Okay, first off, real quick: this book is neither pornographic nor pedophilic. It is not even about sex, except in one very brief sentence (....technically, at that point, we became lovers.....).
I would never have had the courage to purchase the book, not even on-line, let alone go to a bookstore and buy it, then actually read it, except it was required reading in the English Literature class I took a couple semesters ago.
Quickly, it is about a man, improbably named Humbert Humbert, self-destructing. (Gee, a lot of that coming out lately, Dan!) Yep, anyway, that is what it is about.
It was turned down by about 25 publishers before finally finding one, and it languished for several years, then got ‘discovered’ one day by a critic, who wrote a review that was favorable, then another, then of course they all jumped on the bandwagon, like sheep if you will, none of them apologizing for panning it all those years prior.
There were two movies made from this book, the first, about 1961 or so, with the screen play written by Nabokov himself; the movie only barely followed the book.
The second movie was more recent, perhaps 1998 or thereabouts, and followed the book almost scene by scene, with much of the dialogue getting duplicated precisely.
We also watched both movies in the lit class; I preferred the second movie, myself. The first one made Dorothy (Lolita) quite sexually desirable, and made much of her age and all that. There was the famous and highly-publicised scene of Lo being just drop-dead down-right sexually alluring, full eye-makeup, her breasts almost showing, about 14 years old, while she ate from a bag of potato chips and sucked Pepsi through a straw, sprawled out on a park lawn like the pre-pubescent child she half-way was.
The second made very light of the sexual aspects; she was pretty much dispassionate, and while cute (all women in movies are), the sexual role was virtually non-existent, perhaps in respect of current mores.
Anyway, the book is great, fascinating reading, and once again, nothing shameful in it. Quite comical in parts!
Dan, I agree that the book isn’t pornographic, but...OF COURSE it’s about sex. You can write about sex, and many people have, without describing who did what to who and when it was done and how it felt and so on.
I haven’t seen either movie, so I can’t say anything pertinent about them. But unless you take the view that the whole thing is nothing more than some kind of extended metaphor (and some people have, though I don’t agree with that view myself), the book is about a middle-aged man who becomes sexually obsessed with a young girl, and yeah, Dan, that’s
s-e-x, sex.
It’s interesting that you thought the book so controversial that you “never would have had the courage” to get it if it hadn’t been required reading. I mean, sheesh, it’s available in public libraries—has been for years. It was very controversial when it came out, of course, but that was a long time ago. It certainly has elements that are controversial even now, but not in the way you seem to think. Lots of books are controversial, but that doesn’t mean that everybody will automatically assume there’s something shameful about reading them.
I agree with your comments, Kathleen, but also: I had at the time a teen-aged step-daughter living at home still, and to just suddenly be seen reading this book by her would not have been a very good idea. Especially that she was quite beautiful, and active (her mother told me everything, and she, the daughter, knew that).
My reading that book in front of her would have been mistaken as something it was not.
Us step-dads with cute step-daughters have a very strange situation that has to be quite delicately handled, you know?
And yes, it is clearly shown to the reader that HH continues to be intimate with Lo, but only in alluding to it, never ever describing it or making it a part of the story-line, except that is is essential to the overal framework of the novel (namely, he is quite taken by Lo.)
Dan, glad she is gone and happily married to a very succesful Jewish MD, bless her heart
There was the famous and highly-publicised scene of Lo being just drop-dead down-right sexually alluring, full eye-makeup, her breasts almost showing, about 14 years old, while she ate from a bag of potato chips and sucked Pepsi through a straw, sprawled out on a park lawn like the pre-pubescent child she half-way was.
And subsequently copied in a hundred cartoons (especially Tom & Jerry ones)!
And yes, it is clearly shown to the reader that HH continues to be intimate with Lo, but only in alluding to it, never ever describing it or making it a part of the story-line, except that is is essential to the overal framework of the novel (namely, he is quite taken by Lo.)
I agree that the sex isn’t overt, but it’s definitely there, coloring the entire book. It seems to me that so strong is HH’s sexual obsession with Lolita that sex would still color the entire book even if they’d never had actual physical sex.
I think perhaps what we need to do here is differentiate between sex and sexual intercourse. For human beings, sex is so complicated that it encompasses all kinds of things that aren’t actual sexual intercourse. So if you say that Lolita isn’t really about sexual intercourse, I agree. But it is oh, so definitely about sex.
Lolita is an actual, bonafide female name in many cultures, including that of Mexico. I’m hoping this, and not someone’s truly weird sense of humor, is the reason why this taco joint was originally named that. The posters are...well, let’s just say that they don’t appeal to my taste. I mean, I’ve got nothing in particular against the movie, but I’d rather not consider its moral ramifications while ordering a couple tacos, you know?
