Posted on 06/03/2015 8:47:37 AM PDT by Borges
In January of 1959, the 600 residents of Lolita, Texas, found themselves in the midst of an improbable identity crisis. The town had been named in 1909 for Lolita Reese, the granddaughter of a Texas patriot. But following the U.S. publication of Vladimir Nabokov’s novel in 1958, “Lolita” had suddenly acquired a whole new set of connotations.
“The people in this town are god-fearing, church going, and we resent the fact our town has been tied in with the title of a dirty, sex-filled book that tells the nasty story of a middle-aged man’s love affair with a very young girl.” So read a petition circulated by R. T. Walker, deacon of the local First Baptist Church, who hoped to change the town’s name from Lolita to Jackson. In the end, however, the proud citizens of Lolita decided to hunker down and wait out the storm: As the Texas historian Fred Tarpley put it, “Lolita was retained with the hope that the novel and the [upcoming] film would soon be forgotten."
In fairness to the good people of Lolita, nobody in 1959 could have predicted what the future had in store for Lolita. In the ensuing decades, Nabokov’s novel spawned two films, musical adaptations, ballets, stage adaptations (including one legendarily disastrous Edward Albee–directed production starring Donald Sutherland as Humbert Humbert), a Russian-language opera, spin-off novels, bizarre fashion subcultures, and memorabilia that runs the gamut from kitschy to creepy: from heart-shaped sunglasses to anatomically precise blow-up dolls. With the possible exception of Gatsby, no twentieth-century American literary character penetrated the public consciousness quite like Lolita. Her very name entered the language as a common noun: “a precociously seductive girl,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
Interesting analysis of how the word came to mean the exact opposite of what it was intended to mean.
The book is supposedly a parable or allegory about the United States and Europe. Lolita being America.
Yep. An inversion of all the Henry James novels where a naive American goes to Europe and is corrupted by decadent Europeans.
I’ve never read the book, but have seen the movie several times. I’ve seen TCM’s Robert Osborne complain how the movie with Peter Sellers trivialized with comedy the very serious nature of the book with its pedophilia.
Yet I think the movie had to have those light moments (Camp Climax for Girls) just to drive away that “eww” factor.
One thing I am surprised at: That a remake of the movie hasn’t been done showing all the “beauty and grace” that pedophilia brings. Showing a happy and content Lolita who suffered no harm at the hands of her older lover.
“all the “beauty and grace” that pedophilia brings. Showing a happy and content Lolita who suffered no harm at the hands of her older lover.”
That’s certainly not what happens in the book.
The movie done more recently with Jeremy Irons and Frank Langella was much more true to the book. Much better than the mason/seller’s movie by far.
I’ve actually assigned the book as required reading in my Internet Crimes and Vulnerabilities class. I tell the students to try to read it in as few sittings as possible and to just get immersed in it as I feel it’s a chance to get into the mind of a pedophile.
The point where Humbolt thinks about having a baby with Lolita and imagines molesting that child as Lolita will soon be too old for him always makes me feel ill.
Nor does it happen in real life.
All sexual perversions, from porn, to homosexuality, to pedophilia harms and destroys children.
Yet our culture glorifies it and treats this stuff as normal. That’s why I’m surprised that a new Lolita movie hasn’t been released showing how “great” pedophilia is.
Part of the problem with the way the book is perceived is with using the word ‘Lolita’ to describe the girl in the book. The girl is named Dolores and is a rape victim. Lolita is a primped up name that Humbert makes up for her. No one ever calls her that in the book - nor does she use that name. When calling her that you are inherently adopting Humbert’s perception of her as a sexualized object.
The point where Humbolt thinks about having a baby ....
___________________________________
I did not know that. Yick. I suppose if I had to, I could read the book. But I’d rather not fill my mind with unhealthy and sick ideas.
The novel is not pornographic at all. It contains no sex scenes.
This happens with a lot of stuff. Pop culture only has enough time for memes not full content. Look how many people still think “Born in the USA” is one of the most patriotic songs ever.
Humbert.
Lola is a variant of Dolores (Spanish for "sorrows," a reference IIRC to Mary as Our Lady of Sorrows), and Lolita is of course the diminutive of Lola, so there is a connection, even if the name is only in Humbert2's head.
I’m not saying the name was randomly chosen but that it denotes Humbert and not his victim.
I don't doubt that somewhere in Hollywood there's a script with just that premise in it waiting for the right moment to be made into an "important film".
The book is totally un-filmable.
I actually bought that stupid album. Listened to it for a while, then threw it out.
Haven't listened to the moron on purpose since.
Same goes for Hannity's "Independence Day" bumper music on his show - the song was about girl whose mother was an abused woman finally killing her abusive spouse in a house fire - all the while no one in town would step in and help. Yeah, that's inspiring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.