No, I know it seems so odd. I havent met a person who has agreed with me yet. But I cant help but see the book in a different light.

Hello gothicmuffin:

I can relate, I oftentimes see things differently than others. I once posted that I felt bad that HH was prevented by Lolita's mother from molesting her. Sick, huh? Goes to show how talented Nabokov was.

I just grabbed my copy, what has always interested me is the quote from "Vanity Fair" on the cover. It says, " The only convincing love story of our century". This is one bold statement. It's convincing in the respect that Humbert Humbert is so mezmerizing, I know I had to stop myself from believing him.

Perhaps I am letting myself fall victim to his convincing ways. Or maybe what I see now is my actual opinion on the matter, there is no doubt in my mind that HH wasnt a man I wanted my young daughter around, but to me making it illegal for a person to choose who they have sex with is wrong as long as it consentual.

Books are good for that, makes you discover how you feel on subjects outside of it's pages.

But, I do have to disagee, I don't think Lolita had much of a choice in the matter.

May I ask why? Id like to see another point of view, and maybe expand or change what I think.

Humbert Humbert believed he was in love with Lolita. I don't believe that a 12 year old would choose to express love by sex. HH was her father figure, an authority figure. When he took her, she relied upon him for her food, and shelter. I believe he manipulated her into believing that what was best for him, was best for her too. Remember, she had not gotten her period yet, Lolita was a child in his eyes. Child+man=molestation, in my opinion.

I feel she did not have a choice, because she could not say no. I don't think a 12 year old has the capacity to say no in a situation with an authority figure who is so much older. She was helpless, and HH forced himself on her.

I'm not trying to change your mind about how you read the book. I'm just giving my opinion. There is a political angle to "Lolita".
Think about this, Lolita represents the people, HH represents the country. In this light, I like your interpretation of the book. Take any issue up for political debate. Your "Lolita" has a say in that issue. My "Lolita", does not.

Nabokov's family left Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. I think to truly understand "Lolita", you need to understand Nabokov.

Suzanne wrote:I feel she did not have a choice, because she could not say no. I don't think a 12 year old has the capacity to say no in a situation with an authority figure who is so much older. She was helpless, and HH forced himself on her.

I'm really trying not to read this thread since I've never read Lolita. :laugh2: It's on my short list of books to read this summer.

But that's a very good point, Suzanne. When I was a newspaper reporter I took issue with a police report that alleged someone having had sex with a child. My argument then and still is that an adult cannot have sexual relations with a child because that implies consent by both parties. And as you say a child doesn't have the capacity to agree to have sex with an adult or at least that should be the assumption.

I guess I dont see why Its okay for a adolescent to have sex with another adolescent but not an adult. I dont think it would hurt less either way when they realize it was a mistake

Gothicmufin wrote:

I guess I dont see why Its okay for a adolescent to have sex with another adolescent but not an adult. I dont think it would hurt less either way when they realize it was a mistake

I liked Geo's word, consent. Can a child give consent to have sexual relations with an adult? I would have to say no. To give consent, would mean the child has made a conscience discision.

The child is not making a mistake, it is forced upon them. It's like a rape victim blaming themselves.

Suzanne wrote:Can a child give consent to have sexual relations with an adult? I would have to say no. To give consent, would mean the child has made a conscience discision.

As I've already said I agree with this, but perhaps we need to differentiate between an adult essentially forcing himself (or herself) on a child versus an already sexually active teen, say, having sex with an older teen or even an adult. In that scenario it could be consensual even if it violates statuatory rape laws. There's a fine line there but definitely a line between consenting adults and an older person taking advantage of someone younger. I think our law has to draw the line somewhere arbitrary just to play it safe, but unfortunately this is going to result in the occasional rape case brought against, say, an 18-year-old having sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend when it's entirely possible that the relationship is consensual.