Why are books like ‘Lolita’ so misinterpreted?

Question

Hi I’m SocietlMess, call me Andromeda or Anne. Today I wanna discuss as to why books like Lolita are so misinterpreted. I would like to hear everyone else’s opinions as well on this:

For those of you who don’t know, Lolita is a classic novel and film about a girl named Lolita, obviously. This book and film however quickly sets itself apart from most as it discusses something strange, pedophilia.

“Lolita is a 1955 novel written by Russian-American novelist Vladimir Nabokov. The novel is notable for its controversial subject: the protagonist and unreliable narrator, a middle-aged literature professor under the pseudonym Humbert Humbert, is obsessed with a 12-year-old girl, Dolores Haze, with whom he becomes sexually involved after he becomes her stepfather. "Lolita" is his private nickname for Dolores.” -Wikipedia

Not only does this pedophile have the same names for his first and last name, but he’s as listed an “unreliable narrator”
Lolita is a commentary on pedophilia, and shows why it’s bad and a terrible thing. And people think it’s a romance novel. I’m not joking right now, there’s people who believe it’s a romance novel. And some people even use it to justify pedophilia.

There’s one scene in the movie that really puts into perspective how Humbert is misinterpreting what’s happening, and trying to justify himself for sexually abusing a child. In one scene Lolita threatens to tell others he raped her.

It’s literally spoon fed to you like you’re a baby that humbert is just trying to justify himself.

And if I am correct later in the story Lolita wants nothing to do with him, I could very well be wrong on this. But I was told this by someone who likes the book and movies made about it.

In fact this book was written when the author was told to write about something he doesn’t like.

Why do people use this to justify pedophilia, or believe it’s a romance novel? When it’s so clear it’s the opposite, and is actually going against the topic entirely.

Why are books like ‘Lolita’ so misinterpreted?

abc3643 · Accepted Answer

I am not saying it's a romance, but I am also not saying it's a pedophile book for several reasons:
1. Despite being 12, Delores is (what's the right word?) sexually precocious; she behaves more like an older girl in her flirtatiousness. The advent of her sexuality at such a young age instinctively masks her actual age. I'm not wording that well, but the way in which she flirts or moves tells the instinctive male mind that she is at a sexually acceptable age even though, in reality, she is not. All humans have a similar problem of the higher mind needing to control the instincts.
2. Pedophilia denotes the erotic preference for prepubescent children. Delores is NOT prepubescent. The controvesial term hebephilia has been proposed to denote the erotic preference for pubescent children (roughly, ages 11 or 12-14). So, if anything, Humbert Humbert would be a hebephile and he likely is as described in this excerpt from Scientific American which quotes the novel...

==========
blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../
Based on this classification scheme of erotic age orientations, even the world’s best-known fictitious “pedophile,” Humbert Humbert from Nabokov’s masterpiece, Lolita, would more properly be considered a hebephile. (Likewise the protagonist from Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice, a work that I’ve always viewed as something of the “gay Lolita”). Consider Humbert’s telltale description of a “nymphet.” After a brief introduction to those “pale pubescent girls with matted eyelashes,” Humbert explains:

Between the age limits of nine and fourteen there occur maidens who, to certain bewitched travelers, twice or many times older than they, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac); and these chosen creatures I propose to designate as “nymphets.”

====
Anyway, I just wanted to point these out - especially since "pedophilia" is often a misunderstood and misapplied term by the general populace.

And, yes, you were right: Delores wanted nothing to do with him at the end.

Trolloween · Accepted Answer

There's a couple reasons I can think of. Firstly people who are pedos don't have normal brains, they don't seem to see any harm in what they want. So they aren't creeped out watching it and they miss all the obvious signs you mentioned. Another reason is if you only watch the film it looks like this girl is egging him on the whole time and is totally unaffected until quite far in when she is clearly a mess and hates him. But overall it really doesn't portray things as negatively as I think it could or should have, because after all she gets married and had a family and is pretty much OK. Maybe there is meant to be a context that it is a bias retelling from his point of view but that is totally lost in the film and I haven't read the book myself to compare.

DorkVader · Accepted Answer

I, a reader and observer of humanity, have come to realize that people will take whatever understanding they want from things, regardless of it is the actual meaning or purpose of the art. When people say "art is subjective" they mean that the art will mean different things to different people. Someone mentioned Fight Club and my God, people read that book and took all the wrong lessons from it. Like Rick and Morty, people glorify Rick and never understand why he's a flawed character. Bojack Horseman is so far the only show I haven't seen anyone misinterpret, but I'm sure someone out there is.

It's because people seek to glorify their own nature through art. If Lolita becomes a romance, it's through the eyes of men who can relate to Humbert's predilection. He is a sympathetic character to them.

Duckysback · Accepted Answer

What, kinda like how people think that Romeo and Juliet was a romance story? And have you seen any of the film adaptations of Lolita? Because they absolutely glorify that shit.

Anonymous · Answer

If something is remotely subtle, it will be misinterpreted.

See also: fight club.

It's also harder to allow that dawning realization the narrator is biased to come through in film. Film tends to seem like documentary.

To some extent, I think there's an unfortunate desire to just sweep it all away as opposed to discussing it. I have not encountered many men who view Lolita as a romance, though I'm sure there are pedos who get off to it. I've actually run into more -women- who think of it as a romance, and who to some extent imagine themselves as a young woman, perhaps not her age, but a young woman who is misunderstood and more mature and ready for an older artistic man. I think the problem isn't Lolita the book, it's that we don't talk about these things, we don't talk about relationships and what they really should be like and what's normal, we don't talk about what happens when young women first find they can have attention and power by being sexually suggestive, and they may or may not understand what they're doing.

HighlyQuestionable · Answer

Finally someone brought up "that" book.

I confess that I have only read bits and pieces of it.

The novel "Lolita" is rife with tricks of speech and extremely complex references.

Personally I am not a fan of it, because of the subject matter. What I found especially disturbing is the abuse aspect. Humbert striking and sexually abusing 'Lo.

I just simply cannot fathom men who, in one breath say that are attracted to a woman or girl and proceed to strike or violate them.

The other thing that struck me is that throughout the parts that I have read, Humbert never tells Lolita that he loves her. He never expresses real affection.

So, because of those two aspects alone, I would argue strongly against "Lolita" as a "love story" or "romance".

Although I think that it held potential to be a striking, sweeping depiction of a strange sort of relationship. ( I realize it is controversial or even egotistical to suggest a work by one of the giants of American literature "held potential").

A certain line of thought has always come to mind about this book: It understandably caused a great scandal when first released. I wonder if the violent aspect made it more or less palatable to the public.

It would be curious in a sociological sense to see how the public would react to a novel like "Lolita" if the novel depicted a love affair between "a" Humbert and Lolita without violence, abuse or sex, but purely as a romance of the senses and emotions.

CubsterShura · Answer

Because money.

More people would be naturally drawn to a more romanticized movie. I watched it, it's extremely disturbing and the only positive thing I could find was Lolita's outfits, those were all stunning. It's romanticized so it can sell to the younger audience.

It's like the Bollywood movie Devdas. The movie is just a more embellished and bejeweled version of the actual novel. I saw another TV series based on another amazing novel, where the main male character, despite having a wife, had feelings for another woman. In the novel their interactions were limited to occasional brief eye contacts, and just their desire to be together which was never expressed in words or actions. In the TV series, they made out, went out to places together. Ruined the entire story for me. They just added those scenes for the hots and nothing more.

ScottStevens · Answer

Very deep subject and I like how you framed your question. “Why do people call this romance”.

No matter what Lolita is going through at 12 years old, a grown man has the responsibility to be more mature. She may be exploring her own sexuality and experimenting with these developing hormones and thus being promiscuous in her actions. But she does not know the importance of her actions at age 12.

Unfortunately today with the internet and available porn that comes with it, I’m afraid more people are beginning to think it is acceptable for any age man to have sex with a 12 year old. The same goes for a 12 and 13 year old couple.

Hopefully parents who are concerned have enough trust from their children that they openly converse on these topics so the young people have responsible role models and not just porn stars to look up to.

mermaidrocketship · Answer

Lolita is the most recent book I’ve read. Classic lit is my favorite, and this one is at the top of my list, just because HH is so clearly a piece of trash. You can see through his childhood love why his desires are as they are, but he’s totally aware of how using Lolita to fulfill his fantasy is destroying her. It’s better than the psychology books.

Gedaria · Answer

I haven't read the book. But have watched the movie based on it. It is a romance, but it's the age of her that puts a nasty thing in the way.
She is as much in love with him as he is with her
He is totally irresponsible and should not let her get her way. But that line she uses as a black mail. I will tell them you raped me. He is totally at her mercy.
What would you do at this moment. byou love her, if don't have sex she will say you did , but also you want to.
If they were the same age no one would bat an eye iid..
This is what makes the film, how a young girl can manipulate a grown man. But the situation is of his own making...

Anonymous · Answer

The problem is context. As soon as the context is removed, it is very easy to completely mis represent everything. That has happened with Lolita. They just removed the part where the guy's actions are punished. They just add the briefest possible context. Guy is 40+ and girl is 12. Thats it.

King_Alt · Answer

People will always find a way to misconstrue something to fit their narrative, no matter how wrong they are. That's how radical ideology comes to be, someone takes something and then grossly misinterprets it and puts out that to people liable to believe it.

MackToday · Answer

I always found it disturbing the way people talk about the book. I never read it myself for the reason a lot of people never did it's a really gross topic and not fun to read about.

JayParris · Answer

The same reason they think Romeo and Juliet is a romance rather than a tragedy. Its what they want to think, and no amount of reason will keep them from thinking it.

honestGUY45 · Answer

Sorry I'm not giving you an opinion on your topic, but for 15 you are very articulate.

_Jay_ · Answer

Honestly, I really enjoyed the book. It was so well written. So properly disgusting with itself that it was beautiful even. Now I dont see the romance part. It is just a man succumbing to disgusting ideas of what he might find pleasurable.

Silence00 · Answer

What I have learned from this is, desperation of a mother killed her daughter's childhood.

JamesBlackDragon · Answer

Not sure all I know is sometime in the past when a girl got her period she was considered a woman abd ready to be married and have children

Kriskringle69 · Answer

Heard of it I believe but I don't think I've ever read it or seen the movie...

Plitty-Tank · Answer

People are so stuck on what the government says about love.

esotericstory · Answer

Lolita is a whore who seduced a mentally unstable man because she didn't get enough attention from her parents.

ravagesavage · Answer

Because it's trash

Why are books like ‘Lolita’ so misinterpreted?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said