Why.
In.
The.
Hell.
Would.
You.
Create.
Such.
A.
DISPICABLE.
Character.
?
I understand now, the depth of this book, and why such a dismissal of values is required. But by goodness I struggled reading it. I fought it with each page turn and convulsed with each hint of a sexual touch the perverse Humbert inflicted on little Lolita. But as the story progressed, and I forced myself to look past the disgusting fantasies of a nasty old man, I was able to completely surrender to the story of the horrid narrator.
It started off all right. But as the poisonous traits of the narrator compounded on each other, I was often physically forcing myself to keep my eyes open and read. Why continue reading? You might ask. Well…because my grade depends on it. But I also found myself saying “do it for Lolita.” I wanted her to have a happy ending. I wanted her to be rescued. I wanted her to tell a trusted person at her college and be saved from the abomination that kept quarters with her. But she never was saved. She was always under the control of one man or another. Constantly passed along as a little plaything, a “little pet” sometimes loved, sometimes cared for, usually provided for, but ALWAYS used. And the worst part isn’t even those things – LOLITA IS A CHILD FOR CRAPS SAKE! All of these personal feelings were really getting in the way for me, and I knew it, but couldn’t bring myself to push them away until the very end – when I knew Lolita’s fate.
Maybe it is the Disney shaped heart that pounds in my chest, or maybe it is because it is the truth, but I could not bring myself to believe ANYONE would write a book like this, simply to tell the tale of Humbert Humbert and his selfish, pedophilic ways. The ending is when it finally became apparent to me that the book was not actually about Lolita (despite what the cover, title, and narrator would like you to believe) because it finally became apparent that this was – had to be – more than just a story. Lolita is simply a representation. As is Humbert. As is Clare Quilty. Each of these characters represents three things that Nabokov saw with his virgin European eyes when gazing down upon the American culture. Like me, he is repulsed by the story he created, because he is repulsed but the American culture that resembles the trials and tribulations each of these characters either go through – or represent.
Lolita – not surprisingly – represents the treatment of women in the 1900’s. Humbert is a gleaming example of lust and selfishness. Specifically, towards new things. And Quilty. Vile Clare Quilty seems to have clawed his way out of the very swamp of gluttony and greed. Nabokov wished to shed a light on some of the very real things he saw Americans struggling with – while also creating a despicable character you can’t help but feel bad for, and a story that makes you turn pages against your own better judgement.
In.
The.
Hell.
Would.
You.
Create.
Such.
A.
DISPICABLE.
Character.
?
I understand now, the depth of this book, and why such a dismissal of values is required. But by goodness I struggled reading it. I fought it with each page turn and convulsed with each hint of a sexual touch the perverse Humbert inflicted on little Lolita. But as the story progressed, and I forced myself to look past the disgusting fantasies of a nasty old man, I was able to completely surrender to the story of the horrid narrator.
It started off all right. But as the poisonous traits of the narrator compounded on each other, I was often physically forcing myself to keep my eyes open and read. Why continue reading? You might ask. Well…because my grade depends on it. But I also found myself saying “do it for Lolita.” I wanted her to have a happy ending. I wanted her to be rescued. I wanted her to tell a trusted person at her college and be saved from the abomination that kept quarters with her. But she never was saved. She was always under the control of one man or another. Constantly passed along as a little plaything, a “little pet” sometimes loved, sometimes cared for, usually provided for, but ALWAYS used. And the worst part isn’t even those things – LOLITA IS A CHILD FOR CRAPS SAKE! All of these personal feelings were really getting in the way for me, and I knew it, but couldn’t bring myself to push them away until the very end – when I knew Lolita’s fate.
Maybe it is the Disney shaped heart that pounds in my chest, or maybe it is because it is the truth, but I could not bring myself to believe ANYONE would write a book like this, simply to tell the tale of Humbert Humbert and his selfish, pedophilic ways. The ending is when it finally became apparent to me that the book was not actually about Lolita (despite what the cover, title, and narrator would like you to believe) because it finally became apparent that this was – had to be – more than just a story. Lolita is simply a representation. As is Humbert. As is Clare Quilty. Each of these characters represents three things that Nabokov saw with his virgin European eyes when gazing down upon the American culture. Like me, he is repulsed by the story he created, because he is repulsed but the American culture that resembles the trials and tribulations each of these characters either go through – or represent.
Lolita – not surprisingly – represents the treatment of women in the 1900’s. Humbert is a gleaming example of lust and selfishness. Specifically, towards new things. And Quilty. Vile Clare Quilty seems to have clawed his way out of the very swamp of gluttony and greed. Nabokov wished to shed a light on some of the very real things he saw Americans struggling with – while also creating a despicable character you can’t help but feel bad for, and a story that makes you turn pages against your own better judgement.
Above you will see three things that represent the repression of women Nabokov was seeing in the American world.
The first, is a lovely advertisement featuring a woman doing laundry. This advertisement beautifully depicts the way women were expected to behave in the time period -- a good obedient homemaker and wife. There is no room in this position for a woman to learn how to become anything more than a pretty little, home making, man pleasing --thing.
The second photo is of a newspaper from September of 1948. In this picture, you will notice -- there are no women. You can see women scantily clad in magazines (like the one we'll discuss next), a smiling lady happily cleaning a home, or a damsel in distress hung on the arm of a male hero in any movie...but never is she placed in an average newspaper and hailed as the hero of the town, or celebrated for her fantastic community service. This here is also a form of repression, for women can not make progress if they are denied the simple right of acknowledgement.
The last picture is of a practically topless woman in a magazine cover. I will be frank and say that I barely even took time to look in-depth at this photo because the scantily clad lady was enough to prove my point. Here, she is not being shown as a home maker or wife. Nor is she being completely disregarded. What is happening to this woman is far worse -- she is being objectified. She has been denied the right to be human, and instead is being pictured to draw the eyes of men and feed their vicious fantasies.
It is because of advertisements, newspapers, and magazine covers like these that Nabokov made Lolita the way she was. Readers can see the homemaking man pleaser, in the way Humbert requires Lolita to always be at his side, and report her every move to him. Nabokov portrays the women of the 1900's lack of acknowledgement through Humbert's lack of actually knowing Lolita. And the sexual aspect, well -- if you can't see the obvious parts of the book where Nabokov clearly displays the disgusting traits of American objectification -- I sincerely wish I was you.
The first, is a lovely advertisement featuring a woman doing laundry. This advertisement beautifully depicts the way women were expected to behave in the time period -- a good obedient homemaker and wife. There is no room in this position for a woman to learn how to become anything more than a pretty little, home making, man pleasing --thing.
The second photo is of a newspaper from September of 1948. In this picture, you will notice -- there are no women. You can see women scantily clad in magazines (like the one we'll discuss next), a smiling lady happily cleaning a home, or a damsel in distress hung on the arm of a male hero in any movie...but never is she placed in an average newspaper and hailed as the hero of the town, or celebrated for her fantastic community service. This here is also a form of repression, for women can not make progress if they are denied the simple right of acknowledgement.
The last picture is of a practically topless woman in a magazine cover. I will be frank and say that I barely even took time to look in-depth at this photo because the scantily clad lady was enough to prove my point. Here, she is not being shown as a home maker or wife. Nor is she being completely disregarded. What is happening to this woman is far worse -- she is being objectified. She has been denied the right to be human, and instead is being pictured to draw the eyes of men and feed their vicious fantasies.
It is because of advertisements, newspapers, and magazine covers like these that Nabokov made Lolita the way she was. Readers can see the homemaking man pleaser, in the way Humbert requires Lolita to always be at his side, and report her every move to him. Nabokov portrays the women of the 1900's lack of acknowledgement through Humbert's lack of actually knowing Lolita. And the sexual aspect, well -- if you can't see the obvious parts of the book where Nabokov clearly displays the disgusting traits of American objectification -- I sincerely wish I was you.
I first have to confess that I have seen none of these movies, however I believe I can provide an appropriate analysis just by viewing these propoganda.
Let's discuss Humbert again quickly. Humbert Humbert -- a bestial character -- symbolizes the greed and lust that Nabokov saw in the American life. How so you may say? Well in his possession of Lolita of course. Like the men in these movies, Humbert is constantly taking, using, and possessing Lolita. He may never succumb to taking her blood like the vampire, but he does force her to do things for him almost as detrimental to the sucking of blood out of ones neck. From the forced kiss in the second picture, to the distressed woman being stripped down in the third -- these movies make it very clear what American men want. Sex. At any cost -- even if they have to force it. And judging by the faces of these men in these pictures -- it seems pretty evident that they have no clue, nor do they care what is happening inside the mind of the women they are ravaging. Just like Humbert has no idea that Lolita is miserable and longs to be free of the hell she lives in. Nabokov was trying to send a message to men of the 1900's. It was as if he was saying "wake up! The women need to be free!" Buuuuuut it seems they never took his advice. If they had, maybe things would have been different today.
Let's discuss Humbert again quickly. Humbert Humbert -- a bestial character -- symbolizes the greed and lust that Nabokov saw in the American life. How so you may say? Well in his possession of Lolita of course. Like the men in these movies, Humbert is constantly taking, using, and possessing Lolita. He may never succumb to taking her blood like the vampire, but he does force her to do things for him almost as detrimental to the sucking of blood out of ones neck. From the forced kiss in the second picture, to the distressed woman being stripped down in the third -- these movies make it very clear what American men want. Sex. At any cost -- even if they have to force it. And judging by the faces of these men in these pictures -- it seems pretty evident that they have no clue, nor do they care what is happening inside the mind of the women they are ravaging. Just like Humbert has no idea that Lolita is miserable and longs to be free of the hell she lives in. Nabokov was trying to send a message to men of the 1900's. It was as if he was saying "wake up! The women need to be free!" Buuuuuut it seems they never took his advice. If they had, maybe things would have been different today.
These songs perfectly depict the absolutely GROSS character Clare Quilty.
Each of these songs is by a man, in which they depict an image of a woman. Like Lolita, the women in these songs are depicted as objects. In Come Fly Away With Me, the artist is trying to convince the woman to run away with him so he can hold her close, and listen to angels sing in happiness because they are together. In Someday, the artist is completely convinced that the woman who he loves, will fall in love with him as soon as he loves someone else. In Sh-Boom, the artists are singing about "if you do what I want you to," then they will be fine. It may seem like a stretch to relate all of these to Lolita, but hang in there for me. What is the only thing Quilty see's Lolita as? A play thing right? He only sees her as an object. Just like all of the men in these songs. They make no mention of what their loves even look like -- much less their feelings and thoughts, or families. Their only concerns are their desires for them. The only thing that matters is what the men want the women to do, and how those actions are going to make the men feel. Just like with Quilty and Lolita. He had no care that she was an underaged girl, who should have been in school. He clearly did not see that she was being abused. He just rescued her from one vicious pig and threw her into a muddy pit with another -- himself.
I believe that each of these characters represents three things that Nabokov saw when he looked at America. But I also believe Nabokov is a very protective, caring, loving man -- who treasures his wife and family. I believe he wrote this book to shed some light on what the American Dream was teaching people to love -- and the whole story was an attempt to rectify the abuse women of the time were suffering. Do I know Nabokov's real story? Nope! Do I want to? Absolutely not! Why? Because if I find out he was a woman hater too then I am back to square one with no explanation whatsoever and I refuse to accept the book as the ugly thing it truly could be. In the end -- this book is highly confusing, deeply depressing, and all together life shattering. Nabokov made me question my life, my country, and my values. I hate him for it -- yet I also thank him for it. Cheers to the end of a mind boggling read, and the conclusion of my scattered thoughts brought about by this horrible, beautiful, book.
Works Cited
Melnick, Meredith. “Top 10 Worst Fictional Fathers.” Time, Time Inc., 17 June 2011, http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2078151_2078159_2078145,00.html.
Each of these songs is by a man, in which they depict an image of a woman. Like Lolita, the women in these songs are depicted as objects. In Come Fly Away With Me, the artist is trying to convince the woman to run away with him so he can hold her close, and listen to angels sing in happiness because they are together. In Someday, the artist is completely convinced that the woman who he loves, will fall in love with him as soon as he loves someone else. In Sh-Boom, the artists are singing about "if you do what I want you to," then they will be fine. It may seem like a stretch to relate all of these to Lolita, but hang in there for me. What is the only thing Quilty see's Lolita as? A play thing right? He only sees her as an object. Just like all of the men in these songs. They make no mention of what their loves even look like -- much less their feelings and thoughts, or families. Their only concerns are their desires for them. The only thing that matters is what the men want the women to do, and how those actions are going to make the men feel. Just like with Quilty and Lolita. He had no care that she was an underaged girl, who should have been in school. He clearly did not see that she was being abused. He just rescued her from one vicious pig and threw her into a muddy pit with another -- himself.
I believe that each of these characters represents three things that Nabokov saw when he looked at America. But I also believe Nabokov is a very protective, caring, loving man -- who treasures his wife and family. I believe he wrote this book to shed some light on what the American Dream was teaching people to love -- and the whole story was an attempt to rectify the abuse women of the time were suffering. Do I know Nabokov's real story? Nope! Do I want to? Absolutely not! Why? Because if I find out he was a woman hater too then I am back to square one with no explanation whatsoever and I refuse to accept the book as the ugly thing it truly could be. In the end -- this book is highly confusing, deeply depressing, and all together life shattering. Nabokov made me question my life, my country, and my values. I hate him for it -- yet I also thank him for it. Cheers to the end of a mind boggling read, and the conclusion of my scattered thoughts brought about by this horrible, beautiful, book.
Works Cited
Melnick, Meredith. “Top 10 Worst Fictional Fathers.” Time, Time Inc., 17 June 2011, http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2078151_2078159_2078145,00.html.