Lolita

[Jules Siegel]

I sent this to Dana privately when I meant to send it to the list. Hope that
explains my last message to you, Dana.

At 06:00 PM 07/4/97 EDT, Dana <3DEM11 at QUCDN.QueensU.CA> wrote:

[snip good points]

>I don't buy Humbert's horny little excuses (punctuated by Lolita's cries)
and I don't buy Jules' excuses for him.

I'm sorry if I seemed to make excuses for Humbert. He was an asshole and
having been created by a great writer doesn't make him anything more than
Asshole Art.

I don't think that your points about her sexual aggressiveness and activity
are all that strong, though. It seemed to me to be pretty clear that she had
done more than some fooling around and she did eagerly embrace sex with
Humbert at first.

Humbert was an asshole for having ruined her life by kidnapping her and
isolating her from the normal life she was entitled to have. Lolita weeps
not only for childhood but for freedom. She also weeps because Humbert is so
boring and dull and tedious and because he is her jailer, not her lover. His
effect on her sexual life is another discussion. It was undoubtedly malign
because as he was portrayed he was -- let's repeat the perfect word here --
an ASSHOLE!

But the mere fact that a mature man has sexual relations with an immature
girl is not necessarily bad, just as it is not necessarily bad if a mature
woman has sexual relations with an immature boy. Now repeat the changes for
the various sexes. Each situation has to be judged on its own terms.

My point was that Chrissie was not accusing Pynchon of pedophilia when she
said he had a big thing for Lolitas, because Lolitas are not usually
children in the sense that pedophilia requires. Nabokov is quite clear in
the book about who they are and one of the most important factors is their
age (pubescent), sexual awareness and their eagerness for the sexual
relationship with an older male.

I am not saying that it is a good thing for an adult male to take advantage
of young girls who display these characteristics. I am saying that I don't
think it always constitutes pedophilia.

I don't approve of adults taking advantage of the sexually immature, no
matter how eager the object might appear to be, but I do not think that we
should make accusations of pedophilia which are not supported by any
evidence and are, in fact, mere defamation.

>p.s. I bet Lolita hadn't even gotten her first period yet either.

I don't think that the exact physical condition is significant. Anita and I
had a close woman friend who described being sexually licked in early
childhood by a young, handsome farmhand. She said it was exquisite, that she
enjoyed it fully and treasured the memory. I am not recommending this to
anyone. I offer it as evidence that each case must be judged on its own
terms, despite the very correct and prudent attitude of suspicion.



--Jules Siegel Apdo 1764 Cancun QR 77501
http://www.yucatanweb.com/siegel/jsiegel.htm