy aspect of a girl, usually quite young, and none of them feature a portrait of humbert humbert?The post references Kubrick's 1962 movie (and the poster image, featured on that Wiki page), which aged the titular character up a bit and surely influenced the book covers that followed. Also referenced is 2013 book on the subject and a New Yorker interview of the author of said book:
...
a patriarchal society is essentially operating with the same delusions of humbert humbert. nabokov did not produce the sexy girl covers of lolita, and kubrick had only the smallest hand in it. it was what people desired, requested and bought. the image of the sexy girl sells; intrigues; gets the hands on the books.
But Nabokov eventually saw in the “Lolita” controversy that his novel had a life of its own, especially after he sold the film rights ... I suppose you could say that he ended up being rather willing to give “Lolita” over to popular culture.As referenced in the post, Nabokov's original instructions for his desired Lolita cover, fascinating even aside from how they're discussed here:
I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls. … Who would be capable of creating a romantic, delicately drawn, non-Freudian and non-juvenile, picture for LOLITA (a dissolving remoteness, a soft American landscape, a nostalgic highway—that sort of thing)? There is one subject which I am emphatically opposed to: any kind of representation of a little girl.Previously on MeFi:
Judging Lolita by Her Cover
Lolita cover redesigned
Lolita's Wikipedia page
There is the book. Then there is the cover. Then there is the film. Judge each separate from the others since references to the author should be to the writing and not to packaging, promoting, filming.
posted by Postroad at 6:36 AM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 6:36 AM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Dieter Zimmer’s online exhibit "Covering Lolita." (Linked in this post, but not in the "gowns" essay, under the first 'previously.')
I wonder how much of this sexualizing of the character is an attempt to make the book's content more acceptable, more palatable and less potentially horrifying to readers. Remember, in the Kubrick film, Lolita was 14 or 15 to meet MPAA standards. (Matching the actress' age: when she started the film she was 14. When it was done, she had aged a year.) But in the book, she was only 12.
posted by zarq at 6:41 AM on September 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
"Let’s see now – lots of knickers, lollypops, pigtails and shoulder length hair cascading down bare backs, a delicate flower, a delicate butterfly, a couple of dirty old men, some heart-shaped glasses, plenty of lipstick, several pairs of bobby socks, lots of tits and ass, a keyhole (what on earth?), Jeremy Irons and a weird German one where a man in straw boater has a picture of a girl on his back."And quite a few that are text only as well: the only ones that remain true to Nabakov's original vision.
I wonder how much of this sexualizing of the character is an attempt to make the book's content more acceptable, more palatable and less potentially horrifying to readers. Remember, in the Kubrick film, Lolita was 14 or 15 to meet MPAA standards. (Matching the actress' age: when she started the film she was 14. When it was done, she had aged a year.) But in the book, she was only 12.
posted by zarq at 6:41 AM on September 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
The publishers text on a copy I found at my local library described Lolita as "a classic love story".
Yes, really.
posted by sotonohito at 6:44 AM on September 17, 2015 [23 favorites]
Yes, really.
posted by sotonohito at 6:44 AM on September 17, 2015 [23 favorites]
There is the book. Then there is the cover. Then there is the film. Judge each separate from the others since references to the author should be to the writing and not to packaging, promoting, filming.
Follow the Zimmer link and look over the gallery. The Kubrick film came out in '62. Many editions of Lolita published after the Kubrick film seem to have taken their marketing cues from it. With only a couple of exceptions, the first books did not feature children or women on their covers who were in any way sexualized. Once the film came out however, many of them were.
posted by zarq at 6:47 AM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Follow the Zimmer link and look over the gallery. The Kubrick film came out in '62. Many editions of Lolita published after the Kubrick film seem to have taken their marketing cues from it. With only a couple of exceptions, the first books did not feature children or women on their covers who were in any way sexualized. Once the film came out however, many of them were.
posted by zarq at 6:47 AM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
The publishers text on a copy I found at my local library described Lolita as "a classic love story".
Yes, really.
This is one of those comments where, if I click [+] favorite, what exactly am I conveying with that?
posted by leotrotsky at 6:59 AM on September 17, 2015 [22 favorites]
Yes, really.
This is one of those comments where, if I click [+] favorite, what exactly am I conveying with that?
posted by leotrotsky at 6:59 AM on September 17, 2015 [22 favorites]
heh, leotrotsky, that was my thought exactly. I'm favoriting your reportage, sotonohito. Staggering.
posted by taz at 7:11 AM on September 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by taz at 7:11 AM on September 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
The idea that Lolita is merely a meditation on male sexuality - that "Humbert is every man who is driven by desire" - misses the point of the book entirely. Humbert has more in common with Eichmann than Don Draper.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:13 AM on September 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:13 AM on September 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
Although I can't disagree with the main point here, I have to say that at least one cover (the first one pictured, the Penguin edition) had the decency (?!) to use a famous painting (by an artist whose name I can't remember).
posted by kozad at 7:15 AM on September 17, 2015
posted by kozad at 7:15 AM on September 17, 2015
Based on the post I was expecting awful, but the covers are even worse than I imagined. Like I need a shower bad.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:17 AM on September 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:17 AM on September 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Really interesting read. This is the copy of Lolita that I have -- it's a staggeringly boring, bad cover, but I'm kind of embarrassed that I'd seen covers before with a little girl on them but had never heard Nabokov's original instructions for the design.
posted by penduluum at 7:19 AM on September 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by penduluum at 7:19 AM on September 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I saw this post of Tumblr and one of the things that struck me was that a few of the images, especially in the first set, seem innocent until you label them Lolita. Which is, of course, what has been happening to young girls since before we had a name for it.
posted by maryr at 7:20 AM on September 17, 2015 [23 favorites]
posted by maryr at 7:20 AM on September 17, 2015 [23 favorites]
Balthus is a hell of a painter. Disturbing though.
posted by bonobothegreat at 7:21 AM on September 17, 2015
posted by bonobothegreat at 7:21 AM on September 17, 2015
My take on these covers is that you, the cover browser, the reader, are Humbert Humbert, gazing at a 12 year old girl, sexualizing her in your thoughts.
posted by SPUTNIK at 7:32 AM on September 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by SPUTNIK at 7:32 AM on September 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
>The French release of Mean Girls was called Lolita malgré moi
which, for the record, means "Lolita, despite myself." UGH.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:36 AM on September 17, 2015
which, for the record, means "Lolita, despite myself." UGH.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:36 AM on September 17, 2015
This is the copy I read when I was in high school (but not *for* high school). Via this Guardian article. Its spareness pretty much screamed, "ADULT BOOK COVER!"
Actually... that may *be* the copy I read in high school.
posted by steef at 7:43 AM on September 17, 2015
Actually... that may *be* the copy I read in high school.
posted by steef at 7:43 AM on September 17, 2015
the use of "Lolita" as a shorthand for sexy young bitchy temptress girl
Related: I have only just been able to see the word "Lolita" and not have some part of me think of the "Long Island Lolita" herself, Amy Fisher.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:48 AM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Related: I have only just been able to see the word "Lolita" and not have some part of me think of the "Long Island Lolita" herself, Amy Fisher.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:48 AM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
My favorite cover for the book is the Icelandic version, published last year. It's spare but also somehow full of dread.
posted by Kattullus at 7:58 AM on September 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 7:58 AM on September 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
The publishers text on a copy I found at my local library described Lolita as "a classic love story".
Yes, really.
Kind of in keeping with Nabokov's brilliant conceit of letting Humbert entirely hang himself.
posted by Trochanter at 8:18 AM on September 17, 2015
Yes, really.
Kind of in keeping with Nabokov's brilliant conceit of letting Humbert entirely hang himself.
posted by Trochanter at 8:18 AM on September 17, 2015
A ton of those early reviews are straight-up horrifying. From the New York Times in 1958: "Part of its theoretical comedy probably lies in the fact that the child, Lolita, turns out to be just as corrupt as Humbert—a notion that does not strike one as notably funny."
It really tells you something about how people used to view child abuse that so many people at the time were willing to just swallow Humbert's version of events hook, line and sinker.
posted by ostro at 8:37 AM on September 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
It really tells you something about how people used to view child abuse that so many people at the time were willing to just swallow Humbert's version of events hook, line and sinker.
posted by ostro at 8:37 AM on September 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
In ultra-tacky Brickell, Miami, there's a trendy, try-hard restaurant named "Dolores, but you can call me Lolita". Dolores is the name of the dining area, and Lolita is the name of the bar. Which is tangential, I guess, except that it seems to be another symptom of the same disease. I always thought less of anyone who told me the food was actually pretty good.
posted by WCWedin at 8:39 AM on September 17, 2015
posted by WCWedin at 8:39 AM on September 17, 2015
A few less male-gazey designs here
posted by babelfish at 8:41 AM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by babelfish at 8:41 AM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
ostro: It really tells you something about how people used to view child abuse that so many people at the time were willing to just swallow Humbert's version of events hook, line and sinker.
You are assuming that your interpretation (Humbert is an unreliable narrator, and Dolores Haze was nothing like his imagining of Lolita), and from that extrapolating large statements about public opinion.
Or, your view of the book might just be your view. Or, maybe many people view it that way, and yet still cared about child abuse in the past.
TL;DR: That's a pretty tenuous extrapolation you've made.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:19 AM on September 17, 2015
You are assuming that your interpretation (Humbert is an unreliable narrator, and Dolores Haze was nothing like his imagining of Lolita), and from that extrapolating large statements about public opinion.
Or, your view of the book might just be your view. Or, maybe many people view it that way, and yet still cared about child abuse in the past.
TL;DR: That's a pretty tenuous extrapolation you've made.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:19 AM on September 17, 2015
A few less male-gazey designs here
I love the Lo. lee. ta. one. I think it captures the essence of Humbert's obsession without advocating for it by way of the male gaze, in a way that becomes more meaningful the further you get into the book. It gave me a chill. A lot of the other submissions to that particular competition were a little heavy on dread for me, not leaving enough room for "letting Humbert entirely hang himself," as Trochanter put it.
I, finishing the novel at age 19 or 20, not yet a feminist, could only see it as a story about two men fighting over a young girl who didn't want to be won. Lolita seemed like a girl who didn't want anything, really; I was too naive to see that Humbert's narration portrayed her that way because he saw her as an object and not a person. I thought perhaps she was so desperate for love she would trust anyone, but that was a lie; the only true, meaningful things about her were the things Humbert was blind to. I wasn't equipped at the time to see past the cultural baggage attached to girlhood, how patriarchy collapses the distance between a girl's (real or imagined) sexuality and a man's assumed right to consume it. I didn't know the word "groomed" back then.
The magic of the book for me has been the way it's changed in my mind over the past decade or so; looming shadows of men in hats framed like a murder mystery cover might have taken that opportunity away from me. The point is to risk identifying with Humbert, because he is the narrator, because he has such a heady mix of pitty and sympathy for himself; to then eventually see society reflected back on yourself and realize that society is super fucked up, and so are you as a result; to integrate Humbert into yourself, and then jettison him later along with the part of yourself he attached to. Lolita was a formative book for me, and critical to that was its very slow burn.
I'm sure lots of people come to the book older – or otherwise more aware or fully-formed – and they probably have a very different experience than I did; there's a part of me that thinks that it isn't for them, that it's really for all the people that get it wrong. Exasperation at the broad failure to understand the meaning of the story is justified, but framing Humbert as a villain on the cover in dissonance with the surface of the text, while vindicating, is probably an over-correction; his villainous nature might be more potent if it's discovered later rather than spelled out at the beginning.
posted by WCWedin at 9:27 AM on September 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
I love the Lo. lee. ta. one. I think it captures the essence of Humbert's obsession without advocating for it by way of the male gaze, in a way that becomes more meaningful the further you get into the book. It gave me a chill. A lot of the other submissions to that particular competition were a little heavy on dread for me, not leaving enough room for "letting Humbert entirely hang himself," as Trochanter put it.
I, finishing the novel at age 19 or 20, not yet a feminist, could only see it as a story about two men fighting over a young girl who didn't want to be won. Lolita seemed like a girl who didn't want anything, really; I was too naive to see that Humbert's narration portrayed her that way because he saw her as an object and not a person. I thought perhaps she was so desperate for love she would trust anyone, but that was a lie; the only true, meaningful things about her were the things Humbert was blind to. I wasn't equipped at the time to see past the cultural baggage attached to girlhood, how patriarchy collapses the distance between a girl's (real or imagined) sexuality and a man's assumed right to consume it. I didn't know the word "groomed" back then.
The magic of the book for me has been the way it's changed in my mind over the past decade or so; looming shadows of men in hats framed like a murder mystery cover might have taken that opportunity away from me. The point is to risk identifying with Humbert, because he is the narrator, because he has such a heady mix of pitty and sympathy for himself; to then eventually see society reflected back on yourself and realize that society is super fucked up, and so are you as a result; to integrate Humbert into yourself, and then jettison him later along with the part of yourself he attached to. Lolita was a formative book for me, and critical to that was its very slow burn.
I'm sure lots of people come to the book older – or otherwise more aware or fully-formed – and they probably have a very different experience than I did; there's a part of me that thinks that it isn't for them, that it's really for all the people that get it wrong. Exasperation at the broad failure to understand the meaning of the story is justified, but framing Humbert as a villain on the cover in dissonance with the surface of the text, while vindicating, is probably an over-correction; his villainous nature might be more potent if it's discovered later rather than spelled out at the beginning.
posted by WCWedin at 9:27 AM on September 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
In Chile, the Kubrick movie was a big hit, and lead to the adoption of "Lolita" as slang for female teenager, along with the back-formation "Lola", for which "Lolita" would be a diminutive, and the male "Lolo". This usage is dated nowadays, though still used.
I don't think it was ever ironic.
posted by signal at 9:54 AM on September 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think it was ever ironic.
posted by signal at 9:54 AM on September 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
That famous Lolita and The Shining are the examples I hold up of Kubrick at his worst.
Yes, I know. Received wisdom has Kubrick doing no artistic wrong, but both of these are ham-fisted interpretations of source that resulted in idiosyncratic, but awful, results.
Kubrick was at his best with simpler stories, such as Barry Lyndon.
I will never forgive him for The Shining, though. What a disaster.
posted by clvrmnky at 10:21 AM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yes, I know. Received wisdom has Kubrick doing no artistic wrong, but both of these are ham-fisted interpretations of source that resulted in idiosyncratic, but awful, results.
Kubrick was at his best with simpler stories, such as Barry Lyndon.
I will never forgive him for The Shining, though. What a disaster.
posted by clvrmnky at 10:21 AM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
With all due respect, clvrmnky, you're wrong about The Shining.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:29 AM on September 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 10:29 AM on September 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
I have to say that at least one cover (the first one pictured, the Penguin edition) had the decency (?!) to use a famous painting (by an artist whose name I can't remember).
I noticed that too, but on closer inspection realized it's actually not that famous painting (Edward Hopper?) but is obviously a copy, cruder and more sinister.
posted by Flashman at 10:45 AM on September 17, 2015
I noticed that too, but on closer inspection realized it's actually not that famous painting (Edward Hopper?) but is obviously a copy, cruder and more sinister.
posted by Flashman at 10:45 AM on September 17, 2015
apropos of absolutely nothing, I've long thought that "Dolores Haze" would be a good name for either 1) a strain of weed or 2) a dispensary in the Mission District.
okay I'll see myself out now
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:46 AM on September 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
okay I'll see myself out now
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:46 AM on September 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Against Lolita
It is a fact universally acknowledged that Vladimir Nabokov is a genius. His stylistic brilliance, the intricacy of his post-modern narratives, his glittering mastery of two great languages, the brooding depth of his intellect and his prolific output all elevate him above most other contemporary writers. So, if he’s a genius, what is his masterpiece?posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:26 AM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Probably not Lolita.
sotonohito: The publishers text on a copy I found at my local library described Lolita as "a classic love story".
I have this copy. The image itself isn't great, although at least it doesn't feel like the cover of a sexy-times book. But that Vanity Fair quote. Jesus.
Like penduluum, I also have that annotated version which is, while not morally offensive, certainly aesthetically offensive.
posted by brundlefly at 11:26 AM on September 17, 2015
I have this copy. The image itself isn't great, although at least it doesn't feel like the cover of a sexy-times book. But that Vanity Fair quote. Jesus.
Like penduluum, I also have that annotated version which is, while not morally offensive, certainly aesthetically offensive.
posted by brundlefly at 11:26 AM on September 17, 2015
That's an interesting essay, twists and turns, but it gets a detail wrong: The Bolsheviks didn't assassinate Nabokov's father. His killer belonged to the emigre far right.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:38 AM on September 17, 2015
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:38 AM on September 17, 2015
And if not Pale Fire, then The Gift.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:03 PM on September 17, 2015
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:03 PM on September 17, 2015
The "only convincing love story of our century" quote is pretty infamous but it always seemed laden with cynicism and irony to me. A lot of early reviewers did get Lolita very wrong though so this one could have been more straightforward than I think. It's more than a bit misleading on a book jacket regardless.
posted by atoxyl at 12:34 PM on September 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 12:34 PM on September 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
So, if he’s a genius, what is his masterpiece?
100% it is Pale Fire.
posted by witchen at 3:01 PM on September 17 [+] [!]
And if not Pale Fire, then The Gift.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:03 PM on September 17 [+] [!]
I disagree. I would choose Ada or Ardor: A Family Chronicle.
I love this thread, well anything related to Nabokov. Don't want to brag to much but I cannot resist as this post touches on a subject dear to my heart. I've maintained a blog devoted to reading Nabokov's works the past three years. A good friend of mine and I both maintain it togethr. We live on different sides of the country and its our way to connect with one another as we read our way through his fiction and non-fiction works. We became friends because we both failed in prior attempts at reading Ada and we decided two heads are better than one. What started out as a singular summer project blog devoted to Ada or Ardor turned into a much larger project to read all his works. We've since read seven of his works. And we've also had some small correspondence with esteemed author and literary critic Brian Boyd via e-mail.
posted by Fizz at 12:41 PM on September 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
100% it is Pale Fire.
posted by witchen at 3:01 PM on September 17 [+] [!]
And if not Pale Fire, then The Gift.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:03 PM on September 17 [+] [!]
I disagree. I would choose Ada or Ardor: A Family Chronicle.
I love this thread, well anything related to Nabokov. Don't want to brag to much but I cannot resist as this post touches on a subject dear to my heart. I've maintained a blog devoted to reading Nabokov's works the past three years. A good friend of mine and I both maintain it togethr. We live on different sides of the country and its our way to connect with one another as we read our way through his fiction and non-fiction works. We became friends because we both failed in prior attempts at reading Ada and we decided two heads are better than one. What started out as a singular summer project blog devoted to Ada or Ardor turned into a much larger project to read all his works. We've since read seven of his works. And we've also had some small correspondence with esteemed author and literary critic Brian Boyd via e-mail.
posted by Fizz at 12:41 PM on September 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
> Against Lolita
Wow, I've read some stupid things written about Nabokov, but that was one of the stupidest—I didn't bother finishing it after I got to this spectacularly idiotic bit:
That said, I agree that his masterpiece is not Lolita; I would nominate Dar [The Gift].
posted by languagehat at 12:57 PM on September 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Wow, I've read some stupid things written about Nabokov, but that was one of the stupidest—I didn't bother finishing it after I got to this spectacularly idiotic bit:
Nabokov never forgave the Bolsheviks for assassinating his liberal, aristocratic father, or for betraying his family, for seizing his estates and property. Why should he? It was the trusted family footman who was guilty of the most intimate betrayal, telling the soldiers about the secret hiding place in his mother’s bedroom, where her jewels were kept.Not only were the killers, as Rustic Etruscan says, not Bolsheviks but extreme rightists, they weren't even trying to kill V.D. Nabokov, they were trying to kill his friend, the centrist Pavel Milyukov, whom they blamed (in the paranoid, fact-free way of extreme rightists everywhere) for the fall of the tsar. And anyone who claims Nabokov mourned "his estates and property" and hated the Bolsheviks for depriving him of them is a fool or a liar. I feel soiled even having read as far as I did.
That said, I agree that his masterpiece is not Lolita; I would nominate Dar [The Gift].
posted by languagehat at 12:57 PM on September 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
So, if he’s a genius, what is his masterpiece?
100% it is Pale Fire.
Pnin is a small beautiful gem. A wonder.
posted by Trochanter at 1:09 PM on September 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Pnin is a small beautiful gem. A wonder.
And also hilarious. One of the most satiric campus novels I've ever had the privilege to read.
posted by Fizz at 1:13 PM on September 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
And also hilarious. One of the most satiric campus novels I've ever had the privilege to read.
posted by Fizz at 1:13 PM on September 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
You are assuming that your interpretation (Humbert is an unreliable narrator, and Dolores Haze was nothing like his imagining of Lolita), and from that extrapolating large statements about public opinion.
Or, your view of the book might just be your view. Or, maybe many people view it that way, and yet still cared about child abuse in the past.
TL;DR: That's a pretty tenuous extrapolation you've made.
Eh, I'm pretty comfortable making the extrapolation that someone who sees the child in such a situation as "just as corrupt" as the adult probably wouldn't see abuse in many situations where we see it today. Another critic at the time (Robertson Davies!) wrote that Lolita was about "not the corruption of an innocent child by a cunning adult, but the exploitation of a weak adult by a corrupt child. This is no pretty theme, but it is one with which social workers, magistrates and psychiatrists are familiar." In order to write something like that, you have to presuppose the plausible existence of such creatures as children who are so "corrupt" that sex with them doesn't count as rape. I don't believe in that any more than I believe in unicorns, and I would say most people now probably don't, which is why you couldn't write a review like that now without public outcry.
Of course, you also have to accept not only that Humbert is reliable, but that he is more reliable at the beginning of his relationship with Lolita, when he describes their relationship in terms very similar to these, and less reliable later in the book, when he begins to suffer pangs of guilt. Even Humbert, at the end of the book, eventually comes around to admitting that what he did was rape; these critics were making more excuses for him that he did for himself. What a position to put yourself in.
posted by ostro at 1:51 PM on September 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Or, your view of the book might just be your view. Or, maybe many people view it that way, and yet still cared about child abuse in the past.
TL;DR: That's a pretty tenuous extrapolation you've made.
Eh, I'm pretty comfortable making the extrapolation that someone who sees the child in such a situation as "just as corrupt" as the adult probably wouldn't see abuse in many situations where we see it today. Another critic at the time (Robertson Davies!) wrote that Lolita was about "not the corruption of an innocent child by a cunning adult, but the exploitation of a weak adult by a corrupt child. This is no pretty theme, but it is one with which social workers, magistrates and psychiatrists are familiar." In order to write something like that, you have to presuppose the plausible existence of such creatures as children who are so "corrupt" that sex with them doesn't count as rape. I don't believe in that any more than I believe in unicorns, and I would say most people now probably don't, which is why you couldn't write a review like that now without public outcry.
Of course, you also have to accept not only that Humbert is reliable, but that he is more reliable at the beginning of his relationship with Lolita, when he describes their relationship in terms very similar to these, and less reliable later in the book, when he begins to suffer pangs of guilt. Even Humbert, at the end of the book, eventually comes around to admitting that what he did was rape; these critics were making more excuses for him that he did for himself. What a position to put yourself in.
posted by ostro at 1:51 PM on September 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
also come on everybody wanted to kill Mikyukov. dude was a total asshole.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:29 PM on September 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:29 PM on September 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I just cannot even. I expected that some of the covers are going to be horrifying, but how the fuck do you get off putting a naked child on the cover of Lolita?
posted by corb at 2:32 PM on September 17, 2015
posted by corb at 2:32 PM on September 17, 2015
"Pale Fire", but "Pnin" is lovely. Nabokov's pseudonym in France was my last name. I like to think it was because Pushkin hated my great great grandfather.
I'm not a fan of "Ada". It was cruel.
I've experienced younger friends discovering "Lolita" and being amazed at it. It's wonderful how it still packs a punch.
posted by acrasis at 3:15 PM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm not a fan of "Ada". It was cruel.
I've experienced younger friends discovering "Lolita" and being amazed at it. It's wonderful how it still packs a punch.
posted by acrasis at 3:15 PM on September 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm not a fan of "Ada". It was cruel.
Time-travelling siblings who commit incest in an alternate Russian-American landscape could be nothing but cruel. It's very appropriate.
I've experienced younger friends discovering "Lolita" and being amazed at it. It's wonderful how it still packs a punch.
I've read Lolita twice. The first time was just after I finished high school and I was blown away by the language that Nabokov utilizes to tell his story. The second time, I noticed so much more about the characters. For example, in my first read, I somehow missed how gross and grubby Lolita is described. Was too focused on the story and missed out on all the smaller details. It's a powerful novel.
posted by Fizz at 3:27 PM on September 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Time-travelling siblings who commit incest in an alternate Russian-American landscape could be nothing but cruel. It's very appropriate.
I've experienced younger friends discovering "Lolita" and being amazed at it. It's wonderful how it still packs a punch.
I've read Lolita twice. The first time was just after I finished high school and I was blown away by the language that Nabokov utilizes to tell his story. The second time, I noticed so much more about the characters. For example, in my first read, I somehow missed how gross and grubby Lolita is described. Was too focused on the story and missed out on all the smaller details. It's a powerful novel.
posted by Fizz at 3:27 PM on September 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
I have trouble getting through Lolita because the book upsets me so much. I've started and abandoned it a dozen times, only getting all the way to the end by separate, disjointed readings. Now, I've read all kinds of disturbing material before, and I'm well aware of what Nabokov's narrative project is, but I think what gets to me is all the cumulative misreading of the novel that ostro describes. You can only read so many reviews implying or outright stating that Dolores deserves the abuse directed at her and see so many covers of seductive teen girls and hear it called a "love story" so many times before the atmosphere damages your ability to understand the book. There's definitely something to the author of the tumblr post's statement that "a patriarchal society is essentially operating with the same delusions of humbert humbert." What does it mean about the madman at the center of the novel, what does it mean for collective narratives of child abuse and rape, when the "gaze" in the broadest sense looks so much like Humbert's gaze?
posted by thetortoise at 3:55 PM on September 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 3:55 PM on September 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
"For example, in my first read, I somehow missed how gross and grubby Lolita is described."
I understood this as a way of Humbert making an animal of her - there's a lot of comparing her to a little monkey, if I recall correctly. As if she were a pet with no mind of her own. But in a way the dirt and smells and other grubby things always drove home to me that she was a child, grotty in the way that kids generally are. Little details that show Humbert always knew she was a child and just ignored it, from the beginning.
I have a Kubrick inspired cover on my edition. I fucken hate it. Teenage girl, lollipop, heart glasses. Really lacking in reflection.
posted by Jilder at 6:17 PM on September 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I understood this as a way of Humbert making an animal of her - there's a lot of comparing her to a little monkey, if I recall correctly. As if she were a pet with no mind of her own. But in a way the dirt and smells and other grubby things always drove home to me that she was a child, grotty in the way that kids generally are. Little details that show Humbert always knew she was a child and just ignored it, from the beginning.
I have a Kubrick inspired cover on my edition. I fucken hate it. Teenage girl, lollipop, heart glasses. Really lacking in reflection.
posted by Jilder at 6:17 PM on September 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
...a way of Humbert making an animal of her - there's a lot of comparing her to a little monkey, if I recall correctly. As if she were a pet with no mind of her own. But in a way the dirt and smells and other grubby things always drove home to me that she was a child, grotty in the way that kids generally are. Little details that show Humbert always knew she was a child and just ignored it, from the beginning.Jilder, My friend who lives in Calgary (who I maintain our blog with) have had many conversations about this subject. How gross Lolita is and how at odds it is with the marketing and larger cultural perception. It hurts the brain sometimes. But not everyone notices or perceives these things. I know it took me a second read to pay attention to the smaller details. Though, I was still perceptive enough to know that this relationship is not being idealized. Nabokov makes it quite obvious that this is not something that is good or romantic. It's gross.
posted by Fizz at 7:59 PM on September 17, 2015
Eh, I'm pretty comfortable making the extrapolation that someone who sees the child in such a situation as "just as corrupt" as the adult probably wouldn't see abuse in many situations where we see it today.
That's quite a bit different from your original assumption. You went from "...how people used to view child abuse..." to quoting two single critics. Critics don't express the mass opinion at all, and even if they sometimes do (almost by accident), two people still are not representative of all most people.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:48 PM on September 17, 2015
That's quite a bit different from your original assumption. You went from "...how people used to view child abuse..." to quoting two single critics. Critics don't express the mass opinion at all, and even if they sometimes do (almost by accident), two people still are not representative of all most people.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:48 PM on September 17, 2015
Well, sure, nobody was taking polls. But the book made a big splash and was widely reviewed in popular magazines and newspapers, and many, many of those reviews took that perspective. (The Atlantic Monthly said that Lolita "turns out to be utterly depraved and plays the role of a seducer." Vanity Fair, according to a cover blurb on one edition I've seen, called it "the only convincing love story of our generation." Google if you want, there are plenty more.) It was clearly a widespread critical opinion, as produced in middlebrow publications that tried to suit their criticism to their readers. No howls of outrage issued from the public. Whereas we do have plenty of recorded howls of outrage showing what did bother people about Lolita at the time: the sexual content. The fact that it was supposedly pornography was a huge deal. The fact that the supposed pornography was what we'd now consider nonconsensual . . . wasn't.
posted by ostro at 10:49 PM on September 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by ostro at 10:49 PM on September 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
I've been reading Ada for the first time, and I must admit that it makes me look at Lolita a bit differently, because it's a bit disconcerting to me that Ada also has the sexualization of a 12 year-old girl as a central part of the book.
posted by colfax at 12:37 AM on September 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by colfax at 12:37 AM on September 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
the use of "Lolita" as a shorthand for sexy young bitchy temptress girl
Interestingly, my main associations with Lolita are the Japanese fashion style - which is explicitly non-sexual. I've been struck by how many people look at the buckets of frills, lace, and as little skin showing as possible and manage to still sexualize it - and people do! It really is a lens into how women are rendered into an object by the gaze, assumptions, and descriptions of others.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:20 AM on September 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Interestingly, my main associations with Lolita are the Japanese fashion style - which is explicitly non-sexual. I've been struck by how many people look at the buckets of frills, lace, and as little skin showing as possible and manage to still sexualize it - and people do! It really is a lens into how women are rendered into an object by the gaze, assumptions, and descriptions of others.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:20 AM on September 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Well, but if we are honest (and if we are fixated on our idyllic childhoods that were somewhat violently taken away and lost forever), sexuality begins to emerge at around that age for most of us.
Personally, I was sexualized before I experienced sexual desire. I had an offer of cunnilingus yelled at me by two strangers in a jeep when I walked home from Junior High - I was 11. I knew I felt shame, and disgust. It took me years to connect the street harassment I received to sex, and how I react to men in public is profoundly shaped by the fact that I was treated this way from 11 until I got a car; I haven't been street harassed for years, but I reflexively freeze out any man who approaches me in public.
This has nothing to do with an "idyllic childhood" (I had, after all, been suicidal for at least a year before the harassment began) and everything to do with experiencing my body first as something to be commented upon by strange men and only later as something which could be a source of pleasure.
posted by Deoridhe at 11:04 AM on September 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Personally, I was sexualized before I experienced sexual desire. I had an offer of cunnilingus yelled at me by two strangers in a jeep when I walked home from Junior High - I was 11. I knew I felt shame, and disgust. It took me years to connect the street harassment I received to sex, and how I react to men in public is profoundly shaped by the fact that I was treated this way from 11 until I got a car; I haven't been street harassed for years, but I reflexively freeze out any man who approaches me in public.
This has nothing to do with an "idyllic childhood" (I had, after all, been suicidal for at least a year before the harassment began) and everything to do with experiencing my body first as something to be commented upon by strange men and only later as something which could be a source of pleasure.
posted by Deoridhe at 11:04 AM on September 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
« Older The game they play in heaven | How GOG.com Save And Restore Classic Videogames Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by oheso at 6:29 AM on September 17, 2015 [9 favorites]