Both the 1997 and the Stanley Kubrick's versions of Lolita offered different interpretations of Nabokov's novel. Although Bruno may not agree, I felt that we were able to see Humbert as he truly was in Kubrick's film: self-centered and overbearing, not to mention cruel and unfeeling. But in contrast, in the novel, we became immersed into Humbert's innermost thoughts and feelings, so much so, that, it takes a knowledgeable reader to be able to differentiate between the persuasive, yet flawed human persona and the actual, verifiable reality. This film was meant to be for the inexperienced reader because the angle of the viewpoint spanned across the entire scenario without getting too involved in any one character's perspective.
On the other hand, the 1997 version of Lolita was based, to a greater extent, on Humbert's perspective. I don't know if it has anything to do with his beautifully articulated, rich voice or his elegant demeanor, but Jeremy Irons gave a really sympathetic portrayal of Humbert Humbert. It was as if the audience was supposed to be seduced by his eloquence in the movie, just as we were supposed to be while reading the novel. The regular voice overs gave the viewer the feeling of Humbert's ever lingering presence. Although we were supposed to sympathize with Lolita, (because she was, after all, a constant victim of sexual abuse), her sexual precociousness made it difficult to feel pity for her. She behaved as a woman who was aware of her feminine wiles, rather than as an innocent child. But in the end, it was difficult to give an impartial judgment because of the extreme slant toward Humbert's perspective.
Neither film adaptations truly fulfilled my expectations of what I felt the novel was. As Bruno mentioned, there is absolutely no way for these kind of movies to satisfy everyone. Sometimes it is best to have these stories kept alive in our minds where we are free to imagine.
Re: Lolita A la Kubrick
In Response to Bruno
I most deffinitely agree with the fact brought up in The Onion article. Although this Newspaper is utterly ridiculous, it always seems to make good points. The point being, kids these days (like Bruno, I feel like an old timer) just don't have the motivation to read. Why should they? It's so much easier to go out, spend 8.50, or however much it is to go see movies now, sit on your butt and just watch something than it is to try and muck through a novel, no matter how entertaining it is. I know for a fact that people would much rather go out and rent the movie than have to read the book assigned in class. It's a shortcut, and in our world of Technology and fast-paced living, every short cut is welcomed with open arms. Also, the amount of violence and "unappropriate" material that children are exposed to seems to completely de-sensitize them to the world around them. The books that were once considered appalling and shocking, are now boring and outdated. The kids are constantly wanting more and more "blood and guts" in the entertainment they receive. Without that it seems almost worthless to even bother. This brings up the topic of whether or not the current "banned books" are truly all that bad. I'm sure that in these days-and-times, there are books out there that are far worse than the one's put on the no-no list. People just don't seem to pay attention to it all that much anymore. The shock-value is completely gone from people's minds. I mean, not to say that some of the topics read in class weren't a little shocking, but once I was exposed to it enough, I sort of got used to it! It's the same scenario with the general public. It's a shame that children are becoming bored with novels and are no longer choosing to read. I feel like reading is such a worth-while task and hate that today's youth are completely missing out on such an enjoyable pasttime. Good luck to the next generation!
Bruno and the Onion
I agree with Bruno in saying that now days teens would rather watch a film based on a movie than actually read the book. To some extent the lack of interest in novels is due to their age and the lack of maturity. But it is not only teens who don't read anymore. I think everyone's lack of interest in books relates to laziness. Certain movies, especially those summer blockbusters, require less from the audience than does a novel. You can just sit there and be entertained, watching a car explode. Another aspect that adds to this problem, is the fact that many feel that reading a novel and to actually understand it, you must thoroughly investigate it and you have to be highly intelligent to do this. Though this is not necessarily true, we know that becoming a good reader does require some work, but one must just be more open and susceptible to nuance. The sad truth about books.
Lolita the Movie (1997)
So I really hope this topic hasn't been brought up yet, but did anyone else get a chance to watch Lolita the movie? I know there was like 2 versions, one from the '60s and one from 1997.
Re: Re: Does Age Matter
As we grow older, age matters less. Because of the ethical and personal reasons involving individual growth, pursuing relationships with those who are a great deal older than us while we are still fairly young and not yet emotionally or physically mature, is greatly frowned upon in our society. The subsequent age gap is less signifcant as we gain more experience and maturity. For instance, in one of my classes, I have a lab partner who is nearly a decade older than me. Nevertheless, we hardly acknowledge it. True, we have our own moments when I would make fun of her for being "old" and she would tease me about being really young, but other than that, we treat each other pretty normally. The sizeable age gap did not cause any weird awkward moments between us . I enjoy my friendship with her, and I especially appreciate it when she imparts her own knowledge from life experiences with me. But there are times when she'd nostalgically sigh and say, "When I was your age I was able to..." The weird thing is, I feel I could relate to her more than to one of my TAs, who is closer to my age. But then again, maybe it was his position of authority that caused this social awkwardness.
Compare an image of Spencer Breslin and his younger sister of four years age difference, Abigail Breslin. They seem to be much farther apart in age than that of Topher Grace and Scarlett Johansson (who, by the way, are not dating, I just used this picture of them to compare) who are six years apart. Grace and Johansson appear closer in age, when, quantitatively, they are actually further apart. Some of the most successful Hollywood marriages are between couples with significant age differences. For instance, Julie Andrews and her husband, Blake Edwards, are 13 years apart, and have been married for nearly 40 years.
One of my friends told me of a formula about calculating the maximum appropriate age difference between couples. It was meant to be a joke, but there is also some truth behind it.
For guys: {(age of guy)/2}+7 = appropriate age for a girl
Men are naturally attracted to women who are younger, and women are customarily drawn toward older men . But in Humbert's case, his unnatural fascination with young "nymphets"indicates his mental instability, especially since he would have no problem pursuing a relationship with a woman his own age. While I watched the 1997 film adapted version of Lolita, I was struck by Lolita's immaturity and wondered how a sophisticated man like Humbert could be drawn to her. The visible discrepancy between their maturity levels make it hard to believe whether there was anything that their relationship could build on.
Does age make a difference?
One of the blogs I read commented on the age difference between H.H. and Lo being 25 years. Now of course I’m not advocating this relationship where the girl is a child, but I am curious as to everyone’s thoughts on general age differences in relationships. Its very common for there to be huge gaps in relationships and it usually the man is the eldest. There has been a spike in celebrity relationships with the female being the eldest, Diaz & Timberlake (9 years) , Moore & Kutcher (16 years), etc. but typically in relationships with huge age gaps, the male is the eldest: Douglas & Zeta-Jones (25 years). The easy answer is females are attracted to maturity. Any other ideas?
Re: Maddie on Good or bad?
You bring up a good point here on a protagonist’s role in a novel. The first definition in the Oxford Dictionary states, “The chief character in a dramatic work. Hence, in extended use: the leading character, or one of the main characters, in any narrative work, as a poem, novel, film, etc.”. None of the other definitions mention ‘hero” on the Oxford website; however, dicionary.com does have a definiot on there that does specifcally say ‘hero’. I think some people automaticaly associate hero with protagonist because traditionally the protagonist is of good character, or heroic. But I don’t think it is always the case. Obvisoly H.H. is the chief character in Lolita and obsviously his efforts are not heroic.
Re Re Re Lolita
I agree that Nabokov has a very powerful hand over his reader. I think that one of the reasons that it is so easy at times to sympathize with HH is because Nabokov rests him on that thin line between true love and obsession. It may not be that I personally identify with him, but that I can see the humanity in him. It is easier, for me anyways, to sympathize with a sick person. If HH really cannot help himself, if he has some deep rooted illness that causes him to obsess over young girls against his will, than I end up almost feeling sorry for him instead/along with of Lolita. On the other hand of that, if he is not mentally ill and truly has sovereign control over his mind and actions, and chooses to rape a young girl out of what he deems true love, well then he is a sick bastard and deserves to rot.
Re: Re: Lolita
I'm glad to see that someone actually agrees with me! I felt so terrible getting confused as to whether or not I should see Lolita as the agressor or not. Also, really good point about the book being about how much power the narrator has and how easy it is to fall into the trap of poor reading skills. I guess that a good author can trick even the most distinguished of all close readers. It's really amazing to me how much power authors really do have over their readers. Confusion over Lolita is only one example of how powerful good writing can really be. Although this book is speaking of a child rapist, the language Nabokov uses is absolutely mesmerizing to me and I find myself completely lost in the reading of this novel. I came into this with a closed-mind, vehemetley against everything it stood for. Your point of Nabokov actually speaking out against the very topic he is writing about makes a very good point that I didn't even think about.
Re: Lolita
I can definitely understand your confusion about this book; it's very easy to get caught up in Humbert Humbert's mind as the window we have into the world of Lolita is all through him. We weren't in that situation, so all we have is Humbert Humbert to tell us what happened and if he sees it as Lolita coming on to him, that's what we see too. All of us are guilty of sympathizing too much with Humbert Humbert, judging from the blog posts about whether or not we should be sympathetic to him. Under normal circumstances, no one would feel sorry for a child rapist but because Humbert wants us to feel sympathy for him, we do in some way.
This is Nabokov's trap for bad readers and making a character that would ordinarily be so despicable is a reality check for us. If you're feeling sorry for a child rapist, there's something going very wrong, i.e. that you're identifying with the characters, something Nabokov vehemently speaks out against. In a way, this book is about how much power the narrator has and how easy (and bad) it is to fall into the trap of poor reading skills.
bruno & leslie & Jesus know love
(Sorry about the silly tittle I couldn't help it) You both make great points, and actually, as Leslie mentioned at the end of her blog, the points agree with each other. What's bothering me is I cannot decide whether I lean more towards Humbert being in love, as Bruno leans, or just selfishly obsessed, as Leslie leans. Ultimately after much mental torture I decided to land on the same middle ground they did in saying that love births that insane almost selfish obsession if it is not kept in check.
Lolita
In class today, we discussed the true nature of this novel and honestly it was like a reality check to me. While reading this book, it's very easy for me to be completely fooled by the way the author tells the story. It's easy for me to fall into this happy world where Lolita just happens to not be 12 years old and Humbert-Humbert is not 25 years older than her. There are moments in the novel that are still baffling to me. For instance, some of the things that Lolita says seem to just fuel the fire. When Humbert-Humbert says that she throws herself at him, obviously it's not the truth, but to me it's very easy to accept it as truth. I feel like possibly, being a young girl, she sees her behavior, as well as his almost natural to an extent. She trusts Humbert-Humbert so maybe she chooses not to see the fact that this behavior is completely and morally wrong. Lolita at some points goes as far as to challenge his and her mothers marriage, saying how pissed her mom would be if she found out that they were lovers. Was this something that she actually said or was it something that he fabricated with his mind? That's one thing that has deffinitely confused me about certain scenes in this novel.
Re: Good or bad?
HH is clearly a "bad" guy when you're judging him from any typical standpoint, simply looking at the facts. I think the point of the book is that HH is creating a different lens through which you should view his case- a lens that makes his actions appear justified. He does this in a number of ways. For example, he makes his summer with Annabelle seem whimsical and dreamlike and he relates his current perversions to it, somehow making them whimsical and dreamlike by association. He repeatedly refers to past relationships similar to his being socially acceptable, as if to say that his actions are right, it's just our society that is skewed. The list goes on. So, in a way, in the book, which is entirely a world created by HH, he is the point of reference for truth, or "the good guy."
More afterword thoughts
I really enjoyed the afterward that Nabakov wrote. It didn't really tell me anything that PK didn't tell us in class as far as how to read the book goes, but, true to form, his afterward didn't wow me with its content, but rather its clever language.
One thing that Nabakov wrote was:
..."reality," one of the only words that has no meaning without quotations...
It's true, especially to authors, that no single reality exists. We each have our own individual reality that we create based on our senses, our imaginations, what have you. This ties in with Nabakov's criticism of certain readers, stretching a single reality created by an author to fit whatever "big world" issue they'd like.
re: glo racial profiling
Glo you need to watch the whole thing and i think you'll get it. I mean look at the police force! I've never watched another series with that many black government authority figures, possibly more black ones than white. And, even in terms of corruption and "bad/ stupid cops" the ratio of black to white was about equal. As for all the crooks being black, the series is about the projects, and all over America there are government projects that are 98 to 100% populated by African Americans and in some, real drug games are being run just like in the show. Also, pay attention to the fact that there is a hierarchy being portrayed in the dope sell that is mirrored by the police hierarchy,like in episode about the chess game. So, there is a constant portrayal of blacks in charge whether they are on the laws side or not.
On Nabokov's afteward
I just read Nabokov's thoughts on his own book (311-317) and its exteremly interesting to me how he reflects on his own work. I began believing an author's purpose should be the true meaning of a book but have evolved that to somewhere different, however, I think Nabokov expresses something that made me look at the book differently. I still pick this up very action and event oriented, trying to decipher what each movement makes to the overall message he is trying to get across and I think Nabokov is saying thats not the point. He says "Lolita has no moral in tow".
Humbert Good or Bad?
So I really meant to post this blog a couple of days ago, but never really figured out how to use this new layout till now. So whatever, here it goes.
The Wire and Racial Profiling
So I just want to make this blog short, sweet and to the point.
Re: Dylan's Interviews
More than wanting to avoid being labeled as a part of folk or rock, I think Dylan really wanted to escape the "artist's intention" strategy of interpreting art. Although he protests it in interviews, Dylan clearly has written a number of meaningful songs and instead of laying down, "Well this means this," he allows the listener to interpret his songs for themselves. He wants people to actually listen to his music, not to him.
Plus, he seems to enjoy being contrary and sarcastic in his interviews, don't you think?
Response to “Is Lolita a Love Story’
Love is a very subjective idea; it comes in many forms, takes on many shapes and means many different things to many different people. With that in mind, I don’t think we can objectify the love H.H. had for Lo. But I will offer an argument based on my own opinion of love. I think that one of the many attributes of love is to put one’s own self behind the one that you love. Since somebody mentioned Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet, I will use that story as a point of reference. Romeo was willing to take his own life for Juliet and vice versa – in response to the pain of living in a world without the other. Would H.H. do that for Lo? Let’s look at it another way. In Titanic, when Jack Dawson and Rose Bukater were in the ice cold sea drifting about, Jack helped Rose up on a floating door while he stayed in the water and eventually died of hypothermia. This is a good example of putting your loved one’s livelihood in front of your own. H.H. never had Lo’s interests in mind, he never put her first. He essentially used her until she couldn’t take it any more and she moved on. By my standards of love, Lolita is not a love story, but a lust story.
Re: Bruno and more
There is a discrepancy between the traditional concept of what a love story is in literature, and how we apply it to real life. If you really think about it, much of our great literature does not emphasize actual love, but rather, the idealized image of love. In this respect, Lolita is actually a very traditional love story because it emphasizes this idealized concept to an extreme degree. Although this consuming obsession is disapproved of in society, it does happen. One of the greatest love stories ever written, Romeo and Juliet, was based on the "love at first sight" scenario. But if Romeo and Juliet were to have survived, would their relationship have persisted? I doubt it. Never once was there anything mentioned beyond their mutual physical attraction. Nevertheless, relationships usually start this way. Many people mistake this infatuation for love. Under a spell, starry eyed people often claim to have "fallen in love." If a relationship has any potential substance, it would build beyond this initial spark. In Romeo's and Juliet's case, it never does.
Likewise, in Lolita, Humbert never establishes anything for his relationship with Lolita beyond his lust for her. His longing to get close to Lolita was not built on love, but on his own sexual fulfillment and bribes. Humbert is too involved with himself to communicate with Lolita, and he prefers to ignore her unhappiness, rather than to confront it. If he had interacted with her, there might have been a slight chance that Lolita would not have been drawn to escape. However, as an adolescent, Lolita's emotions were most likely taking on an emotional roller coaster ride, and she probably would not have listened anyways.
As a person "in love", Humbert allows his emotions, rather than his intellect, to rule him. Everything that Lolita says or does to Humbert is an indication that she feels the same toward him, when, in fact, it might have been brought about by Lolita's mercurial adolescent nature. She is experimental and flighty, and, like any adolescent, she is inclined to experiment with new and exciting aspects of her life, sexually and emotionally. Humbert's obsession with Lolita is a bit one-sided, as she does not seem to return his affections. In this respect, you could also argue that this is not a love story but more like a recount of a man's consuming obsession, because as you said before, "a love story is made up of charcters coming together with a certain obsession for each other." This mutual feeling of "love" that you mentioned was not shared equally by Humbert and Lolita.
Getting Sucked In
After reading the other comments I'm glad other people are getting sucked into the head of our character in the same way I am. Especially during the diary entries towards the beginning of the book. I was actually more disconcerted with the way I felt as if I was seeing his actual thoughts, almost in a part of his brain I shouldn't be in... than with the whole pedophilia thing.