Jump to content

Talk:Lolita/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Lolita, Dolores

I have removed a reference to her being "pre-pubescent". She wasn't. She was a sexually active 12-year-old. How many 12-year-olds are "pre-pubescent? Humbert makes it plain that nymphets are not pre-pubescent.

It is also questionable to say that he and Quilty are pedophiles. If Lolita had been 4- or 5-years-old then they would be pedophiles. I realise that I'm going to get attacked about this, but I stick to my guns. In many societies and even in England in Medieval times a twelve year old was considered of marriageable age. Most 12-year-olds are pubescent and have developed sexual feelings by that age.

Humbert and his first love Annabel were both young at the time and she had sexual desire for him. Humbert described them as pre-adolescent: but once the changes leading to reproductive ability begin to occur, some one is no longer pre-pubescent. Sure there are different definitions, but none would make Lolita pre-pubescent:

Puberty -- dictionary.com

"the period or age at which a person is first capable of sexual reproduction of offspring: in common law, presumed to be 14 years in the male and 12 years in the female".

Stunz 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This argument is largely ruined by the fact that Humbert describes the girls he is sexually interested in as lying "between the age limits of nine and fourteen". He also discusses the "girl-child" bodies that appeal to him and how he does not care for fully formed breasts. I think this does indicate an arguable interest in the pre-pubescent. It is definitely not a clear cut issue. A pre-pubescent 12 year old girl would not be considered medically abnormal, especially considering this is 50 years ago and onset of puberty has a lowering age trend. 1st Feb 2008.

Yes, puberty and the growth therein differs from person to person, as well as male to female. Pedophilia is the attraction of one to pre-pubescent youths, while Ephebophila is attraction to pubescent/adolescent youths. I think he seems to display characteristics of both.Oi2Life (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Humbert

Humbert is in his "middle ages"? "Debauched" murder? Somebody needs to revert Dabiel's revisions -- they have made the second paragraph even more confusing than before. Bds yahoo 16:29, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Rob Moore

Hi. I just extensively revised the entry on Lolita, to provide more details on the plot, and a brief history of its publication. This is my first Wikipedia entry, so please let me know if I'm doing anything terribly wrong.

Ralph Robert (Rob) Moore SENTENCE at http://www.ralphrobertmoore.com robmary@swbell.net

I removed these on the theory that link collections add nothing to the article. We should probably add summaries (probably gathering information from the links below) rather than just adding the links. What do others think? --Robert Merkel

I agree - they never contain anything that won't end up here as a matter of course. --MichaelTinkler
Somebody has added them back again. I'm going to remove them again, and add a comment suggesting that the person that added them back, if they really think they belong, should discuss it here first. --Robert Merkel

Internet Movie Database links for the films:

I see no reason not to have imdb links in articles. (In fact, my biggest gripe with wikipedia is the overall dearth of relevant external links - but I digress.) In the case at hand, imdb will tell you at a glance that the first film is a masterpiece, while the remake is a big waste of celluloid. Value judgements like that don't belong in an encyclopedia, but I believe links to a collection of reviews that anyone can add to do. It's pertinent information, after all. Mkweise 07:18 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
Hum. Why is it important for people to "know" that the first version is superior to the second? First of all, a strong opposing case can be made. Kubrick threw out Nabokov's own script, remember, and even its fans complain about his putting the last scene first, while the remake was carefully modelled on Nabokov's own rejected screenplay. But that's not important. The point is, it's not our job as encyclopedists to be shaping the reader's taste. Bds yahoo 22:59, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article currently has a link to the "Nabokov Library", where you can download the text. I'm new to wikipedia, so I don't know, but this isn't allowed, is it? Bobwhoops 07:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Age

I deleted the following sentence from the article, as it is incorrect: It should be noted that in the film versions the girl was aged to 15 rather than left at the more shocking 12.

The Kubrick film did age the character to 15, but the later version the girl was most definitely only portrayed as 12 or 13 (indeed, the actor playing Lolita was only 13 at the time of filming and great care had to be taken when filming to avoid the perception of the possibility of psychological harm to her). -- Robert Merkel

I'm not so good with telling age, but do I remember hearing that the later one upped her age as well. I'm searching for documentation of this before I unilarterally change anything.

Okay, I've found numerous sources that say her age was upped to 14, and they used a 19 year old body double in some scenes. Dominique swaine was born in 1980, which would make her roughly 15/16 at the end of filming in 1996. Every source I have found on the 'net for how old she was at filming was 15, though Steven Schiff the screenwriter admits they picked dominique because she could pass for 12-13.

--alan d

--- I just watched the 1997 film and at one point Lolita's age is specifically mentioned as being 14.

^^Yes, Lolita in the 1997 film was 14, not 12, not 13, not 15...it was 14!!! 202.6.138.34 04:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Well one of the benefits of reading the book, is that youll know, Nabokov's 'Lo was only 12, ('on the cusp of womanhood' ), and in the movie version version her age was bumped up a bit, to avoid some controversy, and also for casting purposes, its far easier to cast for a fourteen year old, ( for such a risky role ) than for a 12-13 year old. Incidentally, I havent seen the movie.-Stevert

Please realize that, while Dolores Haze is 12 when she first casts her sunglassed eyes on Mr. Humbert, she ages throughout the course of the novel, becoming 14 and 15 and continuously less attractive, at least physically, to our charismatic pedophile. --Stephen
Right. And the same is true for the film. Dominique Swain was 15 when she made the movie and her characters age was mentioned as 14 in the movie, but that was towards the end of the movie. There's no reason to think she wasn't 12 when she first met Humbert in the movie too. Ospinad 21:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Lolita-themed films"?

Is it really necessary -- or even proper -- to provide a list of "Lolita-themed" films? To me, that's like having a list of books about father-son relationships linked to the page on the Odyssey. Unless a work shows signs of direct influence, I think it's irrelevant to an entry devoted to Nabokov's novel. Bds yahoo 23:04, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mentioning movies and slang early, Amy Fisher late

I've just made edits in which I included brief mentions of the movie and the use of lolita as a slang term in the lead section (above the Table of contents). I'm a little concerned about the paragraph being removed, so let me explain: someone looking for the movies or the slang term may not bother scanning through the article once they see it's about the novel, especially if they've followed a link expecting such information (that was my first impulse, anyway). I also added a mention of Amy Fisher, the "Long Island Lolita" at the end of the article (just be thankful I didn't add that to the lead ;) and "standardized" the References section to be in line with Wikipedia:Cite your sources. As for the IMDb links issue, I urge interested parties to consider what would be most useful to Wikipedia readers. I find myself opening up new browser windows all the time to look up movies in the IMDb. If the issue is one of website favoritism, lobby for a Booksources type "linkfest" page for movies. - dcljr 06:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've created a disambiguation page at Lolita (disambiguation) if someone would like to create stubs for the movies. - dcljr 07:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

plain Dolores

I'm not very confident in the following:

...in the book, Dolores' looks are described as plain at best.

Humbert Humbert certainly falls for her, but his perceptions are skewed, so we can't really rely on that. Charlotte Haze does call her daughter "decidedly homely" and constantly derides Lo's "starlet" ambitions. However, Charlotte too has ulterior motives, and in her case, a vast quantity of stored resentment. Why trust her opinion either?

When he purports to describe how his nympholepsy originated, Humbert describes his childhood love, Annabel Lee. He lists her physical attributes in a much less impassioned way than he describes Lolita; this catalogue can be considered a guide to Lolita's appearance in a more removed, photographic way than Humbert's usual ravings. (Remember, the two girls resemble each other closely in physical appearance: it is only as he grows familiar with Lolita's personality that Humbert recognizes differences.)

Humbert reports several instances of teenage boys drooling over Lolita. Having once been one myself, I submit that even adolescent males have standards. Humbert usually impugns their attractiveness—the "pimply" soda jerk pops to mind—and at least once he mocks a young ogler staring at Lo's indrawn abdomen, "which I kissed five minutes later, Jack". One could argue that some of these admirers are products of Humbert's feverishly jealous imagination, but to me, that doesn't cover the whole story. First of all, Humbert's fantasies are generally vacuous and rather teenage themselves—consider his vision of Lo spread-eagled on their hotel bed, felled by his magic sleeping pills, especially compared to the "reality" he sees a few pages later. Saying that H.H. invented all of Lo's admirers and gave them all the details which the narrative provides is at odds with his character. (Remember Yoda's Law of Revisionism: "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.") Brian Boyd goes into this sort of logic in this essay.

Putting the soda jerks and ski-lift operators aside, we still have the matter of Clare Quilty's blatant attraction. Remember, he has his pick of ladyfriends, small and large alike. (His favourite mistress, of course, is the enigmatic Vivian Darkbloom.)

(Who is an anagram of "Vladimir Nabokov". Now there's enigmatic! ) Tonywalton  | Talk 15:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

He chooses Lolita and goes to great lengths to achieve her, most of the work going into getting her away from Humbert. Sure, he has his odd traits too, but his desires overlap the mainstream a trifle more than Humbert's do. To paraphrase H.H., Quilty hunts for Eve as well as Lilith. If he likes Lolita, well. . . .

Finally, if Lo's looks are as bad as Charlotte indicates, I have to say that both Stanley Kubrick and Adrian Lyne made some terrible casting choices.

Anville 12:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Boys have standards, but, still, a young girl really doesn't have to be an oil painting to get a great deal of attention from the opposite sex. I'm not saying Dolores was a total dog or anything; it's just that Humbert's love/obsession was not motivated by any fabulous looks but rather by the special something that Lola had. He also states at the beginning that the "nymphets" he generally desires are not necessarily conventionally beautiful. Charlotte's comments confirm that the girl was in this category of nymphets who are neither ugly nor gorgeous, but merely alluring.
Directors and others who have depicted Lolita over the years have all succumbed to commercial pressures that require the female lead to be highly attractive, with beauties such as Natalie Hershlag being offered the role, despite the fact that they are obviously inappropriate if an accurate adaptation of the book is desired. Chameleon 14:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Why do you say that Natalie Portman (Hershlag)would be an inappropriate casting choice? She is actually younger than Dominique Swain, and both young women are gorgeous. Natalie turned down the role because she was not comfortable with the level of sexuality as it was much more sexually provocative than her role in "The Professional."

As far as the pimply youths are concerned, from my experience it was considered abnormal to publicly drool over a twelve-year-old when one was aged fourteen or more. (That is, more than it is considered abnormal to drool in public anyway). As far as her sexual appeal is concerned, Humbert does not describe her looks in terms of whether or not they conform to the "normal" blueprint of female beauty, but rather to his own concept of nymphet-dom. As far as the casting choices for the two films of the novel are concerned, they are so completely different from her description in the book anyway, that it would make little difference, I think. --- Revolver66 31/12/06

As far as the pimply youths are concerned, I doubt that Nabakov intended Humbert's comment to be taken literally. Of course adolescent boys "drool" over adolescent girls in the way he means it. And having been a teenage boy myself I know that a plain girl with a good body wouldn't be found unattractive by most teenage boys. Certainly, she wasn't especially beautiful, that is one of the points of Humbert's love for or infatuation (however repulsive it may seem) with her -- there is more involved than just beauty. Stunz 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Interestingly enough, Natalie Portman does play a very young, Lolita-like character in the film 'Leon' - and in some versions of the film, does seduce the main character [a simple-minded assassin of notable talent].
Leon was also controversial because the film was preferable to edit away a sexually interested young girl, in favour of a the same young girl killing people.
193.243.227.1 (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Your comments make me wonder whether you actually saw the film or just heard about it. You make some inaccurate statements. Leon is not simple-minded; he just had a simple lifestyle (except for killing people). There's a difference. He would have to be at least average in intelligence to do the things he did. And Portman's character did not "seduce" him. She had a young adolescent infatuation with the man who saved her life. There's a difference there too.
All of this having been said, this discussion has strayed from the purpose of a talk page for Lolita. More commentary about this specific issue is inappropriate. Ward3001 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear-oh-dear. I mention SOME versions of the film - apparantly the European version of the film has more of Lolita seducing Leon, which was edited out for the American version [kindly check out whether this is true [such as looking on IMDb, where this is actually mentioned], BEFORE attempting to savage my comment].
Also, Leon's trust in his blatantly ripping him off "employer" would indicate his niavete and simple-mindedness - YOU assume I infer he is mentally deficient.
193.243.227.1 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have seen the European version of the film, and I stand by my previous comments. And you did infer his mental level because you can't get inside his head and know what he's thinking. You, like anyone, have to infer based on his behavior. His employer wasn't ripping him off, and Leon's trust is based on a long-standing relationship. Now I wonder even more whether you actually saw the film. Ward3001 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Althout I am not in the habit of getting involved in tit-for-tat type situations, may I draw your attention to the IMDb note in the Alternate Versions area, "Mathilda asking Leon to have sex with her and Leon refusing" and the note in the Trivia area, "The original script had more scenes with "awkward sexual tension" between Matilda and Leon. These scenes were later cut out for the American release dubbed "The Professional", but were included in the 1996 European release, as well as in the deleted scenes of the special edition DVD", which refer to scenes of a sexual nature between leon and Natalie's characetr - something that would normally be considered seduction of a sort.
The scene where Leon wants to withdraw his money, but Tony talks him out of it, or when Tony would rather hire a 12 year old girl than allow her to have the money that Leon has already willed to her, do indicate that Tony isn't really acting in Leon's best interest.
My comments were about Natalie Portman playing a similar role to the one she didn't take on in Lolita, but you have ignored the evidence noted by other websites, etc to maintain that Natalie Portman's role in Leon was innocent and devoid of anything sexual - even though you maintain that you have seen the relevant evidence, and the relevant bits have been confirmed as being there.
Can we please have someone else comment on this, one way or another ??
193.243.227.1 (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pynchon song

I've removed the doggerel that Pynchon has Serge sing. It's mildly interesting, but of very peripheral concern to most people interested in Lolita, and also I get the impression that copyright holders take a very dim view of quotations of verse. -- Hoary 08:05, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

And now I see it has been replaced, with an edit comment that it shows the influence of the book. Indeed it does, but does it have to be quoted in full? And how about the copyright issue? -- Hoary 14:22, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

It seems to me, too, that it would be better with the Pynchon item removed. --Daniel11 09:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The same text is on The Crying of Lot 49, so it's at best redundant. -℘yrop (talk) 20:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

And therefore I've removed it again. If anyone wants to put it back in, please explain the reasoning for doing so. -- Hoary 01:59, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

"Quotes"

Can someone clarify where the quotations from Nabokov actually come other than just broadly BBC television or Playboy magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Somebody put in gobbets from the novel in a new section, "Quotes".

Lolita is not GFDL. "Fair use", as I understand the term, allows the small quotations in order to back up or illustrate points being made in critical or academic works. It doesn't cover long quotations about which no remarks are made. -- Hoary 02:02, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Influence -- or just trivia?

The second half of the section "influence" is influence in that it wouldn't have been possible in quite the same way had this novel not existed. But it's very thin stuff. Rather than "influence", I'd call it "references in pop culture", a subclass of "trivia". Would this be too harsh? -- Hoary 06:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Really, I agree pop-culture references would be much more fitting. Skrew ball 07:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Good article

I would just like to say, this is good article, with a lot of interesting details. I would support changing the heading "Influence" to "References in Popular Culture" or some more-descriptive phrase.

Future expansion

For your entertainment and edification, consider the following sources I found via the NABOKOV-L discussion list:

I also plan to write a little blurb about lolicon and "Elegant Gothic Lolitas". Fascinating species, humankind.

Anville 11:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed this link [1]. It is a password link which was inaccessable without the password.--Dakota t e 22:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Enchanter"

In 1939 Nabokov wrote a short story in Russian, titled "Enchanter" (Волшебник). It has been translated in English much later by his son Dmitri. The plot of "Enchanter" was similar to "Lolita". There were a protagonist, called just 'he', also a widow and a girl, both not named. That girl character was a predecessor to Lolita. Will someone include this connection in the article? Dart evader 17:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the link to The Lake (novel) relevant in the "See Also" section? It is not discussed at all in the body of the article. The link in my view is tenuous without this.

Plot

H.H. cries three times in the book. First when Charolette dies; they are tears of joy. Second when Lolita wants to have sex with him. And third when Lolita refuses to leave with him when he gives her the money, not that he was trying to bribe her.

The Tennis game Lolita plays in is also the critical point at which Humbert loves Lolita, even though she isn't a nymphet anymore. This shows his change. It also leads to his moral change by the end of the book, when he knows what he did to Lolita is wrong.

He is remorseless though about killing Quilty, which leads readers to believe that he still has something wrong about him. This might be said in a court case.

A note on pronunciation

I've come across a number of people who, when discussing Lolita, pronounce H.H.'s name as a French person might (om-BEAR om-BEAR). The argument is that he is French, himself. Nabokov himself has been recorded, calling his protagonist, plainly, "HUM-bert HUM-bert." Not sure if this is notable enough to be clarified in the article. Stephencelis 15:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Alizée Jacotey trivia: peripheral and unencyclopedic

I read the following (just before I trimmed it):

In the summer of 2000, the French music industry released a song with the title "Moi... Lolita", written and produced by Mylène Farmer and Laurent Boutonnat. It tells the story of a young teenage girl, and is sung as a nymphet's autobiography. Alizée Jacotey, from Corsica and then 15 years old, was chosen from thousands of girls between 12 and 18 to sing the song and has become France's most popular media "Lolita". While placed in the modern days of disco clubs and not directy [sic] connected to Nabokov's story, Alizée in the clip shows a much greater resemblance to Humbert's definion [sic] of nymphet than does either Sue Lyon or Dominique Swain (stars of the two films).

Some thoughts:

  1. I'm open to persuasion that she was closer to Humbert's definition than was either Lyon or Swain. But that persuasion is likely to be unencyclopedic and unsuitable for WP. Without such persuasion, this is mere PoV and certainly unencyclopedic.
  2. It's unclear what, if anything, is meant by "France's most popular media 'Lolita'". To me, this seems the language used to sell lowbrow newspapers.
  3. If Jacotey is significant enough to have her own article, then stick facts about her that are not directly connected to this novel in that article, and not this one.

Hoary 10:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Poe influence

Calling the book "the kingdom by the sea" is not "presumably'" a reference to Poe, it definitely is. The girl Humbert loved as a boy was named Annabel Lee and according to the annotated version of the book there are more allusions to Poe in Lolita than of any other author. Rufusgriffin 06:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Graham Greene

{{spoiler-blank|The Innocent}} The comment about Greene giving a positive notice about the novel made my mind click and so I remembered. Greene uses the name Lola for the prostitute in "The Innocent" (from Twenty-One Stories), in which the narrator takes her to his hometown in the countryside where he remembers in a "children's love" and finds a pornographic drawing of his of the time. {{endspoiler}} The short story was written in 1937 though, which means that if there was any influence it was Greene's on Nabokov. This could possibly mean that the term was already used before the Lolita in a similar context, though maybe more sporadically or only in sophisticated writing? Maybe it could enter in the Influences section, in the paragraph starting "The term lolita has come to be used to refer...", maybe not. Add at your discretion :) └ VodkaJazz/talk┐ 01:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Azar Nafisi and Ephebo/Pedo

I added a section on Azar Nafisi's reading of Lolita to the "Style and Interpretation" section of the page, only afterward noticing that her book was already mentioned under "Film, TV or theatrical adaptations." I think the section I used is the appropriate place to discuss Nafisi's book--it is not an adaptation, much less a film or a play! And my discussion is a little more in-depth than what was already there.

But as a new user I hesitate to delete a whole paragraph by someone else. Does some third party want to combine the original paragraph with my stuff in the "Style and Interpretation" section?

Okay, I went ahead and deleted the other paragraph. Please feel free to revert.Dybryd 05:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I know the change of "ephebophile" to "pedophile" may be controversial. I think it's simply accurate: Humbert defines nymphets in Chapter 5 as being between 9 and 14 years old. --Dybryd

"Coerce" vs. "Beg" and beginning of Affair with Quilty

I'm pretty sure that "coerce" is better than "beg" for how H. gets Q.'s name out of Lolita. Here's the passage:

But, I said, she must be sensible, she must be a sensible girl (with her bare drum under the thin brown stuff), she must understand that if she expected the help I had come to give, I must have at least a clear comprehension of the situation.
 "Come, his name!"

This is not a man who is begging, this is a man who is commanding--and threatening to withold the money he came to give unless she provides him quid pro quo. It's a small change, but think it's important to the meaning of the novel. Even as he perceives how he has hurt her and begins to feel compassion for her, H. continues to treat Lolita in a cruel and dominating way. I'm changing it back.

As for the beginning of the affair with Q., she says it was at "her camp five years ago"--making her twelve when Q. seduces her, two years in advance of H. However, H. meets Lolita in May of that year. Is she twelve that summer, or was she twelve the previous summer--this makes the difference of whether the affair with Q. starts before or after she meets H.

So, what is Lolita's birthday? If it's mentioned in the novel I can't at the moment remember it. But I think the timing of the beginning of the affair is an important (despite or because of being concealed by N.) and should be restored once we're certain of it. Dybryd 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't find the birthday, but contextual clues make it plain that it was the summer after Humbert moved in.
Dybryd 18:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
« Born 1935. » (P. I, ch. 5)
« She would be thirteen on January 1. » (P. I, ch. 15)
« (1935 plus eighty or ninety, live long, my love) » (P. II, ch. 35)
Budelberger (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, coerce is the better word. I didn't really pick up on the threat when I've read it, but its certainly there. I was probably drawing on the film versions when I changed it; it's much more of a beg in both. --Yossarian 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dolores/Dolly/Lo

Strictly speaking, "Lolita" isn't the girl's name; it's a nickname used only by her abuser. Her given name is Dolores, her mother calls her Lo and everyone else calls her Dolly. The fact that "Lolita" is the name that appears most frequently in the book (and, consequently, the one generally used by readers) is a sign of how thoroughly Humbert's warped perspective dominates the novel. I am wondering whether, in a critical discussion, it might be better to refer to the character by the more neutral name of Dolores. What do the rest of you think? Perodicticus 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, just looking at precedent, she really is "Lolita" in the public imagination. I don't think I've seen many discussions of the book (scholarly or otherwise) use the name "Dolores" with any consistency. For that matter, the Kubrick movie has "Lolita" as her given name (or at least her mother's nickname for her, rather than Humbert's), and that was written (in part) by Nabokov himself. Not that that's any justification...maybe I just can't picture her as "Dolores" rather than "Lolita" (I mean, who can, even if it is born of Humbert's twisted perspective). There's a certain bias adopted in accepting either name as standard, but I think most people are more familiar with "Lolita", rather than "Dolores"...or at least more comfortable. I can't quite recall for certain, but I seem to remember Nabokov refering to her as "Lolita" in the Afterward. But perhaps that's a false memory (Mnemosyne was never kind to me, unlike some people). Ultimately it doesn't make too much of a difference, really. Humbert is a fictional character, and casually endorsing his "bias" isn't as bad as accepting a real person's bias (I'd argue that it's negligable, as long as that view is disected, but I'm more concerned with real people's biases, rather than fictional people's). In another vein, the Lolita character is largely Humbert's creation anyway (depending on who you talk to). Any discussion of the book is going to be about his version of events, and his version of the girl, who he seems to have named "Lolita". --Yossarian 12:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that using "Dolores" would just be confusing. Dybryd 19:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you define a person's name? On her birth certificate, she was probably "Dolores", but as Humbert points out in the opening chapter, she is also called "Dolly", "Lola" and "Lo". I don't think Humbert ever refers to her as "Lolita" in conversation, I think he generally calls her Lo. ---Revolver66 31/12/06

Just in case you didn't know this already. The name "Dolores" is of Spanish origin and is taken from the Spanish title of the Virgin Mary "María de los Dolores", meaning "Mary of Sorrows". It is a common woman's name in Spanish-speaking countries. "Lola" is a nickname for "Dolores", just as "Bill" is for "William" and "Dick" is for "Richard", and "Lolita" is the diminutive of "Lola", kind of like what "Billy" is to "Bill" or "Johnny" is to "John". In Spanish-speaking countries it is common for people to use nicknames and diminutives, and in these countries there are many women named "Dolores" but called "Lola" or "Lolita" instead. --Yogui 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Perodicticus is right, Dolores is the "objective" character that is obscured by Humbert's "own creation, another, fanciful Lolita--perhaps, more real than [Dolores]; overlapping, encasing her; floating between me and her, and having no will, no consciousness--indeed, no life of her own." While it is interesting to distinguish the two, the Lolita on the back of Humbert's eyelids is the one of real interest. Brancron (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Brancron

deleted sentence

I should have just put this in the edit summary, but forgot. Out of curiousity I looked over at Alizee Jacotey's page, and saw that she was sixteen when she recorded her Lolita song, and that the screenshot shows her to be no less glamorized that Lyon and Swain in the movies. So I deleted the statement that her protrayal is more true to the novel than theirs. Sorry if someone is a huge fan of Ms. Jacotey! Dybryd 17:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Kamera Obscura/Laughter in the Dark

The earlier novel by Nabokov, Kamera Obscura (or Laughter in the Dark in the English translation), is in many ways similar to Lolita. Nabokov certainly used many of the themes of this book in Lolita. Not quite sure how I should incorporate this in the article though. Errabee 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Could I encourage you to get an article on Laughter in the Dark started, if you know anything at all about it (sounds like you do) and we can go from there. I would think that any references one to another could easily be made in the 1st novel article in a ==Allusions/references from other works== section and in the 2nd in a ==Allusions/references to other works== section. The emphasis would be to explore the common themes and allusions more in the second work as this a more nature/logical authorial process being followed. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I will, but it has been some time since I read the book. Errabee 09:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Very Interesting Taboo

At the end of the film Humbert asks the 17 year old Lolita to run away with him, which is not really mentioned in the article and an action that I have always found interesting. Considering that she was pregnant, portrayed as much less attractive and married; I find this action inconsistent with the manner in which most people refer to Humbert. It could even be argued that he did in fact love her to still want her at this point, the fact that he gives her the money and her reply that she could not go with him because she couldn't betray her husband rather than that she did not care for him seems to also infer an interesting commentary on modern society. I also think that one of the ingenious components of the movie is that the man who uses her for pornography/sex then discards her does not bear the brunt of the audiences scorn, that is only reserved for Humbert. I believe this is again a commentary on modern society, much in the same vein. If you include the hostility that Lolita's mother directs at her, I think the film points toward the basis for this taboo in modern society. As in earlier times the accepted age of marriage and childbearing was conceivably much younger; for instance the age of consent in Canada is 14 and 12 with parental consent. This was a holdover from British cannon law, a rather outdated law but certainly puts in perspective how things have changed.

I have a few questions that arose in my mind due to this film:

Is the taboo of 'Lolita' because her welfare needs to be protected? If so then why is Q not vilified by most people who watch the movie? Is her mother's hostility derived from the perceived threat of a second(younger) child bearing age female in the house? In our modern society what would generate more contempt, a young girl having intercourse with an older man or a young girl marrying one? If you took all the underage unwed mothers or ones who have had abortions and instead married them to older men, would this be worse? How much resistance is there present in our society to discussing these issues without turning the conversation into an ethical exercise? Do we artificially extent childhood to go beyond the biological meaning of the word?

These ideas seem to be explored with extremes in the story as you have the 12 year old girl(just barely of child bearing age) and a much older Humbert. John

Had you taken the time to read the novel rather than simply watching one of the films, your view would be harder to sustain. Also, wikipedia talk pages are not really the place for general usenet-style discussions of a topic: they are for discussing changes to the article. Dybryd 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, first of all the page says discussion and I have observed plenty of 'usenet style' discussions on a number of matters. Perhaps instead of being vulgar and egotistical I have made some tacit points about the article, yes? I guess I will state them explicitly. This article has a bias tone toward the characters; I guess to say it is not objective and is moralizing the story rather than analyzing it(not to mention a complete lack of references). I was putting forth what I think is a rather fitting analysis that seems to be avoided by most people. I guess I should also note that the article encompasses the movie as well; so I can maintain whatever view I feel like about the movie, thank you sir. I suppose another implied criticism would include the need for a more robust partition between the film adaptation and the book; as I would think both are valid representations of the 'Lolita' story. Perhaps I will read the book, but I have my doubts about Kubrick being that disloyal to the original material: censors or not. John
Most films based on novels omit or change some parts of the original story, maybe because some parts are not appropriate for film or artistic license or some such. Although Nabokov himself wrote the screenplay, the film is still not quite like the novel. Nabokov probably didn't intend it to be so; additionally (from this article): Nabokov was nominated for an Academy Award for his work on the earlier film's adapted screenplay, although little of this work reached the screen. Censors were just for things like showing the couple having sex, I don't think it included the suggestion and implication. Anyway, sorry for being mostly off-topic, and I apologize if these are already things you know.QueenStupid 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


revision

I edited the section on Influence on language to include a paragraph on the influence the novel has had on current american popular culture, particularly the use of the over-sexualized child image in modern advertising, movies, and magazines. I also edited a definition of lolita complex as it isn't quite lolicon. I cited my sources for both edits and applied them to the references section. Jseipel 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi there. Thanks for coming over here to discuss your edits; I appreciate it. You can sign your posts here by putting four tildes (~) in a row at the end of your entry, which makes it easy for later readers to follow the discussion.
I reverted your edits for the following reasons. The two references you added are to articles which do not appear to address the topic of the entry. The reference section is for sources on the topic of this article entry, which is the book by Nabokov and not the phenomenon of the so-called Lolita figure in advertising, or anywhere else. These topics, while interesting, are not germane to the novel - in fact, from the quality of your citations I expect that your interests are best suited to working on entries which are about the lolita complex, rather than entries which are about Nabokov's book.
Citations to individual pieces of a discussion, which are not relevant to the whole, are probably best entered as Wiki footnotes. However, in this case, I suggest that they are off-topic and don't have a place in what is an entry about a work of literary fiction. One would not link references to the reproductive patterns of Rattus rattus in an article on Mickey Mouse, and I think that's what's happening here.
Your edit to the language section is far beyond the scope of theis entry on the novel, and states that the lolita complex - a separate issue from the novel, which has nothing to do with the novel other than the use of the name "Lolita" - is "used to refer to men's fascination with the sexuality of female youth" - okay - "and to perpetuate the portrayal of women as ridiculously childlike."
This latter has a Point of View problem that can not stand in any Wiki page. It contains several assumptions, including the wholly incorrect statement that the lolita complex is used to perpetuate something, and that the thing it is perpetuating is "ridiculous." That is not a judgment that can be made. In fact the lolita complex is a naturally occurring apolitical phenomenon, much like athlete's foot, which causes discomfort but is without direction and has no purpose. It does not perpetuate any portrayal, whether of young women or of sad old men, both of which are portrayed, with exquisite sensitivity, in Nabokov's book.
You may be right about lolicon and the lolita complex; frankly, I don't know, and if you are I'm sure it would be valuable to discuss it in the appropriate places - the lolicon page (a word I hadn't known until I saw it here), and the lolita complex page. Right now, Lolita complex redirects to lolicon, which may not be a good thing. If you'd like, I'd be happy to help untangle a separate page for lolita complex, which could then link back here for the source of its name and link to lolicon for a different flavor of the phenomenon, and then continue with information on that meaty topic. However, this section is for discussion of the book, and is not a proper venue for discussion of what the complex may be, or for works citing it.
Please let me know if I can help you with setting up that page; in the meantime, though, as I note this is your first edit on the Wiki, it's probably good to start with a quick read of the introduction and help pages, and to browse a bit. Nearly every new user, myself included, jumped in once with all guns ablaze. It tends to be disruptive, and to dilute the good work that has been done by many to keep the Wiki afloat.
ADDED: Oho! You've registered. Welcome aboard. - Corporal Tunnel 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for all the edits! I created a new page for the term lolita Lolita (term) and since it used some of the information from the "Influence on language" section here I trimmed that section down a bit to stop the repetition. I hope that's okay. I feel like I'm making a lot of work for those of you who are better versed in Wikipedia. Jseipel 23:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you've done great edits here today. Hope you got bit by the bug along the way; it's a big Wiki, and it needs plenty of tending. - Corporal Tunnel 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What about moving some material over to Jseipel's new page? Now that there is a separate page for the term in popular culture, I think that the stuff on Amy Fisher and Japanese cartoons would be a better fit there. I'll move some stuff tomorrow unless people disagree. Dybryd 19:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Source needed!

We really need to source this interpretation to a critic, or else it looks like POV:

"In a different interpretation, young Lolita stands for the shallow manipulative American culture while Humbert represents the old European culture struggling for its life, being seduced into destruction by the empty American values."

Is the editor who inserted this paragraph still around? Does anyone else recognize it?

Quote to insert

I think it was reasonable to redirect Humbert here, but I rescued this quote from the old page: "The double rumble is, I think, very nasty, very suggestive. It is a hateful name for a hateful person." Not sure where it should be inserted, but i think a full paragraph about the name is justified--with rejected earlier candidates such as Otto Otto and Mesmer Mesmer. Dybryd 19:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Joyce Allusions?

Would others support adding James Joyce to the Allusions section?

In Part II, Ch. 26, Nabakov writes "Passionately I hoped to find preserved the portrait of the artist as a younger brute," no doubt a reference to Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

Earlier in Part II, Ch. 18, we find "I remember thinking that this idea of children-colors had been lifted by authors Clare Quilty and Vivian Darkbloom from a passage in James Joyce."

And for obvious reasons, I can't help but make comparisons in their sonorous use of the English language.

Agreements? Objections?

--1000Faces 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to shoot this down, but I do think some sort of criteria should be generated for what gets included in the allusions section. The book is extremely allusive - we could simply reproduce all of Alfred Appel's annotations, more than enough for a whole article of their own. What standard of notability do people think should be applied? Or can we just continue to let people add notes about their favorites and the trim the list (or move it to a separate article) if it becomes unwieldy? Dybryd 23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Appel lists Poe as the most referenced author in Lolita, with over twenty references, followed, in order, by Mérimée, Shakespeare, and Joyce. SS451 09:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler End tags

I am not familiar with the subject, so could someone please add the Spoiler Ends Here tag, as it stands right now I don't know what I should and shouldn't read. JayKeaton 12:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Maar

The german academic is called Michael Maar not Marr

My POV on Annabel Leigh

I think Annabel Leigh is made up. Humbert loves nineteenth-century romantics, and constantly compares Lolita to their heroines -- Carmen, Emma Bovary, etc. It is too much to believe that he would be unaware that his first love has the name of a Poe heroine and was encountered, like her, in a "kingdom by the sea." Much likelier that, characteristicly seeing his fantasies as more real than the people around him, Humbert has assigned the name either to a real little girl from his past or imagined a little girl for himself to fit Poe's story.

OK, that's my POV, and I have no business inserting it into the article, especially as, so far as I know, no notable critic has ever suggested it. However, I have rewritten the plot summary so that it doesn't exclude this possibility. I hope that sits okay with everyone. Dybryd 07:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that is quite possible. He in fact refers to her as "Miss Lee" (as opposed to "Leigh") on p175 (first edition), which would suggest that he at least associates the "real" Annabel with the "fictional" one in some way. --- Revolver66 21:20 26/01/07.

Plot summary getting way too long

There is really no need for this much detail in the plot summary, particularly as a great deal of the detail verges on POV interpretation. It is unlikely that Humbert is actually "extraordinarily handsome," however he may flatter himself. I'm going to snip it back quite a bit. Dybryd 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have edited out some of the extensive editing done recently, including the "extraordinarily handsome" part. It would seem someone has made a poor attempt at re-writing the article in a disgustingly poetical way. --- Revolver66, 13:21, 20/01/07.

  • It's in a pretty poor state right now - too long, and stuffed with irrelevant detail and conclusions that should be drawn by a reader if they are drawn at all. If no one else tackles it soon, I will rough it down in the near future. I'm likely to make it quite short; it's a plot summary, not a retelling. - Corporal Tunnel 14:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The ending...

Havingrecently read the book, I cannot find any allusion to this. Can someone help me with this? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See the foreword. —Celithemis 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The La Salle Case

I included the fact that Frank La Salle, the real-life mechanic/child abductor, is actually mentioned in the book (there spelled "Lasalle") in the section entitled "Possible Real-Life Prototype." I felt it was relevant and affected the validity of the theory itself.24.3.229.31 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Lolita's Secret Plan"

I very much doubt that it was her plan, or at least wasn't mostly Quilty's --- Revolver66 22:45 07/02/07

Style

We have a section entitled style and interpretation, and yet next to nothing about the written style of Lolita is mentioned. this seems a little odd. Humbert as the unreliable narrator, the surreal contradictory nature the narrative takes on in the latter stages, the prolific word-play (like the characters "lesley and fabian" that humbert supposes are les-bian-s), etc.

Anyone fancy writing something? --Orias 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly difficult. Lolita is an incredibly rich text, laden with allusions, wordplay, and irony. I agree that the current style section is completely inadequate, but I don't feel particularly confident about my ability to expand it usefully either. SS451 08:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be almost impossible to do this without OR, unless we simply quoted other critics. Dybryd 20:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary has ballooned again!

It really seems like this article is prone to developing -- and redeveloping -- a bloated, floridly phrased, subjectively written plot summary section. I'm going to be pruning/reverting quite a bit of the new material. Obviously it's written by people who love the book, but Wikipedia is not the place for original interpretation. Dybryd 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Time Top Ten

The following book review in Time Magazine is being inappropriately inserted into a lot of articles: Book review in Time Magazine. It is being claimed that this is Time Magazine's list of the ten greatest books of all time. Hardly. This is a book review about a book that asks a lot of authors what their favorite books were and at one point in the book lists the most popular picks. The reviewer in Time Magazine actually goes so far as to say that such lists are "an obscenity." I've removed the note. --JayHenry 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Lolita references/allusions/inspirations in other works"

In other words, trivia. Can it be cut? -- Hoary 01:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A list of such references should be brief and to the point, but not removed entirely. If kept concise, the list illustrates the impact which the original work has had on popular culture, an excellent example being the popular song by The Police. It only becomes "trivia" if it attempts to catalogue every reference. Cut down, perhaps, but not cut out. - Ugliness Man 01:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, Manual of Style does say to "avoid trivia sections in articles"--I certainly wouldn't miss it, and can't see how it's really contributing to the article. 19:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would support cutting it. Dybryd 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've just had another addition of dubious notability, and no one has spoken against cutting the section, so out the whole thing comes. Dybryd 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If people want to rescue some of what was cut, I suggest adding it to "impact on language" and changing the title of that section to "impact on language and culture." Such a section would have a clearer notability critreion, and be less of an invitation to people adding random things with Lolita in the title. Dybryd 16:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lolita: where's the sexual content?

I fear you have removed sex almost entirely from the Lolita page and it now reads like the Moralizers Guide to Lolita. Martin Amis and Azar Nafisi? Pedophilia and child sexual abuse? You're no fun at all... http://www.sexualfables.com/The-Age-of-Consent.php#c —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martin Blythe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

If you want to re-add it, go ahead, but be careful with it. The editors are many who would revert most of it (I am not one of them). —  $PЯINGrαgђ  16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it would be futile... Just wanted to make a point. Martin Blythe 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Humbert's Background

There seems to be some dispute over this. He was born in Switzerland, though of a very mixed racial descent. I think we should decide conclusively what his nationality is. 88.109.17.163 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Revolver66.

It says on the very first page of the book that he was born in Paris. --JayHenry 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Was he mostly Swiss though born in Paris? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  16:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, again, on the very first page of the story; HH is born in Paris. His father was "a salad of racial genes: a Swiss citizen, of mixed French and Austrian descent, with a dash of Danube in his veins." His mother was English. Mathematically, he is more English than anything. The book, of course, is set in America. But nationality is more complicated than any of that. He's a fictional character with a deliberately muddled background; Wikipedia is not the place to "decide conclusively" his nationality. --JayHenry 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with JayHenry. The article is about the book as it is. We should not try to rewrite the book. Ward3001 19:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

@ JayHenry, I don't understand your point. Do you believe he should be referred to as French, or not at all? I'll rephrase my opening statement: we should decide what to say in the article about his nationality, as people seem to have different opinions. 88.109.17.163 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Revolver66.

He should not be referred to as French. My point is that rather than "decide his nationality" we should state only what the book tells us: that he was born in Paris; of a father with Swiss citizenship of mixed French, Austrian, "Danube" descent and an English mother. Humbert had his formative experiences on the Riviera, college in London and Paris, and came to the US before the start of WWII. --JayHenry 17:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions to Plot Summary

Although most of this article is quite good, I do feel the Plot Summary could stand some improvement. For example, here's the first paragraph of the summary as of May 2, 2007:

Lolita is a prison memoir, narrated by Humbert Humbert (a pseudonym), a Swiss "salad of racial genes", a scholar of literature, born in 1910 in Paris, France and raised in his father's Riviera hotel after his young mother is killed (picnic, lightning). Humbert is tormented by a passion for what he calls 'nymphets' (sexually desirable pre-pubescent girls), which he postulates was set in motion by his failure to consummate an affair with a childhood seaside sweetheart, Annabel Leigh, before her premature death from typhus. After a ridiculously failed marriage with the lumpen Valechka, who leaves him for a White Russian emigre, Humbert leaves Paris for New York shortly before the start of World War II, during which he writes a textbook of French literature. In 1947 he moves to Ramsdale, a small New England town, to write. He rents a room in the home of Charlotte Haze, a widow, but only after first seeing her twelve-year-old daughter Dolores (Dolly, Lolita, Lola, Lo, L) sunbathing in the garden. Humbert is instantly besotted by her, and does anything to be near her, including putting up with her mother, whom he dislikes.

For starters, I think it's misleading to refer to the novel as a "prison memoir". Although Humbert does in fact write the novel while in prison, anyone unfamiliar with Lolita might think most of the plot of the novel takes place in prison, like true prison memoirs such as "Twenty Thousand Years in Sing Sing." Also, I think we might be referring to the novel in this first sentence as a "memoir" because that's its parodic subtitle, but for the purposes of the article, Lolita is no more of a memoir than any other novel told in the first person.

Regarding Humbert's heritage, I realize "salad of racial genes" is a quote from the novel, but it sounds odd as it's used here. Regarding his first marriage, it was in fact a failed marriage, but I don't know that it could be characterized as a "ridiculously failed" marriage. I also think giving his first wife's name, and the fact she left him for a White Russian, although important for an in-depth review of Lolita, is providing too much detail for a summary. There are also a number of other instances in this paragraph (and the following paragraphs) where I think the amount of minor detail tends to be distracting, emphasizing trees rather than the forest.

I'm posting a proposed rewrite of the first paragraph below, for review. I haven't added it to the actual article, because I don’t want to go into the article, rearranging furniture, throwing out Aunt Maddie's favorite painting of a startled owl, without general approval from the community working on this piece.

Any feedback is welcome.

Lolita is a novel narrated by Humbert Humbert, a literature scholar born in 1910 in Paris, France, who is obsessed by what he refers to as 'nymphets' (sexually desirable pre-pubescent girls). This obsession with young girls appears to have been a result of his failure to consummate an affair with a childhood seaside sweetheart, Annabel Leigh, before her premature death from typhus. Shortly before the start of World War II, Humbert leaves Paris for New York. In 1947 he moves to Ramsdale, a small New England town, to write. One of the rooms he's considering renting is in the home of Charlotte Haze, a widow, who appears to be sexually interested in him, offering him an "ominously low" rate. As the two make their way through Mrs. Haze's tour of the house, Humbert rehearses different ways of turning her down, but then, being led out into the garden, spies Haze's twelve-year-old daughter Dolores (variously referred to in the novel as Dolly, Lolita, Lola, Lo, L), sunbathing in the garden. Humbert, seeing the Annabel Leigh in her, is instantly attracted to the daughter, and eagerly agrees to rent the room.


76.183.157.118 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Ralph Robert (Rob) Moore May 2, 2007


I agree that the "salad of racial genes" should not be used as it in fact refers to his father. It is indeed too detailed, the matter of his mother's death is also unnecessary: it would suffice to say she suffered an accident. 88.110.28.104 07:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree- the plot summary is far too detailed and needs to be made less massive. The proposed first paragraph is less 'wordy', easy to read and is in fact a summary! I say chuck out half the furniture to make the whole room more pleasing on the eye (and the tired brain)considerable~powers 17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is Clare Quilty?

The novel is strewn with clues about Clare Quilty, his hobbies, favourite cigarettes, family, etc.. When Lolita finally reveals his name, Humbert is not surprised, and does not reveal name, saying simply, "The astute reader has already guessed a long time ago" (or words to that effect).

Is this a big tease, or is the identity of Cue hidden somewhere in the text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.62.255.251 (talk)

Lo's bedroom (P. I, ch. 16) : « Lo had drawn a jocose arrow to the haggard lover's face and had put, in block letters: H.H. And indeed, despite a difference of a few years, the resemblance was striking. Under this was another picture, also a colored ad. A distinguished playwright was solemnly smoking a Drome. He always smoked Dromes. The resemblance was slight. »
« "Does not he look exactly, but exactly, like Quilty?" said Lo (…) "I meant the writer fellow in the Dromes ad." » (P. I, ch. 27)
Budelberger (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VladimirNabokov lolita1.jpg

Image:VladimirNabokov lolita1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Hoary 14:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
A comment that now strikes me as remarkably unclear. What I was referring to was this bit: "you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use." Written. -- Hoary 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Grrrr... Dybryd 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I did the "done" - but I'll second the above with a double Grrrr . :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Florence Sally Horner

Most of this new "See also" article duplicates, partly in identical language, the information already in the "Real life prototype" section. Should that section be reduced to a link, or the Horner article merged here? Dybryd 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely do not merge Horner article. Her life is notable enough to deserve its own article, and it is somewhat speculative that Nabokov based Lolita on her. I'm OK with reducing the length of the "Real life prototype" section and leaving the wikilink of her name to the Horner article. Ward3001 18:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect page move

What Muchness said. Lolita is the primary topic and literally hundreds of pages link to Lolita expecting this page to be about the novel. After all, "Lolita" is one of the most important novels in the English language. The other uses of Lolita are either trivial, or derivations of the novel. --JayHenry 13:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Slow Down! (or, alternatively, Trivia Section)

Let's all take a step back for a moment...
First of all, there is no prohibition against Trivia sections. WP:ATS says to avoid them, but they are not forbidden.
Second of all, there's no point in adding, removing, re-adding, re-removing, re-re-adding...etc. this info. Let's talk about it here in good faith and see if we can come to some sort of consensus on the matter.
This would simply be far more efficient than what's been going on the last few days, eh?
I have a marginal opinion, really. The song may be worth mentioning, but if we can't find a spot, I don't think creating a trivia section for this alone is worthwhile. Really, though, surely some sort of Cultural Impact section could be created, including everything from this to Lolita fashion (tangentially related) to Pro-pedophile activism and other issues related. It's a thought.
Anyway, have fun with all that... VigilancePrime 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
For the most part, I agree. I realize there are a wide variety of opinions about Trivia in Wikipedia, and in many cases I am more flexible. But consider the subject matter. Lolita has permeated popular culture so pervasively that if you put every reference to it in the article, it would be 99% References in Popular Culture. Think about. The word "Lolita" has been used in hundreds of ways with only an indirect reference to the novel ... Amy Fisher was "Long Island Lolita" ... if I had time I could come up with many more examples. Even the trivia example in question (popular music) has MANY references to Lolita. Ward3001 22:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you also. There needs to be some sort of minimum standard. That's a part of why I don't think a trivia section should be created for this one entry, but I think that the entry perhaps has enough merit to be included somewhere. I don't claim to have the answer. :-) VigilancePrime 22:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I just don't understand what was wrong with the section that it was already in. "Influence on language and popular culture" seemed appropriate and it wasn't the only entry in that section. If there are that many more references that we can add then why don't we just add them? If it gets to be too many then we can split it into it's own article. I still don't see what the big deal is. The whole argument that "if we added all possible examples then it would be too many, so we just shouldn't add any!" seems like a silly argument. Why can't we just add a few of the most well known? Ospinad 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you in concept also. I wasn't in the original adds or removals and not up on where they came from or were taken from. From what you wrote there, I don't see a problem with the add. I started this on the talk page because I saw an add/subtract/add/subtract/etc. I kindof like the content. I'm really impartial otherwise. Just being the conduit for discussion. VigilancePrime 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Who decides which ones are "most well known", especially when there are dozens or hundreds of them? And what are the standards for deciding? Ward3001 02:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the mention. There's no objective way to rate the significance of the many, many songs mentioning Lolita, and no reason to pick this one for inclusion out of all the others.

If the song has been mentioned in any published critical study of the novel or of Nabokov himself, that could be a justification for including it. But as it is, we're just going by the arbitrary judgment of a few wiki editors -- never a terrifically good standard! Dybryd 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How many songs can there possibly be about Lolita? If there really are hundreds then maybe it really does deserve it's own article: List of songs about Lolita!
I'm not saying we should limit ourselves to only a handful, I'm just saying that I don't get the all or nothing reasoning. I have a question for you, Ward3001... which would you object to more, having a small section in the Lolita article of the most popular references to Lolita in pop culture or... a whole article on references to Lolita in pop culture listing all the ones you can think of? Ospinad 03:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Remember, anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. A small trivia section for an article like Lolita is just about impossible. Eventually someone adds whatever pops in his/her head about Lolita, and that's when you have an article that is mostly trivia. If we have to have one or the other, I vote for a separate article, with a link in the Lolita article for those who are interested. Ward3001 03:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that anyone can contribute to Wikipedia that's what's so great about it! I'm not saying we should have a trivia section for Lolita and that it should be kept "small" forever. I'm saying that as long as it's small then it shouldn't be a problem keeping it in the main article. If it grows to be too large then what would be so wrong with moving it to a separate article? There's already an article on Anne Frank in popular culture... the one on Alice in Wonderland is even longer. Ospinad 18:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There used to be just such a section. It got longer and longer and longer and more and more trivial until editors finally got fed up and cut it. Dybryd 06:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That's just silly. Probably what happened was hundreds of editors put a lot of effort into contributing information and then one person came along, decided they didn't like it, then just cut the whole thing? Why couldn't it have been trimmed or moved to another article? Do you remember around how long ago that happened? Maybe if I find it I can use it to start the new article. Ospinad 18:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Far from silly. What happened is what typically happens with trivia sections, especially in articles with the popular appeal that Lolita has. Trivia lovers added every item that came to mind, no matter how remotely it was related to the novel. And here's the problem with letting it build up into a huge section with the intent of moving the bloated trivia section to a new article. Trivia proponents love to add items one or two at a time. But when it comes time to create the trivia article (or whatever you call it, pop culture, etc.), nobody does it. They don't want to go to the trouble to do it, and it just sits there for months or years. I've seen it happen over and over again. And if someone finally tries to trim it down, all those editors who added and added become very offended, much like what happened with the trivia item that started this whole discussion. Ward3001 22:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
lol... but it is silly, don't you see how petty that is? Everyone was too lazy to make a new article and someone decided to take the easy way out and gutted the whole thing? That's pretty silly. How bout I give you my word that I will do the split when it gets to be too big? Ospinad 14:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on two conditions. First, in the Lolita article you will delete all uncited trivia items that need citations (the Police song doesn't need a citation) or add the citations within two weeks after each item is added. Secondly, the total number of trivia items (includings refs to pop culture) in Lolita cannot exceed a total of 15 and remain in the article more than two weeks. You can always move them to the Talk page and later do any cleanup if necessary. If either of these conditions is violated, you will never add another trivia item to any Wikipedia article again, and you will support the deletion of any trivia items added to Lolita after today's date. Agreed? Ward3001 15:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
lol, you're joking right? Your conditions seem pretty arbitrary, not to mention harsh. I will never again add another trivia item to any Wikipedia article? Are there ways to stop editors from doing that (short of banning them)? How would you decide which items need citations? You said the Police song wouldn't, but which others would? Why should we limit it to only 15? The page on Alice in Wonderland references has well over 100. Or did you mean that once it reaches 15 that's when it should be split to it's own article? Ospinad 03:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I meant that you would do the split and create a new article once trivia, pop culture, etc. items reach 15 and stay that way for 2 weeks. And, as I said, you can move items to the talk page temporarily if you need time to clean things up. The Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland is a separate article from the article about the book.
  • (By the way, I quickly looked through old edits for Lolita and culled out about 25 trivia items that were previously added. I'm sure there's much more. In my opinion, most of it is not notable and uncited. But if anyone is interested I can add it to the talk page so you can sort through it for a separate article.)
  • "Are there ways to stop editors from doing that?": No there are not. You said you would give your word to do the split when necessary. I was making a good faith assumption that you would keep your word. Violate your word, however, and I'll have no sympathy for you additions of unnecessary trivia.
  • "How would you decide which items need citations?" Most would need citations, just like most other information in Wikipedia needs citations. The Police song doesn't need a citation because it is already discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia, so a wikilink to that article would be sufficient. There are clear guidelines for verifiability in Wikipedia. Follow those closely and it will be OK. And if one slips by you, I'm sure that in time I or someone else will add a citation needed tag.
  • No, I'm not joking. You said you would agree to do the split and set up another article. I assumed you were serious.
  • My agreement still stands with the same conditions. If you agree I will not object to the addition of the item about the Police song. Agreed? Ward3001 14:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
ok, I agree :-Þ But it almost seems pointless now because what I was saying was we'd start a section with the one song listed in it and then let the section grow naturally over time. Then, when it came time, it could be split into it's own article. But, now you're saying that there were enough examples in past versions of the article to make that section into its own article. (why wasn't it just done at that time? oh yeah, that's right, people were lazy...) So why don't we just start with that step? Ospinad 18:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It's up to you if you want to start a new article now. I'll be happy to post old trivia to this Talk page (the list is incomplete; others with more time can dig up the rest of it). Alternatively, I could add it to your talk page and let you decide what to do with it. Or you can just add the Police item for now and see what happens. My only concern right now is that the article about the novel does not accumulate uncited trivia, or more than 15 items. Ward3001 19:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I could add the Police item for now but probably what's going to happen is that somebody else is going to delete it before anybody else can add more to it (even though you just said that you would be ok with the section as long as it's kept to 15 or less, I'm afraid there are already some deletionist nazis watching this board like a hawk, lol) So what I'll probably end up doing is just starting a new article. Can you post what you found here and I'll work on making it a new article? Ospinad 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly do you think it's worthwhile to disregard the Wikipedia guideline discouraging trivia sections? "Ignore All Rules" certainly, but how does the article gain by ignoring this one? Dybryd 22:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this case is special. Like it's been said before, WP:ATS doesn't prohibit Trivia sections, which means that it's allowed under certain circumstances. As popular as the novel Lolita was, I think it deserves to have a "Lolita in pop culture" article, or (at the very least) section. Why should Alice in Wonderland get to have one and not Lolita? Are you worried that having a trivia section in Lolita will "trivialize" the article on the novel? Does this article trivialize what happened there? Ospinad 03:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this article already has a tendency to become unwieldy and sprawling, and the trivia section would make it unreadable without adding anything of value. And yes, I do think trivia is trivial, hence the name.
However, if you want to create a article called List of Pop Songs With the Word "Lolita" in Them I don't care in the slightest -- Wikipedia is full of that sort of thing. But I think it should be linked from Lolita (term) or Lolita (pornography) rather than the novel's page, because most of those songs simply use the name to mean "hawt teenage babe" and don't refer directly to the novel at all. Dybryd 06:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So here's the bit that was contentious most recently: A reference to the novel is found in the song Don't Stand So Close To Me by The Police, in which it is said of the song's main character (a teacher attracted to a young student) that, "Its no use, he sees her/He starts to shake and cough/Just like the old man in/That book by Nabakov." (To which my first reaction is to add "[sic]".) Yes, this is indeed a reference to the novel. It tells me nothing about the novel, other than that back in 1980 Sting (and his bandmates, and maybe his record label) thought that the reference might interest people, or at least not irritate them. Ah. And so? Is the mention of a novel by a song significant to that novel? (Incidentally, does HH shake and cough? I don't remember this, but then it's some time since I last read the book.)

Lolita is a name little used in the anglosphere before publication of this book. I suspect that most alleged "popular culture references to Lolita" owe more to Japanese and other pornography, etc., than to the novel, though they could be flavored by a reading of synopses or descriptions of the novel. Anyway, mere mentions of the name in songs, etc., seem profoundly uninteresting. -- Hoary 07:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Edgar Poe influence

Hello! I noticed a reference in the plot summary to Lolita having a similarity to Poe's "Annabel Lee." I actually have a reference that says Lolita was inspired by "The Raven" but it doesn't say how. I'd like to help incorporating that info somewhere, but if someone more familiar with Lolita could give me a better idea on how/if the story is referencing Poe's work, that would be great. --Midnightdreary 13:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The annotated Lolita in the references section probably discusses this, if you can track it down at the library or something. Could probably use an annotation or critical companion or two to largely get this article into good shape. --JayHenry 05:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Replaced Text of First Paragraph of Plot Summary

I've rewritten the first paragraph of the plot summary based on the alternate text I gave above on this Discussions page under the heading, "Proposed Revisions to Plot Summary." Thanks to the people who commented, and please forgive my late response (paycheck, laziness.)

Regarding the Discussions entry immediately above, "Edgar Poe Influence," the revised and updated The Annotated Lolita, with notes by Alfred Appel (Vintage Books, 1991), the best compass for exploring Lolita, although it cruelly does not come with an Index, discusses the numerous Poe allusions in the novel, but The Raven is certainly not given as an inspiration for the novel. Perhaps you're thinking of Poe's other poem, Annabel Lee, which is referenced throughout the book, although again it's not believed to be the inspiration for Lolita. (Nabokov is on record as saying the inspiration for his novel came from a newspaper article he read describing the first drawing made by an ape: It was of the bars of the ape's cell.) Poe references in Lolita, beside the Annabel Lee references, are generally to Poe's use of a doppelganger, and his love for a very young girl himself. There are more references to Poe in the novel (Appel counted twenty) than to any other author.

Ralph Robert Moore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.224.160 (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lolita1997.jpg

Image:Lolita1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. On both movie posters. (Feel free, anyone, to go and verify and even improve them if necessary, but I think the bases are at least covered.) VigilancePrime (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Media citation! (or not)

News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
  • "Woolworths forced to withdraw LOLITA bedroom furniture range for girls". The Daily Mail. January 31, 2008.(details)
Slight exaggeration, no? Quote: A spokesman for the company said: "What seems to have happened is the staff who run the website had never heard of Lolita, and to be honest no one else here had either. We had to look it up on Wikipedia. But we certainly know who she is now." The Daily Mail doesn't cite Wikipedia as a source or anything else; a humdrum article in it merely mentions that somebody in a company looked something up in it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is hysterical!!Rarmin (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I just protect this page due to media mention/controversy surrounding a product called "lolita" wherein the officials of the company that released the product said, "We had to look [the book] up on (online encyclopedia) Wikipedia." (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The original story was actually ours which you can read here http://www.raisingkids.co.uk/todaysnews08/news_310108_01.asp. The spokesperson for Woolworths cited Wikipedia as his source for finding out who Lolita was. 80.194.231.117 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

slight edits

I've made few quick revisions to make the summary a bit easier to read. I'll go over it more thoroughly some other time. Overall, it's accurate, but could use a few tweaks.Rarmin (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reasons Lolita left Quilty

I don't have my copy in front of me but if I'm not mistaken Lo left not only because Quilty wanted to film her, but also because he wanted her to perform fellatio. Am I correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.19.134 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Nabokov uses the French word souffler, so you can divine your own meaning from that. It's not a detail that needs to be in a summary. I think it's sort of fun to discover certain things by actually reading the book.Rarmin (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lolita v. Dolores

I see that someone went through and changed all instances of Lolita to either Dolores or Lo. I believe that this is unnecessary and should be changed back to the previous version. I've not done an exhaustive study, but I note that Brian Boyd, the leading Nabokov scholar refers to the character as Lolita. Humbert Humbert is also the narrator of the book and she is referred to as Lolita throughout. And obviously she is most commonly known as Lolita. I intend to change back unless someone can explain why we should deviate from the scholarly, textual and popularly-recognized name of this character. --JayHenry (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted. This matter also should have been discussed here before the changes were made. Ward3001 (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was a way to discuss. Please, allow me to discuss. Regardless of what Brian Boyd, the top scholar in the field, uses, it is stated on the first page of the novel (and throughout) that no one but H.H. uses the term.75.64.99.214 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Meghan

Express your opinion, but do not continue to edit war. There is no consensus to make the changes. Ward3001 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
But Humbert Humbert is the narrator of the novel! And everybody knows the character as Lolita as well. Furthermore, scholars are intelligent people and Wikipedia is trying, at least at times, to be an intelligent reference work. The name of the novel is Lolita and it's odd to call the character something different. In Lolita's fictional world, only HH uses the term. In the real world, for which this encyclopedia is written, everyone calls her Lolita. --JayHenry (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The title of the novel is "Lolita". Most discussion of the character in published literature refers to her as "Lolita". And a top scholar's opinion does matter. It should remain "Lolita". Ward3001 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true that my personal interpretation of the novel (as well as the interpretation of the author of Reading Lolita in Tehran, if you're interested) hinges on the use of her given or at least non-ridiculous name. However, I only insist on a neutral term for her. Surely, if they are reading this page, they will take the hint that "Lo" refers to Lolita. Think about it. No one but Humbert ever calls her Lolita. Wouldn't you find the name ridiculous, if this were the first time you were encountering it? You have to think back to the time the book was published. I did not intend to enter an edit war. I did not know when I hit Undo that there was a way to discuss.Meghank (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Meghank (Sorry still new.)

"I only insist on a neutral term for her": Dolores, Lo, Lolita, Dolly ... none is more "neutral" than the other. These are names; they're not insulting or pejorative terms.
"Wouldn't you find the name ridiculous": No ... it's a name. Names usually aren't thought of as ridiculous.
"they will take the hint that "Lo" refers to Lolita": Then why not just refer to her as "Lolita", as the title of the novel refers to her.
"You have to think back to the time the book was published.": Sorry, but I don't see how this has anything to do with whether she should be referred to as Lolita. Ward3001 (talk)

Ward, if you insist, I think I (being new to wikipedia) think I can do nothing but yield to your authority. I can only ask that you read the opinion of the author of "Reading Lolita in Tehran," which is very similar to my own and which, presumably, you will be interested in. Meghank (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Meghank

No worries, Meghan. We were all new once :) I actually have read it and should have guessed that was where you were coming from! I think the thing here is that Nafisi was using the book to teach a very specific lesson to her Iranian students. (Also, bear in mind how often Nafisi refers to the character as Lolita as well.) Remember, in the fictional world only Humbert calls her Lolita. But this is just a fictional world. In the real world, the character is most commonly known as Lolita. What's most important is that Nabokov calls her Lolita. Nafisi's is an interesting lesson, and Reading Lolita in Tehran an interesting book. But still. It's neutral to call Lolita what she is always called, in fact it's probably the most neutral to follow that standard. --JayHenry (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I don't think Nafisi's lesson was specific at all, but I think it is central to the meaning of the novel. However, I concur. Please talk to me regarding Nabokov's use of the word "solipsized" in the first "incident" with Lolita. I will agree (for the sake of this Wikipedia article) that Lolita should be referred to as such. Meghank (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Meghank

Their first sexual encounter (this is page 60 in my book) says "Lolita had been safely solipsized." This is a famous passage and very much debated, as I recall. The way I interpret this (though I must have picked it up from a critical interpretation) is that he's saying Lolita had become inseparable from the idea in his mind of a nymphet. Humbert has this concept of this perfect creature of his lust, and in that scene, I think he's saying that Lolita and his mind's perfect creature have become one and the same. --JayHenry (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. But what is the meaning of "solipsism"? (The verb appears to not be technically a word.) 1. Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.

In my opinion, this solipsizing Lolita, causing her not to exist as herself (as Dolly, Lo, etc.) in his own mind, is H.H.'s true crime, not his rape of Lolita, however controversial that may appear. I submit this crime is the cause of his anguish at the end of and the meaning of the book. I think an alternate interpretation of the book is implied by this article, and that is why I state that it is not neutral. I think it will turn potential readers off to "Lolita," despite the fact that the novel does not support child rape at all. Thnak you for reading the opinions of a new user (but an old Nabokov fan)! Meghank (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Meghank

I see what you're saying, but to avoid calling her Lolita is itself something of an uncommon interpretation, if you see what I mean. The best way to deal with different interpretations is to include them in the section on interpretations. You'll be happy to see that Nafisi's interpretation is already there. (And if any literature professors have written essays about Nafisi's interpretation it would be great to include those as sources!) By the way, if you're interested in Nabokov... at the time of his death he was working on a novel called The Original of Laura. His family long debated whether or not to publish it and it looks like they're finally going to! --JayHenry (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Original of Laura - new entry?

Should this novel be released? If one reads Nabokov's Nikolai Gogol, it appears that the works an author intends to burn should be burned. But can you stand to boycott? Meghank (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Meghank

Just a note: Since this discussion is a little bit off topic for the Wikipedia article on Lolita, I've suggested to Meghan that we continue this discussion on her talk page for now. If anyone is interested in the topic, do feel free to join in. We might be able to identify some areas to improve the article on Vladimir Nabokov or the article on The Original of Laura. --JayHenry (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


"She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita." Here are some interesting facts: Nabokov came up with the name 'Lolita' first, and was happy to find its source name to be 'Dolores', from which sprung the diminutive 'Dolly', which was then paired with the surname 'Haze'. Brancron (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Brancron

Unsourced criticism in "Style and Interpretation"

A stretch at the beginning of "Style and Interpretation" seems like an interpretation of the novel by a Wikipedia editor. Although I happen to agree with the interpretation, we can't include it unless it's sourced to a notable critic. Is it an summary of a known writer's position, and if so, whose? Here is the text in question:

Humbert is a well-educated, multilingual, literary-minded European émigré, as is Nabokov. But Humbert is also extraordinarily handsome, and he asks the reader to bear that fact in mind. He fancies himself a great artist, but lacks the curiosity that Nabokov considers essential[source?]. Humbert tells the story of a Lolita that he creates in his mind because he is unable and unwilling to listen to the actual girl and accept her on her own terms.

A small point -- I would also quibble with the description of Humbert as "extraordinarily handsome" -- he describes himself in this way, but he is a vain madman.

Dybryd (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"quoted in Levine"? Who's Levine?

In the "Style and Interpretation" section, the Nabokov quote "a vain and cruel wretch" is sourced as "quoted in Levine." But Levine is not a reference, and the link on the word goes simply to an article on everybody with the last name "Levine"! Is this guy the same as the "Levine, Peter" mentioned below as the author of "Lolita and Aristotle's Ethics"? If so, I'll format it properly as a reference, but I don't want to assume.

Also, to follow WP format the section called "Notes" ought to be changed to "References" and the section called "References" ought to be changed to something like "Further Reading."

The author of the passage used what's known as Harvard referencing. If you'd like to reformat it into a note you're welcome to do that. WP format approves of the current structure. See here: Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions. That does not need to be changed. --JayHenry (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
In the context of Wikipedia where things change so unpredictably at so many hands, a note without a direct link to the source of the quote can lead to real confusion -- as can assuming that one Levine is the same as another! I don't want to tie together the Levine in the (dateless) parenthetical reference and the Peter Levine, 1967 listed below until I'm certain that they really are one and the same. Were the two added in the same diff, or by the same editor? Dybryd (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The reference after "vain and cruel wretch" is dated. --JayHenry (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
What am I smoking? I realized that right after posting and was typing the correction when you replied. So, okay, must be the same guy then, although I'll still check for a diff. Sorry to make a flap over nothing.
Dybryd (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Harvard referencing is acceptable, but Wikipedia also strongly encourages creating an anchor to the References section in the form of a link from the inline citation to its related item in the References section. What is good writing style on paper does not necessarily correspond to good writing style in an online encyclopedia. The citation currently is acceptable but mediocre. Ward3001 (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lolita/Archive_1&oldid=1136962769"