Lolita Part I- page 132

"Frigid gentlewomen of the jury! I had thought that months, perhaps years, would elapse before I dared to reveal myself to Dolores Haze; but by six she was awake, and by six fifteen we were technically lovers. I am going to tell you something very strange: it was she who seduced me." -Page 132

The 'anesthesia' from the purple pills had worn off. Dolores, wakes up with Humbert Humbert in the same bed as she and pretending to be asleep. She isn't freaked out, frightened, or even just a little surprised. Instead,
Dolores’ reaction is to kiss him and then have sex with him.

This really makes me question even further what is going on in Lolita’s head and that she may actually be the seducer more than Humbert. However, taking a step back, it appears that Humbert’s presentation of his defense is “working” on me, at least to a small extent. At this point in the novel, is Humbert’s defense “working” on you? Yes, pedophilia is wrong, disgusting, and loathesome, but do you  think that Humbert should hold all of the blame?

Mother/fatherhood and Sanity?

"I could of course visualize Lolita with hallucinational lucidity; and nursing as I did a triangle on my breastbone at the exact spot her silky top had come into contact once or twice with my heart; and feeling as I did her warm weight in my lap (so that, in a sense, I was always "with Lolita" as a woman is "with child"), I was not surprised to discover later that my computation had been more or less correct." -p 107

This passage is one example of those that play a key role in the novel. It reminds us, with the example of being "with child," that Humbert Humbert is no ordinary pedophile. He is a pervert, yes, but he's also crazy. He compares himself to a pregnant woman here, demonstrating his need for control and possession and anything to be close to Lo, his obsessive love and now, questionably, daughter. Per usual, his logic is not clear here. Why does he also want to be a father figure to the one he lusts after? Can he control his awful urges of lust to Lolita or is it actually the result of some childhood trauma or strange need for control or a child-like relationship?

Perhaps he cannot control his urges, as they occur so frequently throughout the novel. You can never read too long without coming becoming uncomfortable with a subtle or entirely too blunt description of Lolita with an inappropriate response of Humbert's body to it, as his "breastbone" with "her warm weight in [his] lap." More likely though, Nabokov uses these instances to remind us of his filth and constant lust and desires. It keeps us from ever viewing Humbert as the hero or rooting for him to succeed. This makes us question the purpose for the novel and what Nabokov wants our response to be. Are we supposed to sympathize with Humbert, and if not what is the point in reading a disgusting pedophile's thoughts? Are we supposed to see a real love here? But how can we see this as a love novel with the constant interruptions of pedophiliac lust? It is much more complex than love or lust, but Nabokov presents us with tough decisions in every page about our response to this Humbert Humbert.

Child No More

"Her kiss, to my delirious embarrassment, had some rather comical refinements of flutter and probe which made me conclude she had been coached at an early age by a little Lesbian." -p. 133

When Humbert and Lolita are finally reunited, it's shocking to learn that Lolita was never the innocent little girl that I had imagined. From the mental image that Humbert had conceived of her before, I believed that Lolita was a charming, young, innocent girl whose purity needed to be preserved, lest Humbert steals it from her. Yet, upon her return from camp, Lolita is actually the one who makes the first initial move on Humbert. Furthermore; Lolita is even more experienced than Humbert, and even coaches him. After learning that Lolita has been a promiscuous child while she has been away at camp, it makes me wonder if Humbert had been crazy all along. It seems almost conceivable that when he imagined that Lolita took a liking to him, it could have actually been true. All of Humbert's crazy fantasies before seem not so crazy anymore.

Or are maybe Lolita and Humbert both crazy? And if so, did Lolita notice Humbert's previous sexual encounters with her?

Love vs. Sexual Attraction

“Mingled with the pangs of guilt was the agonizing thought that her mood might prevent me from making love to her again as soon as I found a nice country road where to park in peace. In other words, poor Humbert Humbert was dreadfully unhappy, and while steadily and inanely driving toward Lepingville, he kept racking his brains for some quip of the bright wing of which he might dare turn to his seatmate” (140).

At this moment, Lo and Humbert have just left the hotel where he lived out his fantasies and succeeded in having a sexual encounter with Lolita. These were his thoughts when he noticed that she was rather quiet and had an unhappy look on her face. While it is refreshing to have a glimpse of Humbert’s seemingly nonexistent conscience, that breath of fresh air is quickly soured by his other thoughts about the situation. Once again, we see just how immature and selfish he is. By referring to himself as “poor Humbert Humbert,” I found myself disgusted with his request for sympathy. There is a definite contradiction between his claims of loving Lolita so much and his actions. If love were actually present, he would be concerned with her sudden hostile mood and silence, but instead he does not pay attention to her present needs or feelings. He is only worried about how “dreadfully unhappy” he is because he knows that Lo is not going to give in to him again that day. This excerpt only supports the argument that his “feelings” for Lolita are purely sexual.

Does Humbert feel guilty about what he has done? Or do his other thoughts completely overshadow and contradict any possible feelings of guilt? Do you think there is any way that he actually loves for Lolita?

Plunged into a nightmare (pg. 129)

Pg. 129 (End of Chapter 32)

"This was a lone child, an absolute waif, with whom a heavy-limbed, foul-smelling adult had had strenuous intercourse three times that very morning. Whether or not the realization of a lifelong dream had surpassed all expectation, it had, in a sense, overshot its mark -- and plunged into a nightmare."

At this point in the novel, Humbert Humbert has successfully accomplished his mission of having sexual intercourse with Lolita. However, he begins to feel uneasy and realizes that perhaps the aftermath wasn't exactly what he expected. Lo acts distant and even more harsh than her usual self while in the car the next morning. Humbert even states that he feels "as if I were sitting with the small ghost of somebody I had just killed." Humbert clearly feels uncomfortable with the situation at hand. This is also evident in the way he describes himself in the section I chose. Usually very cocky and arrogant about his looks and self, he is now insulting and belittling himself. Lo is in some sort of pain and seems to be very upset with Humbert, to the point where she calls him rude names, accuse him of physical damage to her body, and then goes as far as to say she should call the cops on him and tell them that he raped her. All of this said, of course, in her "dynamic" way, in which Humbert can't tell if she is joking or if she's actually posing some sort of threat to him. This adds greatly to his alrady miserable and paranoid state.

How has this sudden turn of events effected Humbert Humbert? Did he really expect things to resume normally after having intercourse with his precious and delicate Lolita? How do you think the relationship between them has changed? Does Lo's threat of turning in H.H. completely obliterate any hopes he had of continuing this secret, sexual/romantic relationship with her?

A Claim at Innocence

"Frigid gentlewomen of the jury! I had thought that months, perhaps years, would elapse before I dared to reveal myself to Dolores Haze; but by six she was wide awake, and by six fifteen we were technically lovers. I am going to tell you something very strange: It was she who seduced me."
(pg. 132)

This passage is important in that it highlights some of the reasoning behind Humbert Humbert's motives. Although he recognizes himself (to some extent, depending on the day) as a pervert, he still seems very determined to preserve Dolores' innocence. The reader can be sure that his desire for the little girl is overwhelming and seems to contrast that idea of him keeping her whole. By referring the jury and telling them it was Lolita who seduced him, H.H is putting the blame onto her. He is washing his hands of his horrible deeds, as if he didn't actually have any free will against her at all. He is making Lolita out to be the guilty one, the "nymphet" who used her powers to undermine his own self-control. H.H is once again using the magic of words to twist himself into a more favorable light. He allows Dolores Haze to be the cause of the eventual seduction, seemingly forgetting that she is a twelve year old child and he is the adult. In this way, Humbert Humbert is redeeming himself, not in the reader's eyes, but in his own. He is finding some way, any way, to rid himself of the guilt he feels for being a pervert and for desiring this "seduction" by Dolores Haze.



In what way can this situation that is presented by Humbert Humbert be seen as a plea for his own innocence against the powers of nymphets like Dolores Haze? In what ways is it very obvious that even Humbert himself does not fully believe what he is saying?

"You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go"

Throughout the book Humbert has been trying to control every circumstance in his life. He has controlled his temper, his pedophilia (to a point, his career, he even thinks uses his "magnetism" towards woman as an exapmle of his poisedness. His tight control over every situation in his life veils the outrageous thoughts and actions that he has committed. His need to control extends even after he has caught his Lolita. He has trapped her with him, without an escape from his grasp. Humbert justifies his immorality with the fact that he can "control" his desires through controlling his life and those around him. This is vital to his self-conscious. People who are manipulative can convince themselves of everything, it will be interesting to see how Humbert reacts when his iniquities unravel his finely threaded web of lies he has woven in his own head.

The Immaturity of the Pervert

"The enamel had come off the bedstead, leaving black, more or less rounded, marks on the white. Having convinced myself that Louise had left, I got into Lo's bed and reread the letter."
-page 69

This passage stood out to me because it shows yet another facet of Humbert's character- immaturity. The image of a man crawling into the bed of a little girls in order to be comforted is both funny and confusing. For why would a man, pervert or not, need to physically lay in the scent of his lovers? The fact that Lolita is a child is almost irrelevant, although the image of a grown man lying in a little girls bed is quite the image. This act is one that a child would do, while missing their parents or older siblings. If one were to see a child do this, one would immediately reach out to them and comfort them with "Everything will be okay." However, Humbert is not a child. He is a grown man. So the sympathy that would have been felt if he were younger is transformed into certainty that this man is pathetic. Interestingly enough, the act being described is juxtaposed by the sophisticated writing style of Humbert. Earlier on in the book it was easy to see Humbert as a full fledged man with the gross obsession with girls due to this writing style. I viewed his obsession (and therefore him) as disgusting for the mere fact that I thought him to be an adult. After reading this passage, my feelings towards Humbert changed. I viewed him now as more of a child himself, and somehow his obsession made sense. I now began to almost feel sorry for Humbert, to be a child stuck in a man's body, while still being disgusted by him.

In this passage, Nabokov provides us with information that makes us understand Humbert's obsession with young girls. However, do you believe he is also trying to evoke sympathy for Humbert within the reader, or is he merely trying to make us understand the situation? If this book were not discussing pedophilia, would this feeling be easier to evoke?

Lolita's Least Likely Protector

“I adore her horribly. No: ‘horribly’ is the wrong word. I qualify it as pathetic. Pathetic – because despite the insatiable fire of my venereal appetite, I intended, with the most fervent force and foresight, to protect the purity of that twelve-year-old child.” (pg. 62-63) 

     After describing his very first sexual experience with Lolita, Humbert reveals a depth in his feelings for her that goes much deeper than a mere physical desire or attraction. Despite the overwhelming sense of pleasure and accomplishment that he gains from this encounter with Lolita, Humbert resists the overwhelming urge to repeat the event because he wants to preserve his perfect nymphet’s innocence. In fact, his satisfaction comes primarily from the fact that Lolita appeared not to notice anything or realize something out of the ordinary had even happened. This demonstrates that Humbert, himself, feels slightly uncomfortable with the prospect of a young girl behaving erotically or sexually, especially his nymphet, Lolita. This demonstrates even further that Humbert’s desire for Lolita surpasses that of merely shallow, carnal gratification. This obviously does not justify Humbert’s behavior with the young girl, but it does put a big dent in the argument that this novel is purely pornographic (as some have called it and thus subsequently banned it). 

     If Humbert’s relationship with Lolita was purely based on a need for physical fulfillment, then he would have no reason to care for her “purity,” “safety,” and emotional state as he does continually, even immediately after his first sexual experience with her. Humbert describes his adoration for Lolita first as “horrible” then as “pathetic,” two words that shed a negative light not the subject of his affections, but on his affections, themselves. The fact that Humbert, even in his own defense of his actions, chooses not to glorify his feelings and behavior but instead feels more inclined to hide them, reveals a slight sense of regret.

     Humbert’s inner struggle between his physical desires and care for Lolita’s innocence forces the reader to decide if Humbert is simply a pedophile or an ill-fated lover.

Hesitation

"Oh, I could visualize myself slapping Valeria's breasts out of alignment, or otherwise hurting her-and I could see myself, no less clearly, shooting her lover in the underbelly and making him say 'akh!' and sit down. But I could not kill Charlotte-especially when things were on the whole not quite as hopeless, perhaps, as they seemed at first wince on that miserable morning." -p. 87

This was such a peculiar scene, because Humbert has such violent tendencies. When he devises his plan to try and kill his current wife, he suddenly remembers how he could do such acts of violence against his former wife, but not his current wife. Humbert formulates what seems to be the perfect plan, but can not fork up the courage to conduct the act. It's almost as if, he has developed a connection and almost an attachment to Charlotte. Throughout the novel, Humbert's main goal had been to work his way into Lolita's life, and he has succeeded by becoming her stepfather. However; during that time, he, also, developed a relationship with Charlotte, and it seems like he has met his match. When Humbert marries Charlotte, he completely conceals who he is and formulates numerous lies and stories. Humbert seems to be almost scared of Charlotte, because he believes that "her ghost would haunt me all my life" is he were to kill her.

However, Charlotte is killed in a car accident, and now there is just Humbert and Lolita. Will her daughter, Lolita, have the same personality as her mother, and be able to keep Humbert at bay?

Lolita- pg 49

“For now she was not really looking at my scribble, but waiting with curiosity and composure- oh, my limpid nymphet!-for the glamorous lodger to do what he was dying to do. A modern child, avid reader of movie magazines, an expert in dream-slow close ups, might not think it too strange, I guessed, if a handsome, intensely virile grown up friend-too late.” Pg. 49

I find this quote interesting because up to this point Humbert’s account for his defense has hardly presented us with any rational justification for his actions. We have seen how he uses his prose to somehow lessen the severity of his ideas, and he continues to do so in the following chapters. In this particular quote, he manages to take some of the blame away from himself and direct it instead towards his Lolita. He refers to her as a “modern child” who is undoubtedly influenced by the popular culture of the time; thereby suggesting that his desires are not as absurd was we might believe, because his fantasies could in fact be shared by Lolita. This also sheds light on the issue of the objectification of Dolores Haze. To Humbert, she is merely an object of desire that me must obtained. He never stops to consider the effects that his lust could potentially have on her, but rather assumes that she “might not think it too strange” if he were to pursue her.

It is clear that Humbert’s Lolita has taken a liking to him, but do you think this would be the case if she was fully exposed to all of Humbert’s disturbing thoughts? At this point in the novel, what do you think is the fate of Lolita?

No Life of Her Own

"What I had madly possessed was not she, but my own creation, another, fanciful Lolita -- Perhaps, more real than Lolita; overlapping, encasing her; floating between me and her, and having no will, no consciousness-- indeed, no life of her own." p. 62

Humbert Humbert has just played out a very disturbing scene for his readers. After describing in every, beautifully worded and perverse detail, his first sexual encounter with Lolita, he goes on to reflect upon his morning. Humbert views his actions as having absolutely no effect on Lolita. He continues to illustrate his views of the child for his readers stating that perhaps the Lolita of his encounter was "of [his] own creation, another, fanciful Lolita". In the mind of our completely unreliable narrator, Delores Haze has escaped the ordeal without a scratch, but has she really? As if the reader is not already aware of Humbert's unreliability, he admits flat out that the Lolita in his mind is not necessarily the Lolita that actually is. This alternate Lolita seems to be unaffected by Humberts amusements, but it is entirely possible that the true Lolita is at least aware that there is something very wrong with the situation. In the section, Humbert not only objectifies Lolita, but removes her from the immediate situation entirely. It is as if he does not see Lolita as a person all, but as a nymphet who has no soul to speak of, and can therefore not be harmed by his exploits.

Is Lolita aware, at this point, of what is truly going on? (i.e. Is the reaction Humbert observes from Lolita the true reaction of Delores Haze, or an observation of his own, constructed, private nymphet Lolita?)

Solipsism of Lolita

“I entered a plane being where nothing mattered, save the infusion of joy brewed within my body. What had begun as a delicious distension of my innermost roots became a glowing tingle which now had reached the state of absolute security, confidence, and reliance not found elsewhere in conscious life. With the deep hot sweetness thus established and well on its way to ultimate convulsion, I felt I could slow down in order to prolong the glow. Lolita had been safely solipsized.” Pg. 60

Humbert sees Lolita as an object and often describes her nymphet qualities he finds so alluring while ignoring her inner hopes, dreams, and any other thought that seems to make her human as opposed to a sex doll. He notes when she is in a bad mood but mainly sees her as his remaining child-like, perverted connection to his lost love Annabel. Because this connection is unknown to anyone but Humbert, he sees her nymphet-ness as a treasure only he can understand and it is not something to be ashamed of. This objectification of Lolita stunts her inner growth or the chance to have a life. The object view of Lolita conflicts with his romantic view of her which is expressed through his use of complicated, yet beautiful word choice. His prose makes the repulsive appear beautiful by linking his perverted desires with elegant language. In this scene it is very obvious as he pleasures himself against Lolita unknowing to her. We are disturbed and horrified at the events that are corresponding and yet drawn in by the language.

Does the prose redeem the book? If the book was told from Lolita's point of view, what would she be thinking of Humbert Humbert? Would his romantics and intense passion be returned or would she be terrified by his inner thoughts, no matter how lovely the prose? What did Hubert mean by she had been "safely solipsized"?

Lolita and H.H.

"'You revolting creature. I was a daisy-fresh girl, and look what you've done to me. I ought to call the police and tell them you raped me…' Was she just joking?…she started complaining of pains, said she could not sit, said I had torn something inside her. The sweat rolled down my neck… At the hotel we had separate rooms, but in the middle of the night she came sobbing into mine, and we made it up very gently. You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go" (141-142)

Humbert and Lolita have begun their peculiar, infamous relationship and, I think, they are realizing already it is not going to go well. Humbert,  although obsessed with her, begins to notice the different shades in Lolita and her temperamental attitude. As the quote reads, she accuses him boldly of having raped her, which the reader can interpret differently whether she meant it or not, and his response was one of fear and unpleasantness. He realizes he is getting into serious stuff, that his freedom as a citizen is in jeopardy but he stubbornly discards the possibility of abandoning her and his fetish.

On the other hand, Lolita becomes more attached to him even though sometimes he annoys her. The reader could see her at times as seductive and inciting towards Humbert. He buys her many things so perhaps she begins to see him as a close relative and is why she trusts him more. However, I think the last sentence of the quote is very powerful and tells a lot about the current condition of their relationship. Even though their compatibility isn't outstanding, Lolita, literally, has ran out of options and is left with having to trust Humbert.

Will Humbert be compassionate and do "the-right-thing?" What society asks of him? Or will he take this opportunity to go all the way with his fantasy?

Lolita-n
a sexually precocious young girl
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

Lolitais not just a sexual child,but a child who is made sexual by adults, like Lolita by Humbert Humbert. A perfect example of this can be seen in our culture today through advertisements and even popular television shows, like Toddlers and Tiaras. Our culture today rejects the idea of Lolitas, however ,society seems to be so shocked that it is almost embraced (Again, see Toddlers & Tiaras video). As this video shows little girls in society are now dressing up in thigh high boots and strutting their fake boobies before judges and it is on television. Now a toddler can be made into an object of sexual desire to be noticed by the pageant judges? Should a child that does not know how to read yet be strutting her stuff for the nation in a revealing costume? A 3-year-old does not make the choice to dress up like a hooker or Dolly Parton, more shockingly her own mother does. The adult in the situation is going against all better judgment and using her child to win pageants.



Another example is of french model Thylane Blondeau who has sparked recent controversy with sexy Diesel ads. Sure it is acceptable for a 10-year-old like Thylane to dress up like an adult, but there is a line between her dressing up like her mommy and photographers choosing to have her pose topless or provocatively on a bed for the sake of “art”. I am not saying she has to pose with puppies and lollipops, however these advertisements are not appropriate for a child. Is a 10-year-old capable of giving consent to her body being used as a product of fashion? She is the perfect example of a true Lolita: a little child, unable to give consent or really comprehend the situation, is being made into a sexual being for adults' benefit, just like Humbert Humbert and his own “nymphet”.

When has dress-up crossed into dangerous territory? Should these children be protected or is it the parents' discretion? How will this affect the child later in life?

The Fountain of Youth

This image taken by photographer Terry Richardson for a Lee jeans poster in 2008 is an excellent example of how Nabokov’s tale has leapt from the pages of his novel into the collective conscious of American culture. Interestingly, it is not just old, depraved men preying upon innocent “nymphets” driving this theme in advertising. After all, one does not encounter lines of Humbert Humbert’s standing at outlet malls across America buying girls jeans in order to legitimize their fetish do they? Instead, this phenomenon seems to have been cultivated by a more mainstream sentiment that has more to do with an obsession with youth than it does with perversion. To be sure, while sexuality is central to the new role the “Lolita” inhabits in popular culture today, it is possible that conventional sexual attitudes are behind advertisements such as Mr. Richardson’s. Humans are, after all, simply sexual creatures and, as a result, the synthesis of youth and sexuality has mass appeal for a society that abhors ageing. Thus, the “Lolita” contains a powerful charm for consumers as she provides an unattainable aesthetic state of perfect sexuality that is uncorrupted by the degradations of ageing, which, ironically, and to the dismay of many, reveals an inner Humbert that exists in most Americans who actually do stand in the lines at the outlet malls buying girls jeans.

Sex and Stardom

Miley Cyrus. Hannah Montana. Teen idol. Actress. Singer. Sex icon?

It's hard to believe that this Disney starlet whom millions of youth idolize could be painted as such, but that is precisely what Miley's photo shoot with Vanity Fair managed to accomplish. Swaddled in a white blanket that doesn't quite cover up her pubescent body, 15-year old Miley, in this particular picture, tantalizing portrays both youthful innocence and sexual intrigue; she is the very embodiment of Lolita. Everything in this photograph is suggestive, from the manner in which she is clutching the white sheet to her nude torso, to her rose-red lips, to the come-hither look in her emboldened eyes. Sex does sell, but, perhaps more importantly, youthful, evocative sex sells, which is precisely the reason why advertisements portraying youth in a sensual and erotic way are becoming increasingly more common in our society. Adolescent femininity is one corner of the advertising market that has been voraciously exploited, causing the line between acceptable and inappropriate to become progressively and dangerously blurred.

Annie Leibovitz of Vanity Fair stated, "The photograph is a simple, classic portrait shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful." And Miley initially agreed with this statement until she later recanted due to a condemning torrent of negative feedback from her fans. Was this Lolita-esque photograph appropriate for her age? Can anything be done to preserve and protect youthful innocence from becoming a manipulated sex symbol or is it already too common, and therefore, too late?

Societal norms conflicting with personal preferences

I chose this preview for Something's Gotta Give because iniately it reflects, albeit in a less exaggerated way, Humbert's preference for younger woman. There are obvious differences in their preferences for women; Jack Nicholson's character desires woman who are in their prime despite his old age whereas Humbert desires young girls with sexual charm. Either way they aren't in keeping with societal views. Since I had to read a summary of the movie to learn what happens in the end (spoiler alert) I will share that Jack Nicholson's character eventually realizes his immature sexual desires are standing between him and a truly fulfilling relationship. He marries a cohort and the result is a cliche Hollywood happy ending. Hubert, however, has suffered through a forced and unsuccessful marriage. His fate is very much sealed and he will not find solace in societal norms. He truly craves young girls and this curse is unlikely to end in such a happy ending. The comic way in which Jack Nicholson meets his future partner couldn't be more different from the emotional struggle Humbert endures as he tries to satisfy his needs.

Starlets like Miley Cyrus regularly conflict with societal norms and attract sexual attention. Considering this trend, why don't older women try the same thing?

Thrown into Sexuality

At first glance of this photograph, one notices the leopard print, the tiger rug, and the red dress. Standing alone, these items scream "Sex! Sex!" However, this is not alarming, for in almost every advertisement there is a certain level of eroticism, whether it be subtle or, in this advertisement's case, quite obvious. Getting past the overload of animal print, the eyes follow the line of dress right up to the made-up face. And then one recognizes that this is not the face of a model, but the face of a child, no more than 7 years old. One then notices the unsettling way the child is posed, and the way she stares towards the viewer with a "come hither" look. To me, this photograph completely illustrates "Lolitaness." It shows a little girl thrown into sexuality all too soon, and blindly embracing that sexuality that she doesn't understand. The photograph evokes the same confused and unseemly feelings within the observer as does "Lolita."


Obviously, the sexualization of children is present in our culture today. To what extent did "Lolita" affect today's views and regulations regarding the sexualization of children in media advertisements? In your opinion, should these regulations be altered? Why or why not?

Sex Sells

By implementing childish assets to an otherwise visually explicit photo, Lee Jeans ascribes to the idea that Lolita can help sell, and continues to attract attention in our own popular culture. Here, Lee Jeans' model is found wearing bright colors, particularly a bubble-gum pink belt, and is obviously eating candy in a suggestive way. This advertisement is essentially "Lolita" in that the model is making an obvious effort to look pre-pubescent in a sexy way.

I wonder, what audience was Lee Jeans trying to attract? As a fashion line for teenage girls, their primary consumers seem to be mother-daughter combos, so why would Lee put out an advertisement particularly suggestive and stereotypically attractive to the opposite sex?

Lolita

The "Lolita Effect" is based around the idea of using young and innocent looking girls to evoke feelings of sexuality and desire. This type of advertising uses youth and innocence along with sexual desire to sell the product.

This image of Kirsten Dunst is from a fashion campaign for Miu Miu in the Spring of 2008. In this photo Kirsten is wearing a white dress, which is typically associated with innocence. She also has a bow in her hair, which is something that young girls usually wear. The way that she is laying on the floor looking into the mirror at the audience is very provocative. You would not usually expect a young girl to lay like this. Although Kirsten Dunst is not a young girl, in this picture she is portrayed as one. I think that this ad is a perfect example of the "Lolita Effect."

Why do you think that the "Lolita Effect" is popular in today's advertising? Do you think it is okay to portray women in this way?

"The Lolita Effect"

It has become very common to use the idea of "The Lolita Effect" as a popular advertising technique in today's culture. The basis of this idea seems to focus on using the pretense of "young" or "innocent" looking girls to evoke both sexuality and desire. In this advertisement for Vogue Italia, modeled by Kate Moss, Kate is depicted as presenting the idea of the Lolita-esque beauty. Though Kate Moss was into her twenties when she posed for these pictures, the idea of the advertisement was to play up her youngness, posing her in frilly pink dresses and big satin bows - articles typically associated with young girls. The aim of all advertising is to play on the consumers wants and needs - to get them to buy the product that is being sold. Vogue Italia's method of advertising Kate Moss as a Lolita-type girl is no different. This method of advertising has been labeled both attractive and effective by the media and other sources of expoitation. This type of advertising manilpulates the innocence of young girls to be equated with sexual desire. It is also aimed at a much older audience than one would generally find appropriate, however, it is deemed "okay" so long as it is glamorized and glorified through the world of advertising.

Questions to ask ourselves: How and why did this idea of the "Lolita Effect" come into play in popular culture? Where can advertisers draw the line from "effective" to "offensive" or is there a line at all?

The Forbidden Fruit

In modern culture the word Lolita is associated with taboo and temptation. Through books, movies and actual events Lolita is always associated with a pubescent girl who is sexually attracted to older men and equally lusted after by older men. The image above is a perfume bottle under the Lolita Lempicka brand and everything about it carries the essence of what the word Lolita means. The shape of the bottle is an apple, a reference to temptation and the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate. The style that "Lolita Lempicka" is written is childish and looks as though a school girl wrote it, once again reiterating that fact that Lolita is a young temptress. The flashy and shiny colors that cover the perfume bottle are designed to target young girls and convince them to wear the perfume. The style of the colors is similar to those of teenage girl stores such as Limited Too. Lastly, at the top of the bottle is a heart with an arrow through it. This image is designed to bring about a sense of innocence associated with young love because the common perception of that image is young lovers carving it into a tree or some other place and that is what the older men strive to achieve when fantasizing about younger girls. It is apparent with the whole design of this perfume bottle that the common perception of Lolita is a young girl who is promiscuous with older men.

Why have some companies embodied this idea and decide to market towards that group?
Why does our society allow taboo symbols such as Lolita enter the popular market and make an impact on young children's minds?

Dystopia or Utopia

Brave New World Page 215
But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."
"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."
"Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence.
"I claim them all," said the Savage at last.
Mustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. "You're welcome," he said.

It is John’s declaration, “I don’t want comfort, I want God,” in which his preferred mode of agency is revealed to be ingrained in conflicts and solutions only available to humans conditioned in suffering. In order to illustrate his point and firmly establish his role as a pariah, John exclaims that he would favor a world predicated upon the incongruities of “God” and “freedom” or “goodness” and “sin” to that of a world of pragmatic utilitarianism offered by Mond. Thus, by adhering to an ethos of a fierce and, perhaps, primitive dialectic scheme, John enhances his assertion that people should have “the right to be unhappy” in order to live a life that would be more meaningful.

Interestingly, Mond’s assessment of humans suffering needlessly from “syphilis” and living in a “constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow” has little effect upon John. Instead, John, who is only referred to as” the Savage” after Linda’s death, is quite eager “to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind” and firmly denies the values of this “Brave New World” he now occupies. Yet, it is in Mond’s final indifferent shrug and “your welcome” in which the world of technology, “soma”, and uninhibited sexuality trump “the Savage’s” nihilistic individualism by simply allowing him the freedom to destroy himself with his own misguided ideas.

Is the society Mond oversees really a dystopia? If John’s perspective results in Petrarchan, love and suicide because of his own conditioning, is it worth pursuing?

Blindfolded

"But once you began admitting explanations in terms of purpose-well, you didn’t know what the result might be. It was the sort of idea that might easily decondition the more unsettled minds among the higher castes-make them lose their faith in happiness as the Sovereign Good and take to believing, instead, that the goal was somewhere beyond, somewhere outside the present human sphere, that the purpose of life was not the maintenance of well-being, but some intensification and refining of consciousness, some enlargement of knowledge" (118).

In this particular section of Brave New World, Mustapa Mond grapples with the elusive concept of a world that it governed more by truth, no matter how cruel it may be, rather than material and artificial bliss. His decision to reject the publication of the paper, "A New Theory of Biology", symbolically demonstrates society's aversion to reality, as is demonstrated by the unabashed promotion of soma pill consumption. Oddly enough, Mond is particularly impressed by the paper, and he even comments, "It was a masterly piece of work" (118). Yet he is unwilling to grant its admission into society, consequently assuring and reinforcing the significance of material happiness, while simultaneously tightening the acetate silk cloth that has blinded that society for so long. Mond staunchly believes that truth cannot coexist with happiness because it will undermine the synthetic order of things in their consumption-focused society. It is interesting to note that in denying the publication of "A New theory of Biology", Mond, who blatantly admitted that the paper interested him, is ironically depriving himself of a certain happiness, which is, after all, his society's defined purpose of existence.

Is knowledge power? Or does a society immersed in ignorance function more efficiently than one in truth?

A Holiday From the Facts

And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there's always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there's always soma to calm your anger...to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past, you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow 2 or 3 half-gram tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now...Christianity without tears- that's what soma is. (pg. 213)

In this conversation with John, the Savage, Mustapha Mond reveals just how big of a role soma plays in the World State society because of the way that its citizens are conditioned to depend on it. Soma is there to “calm your anger” and settle all disputes or problems that may arise, and Mond even claims it can “make you patient.” Instead of being forced to choose a personal response to the events and interactions in their lives, the people of the World State only have to choose to pop back a little (or a lot of) soma and wait for its effects to take hold. The narcotic pleasure induced by soma replaces the spectrum of human emotion making the lives and personalities of these people almost standardized. Since everyone is taking the exact same drug in response to replace emotional responses, all individuality is lost.

Mond brags that soma removes the need for “great effort” or “moral training” in becoming “virtuous.” However, without the thousands of individual failures and successes along the way, this “virtue” means absolutely nothing. For the people of the World State, happiness is defined by the lack of discomfort, stress, or anxiety. This soma-induced happiness is merely a controlled preventative measure that protects the status quo and its few benefactors. It allows people like Mond to exercise their power and remain in authority without any real threat of opposition.

On the other hand, given the circumstances surrounding their conditioned, replicated lives, maybe the people deserve this narcotic emotional short-cut because it provides them with their only reprieve from uniform numbness of their society.

It was a challenge, a command

"Now they trumpeted a call to arms. "O Brave new world!" Miranda was proclaining the possibility of loveliness, the possibility of transforming even the nightmare into something fine and noble. "O brave new world!" It was a challenge, a command." Pg. 190

After his mother's death, John finds himself in a crowd of Bokanovsky twins awaiting their daily soma distribution. In his disgust, John finds himself revisiting Miranda's speech for a third time. However, this time the words take on a different meaning for him. In his distress, John begins to see Miranda's words not as sarcasm, but as a hope for the "possibility of loveliness, the possibility of transforming even the nightmare into something fine and noble". For the first time, John sees the events around him as something that he has the power to change. This is also the first time in the novel that Huxley gives his audience the command to change the world around them before it becomes too late. Unfortunately though, John's attempt to transform his nightmare backfires and eventually leads to his demise. This suggests that while Huxley is communicating that change is necessary, it may not be possible if things continue in the direction they are headed. The contrasting ideas presented in this section illustrate the dissonant views that Christopher Hitchens mentions about Huxley's writing in the forward. Is Huxley communicating a call to arms or warning against the dangers of standing up against adversity?

Oversimplification

Page 215, Brave New World:

“But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin.”

“In fact,” said Mustapha Mond, “you’re claiming the right to be unhappy.”

“All right then,” said the Savage defiantly. “I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.”

---

When I read this, I immediately thought of a quote from one of my favorite books, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: “You cannot protect yourself from sadness without protecting yourself from happiness.” I think it’s quite fitting, because the society here has given up individuality, science, religion, and art for the sake of comfort. After all, ignorance is bliss, Mustapha Mond implies. Could it really be that simple?

If you read this quote specifically, it certainly looks like there’s incompatibility between happiness and truth. The happiest people tend to be in the lower castes, which begs the correlation between the two. Mustapha Mond himself is one of the most informed people in the world, but at the loss of his own happiness (or so he claims). And due to the way this passage is worded, it seems as though the Savage must choose directly between his own happiness and God/poetry/danger/freedom/goodness.

However, I don’t think Huxley would agree that it’s that simple (though there IS some relation). For example, on page 217, Huxley creates a sort of paradox by saying: “In spite of their sadness --because of it even; for their sadness was the symptom of their love for one another--the three young men were happy.” Happiness can clearly exist with knowledge--in this case, the acquired knowledge of how disturbing and at times necessary their society is. Happiness itself is a paradox.

Discussion: Do you agree? Is ignorance bliss? Or is that too much of a simplification?

New World vs. Shakespeare

"But why is it prohibited?" asked the Savage. In the excitement of meting a man who had read Shakespeare he had momentarily forgotten everything else. The Controller shrugged his shoulders. "Because it's old; that's the chief reason. We haven't any use for old things here." - P. 197

John, whose worldview is based on his knowledge of Shakespeares plays questions why Shakespeare is forbidden in the World State. Mond, however, is unable to give him an adequate answer. Mond says beautiful things such as literature tend to last; and the World State needs citizens who want new things. John, a consumate outsider, disagrees and believes in the intrinsic value of things rather than 'newness' such as helicopters. This passage marks another of many occasions where the World State attempts to maintain 'stability' and promote 'happiness'. According to Mond, stories written by Shakespeare don't appeal to passions and experiences that exist in the World State. Therefore, any foreign influences could result in instability.

Could living in a society where we're oblivious to certains be good? Bad?

Revelations

“The Savage stood looking on. ‘O brave new World, O brave new World…’ In his mind the singing words seemed to change their tone. They had mocked him through his misery and remorse, mocked him with how hideous a note of cynical derision! Fiendishly laughing, they had insisted on the low squalor, the nauseous ugliness of the nightmare… ‘Stop!’ called the Savage in a loud and ringing voice. ‘Stop!’ He pushed his way to the table; the Deltas stared at him with astonishment… ‘Lend me your ears’… ‘Don’t take that horrible stuff. It’s poison, it’s poison.’” (210-211)

John, the Savage, has an epiphany concerning the system of the World State. Among many other things, he clearly manifests his disgust at the way citizens deal with illness and death (after experiencing it first-hand with his m—’s) and will not take any more of it. He desperately urges those at the Park Lane Hospital for the Dying not to take the dose of soma that a “jaunty young Alpha” is about to distribute. As Helmholtz and Bernard rush into the hospital, they even find him asking (almost rhetorically): “But do you like being slaves?... Do you like being babies? Yes, babies. Mewling and puking…”

I think John’s long-forgotten image of the World State (from when he was back at the Reservation) backfired in an ugly way. All he had were Linda’s fabulous anecdotes and stories about the “Other Place,” which he took to heart and transformed into a chimera. Of course, the reader knows from the moment John arrives at the World State, that it will be soon before it becomes clear to him that this notion of the ‘perfect world’ is mainly a utopia. With Linda passing away and Bernard using him for his own benefits, will John be able to endure his stay at the World State? Will he succumb to this opposite-pole culture to which he is repelled by so much?

Brave New World Pg. 201

"The optimum population," said Mustapha Mond, "is modelled on the iceberg - eight-ninths below the water line, one-ninth above."

"And they're happy below the water line?"

"Happier than above it. Happier than your friend here, for example." He pointed.

"In spite of that awful work?"

"Awful? They don't find it so. On the contrary, they like it."

John, more commonly known as "The Savage", questions Mustapha Mond on the state of this new world's people, primarily on the state of happiness exhibited by their citizens. Here, Mond describes how the society is split between Alphas and the others to maintain the order needed for stability. What's interesting, however, is that Mond will forever proclaim that happiness is the key to their stability, yet the definition of that emotion is unclear. For the eight-ninths of the population "below the water line", happiness simply equates with ignorance of any other thought or feeling. But for those above the line, their happiness is less secure. In fact, for those who can't drug themselves enough with Soma in order to obtain that ignorant state needed for what Mond deems as happiness, they are simply sent away to accomplish whatever they need in order to obtain some contentedness without influencing society in any way.

Human strife is generally characterized by the need to find happiness in a world that seems to work against us. (All of literature, it seems, revolves around this strife.) But in a society that genetically engineers its citizens to be emotionless or unable to handle emotion, completely avoiding struggles, can we actually say these people are happy? How could someone know what happiness is without knowing or understanding other emotions?

Brave New World- pg. 205

“That was when science first began to be controlled- after the Nine Years War. People were ready to hav e even their appetites controlled then. Anything for a quiet life. We’ve gone on controlling ever since. It hasn’t been very good for truth, of course. But it’s been very good for happiness. One can’t have something for nothing. Happiness has got to be paid for.”

The dialogue between John and Mustapha Mond serves to illustrate the discordances between truth and happiness. Throughout the debate in chapters 16 and 17, Mond contends that society must sacrifice art, science, religion, beauty, and truth in order to achieve a state of stability, and ultimately happiness. However, John the Savage is unable to comprehend a life devoid of these things and fails to see how one is better off living in a state of self-induced delusion. While Mond does not discount the merit of these things, he insists upon the idea that society must pay for happiness by denying themselves of these pleasures in order to maintain stability, which according to him is what people want, especially after the Nine Years War. Because Helmoltz finds too much interest in beauty he must be sent to an island where he can freely indulge in it, since beauty is incompatible with the happiness and stability of this civilization. Mond even admits to his own indulgence in science and truth, which he had to sacrifice in order to serve the happiness of others. This idea of truth and happiness as inharmonious values seems to be a recurrent theme throughout the novel. The world state is comprised of deluded individuals who are conditioned to avoid the unpleasantness of life. They are relieved of the burdens that things such as personal relationships, passion, and grief impose, and any slight inclination of discomfort that manages to emerge can be alleviated by the effects of soma. By neglecting the truth about the world around them and being denied the opportunity to uncover it, these people are able to live in a world of oblivion and happiness.

Would it actually be more desirable to live in a society in which truth and happiness do not coexist? Are we forced to draw a line between the two, or is it possible to achieve happiness while being informed of the world around us?

Brave new world

Here is my post!

pg 161

"The Savage frequently goes to see her and appears to be much attracted to her- an interesting example of the way in which early conditioning can be made to modify and even run counter to matural impulses (in this cade, the impulse to recoil from unpleasant objects)

Bernard's account of the Savage's relationship with his mother is an observation of societal condition differences between the people. He blatantly says here that the boy should regard his mother no more than an unpleasant object, and goes as far to say that the boy has been conditioned to love his mother, although it is a natural, innate connection for humans. The murder of all emotions in this society, particularly spurred by soma and conditioning, severs familial ties and more importantly, creates a shallow level of existence between all beings, diminishing people as no more than objects to scrutinize and use if appealing. The Savage is immediately revolted by the society and customs and through his actions and feelings we see that he is not, in fact, savage, but on the contrary, exponentially more civilized and keenly aware of the "civilized" population's inferior emotional and intellectual capabilities.

Brave New World- page 93

"Adults intellectually and during working hours," he went on. "Infants where feeling and desire are concerned." (93)

These two sentences fundamentally summarize how this society is run. The society controls everyone from their conditioning with Malthusian drills, hypnaedic verses, soma, and many more methods all the way down to their genetic make-up. They do not think. Instead, their thoughts are filled with the hypnaedic phrases such as "Never put off till to-morrow the fun you can have today," which, as Bernard points out, had "Two hundred repetitions, twice a week from fourteen to sixteen and a half."
Through the society's control of people's genetic make-up and conditioning, they love their class, their work, and ultimately they are "happy" with their lives. However, Bernard compares people to infants when people are not doing anything than their predestined work. At all other times, they do not feel, because "the community reels," according to Lenina and the hypnaedic phrases. They do not have passion. Instead, they do not actually think about things and just act on their impulses that have been conditioned into them...just like infants.

A False Pursuit of Happiness

"'Don't you wish to be free, Lenina?' 'I don't know what you mean. I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody's happy nowadays'" (p.90)

Searching for passion, Bernard gets as close to exploring freedom as he possibly can at this point in the novel. He wishes to have a connection with Lenina that she can't comprehend. Attempts at isolation remain faulty as Lenina fails to understand why simple conversation sans sex can be fun and fulfilling. At this moment, Bernard is stimulated with curiosities of his surroundings, without the aid of soma, and pushes Lenina to search for more. I think this moment is important because it is the first time anyone has expressed an interest in contesting his/her state of being and the forces of society. Bernard is obviously divided from the masses by his physical attributes, that of which Lenina calls attention to and finds interesting, and finally, he realizes his ability to think independently. By asking Lenina if she wishes to be free, Bernard forces Lenina to question her own being, whether she realizes it or not. It's interesting that Bernard is still able to formulate and respond to these curiosities after the years of brainwashing and oppression, and that he finds a false sense of happiness that is taught to his society.

No matter what is manually taught or scientifically controlled in human beings, will there always be an urge to gain free will in mankind? Is there ever a chance for us to gain happiness if the pursuit is denied to us?

Drinking the Kool-Aid

“Ford, we are twelve; oh, make us one,
Like drops within the Social River;
Oh, make us now together run
As swiftly as thy shining Flivver.”

P. 82

This was the first among several hymns that were sung during the Solidarity Service Bernard attends. As the participants recite the silly rhymes, they sound more like machines waiting to be assembled on a Model-T Ford than humans. This is an example of a way the World State ruses its members to conform to its societal rules; it seems almost hypnotic at times. They work themselves into a delirious exultation as though they have chosen to be there; however, at times, they seem to feel the need to release some ‘human’ emotions. Emotions the World State hasn’t conditioned them to ignore.

Why can’t Bernard and other Alphas who attend these Solidarity sessions realize the truth beneath its purpose? Why doesn’t the operation of the World State as a whole spook the Alphas as being odd since they’re smartest?