So, uh, what’s with the trolling and collecting of material from other threads, Chris? Are we going to share a tender moment?
Those comments you quote are about proclaiming this is good or that is bad without providing any context or support, and were directed at a very specific example. “Lolita is objectively good (or bad)” is a meaningless thing to write. It’s a bumper sticker; a t-shirt logo, and doesn’t provoke discussion, it ends it.
I’d hope you can see that the conversation in this thread is striving for something a little more nuanced. But these are the limitations of the internet: people often read what they expect to see and not the intention of the poster. This is especially true when trying to unpack political ideology; people get defensive, people read comments through their own biases and through their own lens.
I’ll see it when I believe it.
I’ve tried to be very clear about my problems with Lolita; rather than just stating it is objectively bad. Let me try again with less room for misunderstanding: I think Lolita does harm in the world. I think Lolita contributes to a culture where women are seen as the sex class; a culture where images of little girls are sexualized; a culture that teaches women what they should be selling if they want to get male attention. I think Lolita has the same cultural currency and affect as Hustler.
Of course, you are free to disagree. I still contend that no one has the correct response to the work; not me, not you. I just ask that people try and frame it within a larger context, outside of an English Lit classroom.
First off, I think Lolita has never been widely-read enough to have such a big influence on our modern culture. But, even if it had, that’s a pretty willful misreading of the book; even in the least sophisticated reading, Humbert realizes he’s done wrong by the end of the book, even leaving aside things like the intro which tell you that he often lies.
Of course, you are free to disagree. I still contend that no one has the correct response to the work; not me, not you. I just ask that people try and frame it within a larger context, outside of an English Lit classroom.
I didn’t read the book in a classroom, haven’t taken an English lit class since high school, FWIW.
But this is really the logic of people who want to ban Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird, and so on. It’s pretty easy to explain why just about any book is bad for society. I’m sure the Chinese officials who banned Alice in Wonderland thought it was bad for society. For that matter, my cousin’s husband (a bit of a loony) thinks that fiction in general is bad for society; people should spend their time learning true things, not false things.
Maybe a lot of pervs read Lolita (though I’d imagine there are easier ways to get your kicks), maybe a lot of racists read Huckleberry Finn, maybe a lot of maladjusted crazies read Alice in Wonderland; I still think that it doesn’t follow that anyone who likes those books is a pervert, a racist, and a maladjusted crazy.
Neither do I. When did I write anything about Huck Finn or Alice? I don’t think liking Huck Finn makes you a racist or liking Alice makes you a pervert. And I very specifically wrote that liking Lolita doesn’t make you a pervert or a bad person. In my opinion, it means you’re lacking a fuller analysis of the work. Which sounds to me like a lot less of a condemnation than racist or pervert.
I don’t believe the media we consume is neutral; it says something about us and the way we view the world, however subtly. And it helps to shape us. Loving On The Road says something about who you are; just as loving To Kill A Mockingbird says something; just as loving Black Like Me says something. It’s not always negative, but whether we like it or not, even if it’s uncomfortable, I believe that loving a book like Lolita says something ugly about you. You can either own that or get defensive and start ranting about feminists and not being allowed to read what you want, but, with a book like that, you should have to explain it.
And if you don’t think Lolita is widely read enough to have had an impact on modern culture, chew on this: the word nymphet didn’t exist before that novel.
So, I feel like I’ve been very clear on my position, and will now withdraw from this thread. I sense blood in the water.
I think what is more notable is that the name “Lolita” is now so synonymous with pedophilia that it is actually used as a code word for child pornography.
For a guy so hung up on incomplete literary analyses, you’re not very good at drawing conclusions from analogy. To spell it out, your claim that Lolita has a bad effect on society is about as valid as the claim by others that Huckleberry Finn or Alice in Wonderland have a bad effect on society. No wonder you can’t analyze Lolita; you can’t read on a seventh grade level.
And I very specifically wrote that liking Lolita doesn’t make you a pervert or a bad person. In my opinion, it means you’re lacking a fuller analysis of the work. Which sounds to me like a lot less of a condemnation than racist or pervert.
So maybe it doesn’t quite rise to the level of pervert, but it’s more than “you’re lacking a full analysis of the work.”
And if you don’t think Lolita is widely read enough to have had an impact on modern culture, chew on this: the word nymphet didn’t exist before that novel.
At a seventh grade level, not on. Classy, and from the guy who admits he has no analysis at all:
…which means you’re just not equipped, Gav, you’re just not equipped. I don’t think you’re a perv or an arsehole you just don’t have the tools to talk about the impact this or any other book has or hasn’t had on the culture.
Anyway, your previous post shows how frustrating this exchange has been for you, so I really will bow out.
I am plenty equipped, and I honestly don’t get why you hold the opinion you hold about those who love the book. I do not love the book. I think it’s a pretty good novel and one of the most informative books one could read if one is interested in the effective use of the unreliable narrator. But overall it’s fairly dull once you get past the initial chapters (which are the ones everyone remembers) and it is certainly not the work of brazen underage erotica that everyone seems to believe it is. It’s a novel about obsession, what it does to a person, and the lies we tell ourselves to justify our methods for achieving what we think will make us happy.
I’m not sure where the belief that someone who likes the book is a misogynist comes from. Perhaps that’s common among die-hard Lolita fans (is there such a thing? Yeah, I guess there probably is), but I would argue that someone who considers Nabokov’s novel to espouse those things is, at the very least, misinterpreting the work. Humbert is not an admirable character and his view of the events he describes are not to be taken at face value. If a bunch of creepy dudes use the book to justify their fetish, that’s unfortunate, but it’s not the book’s fault.
Trying to turn the subject away from Lolita, since we seem to not be getting anywhere, I’ll try this one: Ford Madox Ford’s The Good Soldier is a better example of an unreliable narrator.
I read about the first twenty pages and felt such an overwhelming moral revulsion at Humbert that I couldn’t make myself go on. I don’t doubt that it’s a very well-written book and I would never “condemn” it for portraying something ugly - it’s a very weird sort of illogic that equates describing something with making it happen - but I guess I am a little surprised that people would spend 200+ pages in Humbert’s company and then want to enthusiastically invite others to have the same experience.
