Truth. If I saw someone reading Lolita, my impulsive reaction would be to think they were a pervert and I'd be disgusted.
Second truth. If I saw a woman reading Lolita, I would be turned on and then wonder if they'd been abused as a child.
Third truth. Though it means "sorrowful" in Spanish, anyone who named their daughter Lolita after the novel was published is worth investigating thoroughly. It's a sick name to foist onto a child's future; especially one who lives in the real world.
Impulsively I'd be wrong in all cases. ... ... Maybe.
Some sexual thought repression is a good thing - but better is certain sexual repression of actions. Is Lolita a work of art? Would the world be better without it or the same with different names in place?
Silly questions, right? This book is art, right? And since when can art be immoral? Ah, one of the world's great discussions, imperfectly held in the thin arms of Lolita.
Lolita was first published 50 years ago, in France, in 1955. It was only published there because Vladimir Vladimirovitch Nabakov, a Cornell professor at the time, was afraid to publish it in the United States. While at first overlooked, after British author Graham Greene called it one of the best novels of the year, it grew in importance and infamy. After several publishing houses turned it down, it was eventually published by G. P. Putnam's & Sons in the U.S. in 1958 to critical acclaim.
The first easily understood story of Lolita is of 12-year-old Dolores Haze, who is lusted after by her stepfather Humbert Humbert. By the time she is 14, Humbert has raped her, it, the demon. And she, as in the later Story of O, is isolated, victimized, blamed and bullied. Not the first description of satirical polish and comedic gold that comes to mind.
For some this celebration of ephebophilia meant that the book stepped off the edge into the "abyss of seriousness," as Nabakov characterized the world of much of his writing before and after Lolita
It's what happens afterwards that redeems the book as art for some. The story, we are told from the beginning by John Ray Jr., PhD. , is being narrated by a man Humbert Humbert who has gone mad. There are literary illusions and allusions which trip the discerning reader and trigger different emotions other than those that have been boiling.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Van Ronk
Misinformation, there. Elegant Gothic Lolita is a trend based off of Victorian and Edwardian-era European clothing fashions - not geisha, and certainly not subservient fetishism.
2 - emiko
"342nd truth: My impressions of the book are all from others over the years. I have never read it."
Come on. How can you 'review/rant/rave' about something you know nothing about first-hand? Your article quite confusing, but I think it's only because it has absolutly no point whatsoever. You 'article' comes off as nothing more then a jumble of your own baised opinions that were formed from second-hand information.
"The name Lolita has come to define horny and willing, underage virgin."
Only because of narrow-minded people such as yourself.
"In the last five years "Elegant Gothic Lolita" has been a rising trend in Japan - the home of the stereotypical willing Geisha girl, willing-to-do-anything slave fantasy."
Honestly, could you not come up with something better to put here? Now you are helping cast the subculture (EGL) I subscribe to in an even worse light. Thanks a lot.
Please, before you decide to write an article on something you know very little about, make sure to actually do some research. There is no excuse when it's a book. I'm sure you can read. Nothing is stopping you from getting a copy, reading it yourself, and creating YOU OWN opinion, instead of piggy-backing on others'.
3 - Liefeld
Ahhh. Following Steve Martin's grandmother's advice, I see. But are you also obsequious, purple, and clairvoyant? (You might want pay a visit the library on the way back from the yawning festival.)
4 - A.K. Pennington
Here's a hint: Try reading the book before you write such an ill-informed piece as this.
5 - Temple Stark
On my mentions of Lolita, such as Elegeant Gothic Lolita, I am referencing that the word is being used for other areas
I know it's nothing to do with Geisha. Perhaps you can explain what it is yourself?
I might have my own cycle of conceit / deceit in this post. Look beyond the surface of the post would be my recommendation. ;-) Thank you. Temple
6 - yotan
geisha weren't whores, they did not have sex with men like prostitutes. they were artisans- they were entertainment, but never of the sexual variety.
7 - alpha
Temple. I did enjoy your post and the notion that,
"Not to sound elitist, but a lot of art is not easily understood by the masses. (And sometimes the best art is). Art can be described as a creative reality that reveals more secrets and reflects its audience discerning and ingenious ability to unveil deeper and deeper layers. It not only can be, I just did."Lolita is elitist, quintessential Nabokov (a wonderful writer who deserves fare more reading than just this sexual piece of art), and includes layer upon layer of reality and insights.
I did read it both in my youth (looking for the juicy parts) at about Lolita's age and then during my serious Nabokov period. It was far better the second time around. It is a serious novel by a superb novelist who was NOT a pervert, sex fiend nor defiler of the "other" sex. .
Good post but now you are duty-bound to read it. You will end up a fan or, at least, more interested in Vladimir Nabokov the manipulator of words and feelings and ideas.
8 - wouldn'tyouliketoknow?
I know somewhere where, at this very moment, a lot of people are outraged by your statement and by your over all ignorance. (^_^) Sleep well.
9 - Jessica
Hah. Wow. Try being informed on a single one of your subjects before you rant about them. You suck. Immensely.
Your portrayal of the book would make Nabokov roll in his grave. A think a better modern definition of the term ‘lolita’ would be a naïve girl than the sex fiend you described.
Your misinterpretation of those who read the book makes me shudder at your ignorance.
Not to mention Geishas are artisans who were desired for their beauty, wit, and inaccessibility.
And the EGL fashion has nothing to do with the novel. The only relating factor is that they tend to dress in things a younger girl would enjoy; mary-janes and knee length dresses. Being sexual in dress and mannerisms is strongly looked down upon in the fashion and is actually a sub-group, Erololita. In fact, it was modern western pop culture that caused it to take this turn.
10 - Temple Stark
>>the home of the stereotypical willing Geisha girl, willing-to-do-anything slave fantasy.
Note how I wrote both "stereotypical" and "fantasy" and I did not subscribe to either.
I don't think I described the Lolita of the book as a sex fiend anywhere in my post, though the images through the book certainly suggest that. But then, we all know where those images came from, right?
11 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Trying to think of which of the great books I haven't read that I should compose long thoughtful pieces about...
12 - Jewels
Good post Temple; too bad so many didn't get "it".
13 - Aimee
Why did you even bother writing anything? You know nothing about anything you are writing about, so how can you have an opinion on it worth reading?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_lolita>link to Wikipedia: Gothic Lolita
Has NOTHING to do with sexual fetish. It's about looking young, like a victorian doll, not about being a man's perverted sex object. In fact, it's the opposite. Most men say that they find EGL _unattractive_ and the women who dress in EGL say that they are dressing for themselves, not to attract men. they want to look like dolls or princesses. It has nothing to do with sex.
in the time you took to write your article, if you'd taken just five more minutes and done a quick search on a few sites, you would have been able to write a much more informed article. and at least then if you want to sound witty and funny, you'd be coming from an informed place instead of a ridiculous one.
14 - Temple Stark
Why is the word "lolita" in the EGL description? ????
That is the point I made. Can you answer that for me. I don't think there's a wrong answer, but I'd love to hear one.
And that was such a tiny point of the whole piece. I know and knew what it was but what I wrote here was about the book, not about EGL.
15 - Jewels
Aimee, so you don't know how to read; or maybe you do; point in fact, what Temple is talking about is not the same exactly with your rant. Dig Deep. Read deep....
16 - Victor Plenty
Probably making myself a target here, but it must be said. Temple, you've done an excellent job of writing about the way Lolita has affected (and, one might even say, infected) American and Western cultural ideas, even among the many people who have never read it.
Those who refuse to read it, or are too embarrassed to obtain a copy, or have simply never gotten around to it, are by far in the majority. Few indeed are those who just never heard of it. Whenever a work of art becomes such an influential cultural landmark, the views of those who have never read it cannot safely be dismissed.
The book's effect on our culture is broad, deep, and highly visible. That influence should be open for discussion. You don't have to read the book to be qualified to discuss its ripple effects, so long as you are careful and honest enough to separate the influential ideas about the book from the book itself.
17 - gonzo marx
damn Victor..yer such a spoiler...
Excelsior!
18 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
>Good post Temple; too bad so many didn't get >"it".
"It" being what? There's no "it" there. This post is comically pretentious.
"Not to sound elitist, but a lot of art is not easily understood by the masses."
That's quite true. And a lot of difficult books are not easily understood by people who haven't read them.
"It was only published there because Vladimir Vladimirovitch Nabakov, a Cornell professor at the time, was afraid to publish it in the United States."
Well, no. He was never afraid to publish it. He simply couldn't get it published. In fact, he tried very hard.
Nabokov, by the way, was a glorious pedant. I suspect he would have found this hilarious: how you prominently drop his middle name (testimony to your greater knowledge) and consistently misspell his last name (testimony to something else).
"That first blush plot and vision of the book - stocking legs, sucking lollipops and rosebud lips on the cover of various editions of the novel - is what has endured..."
In your mind, and for good reason: you've merely looked at the cover.
"There are literary illusions and allusions which trip the discerning reader and trigger different emotions other than those that have been boiling."
The discerning reader. This is my favorite bit. You mean those emotions that have been boiling in you after examining the cover?
19 - Jewels
D.A. Cooper, such bravado, speak, but no one can follow; you so stand by your "comment" you can't give valid link? Such BRAVERY. You Knight! Shut Up.
20 - Victor Plenty
Yep, Douglas didn't get it either.
21 - Temple Stark
>>Well, no. He was never afraid to publish it. He simply couldn't get it published. In fact, he tried very hard.
It depends on what you read. You could be right.
22 - Jewels
Yep, Douglas, et al didn't get it.
23 - Auralynn
Since when were geishas whores? And when did the Japanese street fashion, Elegant Gothic Lolita, become sexualized? It's a very modest fashion based off of clothing designs from the Victorian era!
And next time, read a book before you write a review and write about it.
Same applies to the "Elegant Gothic Lolita" thing - stop being lazy and go on WikiPedia and search it.
24 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
>you can't give valid link? Such BRAVERY.
My link is valid -- the server's down. www.dysblog.blogspot.com -- should be up soon.
Look, it doesn't "depend on what you read." There are a number of good biographies, and nobody disputes the facts. From the man himself:
"Lolita was finished at the beginning of 1954, in Ithaca, N.Y. My first attempts to have it published in the U.S. proved disheartening and irritating... (later) New hopes had arisen for publication in America."
Hopes, not fears.
(He was in fact appalled to find out that Maurice Girodias, who finally published it in France, dealt mostly in pornography.)
I shouldn't have been so snarky, but you chose *precisely the wrong writer* to write this kind of thing about. Nabokov was the most obsessive, detail-oriented reader the world has ever coughed up. When he read Don Quixote (which he didn't like much), he went to the trouble of counting every battle that the Don engaged in. The idea that someone would write about the emotional effects of Lolita, *without having read it*, would have given him a stroke.
You are, however, in good company. His friend, the great literary critic Edmund Wilson, dismissed Lolita without finishing it. Mind you, their friendship didn't last.
25 - Jewels
D.A. Cooper, thanks for the ed. on your linkage. Their are a lot of folks who come on here and say their .02 and split. Good man. You do make a valid point but what Stark was discussing was the intimacy and innocence and the conflicts that are inherent within those boundaries. You know, innocence/yet sexual connotations, etc...