Lolita

[jester]

MantaRay,

Absolutely true.  I should have annotated my posting with the fact that it
IS told from him perspective (which is tainted).  I thought it was obvious.

Never said there was an "attraction from Lolita's end," though.  I think
that was some other anmimal 'said that.

Oh well, take care,
JJ "Jester"

ps> Yeah, it IS a good book.  And like many people, I don't mind that
editorial comments.

At 01:10 PM 07/09/1997 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>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
>
>