Lolita: An Analysis of Obsession through the Decades

"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue
taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta."

In 1958, Vladimir Nabokov created two of the most unrelenting characters in the
history of literature: Humbert Humbert and Lolita Haze. His narrator's voice and main
character, Humbert Humbert, explains the complex story of a man and his obsession. To set
this book off from other books about obsession, Nabokov gives Humbert possibly the most
socially unacceptable obsession of all: pedophilia. This obsession leads Humbert on a cross
country journey to find his precious Lolita upon the discovery that she has run away and
decided to marry. It is this Lolita that causes much of the controversy in the book. Is she an
innocent child who is caught up by a wave of "Humbertism" that seems to control her life? Or
is she simply an adult in a child's body who plays off of Humbert's obsession to gain things
for her? The answer is one that involves not only an analysis of the text, but also an analysis
of the context in which the text is read. It is this analysis of context that will supply a new
appreciation for not only the basic plot of Lolita, but also the underlying satire that

riddles the book.

As with all literature, many of the ideas and plot twists that supply the excitement to
this particular book are seen under a guise of the particular generation that reads it. Not only
do these ideas no longer play an important part to the interpretation as it is transferred from
generation to generation, but many times the way in which a book is written can affect the
reader. The most prominent case of this happening is in the works of Shakespeare. The ideas
and plots he present in his books are most often lost in our contemporary society as we find
not only his word usage, but also his themes to be archaic, and unbarring on modern life.
Such is the case of Nabokov's Lolita.

There is one slight difference, however, between the writing of Shakespeare, and the
writing of Nabokov (and in particular Lolita). In the writings of Shakespeare, one finds a
sense of satire of the hierarchy of England, and a sense of defiance toward the natural order
of things (in particular Romeo and Juliet's defiance of fate). Nabokov, instead, reaches toward
a different audience for satire. He aims to satire the middle class of contemporary America.
This attempt at satire gives Lolita its dynamic flow from decade to decade and generation to
generation because it allows each generation to interpret the book's meaning in a new and
fresh way. Whereas Shakespeare satirizes an institution and set of ideas that have always
been resented by the poorer classes, Nabokov instead decided to challenge a segment of
society that is by its very nature ever changing.

As much of the book is revolved around a middle class household, Nabokov is

forced to write a story which will be not only a reflection of the evils of that household
(represented by the relationships each particular character brings to the text), but also the
inherent goodness that pop culture tells us is present in life. Because Nabokov's book is a
direct reflection of the pop culture of the 1950's, reactions from audience to audience will
forever change as the middle class of not only America, but also the world, change faces and
morality in all areas of life? Unlike in Shakespeare, where he aims to satire an institution that
is and was disliked by the majority of viewers, Nabokov aims directly to satire those who
read his book. It is this contradiction that leads to a generational gap as the book is passed
down from generation to generation.

From conservative 1950's to the more postmodern 1990's, Lolita has created a new
feeling of disgust toward Humbert's actions and the satire of the middle class in each
generation that has been criticized by Nabokov either directly or indirectly. It thus becomes
necessary to study the way that Nabokov's novel has been received by each generation to
realize the inherent prejudices that are present in our contemporary society. Hopefully, this
analysis of each successive decade will display the fluid changes of not only the book's
reception, but also its interpretation and the ways which it has affected the pop culture of
America.

1950's: Humbert Humbert Invades

In 1952, America saw the change of Presidency from Harry Truman, to the popular
war hero, Dwight Eisenhower. While this may seem to pose little as to the development of
Nabokov's Lolita, it does play an important role in discovering what the perceived pop
culture of the era was. The cold war was beginning to grow as the Korean War ended, and a
new sense of hostility toward the Soviet Union was felt amongst the western powers. In
Middle America, life was considered to be good. Many of those who had fought in World
War II and the Korean War were now employed, and American life was full of a blissfulness
that had not been felt since the roaring 1920's.

To lead this charge of American nationalism, a new, more powerful pop culture
emerged as technologies improved at dramatic rates, and the American middle class
population was blessed with a extraordinary disposable income. With the re-invention of
television as a replacement for radio, advertisements for everything in society were exposed
to the entire nation, and prayed on a new segment of society that worshipped the stars of this
new media with an undying devotion. Much like Humbert's own obsession, America was
obsessed with Hollywood. Hollywood would soon become famous for using this obsession to
its advantage. With its flashes of beauty and an unattainable level of glamour, Hollywood
played the role of a Venus fly trap by luring its unsuspecting prey into the promising, sweet
nectar of fiction.

America, like Humbert, had (and in many ways still does have) an obsession. 1950's
America was caught up in the magic of Hollywood, and would become obsessed with its
every action. Unlike America, however, Humbert's obsession is one that is to this day socially
unacceptable. His obsession epitomized all that western society finds revolting. As such, it
will live on as one of the most perverse obsessions imaginable. Humbert Humbert's obsession
with little girls struck a cord in Middle America.
 Pedophilia in any day and age is looked upon with disgust, but in the middle of the
baby boom, pedophilia was seen as a far more threatening sin to America. Nabokov's book,
however, is much more than simply a story of a pedophile and his obsession. It is instead a
commentary of American life, not only in the 1950's, but also every decade prior to, and in its
aftermath. If current American historians see the American spirit as one that is devoted to
growing and moving, then Nabokov's Lolita is the reason they must move.

Lolita is a portrait of the inherent problems with this kind of mentality on the middle
class. She is inconsiderate, and sees life not a coexistence with others, but instead as a means
to misbehave. It is his satire of the American middle class that provides a basis for his story
of pedophilia, murder, and pop cultural reliance. Prior to its American release, Lolita saw
constant challenges to be published overseas. In France, Lolita saw challenges to its
publication as the French government banned it in 1956, "only for the ban to be ruled illegal
in January 1958" (Boyd p3). This see-saw battle continued to wage as the importance of the
book as a grand literary work began to again increase the public demand for new editions to
be published and distributed. To respond, "in July the French Government had imposed
another ban under another law, this time barring it from any bookshop display for from sale
to those under 18" (Boyd p3). These chaotic events surrounding the European releases of
Lolita only helped to solidify the need for the book to be part of mass consumption.

At the time of its publication, America's favorite films were Gigi and The Defiant
Ones. The first movie being the story of a little girl who is the epitome of 1950's view about
little girls. The second, a more dark movie depicting the fleeing of two convicts in the south.
Its relevance to Lolita is stark. One shows what a 1950's girl should be: polite and well
mannered, an exact opposite to Lolita in the book. The other shows a more black and white
view of criminals: They are evil. Unlike Humbert Humbert, these criminals have little to offer
society, and show the dark side of crime. All this leads to Lolita's reception to America in
1958 symbolized the true power of the mass media. For 2 years, Nabokov had tried to have
his book published in the United States. Each publisher he brought the book too gave him the
same reception:

He ranted and shouted, and when I asked him to explain, to please explain, the
reason for his fury he replied that I, Bill Styron, knew full well that he, Hiram Haydn, had a
daughter the age of the victim of Humbert Humbert's disgusting lust, and that when my own
daughter was that age perhaps I'd understand the hatred a man might feel for Lolita. For some
reason, I was not angry with Hiram. It was an outburst that revealed the power of art's
sometimes terrifying menace. (Styron 33)

This distrusts and delayed rejection by most major publishers showed the inherent
controversy of the book. This controversy of the book displays not only the distrust of the
main open subject matter (pedophilia), but also the subconscious suspicion of the satire of
then contemporary Middle American morals and ideology.
 To Eisenhower America, Lolita would be a threat to order. After all, no man should
even consider it to be common place to hunt out "nymphets" to have their way with. But, not
only did Nabokov have Humbert think about it, he had Humbert go through the action, and
write a novel describing his every action. This would have been an obvious threat to
American society if it fell into the wrong hands. Namely, the wrong hands would be middle
class America. Eventually, the book would be published by a relatively small press known
mostly for its pornographic publications of other, not so famous books, including White
Thighs, With Open Mouth, and The Sexual Life of Robinson Crusoe. Its American reception
began the day before its release:

American publications were scheduled for Monday, Aug. 18. The day before, a
dozen Sunday newspapers reviewed the book. As with later reviews, two-thirds were
enthusiastic, a third puzzled, taxed, peeved, irked or outraged. (Boyd p3)

The power of Lolita was soon to be felt.

On August 18, 1958, America was invaded by Humbert Humbert. It would never be
the same. After 2 years of torment in Europe, Nabokov finally saw his book published in
America. The initial reactions by many of the more notable critics showed a hesitant stance
on the book. "Elizabeth Janeway's sensitive analysis in The New York Times Book Review
decided in favor of Lolita.’the first time I read Lolita, I thought it was one of the funniest
books I'd ever come on. . . . The second time I read it, uncut, I thought it was one of the
saddest'" (Boyd p3).

Unfortunately, this was not the view shared by most of the mass media and public.
Most of society saw the book as much of the Christian dominated society would: "Orville
Prescott proclaimed: 'Lolita then, is undeniably news in the world of books. Unfortunately it
is bad news. There are two equally serious reasons why it isn't worth any adult reader's
attention. The first is that is dull, dull, and dull in pretentious, florid and archly fatuous
fashion. The second is that it is a repulsive. . . . highbrow pornography'" (Boyd p3). It was
this opinion that spread like wild fire through America as Lolita exploded onto best seller list
after best seller list (peaking at number 1 in September of its release year). The distrust of
Lolita, and what it stood for, extended even to the heart of America: Texas. "The Texas town
of Lolita debated changing its name to Jackson" (Boydp32).

This blatant fear of being associated with Lolita in any way, shape or form only
showed the prejudices of 1950's society. Instead of being an open society that would be a
objective source of criticism, America proved to be a harsh opponent to Lolita. Still, the satire
of the middle class displayed in Lolita continued to prove to be accurate. As the religious
right became more and more fastidious in their opposition to the book, the review by
Elizabeth Jane way in 1958 continued to show the similarities: ". . . . Humbert is every man
who is driven by desire, wanting his Lolita so badly that it never occurs to him to consider
her as a human being, or as anything but a dream-figment made flesh" (Boyd p3). The
religious right had become Humbert; they had become obsessed with the removal of Lolita
from society.

1960's - 1970's: Nabokov's Revolutionary Ideals

The 1960's proved to be more receptive of Nabokov and Lolita. America was
changing on different levels. The President had changed again in 1960, now society was in
the firm grip of Kennedy's Camelot. America's involvement in Vietnam was beginning to
heat up, thousands of soldiers were being sent daily, and the American college system was
about to be rocked by protests not only about race, but about war. Life in America was
changing, and so was literature. So too was the public view of Lolita.

Instead of being "highbrow pornography," Lolita was soon becoming a classic

which, though still mostly misunderstood by those who it attempted to satire, was beginning
to take society in its grip. Nabokov remembers a particularly disturbing incident involving the
socializing of Lolita. "He was quite shocked when a little girl of 8 or 9 came to his door for
candy on Halloween, dressed up by her parents as Lolita" (Boyd p31). Lolita would reach its
most powerful grip on society in 1962 with the release of Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of the
story, with partial scripting from Nabokov himself.

The movie continued the Lolita tradition of causing a disturbance to the social status
quo: "When the novel Lolita was released, the smash hit outraged many bluenoses because it
dared to tell of love between a middle-aged man and a twelve-year-old girl" (Cinemania 96).
The movie represented a new path for Lolita to take as it ventured down the road to infamy.
The summer of 1962 presented the movie going public with one of the greatest varieties of
films to date. Possibly the most important movies that came from that year were Lawrence of
Arabia and To Kill A Mockingbird.

In Lawrence of Arabia, America was introduced to a new hero with a truly soul
consuming obsession: freedom for his people. For America, this obsession (although his
people were not American) was the most normal and moral as they saw Lawrence to be a true
patriot who did what he must to achieve his obsession. To Kill A Mockingbird, instead
presented a man who stood by his love of America and the American dreams in the face of
oppression. The correlation between Lawrence of Arabia's compulsive obsession and
Humbert's is striking. Unfortunately, Humbert's soul consuming obsession is one that is
heinous to all those who read his story. Still, Lawrence is willing to risk everything he has to
achieve his obsession, as is Humbert. Lawrence's life is forever changed by his obsession, as
is Humbert.

To find a link between To Kill a Mockingbird, and Lolita's film adaptation is a bit
harder. The clearest relationship is that both movies were adapted form popular books of the
day. One, To Kill a Mockingbird, was adapted from a book that represented the changing
view of America as progressive and positive. The other, Lolita, represented a book that
sought to satire America, and question the new changes in society.
 With Nabokov's movie being directed by Kubrick (then of Spartacus fame), the
movie was destined from birth to draw controversy. As somewhat of a maverick in the world
of film, Kubrick being chosen as director proved to be an interesting choice for Nabokov.
Nabokov, similarly to Kubrick, received little of the credit he deserved by the mass media for
years. For Kubrick, the transition to directing Lolita, from his previous direction of the large
scale "Hollywood" style movie Spartacus, and his earlier movies centered around war and
thievery showed similarity to Nabokov lack of popularity as until he wrote the controversial
Lolita.

Lolita presented a chance for Kubrick to work on a story that represented many
different things on many different levels. To some, the story of a man and a 12-year-old girl
may seem titillating, but to others, the impact of the satire on middle class America would
hold a different form of titillation. Still, Kubrick felt robed of a chance to make the movie he
wanted: "Though Kubrick has since complained that overzealous censors kept him from
exploring the story in appropriately lubricious detail (two years were even added to Lolita's
age), the film stands today as a superb example of understated, double-entendre comedy"
(Stanley Kubrick. Biography from Baseline's Encyclopedia of Film. Cinemania 96).

On a slightly different historical note, Kubrick would later direct A Clockwork

Orange, a movie adaptation of Anthony Burgess' novel (written in 1962, the same year Lolita
hit movie theaters). The most interesting relationship between Lolita and A Clockwork
Orange is the age of the major characters: Lolita is a 12 year old girl; Alex is a 12 year old
boy. The basic plot to A Clockwork Orange is the following of a deviant child as he ventures
through a future society obsessed with sex and crime with an all-powerful government. A line
can be drawn to Humbert Humbert as he ventures through 1950's society obsessed with
fitting into the Hollywood image (though Alex seems to have much more fun doing so before
his capture).

The reactions of the "bluenoses" who saw the movie adaptation of Lolita as
threatening was one that Nabokov expected. Nabokov knew that not only his book, but also
Kubrick's movie would cause trouble in America as well as the rest of the world because of
his own staunch morals. "Before the novel's publication, he had insisted to Minton that there
be no little girl on the book's cover, and now as a Lolita movie looked more and more
possible, he warned Minton that he 'would veto the use of a real child. Let them find a
dwarves'" (Boyd p31).

For the next 18 years, history saw a new Lolita syndrome take hold of America not
on the highly visible level it once held, but instead in a much more subtle style. Instead of
being a prominent work to which world literary critics and middle class white America could
argue over, Lolita became a new reflection of life. The 1960's saw many of America's
children ushered off to the Vietnam War, leaving those who were lucky enough to not be
drafted to face the consequences.
 Because of the controversy of the war, the youth of America began to question the
authority of the establishment. They questioned the sense of unity brought about by the
Eisenhower administration. This new class saw the middle class that many of them had
grown up in with a disgust that tore the nation apart as its children revolted against authority.
Along with the rebellion against the war, society saw its children rebel against the prejudices
that tore the south into two factions: one in favor of segregation, the other proponents of
integration. America's children began to act much like the Lolita.

Where Lolita was open about her sexuality, and in many ways years ahead of her
time, the 1960's were about similar ideas. Self-expression, regardless of its acceptability, was
the order of the day. The 1960s and their rebellion against society exemplified the rebel
attitude that not only the character Lolita, but also the book Lolita showed to the American
public. Nabokov's rebellious spirit in the 1950’s leads him to write a book satirizing the
American middle class. 1960's children showed their rebellious spirit by protesting all that
they surveyed.

Unfortunately, those who needed to understand both showings of this rebellious

spirit were unable to truly understand it many years, in fact, many still do not. For Nabokov,
the middle class still has yet to truly see the satire in his book, and thus has never been able to
realize the dangers of its obsessions. For the children of the 1960's, the government, also,
took a far too long to realize its errors both overseas, and internally.

These rebellions against the power of state institutions and what society leads
directly to the 1970's and a new sense of fitting into the social norm. No longer was it socially
acceptable to be anti-government. The 1970's also showed a new relationship between Lolita
and society. Life was a giant dance theme with movies and movie stars springing forth from
the vacuum left by the 1960's to take hold of a new generation of children who saw the final
product of the protests of the 1960's. Still, society's children felt left out of the world. Their
feelings of denial were not as verbal as the 1960's, but they did show through in their music.

"Funk" bands such as Parliament lead by George Clinton and Bootsy Collins
produced a new form of entertainment that overtook poorer middle class America. Just as
Nabokov's character Lolita can be seen a child who is not accepted by her family and thrust
into the obsessions of an adult male, Parliament produced a stage image of alienation.
Parliament and David Bowie soon became known for their extravagant stage productions
depicting themselves as aliens who have come to America solely for the purpose of dancing,
and living a life of extravagance.

Overall, the 1960's and 1970's showed the dramatic differences of rebellion and a
subtle truths to the dark side of middle class America that Nabokov satirized in Lolita.
America became a more sexually free society with a new disregard for the conservative ways
of the middle class in the 1950's. Unfortunately, these new middle classes were simply a new
face to the Lolita story, and showed that even though Lolita is basically a story about
pedophilia, it's satire of the middle class was much more fluid, and could be adapted to any
generation.

1980's and 1990's: Cyndi Lauper, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Lolita.

More than any other generation, the children of the 1980's and 90's brought forth a
new view of Humbert Humbert, Lolita, and their relationship. If the 1960's and 1970's were
about the rebellious spirit of not only Humbert and Lolita, but also of the rebellious spirit of
Nabokov, then the 1980's and 1990's were the epitome of the satire given by Nabokov of the
middle class. The 1980's saw the birth of a new generation of Americans who viewed the
conservative ideals of the 1950's and the extreme actions of the 1960's and 1970 to not quite
fit what America was truly all about.

Instead, this new generation saw America as a combination of both. Conservative

ideas could intermingle with the ideas of total self-enjoyment. New pop stars sprung up in
America. Each followed the rule that the more outrageous, the better. This reliance on being
different from the rest of a social norm parallel's Humbert's disgust of the social norms of the
1950's. Where Humbert Humbert sees the gloss and thin plate of society as evil, so did, and
does the generations following the 1970's. These generations, like Humbert, did what they
wanted, regardless of what the older generations' reservations were. 1980's saw the birth of
popular punk music.

While groups such as Iggy Pop and the Sex Pistols were around in the 1970's, they
became a media sensation in the 1980's. This look to punk music (and latter, less hard-core
representations) as a valid musical form struck a cord with America. It was not the urban
populous that purchased tapes by these "rebellious" bands, but instead it was the middle class
suburbanites that created the legacy of these punks stars. The middle class was again being
sucked in by a slick view of the world. In the 1980's, however, the culprit of this attraction
was not the Hollywood moguls who produced sensational movies, but instead it was the
music world. To the average fan, movie actors merely portrayed a life style of corruption and
rebellion. Rock stars, on the other hand, were seen as the true-to-life examples from which
Hollywood drew from. Take the example of the Sex Pistols. Throughout the 1970's, the Sex
Pistols were seen as the epitome of punk: they were harsh, uncaring, hateful, and most
importantly unfeeling. In 1978, lead guitarist Sid Vicious was charged with the death of his
girlfriend, who had evidently killed herself in a drug induced rage.

In 1986, a movie depicting their lives (appropriately titled Sid and Nancy)
premiered in America. While critics we quite pleased with the production, those who lived
for punk music refused to see the movie, claiming that it could in no way expose the true
feelings of both Sid and Nancy. Years later, it would become an underground classic as those
who eventually brought themselves to see it saw the emotions that was allowed to shine on
the screen:
Harrowing look at the bizarre, self-destructive, and curiously compelling
relationship between British punk rock singer Sid Vicious (of The Sex Pistols) and
American groupie Nancy Spungen in the 1970s. Director Cox achieves a masterful
level of docu-realism, and then laces it with allegorical dream images, with striking
results. At the core of the film are two remarkable performances, by Oldman and
Webb, who don't seem to be performing at all: they are Sid and Nancy. A downer, to
be sure, but fascinating.
(Music Central 96)

This underlying distrust of Hollywood because it was seen as fake helped to bring a
new form of not only music, but life to America. Instead of everything being on the surface,
life drew to what was considered underground, and "hard-core."

Pop sensations such as Cyndi Lauper and Madonna grew to icon status as they
mixed the hard-core attitude with a more watered down view of life and a pastel hazed
version of America. In particular, Cyndi Lauper fulfills the new standard of pop icon: "her
image was one that adapted, for the American market, something of a colorful 'punk' image
that would not offend parents too much but at the same time still retain a sense of humor and
rebelliousness that would appeal to the youth." (Music Central 96). Lolita's obsession with
the youth's love of Hollywood has now been changed into an obsession with the music
industry and style.

The 1980's saw the birth of a new occupation: Super Model (yeah Victoria's
Secret!). These beautiful women (and the occasional man) represented the basic obsession of
most males: beautiful women. Like Humbert's Lolita, these women fulfilled the fantasies of
middle class America. It can be said that these women became the new Lolita’s of the world.
They were greedy, capitalized off the obsessions of the American male populous, and created
a surrealistic world about them. Much like these women, Lolita too created her own world
around the foundation of the obsessive nature of Humbert Humbert. The Super Models had
become older versions of Lolita (though the search for these models would soon extend to
children far younger than Lolita's twelve years).

The 1990's presented a new distrust to the mainstream Hollywood productions as a

new conservative government was given its chance to run havoc in Congress. Movie goers
now saw the inherent violence in the movie system brought to a head as a revival of violence
(lead by movies such as Reservoir Dogs, and most Schwarzenegger films) as a threat to
society and moral values in America. Mix this new level of realistic violence with an even
greater level of sexual exploitation (i.e. Striptease, or the resent uprising pornography related
web-sites), and one creates a new hesitation toward the subject maters that Lolita presents in
its pages.

America in the nineties would present a new chance for Lolita to become famous. In
the early 1990, Amy Fisher was arrested for attempted murder of a married man's wife. She
was dubbed the "Long Island Lolita" because of her young age, and the presence of physical
violence involved. Unfortunately, the similarities stop there. Where Fisher was a 17 year old
prostitute who love an older man, and attempted to kill his wife, Lolita was simply a little girl
who (depending on interpretation) either seduced an older man, was taken advantage of by an
older man, or simply played an equal role in the fulfillment of Humbert's obsession. Lolita
was in no way a killer. While it is often argued that Lolita lacked the moral basis to be
considered a good girl, she was far from the evil it takes to attempt murder (as Fisher did).

The nineties also saw a new role for Lolita in the movies. A new movie was to be
made for the big screen depicting the questionable relationship between Humbert Humbert
and his Lolita. This movie, however, was to display a more contemporary (re: explicitly
sexual) view of Lolita. With an original script by Nabokov, himself, rejected, director Adrian
Lyne set out to find a script more closely related to the book that he described as "an
incredibly disturbing story. . . . But it's also hilariously funny, tragic, and heartbreaking. The
novel is a magnificent work of art--which is why I'm so terrified by it" (Styron 33). Fraught
with even more controversy than the original movie, the new film version of Lolita hopes to
prove that there is not only a sense of sexuality and obsession toward Lolita in the eyes of
Humbert, but also a sense of disgust toward the ever changing world.

Unfortunately, this new, even slicker adaptation will without a doubt not live up the
Nabokov's satirical intentions. The movie, however will still serve to create a new sense of
horror as to Humbert's actions, and may supply some of the humor required by the novel, as
more contemporary movie viewers now look for the ironic and satire in almost every movie
The 1980's and 1990's proved to be two faced as to finding a meaning for Lolita. Society
changed its view to fit an even more dramatic interpretation of Lolita's fantasy world of art
and movies. It supplied an audience that was experienced in deciphering the nuances of
satire, but it also supplied an audience that has been accused of being de-sensitized as to the
powers of violence and disturbing sexual acts. Overall, the new audience the 80's and 90's
supplied has helped to reach much of the under lying opinions Nabokov intended for the
middle class to see, but it also has lost some of the shock experience that the 50's, 60's and
70's audiences still possessed as they read Lolita for the first time.

Conclusion

Each decade since the initial publication of Lolita has presented a new interpretation
of the conflict between Humbert Humbert and Lolita. For the 1950's, the interpretation was
based on the conservative religious right that felt any relationship between an adult and a
child was evil. In the 1960's, the interpretation contained much of the same resentment, but
because of the openness of sexuality in society, they felt that much of the fuss was unneeded.
Like the 60's, the 1970's showed a similar disregard for the seriousness of the crime Humbert
held, they did, however, show more of an understanding of the alienation that both characters
must have felt. The 1980's and 1990's have brought a new, more ironic view of the situation.
Some no longer see the relationship between Humbert and Lolita as the result of Humbert's
obsession, but instead of Lolita's own misgivings. The more subtle theme of satire displayed
in the book presented a much more challenging appeal to society. For the 50's, 60's, and 70's,
the idea that society was being controlled by Hollywood was incomprehensible.

Hollywood was seen as something real and full of the dreams and imaginations of
those who view its productions on the big screen. It wasn't until the 1980's and 90's that
society truly began to see the power of Hollywood on society. With the President of the
United States of America a Hollywood actor who quoted popular movies in his international
presentations, it soon became obvious that the world was under the grip of Hollywood. It was
in these "postmodern" times that America finally began to see the irony of not only Lolita,
but also the irony of every part of American life. With the middle class of America ever
changing, the so has the meaning of Lolita's irony. Once it was about the middle classes
obsession with Hollywood. As society evolved, it became more of a satire on the obsession
with being different from everything, yet in some way fitting in with everyone.

Thus, as time inevitably progresses, so does the meaning of not only the relationship
between Humbert and Lolita, but the satire of the middle class. Much like other popular
satire, some things which are found to be ironic to one generation will undoubtedly be found
to be either perverse or just unfunny to another. Lolita will, however, still have the under
tying string of pedophilia and as society progresses, it is bound to forever find this
relationship less and less disturbing, but still in some ways unpleasant to the readers moral
values.

In the end, Lolita continues to be an excellent example of satirizing not only a

generation's obsessions, but an entire segment of modern class's reliance on pop culture to
teach its children and leads it people. It is these satires that will all Lolita to live forever in the
minds of its readers, not the "highbrow pornography" that so many of its critics accuse it of
exploiting: I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic
sonnets, and the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my
Lolita.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annotated Bibliography

1) Amper, Susan. "Lolita and her movies: the unmaking of Humbert Humbert." Philological
Paper. 1995: 41.

This essay by Susan Amper illustrates the claim that there is link between Vladimir
Nabokov's Lolita and America's infatuation with movies. She states: "Movies stand as the
leading image of pop culture in Lolita as well as a central focus of the novel, and the author's
contempt for movies is readily apparent. So is his love" (pg. 82). By using a chronological
study of Humbert Humbert's fall into a movie land illusion mixed with references to
contemporary ideas about Hollywood and the theater, Amper furthers her thesis to include
both Humbert Humbert's world and our own. Her purpose comes later on as it becomes
apparent that she is attempting to argue the power of America's love for movies in order to
rationalize Humbert Humbert's obsessive actions. For this reason, this essay appears to aim at
not only readers of Nabokov's Lolita, but also the American movie going public, which
encompasses almost all of us.

2) Boyd, Brian. "The year of 'Lolita.'" The New York Times. September 8, 1995: Sec 7.

Expanding the history of the publishing of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita is the main objective of
Brian Boyd in this article by Brian Boyd. To develop this idea, Boyd takes us through a
journey of the publishing of a controversial book by an unassuming man. He does this to
show that "prosecutions of genuine works of literature bring governments into disrepute and
do nothing o encourage public morality. When today we read the proceedings against
'Madame Bovary' or 'Ulysses'-works genuinely found shocking by many of their
contemporaries-it is Flaubert and Joyce who we admire, not the Public Prosecutors of the
time" (pg. 32) in order to open the minds of those who would object to contemporary
publication of works that pose a good deal of disturbing ideas and images. His audience is
probably a more cultured and older group of people by his references to subjects and
occurrences that were very important to the 1960's, but are now forgotten to most of the
modern public.

3) Cinemania 96. Computer software. Microsoft 1996. IBM.

This review by CineBook's staff gives a detailed analysis of the plot and history of both
movies. The writers use a basic break down of the plot into its separate thematic devices. As
for a purpose, the most apparent is to give an objective review with a slight bit of criticism
toward the movie. The audience is all those who purchase computers (as it came free with the
computer). References for Lolita, The Defiant Ones, and Gigi, To Kill a Mockingbird,
Lawrence of Arabia, Sid and Nancy were retrieved from this source.

4) Feeney, Ann. "Lolita and Censorship: A Case Study." Reference Services Review. Winter
1993: 67-74.

Many writers and critics have referred to the humanity and literacy quality of the story,
"Lolita", and even stated that "Humbert's avowals of repentance make the work even a moral
story, the same way that many say that, in Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,
anti-racist views expressed by the work as a whole counteract the racist statements made by
characters in the story." (68) Ann Feeney develops her article by showing specific
complications that were acquired in trying to get the article published while still trying to
avoid censorship. The author's purpose was to show the difficulties people had to go through
in order to get the article published, because people thought the book was pornographic, in
order to show the power of the public on the arts. The audience is all the people who have
read "Lolita" and people who are interested in censorship.
5) Field, Andrew. Nabokov: His Life in Art. USA: Little, brown & Co. 1967

Andrew Field gives a chronological look at the history of Nabokov in his art in this book. He
develops this by giving a book by book and poem by poem analysis of not only Nabokov's
literary history, but also his life at the time of writing each book. This will help to plot out the
life of one the world's most mysterious writers, both publicly, and privately. His apparent
audience are those in need of a deep discussion of Nabokov prior to 1967.

6) Maddox, Lucy. Nabokov's Novels in English. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
1983.

This book by Lucy Maddox asserts that "Lolita is, first and last, the anatomy of an
obsession." It does so by analyzing the deaths of all the major characters and the relevance in
the story. This is done in order to give an analysis of Lolita as strictly a story of obsession.
The audience for this book could only be those who have not analyzed the satire implied by
the tearing down of the middle class.

7) Marks, John. "Lolita, a girl for the '90s." U.S. News & World Report. October 14, 1995.

John Marks helps to further the notion of a giant social miss-understanding of Vladimir
Nabokov's Lolita. He emphasizes: "Its characterization of a sexual deviant is a portrait of
regret, ambiguity and madness, not a paean to sex with children" (pg. 71). To accomplish this
task, Marks looks to the mass media's reaction to the book and the subsequent use of the
word "Lolita" to describe any "bland slut" (pg. 71). His purpose in this examination of social
content to is open the eyes of reader to the misinterpretations of the Lolita, in order to
produce a greater social understanding of the book and its meanings. The author apparently is
trying to appeal to the mass public with reference to modern day happening, and the fact that
much of his essay is devoted to the contemporary movie, but due to its placement in "Culture
and Ideas" section of the magazine, the intended audience of the publisher is probably those
who are open minded about life, rather than the general publi! Morton, Donald E. Vladimir
Nabokov. USA: Frederick Ungar Pub. Co. 1974

In this book by Donald E. Morton, the assertion that Nabokov's Lolita is a pure piece of
"aesthetic bliss," and those who criticized it as pornography in the 1950's were terribly
wrong. He does this by giving direct quotes from the book, and analyzing their relevance to
the book. He does this in order to give the reader a better appreciation for Lolita as a
publication of satire rather than pornography. His audience appears to be those who have read
Lolita, and are in a state of confusion.

9) Music Central 96. Computer software. Microsoft 1996. IBM.

These reviews and article about music in general by staff writers asserts very little original
ideas. This is done by strict review of not only the music, but also the public and private lives
of the musicians they reviewed. The purpose is to provide a chronological order for the
history of music (as a whole for the software). Their audience appears to be everyone who
listens to music. References for the Sex Pistols, Parliament, and Cyndi Lauper were found in
this source.

10) Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. 1955. New York: First Vintage Books. 1991.

The main text this essay was drawn from. Both the story of a pedophile and a satire of middle
class America. The first quote and the final quote in this essay are the first and last passages
from this book. His audience was the American middle class.

11) Proffer, Carl R. Keys to Lolita. Indiana University Publications Humanities Series.
Bloomington: Indiana University. 1968

This book by Carl R. Proffer asserts that there is a specific pattern to the writing of Nabokov
in Lolita. He accomplishes this assertion by a detailed analysis of beat, tone, and repetition by
Nabokov writing in the voice of Humbert Humbert. He does this search in order to create a
path to understand Nabokov's subtle satire of the middle class. His audiences are those who
wish to delve completely into the nature of Humbert and Nabokov's writing.

12) Sharpe, Tony. Vladimir Nabokov. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc. 1991

This book by Tony Sharpe gives the most contemporary view of Lolita as a book about
reciprocated love and as a satire of the middle class. He accomplishes this task by giving dual
meanings to much of what Nabokov writes. This is done to help explain the overall feeling of
intrigue produced by Lolita. His audience is the British public (it was originally published in
Britain).

13) Styron, William. "The Book on Lolita." The New Yorker. 4 Sept 1995: 33.

William Styron explains his experiences with "Lolita" and that when he wanted his company,
Random House, to publish the novel he was upset because the "co-owner of Random House,
was one of the group of hapless publishers ... who so lacked foresight, or were so timid in the
face of "Lolita’s ostensibly salacious subject matter, that they missed out on one of the great
publishing coups of modern times". William Styron develops his thesis by demonstrating
how he first received his own copy of "Lolita" and how everyone else "shunned" the book.
The author also thought "Lolita" was a "sidesplitting and heartbreaking triumph, and entirely
filth free" book and in order to share it with the rest of the United States; he wanted to try and
publish it. This article was written for all the people who want to go see the new movie
"Lolita" so they can have a little understanding of all the hardships this movie had. Page 31
Page 33