Lolita In Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years

There was an incident following Lolita’s success that had taken place during the 1960s that seemed to appropriately illustrate people's reception to the newly deemed classic. In his biography Vladimir Nabokov : The American Years, Brian Boyd recounts Nabokov remembering a disturbing event one halloween when a young girl came to his door with her parents dressed up as Lolita (Boyd).Whether her outfit replicated the popularized Lolita in Kubrick's 1962 movie adaptation, winged eyeliner and all, or her outfit encompassed the text Lolita’s “boy shirts” (Nabokov 46) and generally “rough tomboy clothes” (Nabokov 48), the child was parading an outfit of a young girl who had been raped and manipulated, exploiting a character with no knowledge or empathy

for a girl who had to experience sexual and physical abuse. Nabokov’s experience shows the abuse and general misconception of such a character. The 1960s had taken Lolita and wielded her to don the beauty standards of “popular” women of the time. These misleading alterations to the character can attribute to late 1950s and 1960s mentality.
According to Stanley and Milne, the 1950s and 1960s introduced new attitudes towards sex and sexuality. American citizens during Lolita’s publication and commercial success were beginning to question conventional ideas about sex and expression of sexuality as people became openly intrigued in sex symbols (Stanley and Milne). These revolutionary attitudes towards sex could contribute to other unconventional views and opinions that American’s began adopting. Sharon Yablon analyzes this “landmark decade” (Yablon) as one about liberation and peace. America was experiencing a time of frequent civil disobediences pertaining to racism, war and even homosexuality. These liberating ideas prompted Americans and most notably youth to challenge authority and traditional societal expectations (Yablong). Lolita in turn resembles those ideas, and due to her external sexual maturity could be seen as a symbol for such rebellious, unconventional attitudes possessed by those questioning authority. The young girl could falsely be seen as an icon epitomizing these ideas. According to Barker, as Hollywood began profiting from famous blonde sex symbols during the mid to late 1960s, those with more progressive perspectives began to see a sexual liberation that stopped questioning but began challenging traditional attitudes and behavior regarding sex and sexuality. This movement was disguised as being constructive to the feminist movement, but in actuality obligated women to accommodate to men’s own desires (Barker). American’s in the 1960’s, however, did not see this in the revolution as so and women began to regard this evolution as supportive to their movement rather than destructive. Along with her physical appearance in the 1962 movie, the essence of this era turned the character Lolita into an example of a sexually authoritative woman rather than an abused twelve year old girl.
The greatest attribution to Lolita’s misconception was Stanley Kubrick’s 1962 movie adaptation of Lolita. With busty blonde sex symbols such as Marilyn Monroe, Brigitte bardot and Jayne Mansfield, Kubrick seemingly fed into the promoted idea of sex generating money in the media. He profited from a movie exploiting a child and further contributed to audience’s misconstrusion of the character. The movie features a beautiful blonde Sue Lyon with seductive eyes and a soft demeanor. Lolita’s hair originally being “brown curls” (Nabokov 48) in the text, and then transformed to blonde ringlets constituted a physical misconception following its success. Kubrick changed her hair to blonde, dressed her in more sensual clothing and further profited from people’s desires and, as claimed by Barker, an already mainstream 60s fetish of grown men and young women (Barker). Kubrick’s Lolita’s delusion was apparent to the book conscious audiences, such as Crowther who insists in his 1967 New York Times article that the movie was “a conspicuously different thing” (Crowther) from the actual book, featuring an actress that “is not a child” (Crowther) which strips the character of her intended youth, thus making Humbert’s actions justifiable (Crowther). Others in the public who were less book conscious or fed into the 1960s mentality involving popular culture did not consider the damage that the movie had on the classic novel.
Kubrick’s movie not only changed the public’s response to Lolita, but changed publisher’s outlook on it as well. By receiving an Academy Award nomination and reaching commercial success in the box office (IMBD), publishers began viewing Lolita as a profitable book with a controversial movie and an obviously receptive audience. After the movie’s success, Lolita became “associated with certain images, most indelibly the nymphet in red, heart-shaped sunglasses on the poster for Stanley Kubrick’s 1962 movie adaptation” (Arons). A young girl holding a red lollipop with red sunglasses and blonde hair became the symbol for Lolita, which is apparent in her being on the cover of many of the books. The image in itself is misleading. Lolita wasn’t initially blonde and the lollipop coupled with a seductive gaze both introduces youth and sex. While Lolita in Nabokov’s book was an abrasive young girl with, in her own account, enough experience to consider herself skillful and mature; an image such as Kubrick’s constitutes a different message and an altered, more aesthetically pleasing Lolita. Rachel Arons claims that this vision of Lolita looks more like a “teen seductress” than a “sexually abused twelve year old girl” (Arons), which was unfortunate, because the poster had been a symbol for Lolita since the movie reached theaters( Arons). By becoming such a prominent poster Kubrick’s Lolita helped to diverge audience’s core understanding of the text, simulating a new image of Lolita that veers from the original. As Lolita became a beautiful, polite young girl, illustrating a 1960’s poster child, it seemed less of a problem that she was sexualized by Humbert, but more of a problem that she, as a twelve year old girl, was sexualized by the author Nabokov. In Kubrick’s movie poster that graced many of it’s covers covers, Lolita lost her youthful tomboy spirit and became an indistinguishable 1960’s poster woman. Arons recalls Nabokov originally wanting absolutely no girls on the cover (Arons), which further strengthened his argument that his book had little to do with girls and sex and more about power struggles between a man’s own psyche. Arons claims that the original solid green cover published in 1955 did not last due to it’s physical unpopularity amongst American consumers. The one thing that Nabokov did not want was soon ignored following the success of his book (Arons). The book’s cover has become a huge factor that contributes to the misreading of Lolita. A cover can take from a book's text, the focus on the substinance in the book becomes blurred and now all people can see is a young teen seductress. The very fact that there was need to feature a girl on the cover also illustrates 1960’s American fascination with beautiful women. Lolita most likely could not have been truly text honest and still sell as many tickets.
This image of this character prompted harsh criticisms and weary readings of Lolita throughout the 1960s. Stanley and Milne reports book reviews repetitively “using words such as obscene, immoral, pornography, scandal, and incest”, which strengthened the public’s weary speculations (Stanley and Milne). Examples of this misinterpretation spawned from negative critical reception to teachers worrying the book would initiate sex crimes. Critics such as Orville Prescott who called the books lewd and pornographic saw the books text go hand and hand with how pop culture perceived it. Orville Prescott is one such critic who infamously wrote that with Nabokov’s vocabulary Lolita is not a book of “cheap pornography” but that Nabokov instead “writes highbrow pornography” and calls Lolita “disgusting” (Prescott). Along with Prescott’s criticisms, there were schools refusing to read the now deemed classic during the mid to late 60s. One such example is that of teachers in Australia who regarded the book’s ban. In her article displaying images of antique letters on or regarding Lolita’s ban, Amy Lay discloses a letter dated 1 March 1964 by “members of the teaching profession” (Walters) to Senator Henty of Australia. The letter expresses concerns on the reading of Lolita in school. The fear was apparent among those of an older generation who most likely maintained more conservative ideas of the 30s, 40s and 50’s. Because sex became a more controversially talked about idea, and promiscuous behavior became a flaunted characteristic, this book involving sex was seen as pornographic. By voicing concerns of “lewd literature” (Walters) accounting for “sex crimes and delinquency” (Walters), these teachers were further hinting at incorrect themes of Lolita. Although a reputable teacher with an open minded class would be able to steer them away from seeing the book as pornographic, during this time period it proved difficult to see popular books, movies, television shows and celebrities as more than the overused institution of seduction and sexuality. Another example of Lolita’s fear in school was during 1964 when Australian National University allowed students to read Lolita for analytical purposes but “only under strict supervision” (Students May Read Lolita- Under Watch). According to the article, Lolita was actually banned in Australia in 1959 and still was in 1964, only being read for educational purposes in schools and only read by those eighteen and older.
America had become more receptive to Lolita.

The interpretation of Lolita still consisted on the ideas of sex and the book as well as the character became a scandal. Nabokov has rebuffed sex themes since the beginning of the book’s publishing. In his famous interview with Playboy, Nabokov rejects the interviewer bringing up America’s sexual mores with “Sex as an institution, sex as a general notion, sex as a problem, sex as a platitude—all this is something I find too tedious for words. Let us skip sex.” (Toffler). His refusal to even talk sex proved how little his tolerance was when it came to humoring the audience about sex themes and sex related questions. In an interview with CBC during the early 1960s, Nabokov is quoted agreeing with an interviewer that believes “sex has become such a cliche, so that people can’t recognize anything else.” (...) which further shows how 1960’s mentalities could see nothing else outside of the realm of sex. In the same CBC interview, Nabokov disputes sex themes more openly and admits that his writing of the book has more to do with Humbert’s artistic nature and how that alienates him and creates unattainable love (...). While Nabokov wrongly uses a young girl’s abuse as a tool of illustrating a man’s “misfortunes” of being an artist, the novel is more than what the 1960’s audience perceived it to be. Nabokov did not intend to write a book about a fetish, nor did he, according to Playboy, wish to satirize American culture. The text included more substinance than what people perceived it to be and as did the character Lolita herself, who was more than a teen temptress. His writing of the book has nothing to do about sex, although his initial theme is flawed and an important example of men’s inability to write books featuring authentic female characters, unless they are being used as tools or over sexualized. And much like Humbert Humbert, no matter how hard Nabokov tried to manipulate the text, feelings of empathy still is evoked

from readers. The compassion possessed by readers who rebuke sexual themes for this young girl are inevitable, thus adding new meaning and dimensions to a text initially using a woman’s abuse to depict man’s suffering.
Whether Lolita is about what Nabokov believed to be Humbert’s unrealistic love and his demise because of it, or a book illustrating the destruction of those in power who have the ability to create a reality of those oppressed, the book has no ties to sex. Nabokov did not write a book about sex to profit from those who viewed it as pleasurable or liberating. Nabokov wrote a book about rape and power and possession as means to show a deeper meaning and insight to a character who, despite his rejections, is very much like Nabokov himself. Both men partake in acts of hunting and stripping the delicate of their freedom, Nabokov with his butterfly hunting and Humbert Humbert with his nymphets. These parallels show deeper meanings and intentions in the writing of the book. Lolita was digested by an audience skewed by pop culture and ideas of liberation on all fronts. The American culture created a misunderstanding of Lolita that, with many factors chronologically adding to the text’s misinterpretation, still stands somewhat today. Although the book is not pornographic the name is still controversial, somewhat hushed amongst readers, and the image of a young teen seductress holding a lollipop in heart-shaped sunglasses is still the initial image that comes to mind when thinking of the young girl in a novel….[Finish your thoughts].