Lolita
MantaRay at aol.com
MantaRay at aol.com
Wed Jul 9 12:10:04 CDT 1997
>This runs along my point. Just because there is an "attraction" of sorts,
>doesn't make it ethically "right" for the guy to bring it to a sexual level.
>In Lolita's case, Humbert was honestly attracted to her, and she manipulated
>that attraction to some degree, but that's no excuse for what he did...
I don't see in the novel that there was an "attraction" from Lolita's end,
esp. since it is told in the first-person from Humbert's skewed POV. I also
think it's dangerous to accuse a 12-year old (sexually active or not) of
manipulating a guy who showers her with affection, shoves her in a car after
her mother dies and drives her around the country depriving her of any life
whatsoever. Maybe manipulation is not the word for it. Love, attraction or
not, I think we it's pretty hard to see Lolita as anything other than the
victim of a sexual predator. This is coming from a guy who thinks it's one
the most amazing novels ever written.
MantaRay
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list