[KosmicKitty]

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.

[Borges]

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.

[Responsibility2nd]

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.

[chajin]

As much as I dislike Rorty's postmodern progressivism, I would suggest, if you don't already assign it, chapter 7 from his Contingency, Irony, Solidarity, which goes into Nabokov in general and Humbert² in particular, which can be found here.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

The point where Humbolt thinks about having a baby with Lolita

Humbert.