Approach them on the subway while they’re reading Lolita and announce, “Just call me Humbert.”
(or browse the Archives by date, category, tags etc)
get blog updates
Recent Comments
- Stowaway on Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday
- Mxe354 on Dreams
- Someone on Women Are Better Than Men?
- PrettyAmiable on Privilege explained in gamer terms
- Krista on Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday
- Andie on Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday
- oxygengrrl on Feministe Book Club: The Hunger Games, Chapters 10-18
- Jim on Privilege explained in gamer terms
- gudbuytjane on Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday
- Thomas MacAulay Millar on Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday
Most Commented Recent Posts
- Policing Native Identity (302)
- When Feminists Face Abuse (110)
- Would you like a racist boyfriend? (70)
- Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday (64)
- Obama supports marriage equality (63)
- Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday (62)
- Chastened? (60)
- Privilege explained in gamer terms (56)
- Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday (55)
- Female Vampires: Children, Villains or Servants (55)
Yes Means Yes!
Reproductive Health Matters
We’re in the Guardian
More of Feministe On
Sponsored By
Tried and Tested
The authors of this website have hand-selected these titles because we believe they may be of interest to a feminist audience.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
Damn.
That reminds me: I need to obtain another copy of Lolita and finish it already.
You’ll love it.
Hey, I totally wanted to apologize about that. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I guess the problem is that I’m such a nice guy, that women just seem to look right through me…
I just did a full-body shudder and dry heave.
Um, they do realize what Lolita is about… right???
Zuzu, thank you. With your help, I rest my case.
Holy fuck. Was there really someone with his head so far up his ass that he did this?
Yep. Just happened to me on the way home from work.
That’s gross. I’m reading it now myself (about 3/4 done) and I find myself getting skeeved out before I go to bed every night. I probably need the annotated version because, straight up, the regular version makes me want to throw up.
Why am I still reading it again? THANK YOU BLOGGERS FOR MAKING ME FEEL OBLIGATED TO READ THIS BOOK JUST TO KNOW WHAT YOU’RE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT.
I am smiling because I have no idea what’s going on. =)
Nothing like quoting a little Nabakov to nab a date.
Er…
It was funny; I had just finished the book and went back to read the foreword in light of all that had happened, and this guy leaned into me and said that. And I was thinking, I could not have heard what I did, so I made a little “hm?” noise, and he repeated it.
I just looked down at my book. From what I could tell from my peripheral vision, he looked embarrassed, and he got off at the next stop — I suspect, whether he needed to or not.
I mean, either he hasn’t read the book and thinks it’s just a sexy pickup line, or he *has*, and, well, God knows I’m no nymphet. Ew.
Zuzu, since you’ve finished the book, what are your thoughts?
Lauren, when you finish it, I’d like to hear yours too.
I just finished reading the book about a month ago. I read the annonated version. I would think it would be frustrating to read the unannotated version, no?
I didn’t know there was an annotated version.
But I loved it. The use of language was amazing, and while I was thoroughly creeped out by the actions of Humbert, I was aware at all times that he was an unreliable narrator on several levels, and he was deluding himself.
I have met more than one man who love Lolita, but don’t, ahem, interpret it the same way I do. One said it was a great love story. Excuse me? I like the book, but damn, some people just don’t get the whole unreliable narrator thing. Even the book jacket from my copy has a quote from a reviewer saying it is “the only true love story.” Good book, but it saddens me that there are people out there who relate to Humbert.
You know, I wonder how much that has to do with the Kubrick movie. Sue Lyon was 16, and 16 is a far cry from 12.
TWF – my words exactly! I had the same reaction to the jacket quote saying it’s “the only true love story.” Shudder, ew. No it’s not. It’s NOT a love story. I read ponygirl’s post and was shocked, because I think Lolita is one of the best books I’ve ever read. I think this largely because of Nabokov’s skill with language, the way he is able to present Humbert in the first person as someone who thinks the world of himself, but still lets through all the ways he’s a sick twisted fuck. Or, as TWF succinctly put it, “the whole unreliable narrator thing.” I totally understand why people get grossed out reading it – it’s supposed to be an imagined window into a child molester’s mind, and that’s not a fun swamp to wade through. But it’s ridiculous to assume, just because someone thinks the book is a masterpiece, that they’re not worth getting to know further. Humbert is not supposed to be a hero.
But, yeah. That’s the worst pickup line I’ve ever heard, regardless of whether or not the dude knew what he was talking about. (Though I rather hope he didn’t. Then he’d just be a dumbass, not a sicko.)
Okay, I’m about to go lay in bed and read more Lolita. I swear, reading this feels like literary Stockholm Syndrome.
You know, I’ve never really gotten why the book is as vaunted as it is. I mean, I think it’s well-written (if yes, overwritten, purposely or no) and all; but one of the Great Classics?
as per Mighty Ponygirl’s thesis: it’s a point; a lot of people do seem to miss that whole “unreliable narrator” thing. which could well be because a lot of people are, well, really fucking creepy and -wanted- to miss it.
then again, a lot of people think that “Frankenstein” refers to the monster, not the doctor. in both cases I suspect it’s because they’re a lot more familiar with the movie, even if they did say they read the book. I could be wrong.
as per subway pick-up artist: HAha loser.
If someone said that to me, I would probably be too busy laughing in their face to be creeped out.
I never understood why it was considered a classic either — I read it a long time ago, and saw it done as a one-person monologue play… it’s interesting, well written, and sometimes funny, but not “the greatest love story ever told”. That’s just silly.
It’s like calling something from John Irving “the greatest book ever written” — why?
Slight tangent, but – recently in the UK, Penguin brought out a list of the 100 greatest books, grouped by the ‘best thing’ in them. So for example, ‘The best lovers’ includes A Room with a View, ‘The best spine-tinglers’ includes Dracula and so on. Lolita was listed under ‘The best minxes.’
I wrote to Penguin asking them whether they meant ‘The best villains’, but am still waiting for a reply…
What kind of a tin-eared ninny identifies with a character named Humbert Humbert?
I swear, reading this feels like literary Stockholm Syndrome.
This is totally how I felt, though the annotated version helped that a bit. The annotations also helped me to see Nabokov’s literary status is not just because of his beautiful and clever prose, but all the hidden clues within the text that Humbert is messed up and not heroic. He references other authors, his other works, pop culture of the times, etc. that I never would have seen without the annotations. His writing is thick with added (sometimes double-) meaning.
Has anyone seen both the Kubrick and Adrian Lyne (director of 9 1/2 Weeks, Fatal Attraction, Indecent Proposal and Unfaithful) versions of the film so they could compare them? I have yet to see the Kubrick version.
I’ve seen the Kubrick version, not the Lyne. I think it’s one of Kubrick’s more human pics, but frankly that’s not saying much (I dislike him rather a lot). The opening shot of the pedicure is rather lovely and sensual; I can see why someone would consider the movie more of a “love story” than the book, at any rate. Although, Kubrick…well.
and the Peter Sellars role is just bizarre. I honestly never understood the point of that plotline; call me dense.
Shelley Winters is probably worth the price of admission alone, even if the unpleasantness of her character rather points up the misogyny of the whole thing.
…I guess what I do like about the book, and one reason why I can see why it’s propelled from “huh, interesting” to “okay, this has lasting value” is the kind of skewed-yet-somehow-accurate impression of America from a jaded European perspective. If you look at Humbert and Lolita as symbolic of their respective places at the time, it makes a certain kind of sense: then it becomes not just about some pervert, but about the longing of the weary and decadent (and war-torn) for something new and fresh and “innocent,” even as the “innocence” is simultaneously viewed as appallingly puerile.
also see I suppose “Death in Venice” and the underrated recent takeoff of it, “Love and Death on Long Island.” In all cases the respective cultural backgrounds of the old perv and the object of desire is significant.
I read it, expecting to be grossed out and horrified, and I wasn’t, but I think that was due to literary skill. I kind of felt like I could see his side, and know that that made me disgusting, and that that was the point of the narrative. Look how easy it is to be this fucked up, and to think that you’re not. Look how easy it is to believe your own hype, in a way.
I was also fascinated at the fact that what he liked about her was that she was an obnoxious preteen. she wasn’t some precociously sexual nymph – she was an annoying little brat. But somehow that drew him in. It was such a different perspective on ‘what’s attractive’ even though it came from a monster.
I’ve not seen either of the films, but Dominique Swain was 17 when she was in the 1997 one (I just looked it up), and I guess part of what keeps me distanced from the idea is that the first thing I heard about the film was Jeremy Irons saying in an interview that there were tiny pillows holding him up off of her during the bedroom scenes, and that in between takes, they’d throw them at each other. He said it took a lot of takes because they couldn’t stop giggling about it.
also see I suppose “Death in Venice” and the underrated recent takeoff of it, “Love and Death on Long Island.” In all cases the respective cultural backgrounds of the old perv and the object of desire is significant.
Oh, “Love and Death on Long Island” was great. And one of the odd things about it was the fact that through the whole movie, you can understand and sympathize with John Hurt’s character (well, at least I could, and I’m neither old nor gay) … and yet, if it were a young girl he were after instead of a guy, he would merely come off as a disgusting letch, and the other themes within the story would be lost. That’s kind of what seems to happen in Lolita – it’s easy to be so utterly grossed out by what Humbert is actually doing (as many here might seem to be) that one can’t see anything in the story beyond that.
I’ve seen the Lyne version, which was really well-done. Jeremy Irons and his director weren’t afraid to make Humbert Humbert into the pathetic buffoon he was, but they managed to make him just as unsavory for all his immaturity. Dominique Swain was the perfect teenager.
Gods and Monsters, although not involving a minor, is another example of a younger-older cross-cultural background.
Ewwww. That reminds me of Jill’s story about the guy who approached her and said she looked like his sister…
Well, wrt Love and Death, the object of desire was in his twenties and married. So yeah, if they’d just altered the gender it would’ve had a different vibe, but still wouldn’t have had the same “ick” factor as Lolita. in fact there probably would’ve been more people rooting for Hurt and the girl to run off together.
Scott: boggle.
somewhere there was a whole site dedicated to Worst Pickup Lines Ever; if I can find it again…
No! He di’nt!
I’ve seen the Kubrick version, but not the more recent film.
In my opinion, the Kubrick version gets the character of Lolita all wrong. In the book, Lolita is 12, and not particularly attractive in a mainstream kind of way. She’s a scrawny, rather plain little kid, just like any kid of that age. And she has a little crush on Humbert at one point, but she is in NO WAY precociously sexual. Humbert portrays her as seducing him the first night, but later quotes her as saying he raped her that night.
This is the thing about unreliable narrators. Not everyone gets them, and it can be hard to explain to those who don’t, especially the young.
My husband related strongly to Paul Simon’s “I am a rock” on a purely non-ironic way as a teenager. Similar thing, but giving a 14-year-old boy Nabokov (or Salinger even) can cause some issues.
The problem with Lolita‘s unreliable narrator providing a glimpse inside the mind of a pedophile is that pedophiles and near-pedophiles look into it and say, “Hey! Someone who really understands life!” One person I know has told me that her father read to her out of Lolita while trying to persuade her that his desires for her were wholesome, that she was living out a love story rather than a nightmare.
I’m surprised that in all this discussion of clueless readings of this book, nobody has mentioned the publisher’s MS-reader who suggested that Nabokov rewrite the book as a road trip by a Midwestern farmer and a young boy.
[...] discovered when I took it to Falls Lake today, but at least it makes me look respectable. Or does it Coming up tomorrow: Do you know those take [...]
Read the comment thread at imdb.com for Lolita (the Adrian Lyne version). OMG, creepy. A love story? Humbert was pure at heart? You feel bad for him and think Lolita and Humbert should have ended up together?
Oh, and then trash the guy who shows up and says, “Are you people fucking nuts?”