Lolita

[Dana]

O.K., I wasn't going to jump in until Jules repeated his assertion
that Lolita seduced Humbert and was "sexually active" etc etc.
First of all, fooling around at the age of 12 or 13, I don't think,
constitutes "sexually active" in the way that adults are, and 2nd, didn't
Humbert drag Lolita across the country and isolate her in a hotel room
when he was "seduced" by her?(and this sounds like a court case
here in Kingston when a perverted ole prof said a three-year old girl
seduced him).  And third, isn't Lolita crying through most of the second
half of the book because she's been torn away from her childhood? (yes)
and fourth, isn't the text on many levels about the danger of metaphors?
i.e. the body of a child used to work out Humbert's incest/insect
linguistic convolutions.  The metaphoric aspect of the whole book is hilarious;
the literality is horrifying.   I hate those fucken book blurbs that
call -Lolita- a love story.  The only love going on is Humbert's love
for language--and of course, the material is a pliable female body.
Why assume Humbert's perspective is totally reliable (she seduced me, man),
esp. since he's seduced by language so?
I don't buy Humbert's horny little excuses (punctuated by Lolita's cries)
and I don't buy Jules' excuses for him.
Dana
p.s. I bet Lolita hadn't even gotten her first period yet either.