I think that their 'innocence' is part of what, sadly, draws them to them. The thought of the nymphet being untouched and 'pure.'

I think for sure that things would go in a similar way today. It certainly illegal and in most jurisdictions, even if a twelve year old did consent, the law states that a person is only capable of giving consent after a certain age... so whatever consent 'Lolita' may have given, it would still be a crime. Of course there's the issue of whether it would be reported or not. A lot of things do go unreported. Would a girl in Lolita's shoes be more or less inclined to report it in this day and age? Who knows?

My understanding of the age of the girl in the movie is that she was 16. All of the sexually explicit scenes was the body of a stand in girl who was 19 because the California law did not allow a minor to do sexually explicit scenes. This is not factual only 50 year old recall. L

I have not seen the movie but it sounds like the movie changed Lolita's character. I have not finished the book, but Lolita was more child than woman. At the beginning of the book she is in grade 7 with juvenile budding breasts, and weighing 86 lbs (if I remember correctly). Humbert was indeed a pedaphile and this was not a love affair but an exploitation of a young girl and he would indeed be arrested if it was reported today.

To add to Ophelia's quote:
Humbert:

By rubbing all this in, I succeeded in terrorizing Lo, .......But if I managed to establish that background of shared secrecy and shared guilt, I was much less successful in keeping her in good humor

In the book we do not really get a clear picture of Lolita's thoughts and actions as we view them only through Humbert's eyes. A movie would be quite different as we would see the story equally through both of them.

Sorry I haven't been on here for so long. I am still continuing to read the book but it has been heavily damaged due to a new puppy. With that said, let me respond to this discussion.

It is correct that alot of these offenses are not reported. In fact alot of families would prefer to handle this type of thing "internally". Goes along with the phrase "airing out dirty laundry".

Their innocence is what attracts them. I would love to have seen a second book that is from Dolly's view. Would she think he was a dirty old man? Would she see him as a god only to later see him as a villian in the end?

Would she think he was a dirty old man? Would she see him as a god only to later see him as a villian in the end?

I'm not sure how far along you are so I don't want to say too much. I think that Lolita saw him as a god. She may have had some fond feelings for him in the beginning, may have enjoyed a little attention and flirting, but it is fairly clear from the first time they had sex that she did not return his feelings and did see their relationship as dirty.

Humbert original attraction to her was about innocence and youth but even as that is dispelled by her experience his lust for her does not lessen.

Raving..what kind of puppy did you get?

The girls will have to say how much zing they got from early teenage sexual experimentation but Elizabeth Taylor's character in Butterfield 8 said she loved it. Any opinion us fellas might express about Lolita's attitude would be pure guess.

Quote realiz:

I think that Lolita saw him as a god.

Oops, I meant to say here that she did NOT see him as a god.

As for early teenage experimentation...this was not the case. Having a 40 years old man have sex with you for 3 hours when you are in his charge is not really experimentation. As for the rest of the book, it was very clear that Lolita did not enjoy the sex with him.

If she had loved it, and I guess there could be situations like this where that would happen, after all an older man would know more about seduction and unducing pleasure for woman than a young teen, this book would still be about the exploitation of a young girl.

This seems like a great book with lots of food for thought. I'm disappointed with not participating in this discussion because i'm still waiting for my book, a price you pay for living a long way from anywhere. However, I have read many of the posts on Lolita and I'm intrigued and sickened by how depraved Humbert is. The victimization of Lolita is so cruel that I feel nauseated contemplating it.

Some of us parents, whether of boys or girls, have had some kind of scare that one of our kids may have fallen victim to a predator and I think this would personalize and bring close to home the story of Humbert. Just look at the panicked face of a parent who has lost a child in a shopping mall or a theme park .. this is not just about the kid wandering off but about what can happen to the child, the threats that he or she may face and high up on the threat list is "predator".

One question I will think about as I read Lolita is whether or not it is possible for the reader to set aside emotions and be objective, almost clinical .. or is the emotional pull of the story simply too strong. And would the experience of reading the story be different from an "objective" point of view?

giselle,
I hope you get your copy soon, so that you can join in the discussion. We need more opinions here. I think setting aside emotions in this story and looking at it 'clinically' would cause an even lower opinion of Humbert.

i think they sent my book by dog sled. but i will read it when it arrives. i have started reading The Things They Carried in hopes of participating in the next fiction discussion.