Literary characters who come to symbolize the opposite of how they were portrayed.

[Freudian_Slit]

@Dangerosa

Sure and that is why the book is so disturbing. She is complacent in her own victimization. Not that she deserves it, or is old enough to understand it.

And I think that that’s very common. I think a lot of posters are making it sound like because she was complicit, we can’t say that she’s a victim. But I think that the idea of the victim who knows nothing of sex and is held down and raped/forcibly fondled is something people feel more comfortable with because it’s easier to see that person as a victim.

But I think the scenario in Lolita is more realistic. Most molesters do gain the trust of their victims and then use that to manipulate them. So I think the idea that Lolita isn’t a victim because that’s too complicated would kind of mean that most victims aren’t…well, victims. Because most people who abuse children are stranger rapists–they’re master manipulators like Hum.

[Spoke]

I still disagree with your reading. Yeah, Humbert is a wretch, but it would be a boring book if that were the whole point.

The joke of the book is that Humbert had built Lolita up in his mind to be this sexually innocent nymphet, but then it turns out that she is actually more sexually sophisticated than Humbert. At the end of the book, the power dynamic is completely reversed, and she patronizingly calls him “Honey” when she refuses to run away with him.

[Freudian_Slit]

Well, the other thread is active again…maybe we should take any posting on Lolita to that one, that I linked to earlier.

[Nobody]

@smiling_bandit

Likewise, the post-story where Job gets everything back was added much later, probably because people didn’t like the ending.

My memory isn’t being much help, but I remember seeing a show on TV where someone who was talking about the story of Job and I could have sworn they said that the same person did both versions of the story of Job. If I remember right, what the person said is the the author of Job didn’t like the original ending (like you said) so he re-did it to both put God in a more positive light and also to make things all better for Job, who really didn’t deserve everything that happened to him.

Of course with either version Job being a patient man is still an accurate description. He had a LOT of bad things happen before finally demanding an explanation from God.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Dangerosa

Sure and that is why the book is so disturbing. She is complacent in her own victimization. Not that she deserves it, or is old enough to understand it.

HH says that she was complacent. HH forces a little girl to blow him in exchange for an allowance, then wrenches the money he has given them from her fingers afterwards, then goes searching for any money she has managed to squirrel away and takes that as well. HH calls simply fucking him the little girl’s obligation, making it fairly clear that she has to trade the fucking for food.

I think we can safely say that his testimony is suspect.

[Lumpy]

It’s surprising how often the novel 1984 is taken to be the story of one man’s brave but tragically doomed struggle against a totalitarian system. Winston Smith is ultimately little more than a narcissistic coward, and his rebellion against Big Brother a shallow and hypocritical one. Indeed, the Thought Police themselves apparently groomed Smith for years because of his potential propaganda value: he was the sort of traitor and rebel who could actually make the Party look good by comparison.

[Freudian_Slit]

@Lumpy

It’s surprising how often the novel 1984 is taken to be the story of one man’s brave but tragically doomed struggle against a totalitarian system. Winston Smith is ultimately little more than a narcissistic coward, and his rebellion against Big Brother a shallow and hypocritical one. Indeed, the Thought Police themselves apparently groomed Smith for years because of his potential propaganda value: he was the sort of traitor and rebel who could actually make the Party look good by comparison.

I read the book quite a while ago but I never came across this interpretation. What made you see him as narcissistic and cowardly? (Not necessarily disagreeing, just genuinely curious.)

[Nzinga_Seated]

@Lumpy

It’s surprising how often the novel 1984 is taken to be the story of one man’s brave but tragically doomed struggle against a totalitarian system. Winston Smith is ultimately little more than a narcissistic coward, and his rebellion against Big Brother a shallow and hypocritical one. Indeed, the Thought Police themselves apparently groomed Smith for years because of his potential propaganda value: he was the sort of traitor and rebel who could actually make the Party look good by comparison.

Was he a coward? Or are we tempted to paint him the coward, because we fear that we may be like him in ways we hate to admit. For instance, I remember reading the part about him screaming in room 101 for them to make his girlfriend face the rats, instead of him.

I was repulsed that he broke in that way, but mostly I was ashamed. Because if I was in 101 facing my own fear, I would do the same.

Look at me gettin’ all deep and interpretive with the literature!

[Freudian_Slit]

@Nzinga_Seated

Was he a coward? Or are we tempted to paint him the coward, because we fear that we may be like him in ways we hate to admit. For instance, I remember reading the part about him screaming in room 101 for them to make his girlfriend face the rats, instead of him.

I was repulsed that he broke in that way, but mostly I was ashamed. Because if I was in 101 facing my own fear, I would do the same.

I remember that. But can you really blame him? I mean…they were going to shut him up with rats attacking his face. (Well, as far as he knew.) Rats aren’t my phobia, and I’m pretty sure that would break me. I mean, if you genuinely thought that rats would be gnawing your face with you unable to stop, who wouldn’t “rat out” (heh) their loved ones?

It’s not a “nice” thing to do, but what else are you going to do in a situation where you’re being tortured?

[Aji_de_Gallina]

David and Goliath.
Many people seem to forget that David won, so they said “it was like David” meaning he lost to the big guy.

[Cumberdale]

@Aji_de_Gallina

David and Goliath.
Many people seem to forget that David won, so they said “it was like David” meaning he lost to the big guy.

Really? I’ve always heard it as referring to the little guy going up against a much bigger guy (local government, corporation) and winning.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@spoke-

Yeah, but she leaves him to be with the completely degenerate Claire Quilty. And she only leaves Quilty when he asks her to have sex with others on camera.

I agree with Exapno. She is much more complicated than “victim.”

Pedantic point: She is 12 when the book opens, not 11. I don’t think calling her “prepubescent” is accurate.

Lolita takes place in, what, 1940 something? It wouldn’t surprise me if the average age of onset of puberty was somewhat higher then than now. She may, at most, have had teensy-tiny little buds of breasts, but beyond that she would still have been a child.

[Thudlow_Boink]

The Good Samaritan.

Nowadays people call anyone who helps out a stranger in need a “good samaritan” without seeing anything ironic or contradictory in the phrase. To the parable’s original audience, it would have been anything but automatic to put the term “good” together with the term “Samaritan.”

[Lumpy]

Here’s my take on 1984:

Long before he reached Room 101, Winston Smith was a coward. Probably the defining moment of his life was when as a boy he let hunger turn him into an animal, stealing his family’s chocolate ration and abandoning them, apparently to their deaths. That was when Smith first broke, not years later in the Ministry of Love.

As a member of the Outer Party (more or less a concentration camp for the middle class), Smith’s main objection to the Party other than his dislike for it’s dishonesty is the sheer shabbiness of life in [del]Britain[/del] Airstrip One. He’s sick of bad liquor, run down dwellings, and chronic shortages of things like razor blades. He’s sexually frustrated by the Party’s insistance that non-procreative sex is decadent, and neither a frigid wife who left him nor repulsive prole hookers provide any relief. Mainly he wants his, and is angry that the Party and Big Brother stand in the way.

Even his objection to the Party’s lies is basically selfish. He considers the Party’s propaganda to be an insult to his intelligence, and resents having to swallow it. Other members of the Outer Party seem either stupid enough or fanatical enough to be content with Party doctrine; the Party essentially demands furvor and Smith resents it, putting on the minimum face he has to to survive. He decries the Party’s erasure of history and yet takes a perverse pride in a job well done as part of the very propaganda machine that handles those erasures.

In one sense, 1984 can almost be seen as a parody of midlife crisis. Smith is basically sick of his life, and comes to the conclusion that Big Brother is responsible for his unhappiness. When he thinks that O’Brien is recruiting him for the resistance, he’s asked what he’s willing to do. Smith is apparently willing to do anything that someone else will have to pay the price of: murder, sabotage, betrayal, cheat, forge, blackmail, etc. Conspicuously absent is any list of what Smith might be willing to suffer, other than being told he might have to commit suicide.

And when the moment comes, when Smith has been arrested and still thinks he might be in danger of betraying the resistance, he realizes that he has no physical courage whatsoever. He cannot bravely endure even the smallest hurt, and faced with his own annihilation would do anything whatsoever to extend his existence another five minutes.

Smith’s time in the Ministry of Love is almost a ghastly parody of a tale of confession, penitence and redemption. The lowliness of Smith’s motives is made crystal clear to him; how other Party members manage to be perfectly content with their live. Even the apparent insanity of the Party’s doctrines is shown to be internally consistant with the Party’s goals. O’Brien explains that the Party no longer tortures false confessions out of people, for fear of creating martyrs: instead it extracts completely true confessions from worms like Smith.

[FriarTed]

@Lumpy

Here’s my take on 1984:

Long before he reached Room 101, Winston Smith was a coward…

…O’Brien explains that the Party no longer tortures false confessions out of people, for fear of creating martyrs: instead it extracts completely true confessions from worms like Smith.

I hope you used that in an assignment at some time because if I were a teacher or professor & got that analysis from a student, it would get an A for Awesome!

[Nzinga_Seated]

@FriarTed

I hope you used that in an assignment at some time because if I were a teacher or professor & got that analysis from a student, it would get an A for Awesome!

Yeah, I’m kind of loving that post.

[Lamia]

@TWDuke

How about King Arthur? Often he’s held up as an ideal ruler, wise and self-sacrificing, defending the weak, even attempting to introduce elements of democracy into the monarchy. Now there may not be a single definitive source in his case, but many of our modern tellings are based on our influenced by Le Mort d’Arthur, and in that he can be a right bastard.

Although Malory’s work was very influential, he was writing about 350 years after the first recorded narrative about King Arthur’s life. (And even longer after the first recorded references to Arthur or the earliest unrecorded stories.) His depiction of Arthur is thus about as far removed in time from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account as West Side Story was from Shakespeare’s writing of Romeo and Juliet. Le Morte d’Arthur was pretty much the end of medieval Arthurian literature, not the beginning.

The idea that Arthur was a great ruler is definitely not a modern (mis)interpretation. He was a heroic figure from the earliest stories. By Malory’s time the character of Arthur was more complicated than in the older tales, but he was still intended to be a great – albeit flawed – king. Our idea of what makes a great ruler has changed a lot since the Middle Ages so many modern depictions of Arthur have altered his beliefs and actions to make them more in line with current attitudes, but he was always supposed to be great.

What might be surprising to many modern readers is that King Arthur plays a minimal role in a lot of Arthurian tales. In many of the medieval romances he basically sits around being wise but not actually lifting a finger to do anything. This again is a later take on the character, though. He started out as an action hero who killed monsters and generally kicked ass all over Britain and into other parts of Europe. Over the centuries he became overshadowed by the various Knights of the Round Table. This was partially because the whole Round Table idea allowed people to add already-popular local heroes to the “Arthurverse” or invent new characters that would appeal to local/current tastes, and partially because once you’ve established that a character is the best king ever there’s not a lot more to be done with him. Arthur’s rise and fall make for good drama, but the whole middle part of his life where he’s wisely and nobly ruling over Britain can’t really be packed with adventure and romance for him personally.

[Dangerosa]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Lolita takes place in, what, 1940 something? It wouldn’t surprise me if the average age of onset of puberty was somewhat higher then than now. She may, at most, have had teensy-tiny little buds of breasts, but beyond that she would still have been a child.

1950s. When there were still a lot of fifteen year old brides.

[Spoke]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Lolita takes place in, what, 1940 something? It wouldn’t surprise me if the average age of onset of puberty was somewhat higher then than now. She may, at most, have had teensy-tiny little buds of breasts, but beyond that she would still have been a child.

I admit my ignorance on this topic and await enlightenment.

[Shakester]

Winston Smith was not meant to be a particularly good man or a particularly bad man - he’s an everyman. 1984 is about the effect of totalitarian systems on individuals. The way Smith reacts to his torture is meant to illustrate why the victims of Stalin’s showtrials “confessed” to crimes they didn’t actually commit, including utterly nonsensical and impossible actions.

At the time 1984 was written, there were many apologists for Stalin, and there was a widespread belief in left-wing circles that Stalin’s victims were guilty of the crimes they confessed to. Otherwise why would they confess? The character of Smith is unimportant, he’s just there to show what could (and all-too-often did) happen to any normal person under a totalitarian regime.

The real misinterpretation of 1984 is that because it’s anti-Stalinist it’s anti-Socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

@George Orwell

Every line of serious work that I’ve written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against Totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism.