MovieChat Forums > Lolita (1998) Discussion > People who blame Lolita: sick or clueles...

People who blame Lolita: sick or clueless?

posted 9 years ago by marcelapougy
6 replies | jump to latest

I love this story. A gross pedophile who never got over his childhood sweetheart finds a new love many, many years later. This time, though, he's 37 and she's 12 (14 in this adaptation). Instead of seeking for help or keeping his illness to himself, he decides to take advantage of this naive, flirty girl who, as any other 12/14yo, is curious about sex and wants to get attention from handsome older men who look like her favorite movie stars. It's worth noting that we're seeing things through old man Humbert Humbert's perspective, and that we must not fool ourselves - a guy once told me that Lolita was the abusive one in the relationship, and that statement made me wish I could live in Mars, away from the human race. She was a child, for God's sake. Oh, what about the scene when the little girl hands him Charlotte's letters? He would've done to her everything he did to Dolores, if he had the opportunity. Would it be her fault as well?

The sexually perverted man broke her mom's heart and had a huge role on her death. Lolita had nowhere else to go and nobody else to rely on. He took advantage of it. She needed someone to take care of her, to be a role model, to be a real father, and he was an abusive scum. She didn't run away with another pervert for no reason. I wish Nabokov had written a book through Lo's perspective.

[–] scndform 9 years ago

Lolita is a very powerful story. Part of its power is that Nabokov was such a brilliant and beautiful writer he is able to successfully seduce many readers- just as his fictional character Humbert seduced Delores Haze.

I've read Lolita multiple times- the first time around the age of 19. At first my perspective was very sympathetic to Humbert. Humbert was deliberately written to be an extremely realistic fictional character. He's handsome, charming, sophisticated, educated, witty,and highly amusing. He also has a way of pouring out his soul that elicits a reader to believe it is he, who is, in fact, the victim in a tragic love story.

The gorgeous prose and language of Nabokov's writing style combined with the many shades of gray surrounding events in the story, as well as Humbert's suave way of convincing me of his unfortunate yet sincere love for Lo made me so forgiving of him that I found an excuse to rectify his actions.

Additional readings over the years brought focus on different perspectives and finally allowed me to see Humbert for the predator that he is. Now,35 years and six readings later I wouldn't let this guy within a mile of my granddaughters.

So,when people defend Humbert to you, it might not be that they are necessarily sick or clueless- they may just have been sucked in by an extremely effective literary ploy by a very brilliant author.

[–] marcelapougy 9 years ago

Lolita is a very powerful story indeed. I've read three novels written by Nabokov and they are spectacular, I certainly know that his stories seduce you and, when you least expect it, you see yourself drowning. But I'm sorry, people who defend him by saying that he is "a handsome, charming, sophisticated, educated, witty, highly amusing man who is unfortunately but sincerely in love with Lolita" are 100% clueless. I'm not denying that he's everything you've stated above, you're definitely right about his persona - but being handsome and charming is not a reason for people to stand up for him. He drugged her and her mother, he took away her innocence (oh wait, she wasn't so innocent right? but discovering your body and fooling around with kids your age is VERY different from being in a abusive relationship with a 37yo man), ruined her life for God's sake.

You said that they aren't necessarily sick or clueless. Well, I beg to differ. People who are on his side will say that 1) what he did wasn't wrong because he's this and that and he loves her, or 2) she was provocative, she saw it coming, she was the abusive one, let's defend poor Humbert from malicious harmful dangerous 12yo Lolita. First case: clueless. Second case: evil. I'm not gonna be too exteme and say that these people are evil (the guy who told me that certainly isn't) but that their POINT OF VIEW in this case is evil. Better, right?

In my perspective, when you first read it, you got seduced by Humbert's charm: you were clueless. However, after reading the novel again, you realized that Humbert is a nasty predator, no matter how educated he is and how good he looks. Nabokov's use of words is brilliant and if you don't watch yourself you can easily get trapped. That's why you MUST watch yourself and have a filter for EVERYTHING you read, watch and hear in LIFE. When I read it for the first time I was 13 and at the time I saw him as a someone strange in a bad way, but I never put much though into it. Now I'm 16 and "Lolita" was the first novel I read in 2015. I finished it when I created this thread, and now a lot of things are so much clearer to me. Dolores went through hell. I couldn't even begin to imagine my 13yo self being in her situation.

I wouldn't let a pedophile near my 9yo brother either, no matter how tall, handsome, educated, exotic, rich (or whatever the f* people think is a good characteristic) he is. And if something of this nature happened to him (little brother), it would NOT be his fault - it doesn't matter if he's playful and curious. The adult takes FULL responsability. The adult is the one to blame.

I'm sorry, but I can't bear people who blame Lolita and stand up for Humbert. I'd rather think to myself: "We didn't read the same book. We didn't read the same book. We didn't read the same book". Please, don't get me wrong, I'm very tolerant when it comes to different opinions and points of view, but this is a very specific case. If Humbert was viewed as an ugly, uneducated, unpolite man, people wouldn't be defending him. I hope I'm being clear.

[–] francescalovex 8 years ago

I read and watched Lolita I'm 16 years old and personally I can see how people would blame Lolita. I wouldn't use the word blame but all in all she was the one who seduced him, he would watch her and write about her in his journal but in the end he never made any advances. At 13 years old I and I'm sure many others knew that Lolita's advances toward Humbert would affect him and at first he didn't react to them until he finally gave in. I wouldn't "blame" Lolita, but in the end she played a part in the relationship, at 13 you know what's happening and she had the option to say no.

[–] lazarillo 8 years ago

No offense to anyone, but 16 (or 13!) might be a little young to appreciate this novel. The novel is not about trying to make a pedophile look attractive. Nabokov is a great writer and "Humbert Humbert" is a charming first-person narrator, but Nabokov is always aware that his narrator is a self-justifying monster with an unreliable perspective, and by the end of the novel Humbert himself even realizes this. There is a very deep MORALITY here that a lot of people today seem incapable of seeing. Nabokov does make the character look sympathetic ultimately, but that is because he manages to find the HUMANITY in a terrible, messed-up person. But this isn't the same thing as justifying what he does or buying into the self-serving delusions he expresses earlier in the book. Don't forget Nabokov CREATED the character, so if you don't find him entirely sympathetic, or you find the reality of what he does here abhorrent, trust me that that is very much intentional.

People also don't appreciate the METAPHORIC level that this book really exists on. It is not meant to be some sociological study on child sexual abuse any more than that other great American novel "Moby Dick" is meant to simply be an expose of the whaling industry. Both books expertly convey the horror of what is happening on the literal level, but the "White Whale" and the "Lolita" the narrator is obsessed with (not the flesh-and-blood "Dolores Haze") are really much greater than that. They are a METAPHOR for what haunts all living men (even if most of us don't go around harpooning whales or underage girls). Herman Melville at one point describes the White Whale as a "mask on the face of God". You really have to appreciate the profound symbolic/metaphoric level books like this exist on because only focusing on mundane reality is largely missing the point.

"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"

[–] scndform 8 years ago

Well said and a brilliant response. Much better than mine.

[–] liscarkat (16552) a year ago

It's simplistic to completely condemn either Humbert or Lolita. The novel is far more complex than that. Maybe six readings isn't enough--try seven.