Final Thoughts
Hi everyone!
It's hard to believe this is going to be my last blog post. As much as I got tired of reading my book sometimes, I really enjoyed the blogging part of the assignment. It was nice to have a place where I could just write down my thoughts and theories, even if they weren't fully developed yet. Maybe I'll start one up again sometime down the road. Anyway, today I'm going to be talking about the meaning of Lolita as a whole and my final thoughts on it.
It's hard to say exactly what I took away from this book. I'm still not even 100% sure I liked it that much! One thing I can say for sure is that Lolita forced me to realize how easy it is to be manipulated. I had somewhat of a moment of realization when I first started reading and found myself liking Humbert's personality and tending to overlook the more disturbing parts of it. It was then that I had a bit of a wake-up call and reminded myself that I couldn't form too much of a connection with him. I couldn't trust him too much, considering what kind of a person he was. It was easier said than done, though. Considering his perspective was the only one I was exposed to, I didn't even get to think about what this experience must have been like for poor Lolita. I was constantly connected to Humbert. It took some effort to remind myself to think critically about what I was reading and to think about the reality of what was going on, rather than get sucked up in Nabokov's flowery descriptions of horrible events.
This takeaway is definitely relevant to our world today and has been for a long time. The concept of critical thinking has been drilled into my brain since elementary school, even though its definition may have evolved through the course of my education. Last year in AP Lang, we would read different rhetorical pieces and analyze what techniques were used to persuade the reader. There were three main rhetorical appeals that we studied: ethos (establishing a certain reputation and a trusting relationship with the reader) logos (using logic and in some cases, numbers, to persuade) and pathos (appealing to emotion). The main idea, overall, was that the reader has to not only take in what a person is saying, but how they are saying it, and how it is supposed to make the reader feel. This can be seen when reading about current events, too, and being hyper-aware of what certain sources are saying and what hidden agenda they may be trying to appeal to. Lolita, however, wasn't just some news article or speech written by a public figure.
I found that Lolita was, overall, a book whose narrator relied heavily on appeals to pathos. If this book had not been about an older man and young girl, it would be an endearing love story. Humbert describes his deep love for this girl, his own insecurities, and his opinions of the world around him. The book is filled with passion and emotion. In this sense, it was hard for me to read it without forming some form of connection with his man. He would write about certain emotions that I had felt before and scenarios that I could relate to (obviously not the creepy ones though). He had a sense of humor and self-awareness that was endearing. I fell victim to his attack on my emotions and empathy, and it was hard to pull myself away.
The biggest reason that Humbert was such an effective narrator was his discussion of love, one of the main themes of the book. If I had to write about the overarching theme of this story, love would be it. It's a disturbing sort of love, yes, but it definitely blossoms from a mere physical attraction to a genuine connection that seems to tear Humbert up inside when it is not reciprocated. Most, if not all readers of this story have felt some form of love in their lifetime, whether it be a romantic sort of love or in more of a familial or platonic form. This book addresses many of these different forms, of course between Humbert and Lolita in a romantic sense, but also his somewhat-twisted role as her father figure, or the complicated relationship between Lolita and her mother, or even the surface-level crushes that Lolita began to develop during school for other boys. In this sense, I found myself reminded of Song of Solomon.
One of the main themes I took away from that book, too, was that there are many different forms of love out there, and its definition is different for different people. Milkman and his family had a tense relationship, not unlike Lolita with her mother, and he also was a part of a relationship where the other partner was seemingly obsessed, just like Lolita. However, the main difference between these two books is the age at which Lolita and Milkman experience these different forms of love. While Milkman is independent and arguably mature, able to deal with these situations with a sense of freedom to leave and evolve whenever he wanted, Lolita does not have that opportunity. In my opinion, that is what is so deeply sad about this book. Lolita, although she is portrayed as clever and snarky, is still a little girl who has been taken away from her family and forced to have sexual relations at much too young of an age. Comparing Lolita with Song of Solomon really opened my eyes to that.
Well, I'm not sure if any of those takeaways made complete sense, but again, I'm still processing the book and what it meant to me. Thank you all for being a part of my journey through Lolita! I really enjoyed writing these posts and hearing what everyone else had to say.
Bye for now!
It's hard to believe this is going to be my last blog post. As much as I got tired of reading my book sometimes, I really enjoyed the blogging part of the assignment. It was nice to have a place where I could just write down my thoughts and theories, even if they weren't fully developed yet. Maybe I'll start one up again sometime down the road. Anyway, today I'm going to be talking about the meaning of Lolita as a whole and my final thoughts on it.
It's hard to say exactly what I took away from this book. I'm still not even 100% sure I liked it that much! One thing I can say for sure is that Lolita forced me to realize how easy it is to be manipulated. I had somewhat of a moment of realization when I first started reading and found myself liking Humbert's personality and tending to overlook the more disturbing parts of it. It was then that I had a bit of a wake-up call and reminded myself that I couldn't form too much of a connection with him. I couldn't trust him too much, considering what kind of a person he was. It was easier said than done, though. Considering his perspective was the only one I was exposed to, I didn't even get to think about what this experience must have been like for poor Lolita. I was constantly connected to Humbert. It took some effort to remind myself to think critically about what I was reading and to think about the reality of what was going on, rather than get sucked up in Nabokov's flowery descriptions of horrible events.
This takeaway is definitely relevant to our world today and has been for a long time. The concept of critical thinking has been drilled into my brain since elementary school, even though its definition may have evolved through the course of my education. Last year in AP Lang, we would read different rhetorical pieces and analyze what techniques were used to persuade the reader. There were three main rhetorical appeals that we studied: ethos (establishing a certain reputation and a trusting relationship with the reader) logos (using logic and in some cases, numbers, to persuade) and pathos (appealing to emotion). The main idea, overall, was that the reader has to not only take in what a person is saying, but how they are saying it, and how it is supposed to make the reader feel. This can be seen when reading about current events, too, and being hyper-aware of what certain sources are saying and what hidden agenda they may be trying to appeal to. Lolita, however, wasn't just some news article or speech written by a public figure.
I found that Lolita was, overall, a book whose narrator relied heavily on appeals to pathos. If this book had not been about an older man and young girl, it would be an endearing love story. Humbert describes his deep love for this girl, his own insecurities, and his opinions of the world around him. The book is filled with passion and emotion. In this sense, it was hard for me to read it without forming some form of connection with his man. He would write about certain emotions that I had felt before and scenarios that I could relate to (obviously not the creepy ones though). He had a sense of humor and self-awareness that was endearing. I fell victim to his attack on my emotions and empathy, and it was hard to pull myself away.
The biggest reason that Humbert was such an effective narrator was his discussion of love, one of the main themes of the book. If I had to write about the overarching theme of this story, love would be it. It's a disturbing sort of love, yes, but it definitely blossoms from a mere physical attraction to a genuine connection that seems to tear Humbert up inside when it is not reciprocated. Most, if not all readers of this story have felt some form of love in their lifetime, whether it be a romantic sort of love or in more of a familial or platonic form. This book addresses many of these different forms, of course between Humbert and Lolita in a romantic sense, but also his somewhat-twisted role as her father figure, or the complicated relationship between Lolita and her mother, or even the surface-level crushes that Lolita began to develop during school for other boys. In this sense, I found myself reminded of Song of Solomon.
One of the main themes I took away from that book, too, was that there are many different forms of love out there, and its definition is different for different people. Milkman and his family had a tense relationship, not unlike Lolita with her mother, and he also was a part of a relationship where the other partner was seemingly obsessed, just like Lolita. However, the main difference between these two books is the age at which Lolita and Milkman experience these different forms of love. While Milkman is independent and arguably mature, able to deal with these situations with a sense of freedom to leave and evolve whenever he wanted, Lolita does not have that opportunity. In my opinion, that is what is so deeply sad about this book. Lolita, although she is portrayed as clever and snarky, is still a little girl who has been taken away from her family and forced to have sexual relations at much too young of an age. Comparing Lolita with Song of Solomon really opened my eyes to that.
Well, I'm not sure if any of those takeaways made complete sense, but again, I'm still processing the book and what it meant to me. Thank you all for being a part of my journey through Lolita! I really enjoyed writing these posts and hearing what everyone else had to say.
Bye for now!
Hi Meg,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog throughout the whole assignment. I completely agree with your understanding of perspective and manipulation because I was conflicted about that throughout the whole novel. I kind of ended up still feeling empathy towards Humbert despite also condemning his actions which was a weird feeling.
I also really liked your comparison to Song of Solomon with the themes about love. I think that love is often a theme of novels just because of how powerful of an emotion it can be. Often love is the driving factor for people's actions, whether because they love someone, because they want someone to love them and need love, or because someone they loved mistreated them.
I was wondering whether you believed Humbert's love for Lolita. Do you think that it could just be him trying to justify his actions to himself and others, or did you find his love genuine? I am conflicted about this myself and for some reason I find myself believing him despite all the reasons not to.
Let me know what you think!
Hey Bekah,
DeleteIt's hard to say whether Humbert's love for Lolita is genuine or not. As much as it can't be ignored that he does say certain things to justify his less-than-okay behavior, I can't help but think there had to be some sort of love for Lolita by the end. He could have gone anywhere and targeted any little girl he wanted after Lolita left, purely based on his physical attraction, but he chose to stay devoted to her. I think that must mean something.