IMO Nabokov really hammers home that Humbert’s attraction to Lolita is not a normal man’s attraction to a physically mature attractive woman (of any age - I would count a mature-looking 15-year-old with breasts, hips, and menses).
When Humbert first meets Lolita, age 12, and finds her devastatingly sexually attractive; he describes her vividly as a skinny, tomboyish, dirty, flat-chested child, immature for her age - and obsesses on the fact that she is on the verge of puberty, but has almost no physical signs of it yet. Being in the beginning stages of puberty and sexual awakening, and yet still very much a child, is exactly what makes her, and other girls at a similar stage of development, irresistibly sexually attractive to him.
Obviously she ages during the story, and he finds her less physically attractive the closer she gets to being an adult physically.
He also repeatedly compares Lolita, and other girls he is attracted to, to his first love - a skinny little 12-year-old.
He repeatedly describes the little girls he is attracted to as ‘little girl’, ‘child’, ‘childish’, ‘coltish’ and of course ‘nymphet’ - which he defines as occurring in ‘the magic age between 9-14’ and limits to girls who have not achieved signs of puberty beyond slight breast budding. He specifies that some breast budding is unavoidable in this stage, at it usually begins around age 10.
What?? In the movie the Protestant minister eventually recognizes where he’s heard the name “Sean Thornton”, digs out his scrapbooks on boxing, and in a conversation Thornton, the death of an opponent in the ring, “a good egg” as he is called, is discussed. His reasons are most definitely explained.
I think Rhett Butler (“Gone with the Wind”) has come to symbolize the pre-Civil War aristocratic gentleman while forgetting Butler was in many ways contemptuous of them. He told them honor and courage couldn’t beat cannons in a war and preferred to make money as a blockade runner instead of joining the army until the very end.
I’m still wondering why people think Winston Smith is so cowardly. Does it really make you a coward to not want to get eaten by rats? I mean, I’d sell out each and every person I loved if I was going to be eaten by rats. I still believe in freedom and truth and all that. I just don’t want to get gnawed on.
Well, not like cartoon piranhas, but they’re in a mask and they’re all shut up with you. That’s creepy. They might not bite it all off but even a little biting is creepy enough for me. And it’s not like Big Brother is going to keep them there for a little while. They’re just going to keep doing it until you break.
But I think it’s one thing if you’re going to face something that’s bad but not SUPER bad. Like, if it was being killed but in a relatively quick painfree way, I could see going out all Sydney Carton style. But if it’s getting gnawed on by rats for as long as Big Brother wants…no way. What’s the point of that? I don’t think it’s cowardly to not want rats to chew on me. Especially if Big Brother’s already in control. What good would it be if I just let them kill me?
But I just think they would have done it anyway. I mean, they know everything–they’re Big Brother. They’re just going to torture you Hostel style until you do fold.
I mean, I’m not saying that self sacrifice isn’t a great thing. But calling Winston a coward for giving into his greatest fear seems kind of nasty. Who among us wouldn’t give in? I’m sure we can all talk about lofty things like sacrificing yourself in one’s armchair, but when you’re actually sitting there with a rat inches from your face (or replace rat with whatever your greatest fear is), are you really going to undergo that torture for however long B.B. wants you to? I mean, it’s not like getting a bikini wax or something where you know it’s painful but it’ll over in a few minutes so you can just grin and bear it. Knowing you’re at the mercy of someone who’s going to torture you to death is really scary and I think calling someone a coward for wanting to deal with it but not being able to is a bit tough. I think very few people could do it.
Yeah, I don’t know. Well, I think I can say, I would try to take it as long as possible. I suppose if it went on long enough I’d give in, but initially I’m sure that I would take the punishment because my guilt wouldn’t let me turn on anyone. At least initially.
I’ll say it again: focussing on Winston Smith himself is missing the point. 1984 isn’t a Hollywood action movie, Smith isn’t meant to be a hero. He also isn’t meant to be a coward. He was a victim. You can feel sorry for him or not, it doesn’t matter - the point is that he was basically an innocent victim of totalitarianism.
He’s just like the people who “confessed” at the Moscow show trials and went off to their executions praising Comrade Stalin: “I love Big Brother”.
Winston Smith is not the real protagonist of 1984. The book isn’t about Smith, it’s about Big Brother.
How can this possibly be true? Did they know nothing of how easily false confessions can be tortured from somebody? Or did they just think Stalin would never torture people because he and his regime were good?
At that time, up till the 1960s, being a Communist in the west was as much a religion as it was a political philosophy.
Communism is good, therefore the Soviet Union is good, therefore Stalin is good, therefore anyone who says Stalin is bad is obviously a crypto-fascist. Plus Stalin and the Soviets had a lot of ideological apologists who really should have been smart enough to know better.
Walter Duranty, for instance. Only “approved” news stories came out of the USSR, so it was easy to dismiss the rumours of what was really going on as right-wing propaganda. Which wasn’t helped by the fact that there was an awful lot of real right-wing propaganda around to confuse the issue.
People see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear. For a true believer in Communism, it was easier to dismiss the truth about the show trials and the famines and so on than it was to believe that the world’s only Communist country (at the time) was run by a truly evil paranoid mass-murderer.
Orwell was a brave man, and an extremely smart man, and he had personally witnessed the activities of the NKVD when he was fighting Franco’s right-wingers in Spain. Those “comrades” were as bad as the enemy. Orwell was a Socialist till the day he died, but he was one of the first prominent Socialists to go against the left-wing orthodoxy of the day and bring attention to what was really happening in the USSR.
If given a choice between rats gnawing on my face and running off the landing ship to storm the beach of Normandy (ala Saving Private Ryan,) I’d probably pick the rats. (Or the most awful realization of whatever personal phobia.)
I’ve long maintained that the “men can’t be sluts” double-standard is simply a mirror of the “women can’t be cowards” double standard. Breaking at the threat of torture is cowardly. Breaking under torture itself, well, eventually everyone breaks. If you could have held out longer, though, yeah, that’s cowardly.
If I give up my girlfriend, I’m a despicable coward who should be scorned. If my girlfriend gives me up, meh, I don’t consider her a coward. In the context of one of us will be tortured, it should always be me.
Try reading a history book, or even the Bible. There have been centuries worth of ignorance accepted by the majority of people, and even democracy is a relatively rare concept.
Sure, its suspect. That doesn’t mean its 100% wrong. That’s one of the things about Lolita, the reason its complex and fascinating and disturbing. Where is it HH’s fantasy? Where is it reality? It isn’t a book about black and white, if it were, it wouldn’t be much of a book.
I would say that, given the nature of HH’s fantasies and perversions, that nothing he says about Lolita is likely to be reflective of the true Dolores.
The book starts in 1947. We are given her vital statistics on her 12th birthday in partI:25. They are 27-23-29. She is 4’9" tall and weighs 78 pounds. That happens to be the exact height and weight of 12-year-old Cameron Escalante of THE SUITE LIFE ON DECK: Crossing Jordin on The Disney Channel. She looks much younger in the YouTube reel that’s on that site than in her head shot. Check it out for the real Lolita.
Yes, she is a prepubescent child. But much of Humbert’s argument in the book is that she has had a variety of experiences and so have her sixth-grade classmates. Even prepubescent children were not the asexual creatures that society considered them at the time. Self-serving or not, we now that to be totally true.