It seems that the term Lolita has some reference to underage porn or child porn. How did that come about?
(I’m sure I could find the answer by searching, but I don’t want to have to wade through the hundreds of links to porn sites. Plus I don’t want the FBI to arrest me.)
No porn required. Here is the amazon.com entry for Nabokov’s 1955 novel Lolita.
A fascinating novel and a must-read, although I’d wait until mid-teens at least. Considered one of the great classics of the 20th century.
The name Lolita has come to mean any nubile and beautiful girl, perhaps with the sexual experience that the Lolita in the book already has. People who have never read the book know the term.
In case you don’t get around to reading it, the book is about a man, Humbert Humbert, who has an affair - well, depending how to interpret it, maybe more of a rape - with a 12-year-old, in the process destroying himself (and the girl’s mother.) Hence the reference; it now commonly means “an underage girl who is the subject of sexual desire.”
Just a few minutes from my house there’s a street called Lolita Gardens. A day care center has been opened on this street, so when you’re driving along Bloor St. you are greeted with a big billboard that advertises vacancies at the “LOLITA GARDENS CHILD CARE CENTRE.” I swear to God I am not making this up.
Five years after that, we have Marilyn in Let’s Make Love:
then she goes into Cole Porter’s “My Heart Belongs to Daddy”.
I don’t know if I’d call it a must read…the continual rape of this girl was pretty disturbing, as was the man’s filthy and CONSTANT obsession with barely pubescent children. He had no interest in women; none even in teens who are in full flower…only in those who have barely reached puberty. He had a name for it…I don’t remember now what the name was.
The novel itself was pretty much pornographic, so it makes sense that the name would be synonymous with child porn. He was the sleaziest of men; the scum of the earth…and no movie has ever really conveyed that fact. In the first half of the book, despite his constant obsessing and the fact that she was flirting with him, you could sort of say it wasn’t at least forcible (though at that age force doesn’t even matter; it’s rape regardless) but the second half was pretty much forcible rape and other abuse. He basically takes this child captive and she has to do all the stuff he wants…to be at the hands of such a man is a horrifying thought.
Sigh. The fact that it was made into a COMEDY at first irks me. The Jeremy Irons version made her into something she wasn’t - a beautiful vixen - and portrayed Humbert much too sympathetically.
If you can stand child rape I suppose it’s a must read. I have a hard time countenancing it. (Same would go for “Bastard out of Carolina,” which is also touted as a great read by many.)
FYI, Lolita is diminutive of Lola which is a nickname for Dolores, all in Spanish.
American Beauty deals in part with the same topic. Kevin Spacey’s character - Lester Burnham - is an anagram for ‘Humbert Learns’.
I think Anniee must have a rather idiosyncratic definition of “pornographic” – “Lolita” is almost nothing of the sort (except for one early scene). It’s also inaccurate to say that Humbert was the sleaziest of men – he wasn’t, which is what makes the book chilling. It’s clear that he cared for Lolita, and took his responsibility as a parent very seriously. (Despite the fact that he was raping her on a regular basis AND that even aside from that he was a horrible father.) Humbert is a sympathetic character in the book – indeed, this is one of the most interesting aspects of the book, as the reader has to fight against the empathy that he develops for Humbert, that Nabokov has forced him to develop.
The depiction of evil is not itself evil.
–Cliffy
Because he doesn’t use the word C*** it isn’t pornographic? There are graphic depictions of sex acts with a minor; or perhaps the words were too big for you to understand. Perhaps the fact that he didn’t say “cunnilingus” but rather said it in flowery language made it incomprehensible to you.
“It’s clear that he cared for Lolita, and took his responsibility as a parent very seriously. (Despite the fact that he was raping her on a regular basis”
Need I say more?
The word was “nymphette.”
Agree with you completely, Cliffy.
Ah yes, nymphette. I must have blocked it. The man was evil. And sleazy as hell.
Lolita diminutive for Lola?
That was kind of the point, Anniee. Nabakov was TRYING to make the reader feel both revulsion and sympathy for Humbert. He wasn’t pretending that what Humbert was doing was right, and he deliberately makes the truth of everything Humbert says quite ambiguous - the book makes Humbert out to be highly untrustworthy. The study of human behaviour, after all, is not always stories about heroes - “The Stranger” by Camus being another excellent example. Humbert is decidedly, and deliberately, not a hero.
Insulting people who do not feel the same way about the books as you do isn’t a very good way to make your point, either.
It is more a diminuizing (is that a word?) of the subject, versus a shortening of the word.
You might translate it as “little Lola.”
Just as “nymphette” is longer than “nymph,” but means something smaller.
Actually the way he “felt” about it wasn’t at issue; by definition I believe a child rapist deserves repulsion and no more, but I understand that is my opinion and he apparently does not feel the same way. So be it.
However trying to say it wasn’t pornographic because it didn’t use the language of modern porn movies is just ridiculous. That was where what you consider an insult came in. However I reserve the right to say that it is my opinion that I wasn’t insulting anyone. That’s how I feel about it; it’s subjective you know.
I was assigned to read the book in two different college courses, and still have it on a shelf somewhere at home. Not only was it a fascinating study of this disturbed and distubing individual (Humbert), the narrative itself is richly infused with pop-culture-based allusions and humor. If you can find an anotated copy, it will point out even more of the clever humor for which Nabakov is known.
Of course, even with the humor, it’s a very disturbing book. That’s one of the reasons it’s such a classic.
(BTW, it’s been several years, but I don’t remember “graphic descriptions of sex acts.” Unless we have very different definitions of “graphic.”)
Anniee: I would say Lolita is not pornographic for one very simple reason: I don’t want to wack off when I read it. It may contain graphic depictions of sex, but said depictions are in service to a larger artistic vision than allowing pervy readers to get their vicarious rocks off. Dismissing a work of this stature as mere pornography is short-sighted, at best.
Actually I didn’t “dismiss” it as “mere pornography”. I said it is pornographic. If it were a turn-on to anyone I might say “erotica”. That said I frankly thought aside from the horror of repeated child rape and abuse, and his constant jabber about pre-pubescent girls and how obsessed he was with them, it was pretty damb boring. The bore factor makes me question its validity as a “classic”.
I don’t mind anti-heroes or character studies, but when they’re dull and coupled with something that should make any decent person’s skin crawl, I have to wonder how great they are.
1955 Eve? My OED dictionary says 1958.
“The name of a novel (1958) and its main character by Vladimir Nabokov (1899-1977) about a precocious schoolgirl seduced by a middle-aged man, used to designate people and situations resembling those in the book. Also attrib. and Comb.”
Anniee, how does the book simultaneously depict the horror of child rape and be a “pornographic” work? I think you’re confusing the content (child rape) with the way in which its presented, which is not pornographic by any definition I’m aware of.
Although it’s a Stanley Kubrick comedy. It’s not an Adam Sandler movie. I think what Kubrick did with the film is somewhat consistent with the book in that it mixes Humbert’s repulsive behavior with a tone that is non-judgmental. Of course, this is a pointless argument since you find the book unredeemably bad.
x
I see nobody else has commented on this statement, but I resent what you’re implying here. Just for the record.