It’s most un-endearing for a man to be so eloquent and lyrical about being emotionally and sexually active about a little girl. There are feudals such as Mina who think that well because she was precocious, it isn’t as bad as if she was really innocent which shocked the living daylights out of me. Her logic reminded me of the man who raped a girl in Aladdin water park and said that well, she was with her boyfriend so obviously not a chaste girl. I mean what the fuck.
Moreover, the book and later the movie (we watched the new one, not the old one and I HATE it when the skip parts out and it was pretty obvious that if you hadn’t read the book you wouldn’t get a thing of the movie) made me claustrophobic and reminded me of the time when I wanted to run away from home as a kid and I used to pack my red and black chequered school case with two shirts, books and a jar of milk, a pack of Marie biscuits, stand out side the gate and immediately burst into tears because even the path away from the driveway where I spent my whole time biking away was a blistering chasm just waiting to rip my limbs apart and induct me into a beggar mafia gang. This was just it. Mina said well you know she didn’t have to stay with him. Of course she did. You cannot underestimate the fear of a child who has no parents, no family, no money, no nothing, no avenue to turn to. Of course she had to stay with him because the world would swallow her whole otherwis
5 comments:
i think you make a good case but i think you have read to much into this. i personally think that the book was written to show the psychological thinking of well...paedophile. i dont think that there is a justification to paedophilia at all or rape but i think that it is important to try and see the other persons side to the storey to see whether they can be rehabilitated or not....and if they can its good...i dont know i tried to make sense but i dont think i quit got there
Our prophet married hazrat aisha when she was 9, correct me if i am wrong here...taking into account the fact that this information is never concealed or distorted makes me think it wasn't taboo back then. I guess what i am trying to say is that our "moral compasses" have seen major realigments over time.
Before we got colonised the people of this subcontinent didn't see anything wrong with child marriages and there still are many who don't.
Moral and ethical codes based on anything other than divine commandments are based on really weak foundations and crumble when you ask the simple question "says who?" The evaluation can only be as good as the evaluator and in case of human evaluators the evaluation is always susceptible to flaws. Now if you bring God into the equation then you have a perfect evaluator and his evaluation would be perfect. So unless God says "thou shalt not marry little girls" people can, and will, question the immorality of child marriages.
I don't know if any of this makes sense. It is really hard to objectively analyse issues about which we have such strong feelings. I personally find the idea pretty sickening...just not sure how much of that revulsion is acquired and how much is inherent.
It was wrong for her.She hated it.Every era has a new universal.And the age she lived in, the people she lived with, made it wrong for, made it not a choice but a compulsion and the constant little battles she has are proof enough. That for me is basis enough to condemn it.What you said is precisely what Humbert Humbert also says, but again he is very aware of the fact the age and the continent are wrong to have such feelings. I don't know how much objectively you can analyse a situation that was so hated by one person. It sort of mocks her subjectivity, her person.
Hi Moizza :)
I loved Lolita. It's such a fascinating book. Have you noticed the difference between the foreword and the epilogue? One of them is "here are the ravings of a crazy psychopath while he was in jail" and one is like "this is complete moral vindication of a sad, misguided but ultimately good man". They're like the two extreme ways you can interpret the book, I think. Humbert makes himself pretty likable sometimes with his wit and who can't sympathize with him a little bit in that last scene by the car.
I don't agree with people who say that Lolita had it coming, or that it wasn't a big deal for her. The book makes it pretty clear the effect the affair had on her. It destroyed her innocence, the way she used to tell him about what she did at camp, all that was gone. And clearly, he exaggerated her experiences at camp to show that by the time he took over custody of her she was already corrupted.
Nabokov is an incredible writer, but I always end up feeling like I don't get his books at all once I've read them. I guess that's just the point of post-modernism? I'm the kind of old-fashioned person who reads a book for some kind of point or moral message (I guess that's why "Great Expectations" is my favourite novel) and Nabokov deliberately avoids that -- he'd probably think it was incredibly crass to take a moral stand one way or another. Have you ever read "Pale Fire"? It's a lot weirder than Lolita.
Rabia Shakoor
Rabia:) I didn't see the comment till now. I'm glad you dropped by. I loved the way the book was written not just style but the fact that there was a whole inent behind the unfolding, it wasn't just the narration.
Do you remember how Humbert Humbert started off by attributing his continued fascination with "nymphets" to his first love. I always felt, even after I watched the movie, that was a repeated excuse pulled up when convenient.
I haven't read any of Nabakov's other books though and if they are anything like Lolita I think I'm going to stay away. And I don't like much post-modern writing either.
Abhi I finished reading Posession by A.S.Byatt. Got extremely worked up over it, sort of like Lisa Simpson with tears brimming constantly:P
Post a Comment