A Girl With Nothing To Offer

While I understand that Humbert Humbert has an obsession with young girls, I do not understand his passion for Lolita. What makes her so different from the other girls that HH has preyed upon? His infatuation with her began just as any of his other romances with children started; he saw her and thought she was beautiful. So, I understand when he pursued her that he was attracted to her and her nymph ways but what kept him going after he got what he wanted? Lolita's attitude was nothing but snotty and rude. She had no positive attributes to her personality. Humbert Humbert's love has no reason. Lolita, to me, is just a mature, rude, sexually advanced girl. She enjoyed the chase; she liked the attention. She led him on and kept up the game. But she was just using him. She was no novice to this and Humbert was not her first sexual partner. She was even rude to HH in later years. She says the Humbert raped her and even when she moves away and marries Dick Schiller, she just uses him and asks for money while HH was still in love with her. Humbert The Sexy could obviously do much better-- Whether it is with another little nymph or someone his age. Either way, I feel Lolita has nothing to offer to HH and he is wasting his time on her.

Judgement: In a Courtroom or Just in General

  While reading Lolita, it confuses me why Humbert Humbert continuously go backs to the phrase "ladies and gentlemen of the jury." I don't like that because in the beginning he gives no specific reasoning behind it. It leaves me to wonder during the book why he keeps doing this to me. It makes me question if he is saying it to foreshadow what is to come toward the end of the book; possibly a trial against him for raping Lolita. There is also the possibility that he is saying it with deeper meaning; that we are his jury because people are so quick to judge his actions.

                  I cannot decipher what exactly he means in this phrasing. If he is foreshadowing something it makes me wonder... Why is he on trial? Is it because he got caught raping Lolita? Or did he do something else that is worse? The questions stay with me the entire time while reading because it is not as if he only addresses the reader as a jury. He does it multiple times, meaning it has a purpose.

                 In another view of it; what if he is not on trial? What if he is addressing us as a jury because he knows what he does is wrong? Is he trying to make an appeal to us to make himself look better? This seems a bit more logical to me because of how he speaks of events that happen. He makes sure to overemphasize that Lolita is no angel. He speaks of how she seduces him in a way that does not really fit actions of twelve year olds, especially in the time period they are in (1950). In this way I feel as if he is trying to justify his actions to us so we do not think his actions are as bad. It is true that when anyone hears of pedophilia, their immediate reaction is disgust; it is how we think as humans. Humbert making this appeal to us is to lighten our judgment on him and to even pity him in what he did out of "love."

Lolita: the Lost Child

Listening to the discussions in class I can see that many people no longer view Lolita as innocent. To me her innocence has still not left her. I understand that yes, she has had sexual experiences but I do not think she really understands what she is doing. She grew up with a mother who never really wanted anything to do with her and her father died when she was young. I see Lolita as a child who is crying out for attention. In camp when Charlie gave her affection she felt needed and loved. Lolita sees that Humbert Humbert, unlike her mother, wants her to be around and to talk to her. I think Lolita has adopted this idea that if she gives Humbert what he craves he will continue to love and want her. Lolita is fully aware that Humbert is not her real father so technically it is not incest. When Lolita teases Humbert she is looking for a reaction.

In the car the first day Humbert picked Lolita up from camp she told Humbert that they were lovers. I think that Lolita was trying to see if Humbert truly loved her. Lolita craves the love she was deprived from her mother. Unfortunately, because Lo has never been loved she does not know that love does not have to be physical. Lolita is a confused child who does not understand what she is doing. Lolita simply wants to be cared for and not that her mother is dead all she really has is Humbert Humbert.

I feel bad for Lolita.

Lolita the Initiator

While in class today Mr. V posed one of the biggest questions of Lolita; is the title character so innocent, or can we blame her for Humbert’s predicament. While reading the story I cannot agree that Lolita is as innocent as some might think. While it is definitely true that Humbert Humbert is a pervert and clearly disturbed, one can almost sympathize with him. Although his thought are filled with disgusting acts and perverted images, I do not believe he would ever have the gall to act on them. When reading the story it is quite clear that Lolita initiates the affair. Lolita constantly flirts with Humbert. But, whatever the reason, it’s apparent that Lolita almost gives Humbert the ok to start plotting his moves. I do not believe he would have been able to make a move without Lolita’s flirtatious passes at him. Before leaving for camp, Lolita rushed out of the car and ran up to Humbert’s room in order to kiss him goodbye. Any feeling that I may have had for Lolita’s innocence quickly evaporated when, after reuniting with Humbert on her way back from camp, she once again initiates a make-out session and referred to Humbert as her lover. I believe humbert would not be in his current situation if Lolita had not flirted back with him. Don’t get me wrong, I still think he’s a creep.

Loliata, The Forbidden Fruit

While reading Lolita, I cannot help but pick up on the several references and allusions to the apple that Nabokov makes. The apple which is known as the ultimate symbol of seduction also symbolizes the idea of the “forbidden fruit.”  The apple pops up several times throughout Humbert’s recount of his interactions with Lolita, as well has his descriptions of his own personal feelings. The first time we see the apple [play a big role in the story is the creepily erotic scene where Lolita is eating an apple while shamelessly flirting with Humbert. In this scene the apple provides the allusion to the apple in the notorious Garden of Eden story, where mankind is tempted by the forbidden fruit of an apple tree. Humbert again makes this allusion when he is thinking of his feeling towards Lolita. He relates his anguish of his daily temptation to that of Adam’s, calling himself Adam in his orchard of apple trees. Through these allusions to temptation and the forbidden fruit, it becomes clear that Humbert knows his feelings and eventual actions are wrong. He describes himself as a pervert and a monster, fully acknowledging that his love for Lolita is forbidden. However, just as Adam did, Humbert continuously submits to his lustrous urges. When picking up Lolita from camp, Humbert once again alludes to the biblical metaphor by describing Lolita. After going so long without seeing her, he falls for her even harder than before. He describes her as, “all rose and honey…with a pattern of little red apples.” Once again this imagery of the forbidden fruit appears to show to the reader that his lust is still intact. I’m quite confident that as long as Humbert feels attracted to Lolita, the apple imagery will continue to show itself in his writings.

Is the audience just shallow?

While reading Lolita, I've come to the conclusion that I think the only reason why anyone could possibly feel bad for--or just not dislike--Humbert Humbert is because he is supposed to be sexy. I think that even though it is a book, the description of HH's appearance, the fact he resembles a famous attractive actor, and his usage of language might make one overlook the fact that he is a pedophile. It's a generalization to say that everyone ends up feeling bad for him, or liking him, yet why would we as the audience like such a person? Is it because of his supposed appearance, and are we really that shallow? I'd like to say no, but I'm not exactly sure I can.

This situation is similar to the movie, Little Children(2006) with Kate Winslet. In the movie, the pedophile, Ronnie McGorvey, is just generally hideous and creepy. This adds to the overall creepiness of being a pedophile, thus, the audience ends up hating him, which isn't always true in regards to Lolita.

Two Languages: One Romantic Story

As I began reading Lolita, I could not read through a full page without getting stuck – multiply times - by the French phrases that Vladimir Nabokov would randomly place through out the chapters. I believe I spent more time trying to translate and understand the French phrases, than I actually spent on reading the English words. I had to re-read the sections various times to get a nice continuous flow that made the piece enjoyable and logical.

Am I the only one who finds this French a bother?

But this made me think about the French. What is the reason that Nabokov would place the random pieces of French into his piece? Is it because the English translation loses some of the sensual and emotions of the French language?

I know Nabokov said he chose to write the piece in English because our language has a way with irony. But I feel the French language presents more of a romantic feel. Just the sound of the word “mister” sounds fancier in French. The French gives the scenes a romantic feel that I believe will carry into the love scenes between Humbert and Lolita. But either way, I am still caught up on two languages being used often and interchangeable throughout the piece.