#Humbert Humbert

[lolas-blrr]

need this so bad

[lovezhype]

lolita (1997) film stills ୨୧

[clubartaesthetic]

you murdered me, but not in the usual way

[suicidalvirginnn]

Take care of me

[doloresdisparue]

It's weird that so many people take Humbert having some traits similar to Nabokov as some kind of damning evidence that Nabokov was definitely an evil child molester like apart from the fact that Nabokov constantly took random details of his life and gave them to characters and Humbert absolutely HAD to share some biographical aspects for the story to work (white, upper class, educated) have you ever considered that maybe its easier to write a reprehensible person that isn't a caricature when other aspects of them are things you are familiar with and can empathise with easily. Almost like real awful people are also complex human beings who are made up of many traits and experiences some of which even you probably share!

[theprettiestcrier]

dominique swain for vanity fair 1997

[cherries-in-wine]

𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒍𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒍𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒂 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒊𝒓𝒈𝒊𝒏 𝒔𝒖𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒔 ‧₊ ☁️⋅♡ ࣪ ִֶָ☾.

People call Vladimir Nabokov a disgusting creep for writing from the perspective of a pedophile when in reality if you read the book, Humbert Humbert is not likeable in the slightest. He's an unreliable narrator that's so stuck in his own delusions that he can't see how miserable dolores is because of him. Nabokov is an incredible writer and lolita is really well written- it's dreamy and poetic because that's what Humbert Humbert wants you to see but occasionally the mask slips and the horrifying reality of the situation peaks through, it's your responsibility as the reader to read in between the lines to see the story for what it is- not a romance. It's a great satire in the sense that it's pathetic to see Humbert Humbert think he's oh so charming and these "nymphets" are oh so in love with him. Dolores' trauma is obvious to any competent reader, I don't know how people are so charmed by Humbert Humbert that they can't see how dolores' defiance which he refers to as "teenage rebellion" or "tantrums" is a very apparent cry for help. Lolita is a Gothic horror, a cautionary tale. It's a genius work of art and what's most horrific about it lies in the aftermath of its release, how it's so normalised to sexualise little girls that blatant pedophilia is interpreted as a tragic love story. Nabokov himself referred to dolores as his "poor little girl". He had a lot of empathy for her and it is so heartbreaking to see her being portrayed as this temptress when in reality she is a 12 year old tomboy who likes comics and playing in the dirt. Catherine Demongeot (image on the left) is what Nabokov imagined lolita to look like while on the right is how lolita is perceived by the media. The images speak for themselves.

When I first read the virgin suicides I thought it was a great work of satire. I adore the Lisbon girls with all my heart, I see a part of myself in all of them by varying degrees. The boys who claimed they loved these girls, only saw them as some fantasy. Even in death they never truly respected any of them. How when they found Cecelia's diary, instead of trying to make sense of why she killed herself, they selfishly searched for their own names. I loved the irony of the boys claiming that they loved these girls when they didn't know anything about them. It showed how shallow and surface level their “love” was. I thought the author, Jeffery Eugenides really understood me because as a girl it feels as though you’re only loved if you’re sexualised and how much sympathy you deserve is dependent on how attractive you are, as if that’s the only value you have to offer. But in reality he didn't mean any of the things the boys did to be interpreted as satire. According to him, peaking through windows, stealing used tampons, joking about groping dead girls, these grown men still picturing those little girls years later while they had sex with their wives etc was supposed to show that teenage boys are not disgusting horny dogs, but romantic softies (if anything this made me think teenage boys are much more repulsive than i thought). According to Eugenides the book is satire, but in the sense that you never know what was going through a person's head when they committed suicide and you can't make sense of it no matter how hard you try. Everything about how the boys viewed the girls was not satire and was to be taken at face value. This really broke my heart, an author who I thought really did get me and understood me, ended up making me feel watched instead of seen. I guess this is where "death of the author" comes into play. La mort de l'auteur is a 1967 essay by Roland Barthes that basically argues that instead of only viewing a work of art through the artist's eyes and keeping only their intent in mind, the viewer can interpret the art through their own eyes regardless of what the artist originally intended. I want to, I really do but I can't help but feel that intention matters and no matter how hard I try to separate the art from the artist I simply cannot.

It's so fascinating to me how Lolita which is supposed to be from the perspective of an unreliable narrator was taken at face value and the virgin suicides which was to be taken at face value was perceived as satire.

The same irony can also be seen in the movies. The director of Lolita didn't get her at all, even he thought she was some kind of a seductress instead of a child that was raped and abused repeatedly by a man that was supposed to be a father figure while the virgin suicides movie was so much better than the book, Sofia Coppola, the director, understood the Lisbon girls so well and she did them justice.

[vent-art-af]

"I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls. If we cannot find that kind of artistic and virile painting, let us settle for an immaculate white jacket (rough texture paper instead of the usual glossy kind), with LOLITA in bold black lettering." -Vladimir Nabokov

Hi! This is my best try at a mock up of what I think the cover of Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov should look like. I am so tired of people sexualizing this novel by putting suggestive images of young girls on versions of the cover and it pisses me off when people don't even listen to what the author wants for their own book. Hope you enjoy!

[psychwardkitten]

[horrorlesbion]

lolita, my love || interview with the vampire 02x07 "i could not prevent it"

bonus:

[coquetteswan]

it was love at first sight, at last sight, at ever and ever sight.

note: i do not condone or promote p***philia. please do not be like humbert.

[lolitafan1997]

This poster says it all.

[lu-luvslestat]

guyssss l can't believe it!

never thought I'd find a pair of saddle shoes that fit me but here we areeee

[doloresdisparue]

"Humbert should be ugly in a visual adaptation" is such a braindead antiquated take it baffles me that people are still voicing it in the 2020s.

Let's only cast ugly people doing bad things in movies because as we know looks = morality and conventionally attractive white men would never commit an ugly crime like child abuse.

Nabokov was definitely not making any point whatsoever by making Humbert specifically a conventionally attractive upper middle class white man with an academic background who speaks eloquently who is absolutely aware of his social capital and leverages it with precision. It's not like there are points illustrating this like how Humbert can easily dismiss the Mann act because it was in practice largely used to criminalize black men even if they were just in consensual interracial adult relationships. It's not like the only thing that ever invites closer scrutiny is the slight suspicion of Humberts features being a sign of Jewishness.

Humbert's ability to get away with everything up to the murder hinges on not being othered, implicitly, because he ticks every privilege box there is. Why would we NOT want a narrative deconstructing the idea that conventionally attractive privileged people can't do heinous crimes??? How can you earnestly say post #MeToo that we should cling to the Victorian idea that people are pretty because their hearts are pure and child rapists can never be handsome college professors or pleasant looking family fathers??? How is this even a debate.

[theprettiestcrier]

lo-lee-ta.