Talk:Lolita

What was the original name of the book Think and Grow Rich?

What was the original name of the book Think and Grow Rich????

Grammatical Nonsense

This sentence, found under "Plot," makes no sense to me:

"Dolores reveals to Humbert that Quilty took her from the hospital and that she was in love with him, but she was rejected when she refused to star in one of his pornographic films."

There's one "her" and three "she"'s, the latter of which is where I got confused. Could someone who knows the story — I don't — please edit this so it makes sense? Or, at the very least, isn't so prone to confusing readers.

152.86.197.33 (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It's grammatically and logically correct as written. Dolores reveals to Humbert that Quilty took her (Dolores) from the hospital. She (Dolores) was in love with him (Quilty). She (Dolores) was rejected when she (Dolores) refused to star in one of his (Quilty's) pornographic films. Perhaps it could be clearer. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

More grammar

I'm puzzled by this edit.

The sentence now reads Humbert knows he will feel guilty if rapes Dolores while she is conscious so tricks her into taking a sedative by saying it is a vitamin. The subject of tricks is understood, that's fair enough. But the subject of rapes needs to be explicit in my opinion. Other views? Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

How about "Humbert knows he will feel guilty raping Dolores while she is conscious..." Edwardx (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that works IMO. But the current version does not. Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, Andrewa. Have been bold, and made the change. Edwardx (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

But Valjean seems to prefer my version, as do I.

At least you now seem to accept that the original, which I changed and you restored, could be improved. But I'm still puzzled by why you rejected the simple change that I made, and even more puzzled that you preferred the version that had no subject for rapes. I thought it quite uncontroversial. How wrong I was. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"Rapes" clearly needs a subject.

On a tangent, how comfortable are we with the sentence as a whole? Is it clear from the narrative, or from another source, that Humbert drugs Dolores because he "knows he will feel guilty" if he rapes her while she's conscious? I'd suggest simplifying the sentence to "Humbert tricks Dolores into taking a sedative by saying it is a vitamin."

Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

On the question of grammar, English structural grammar is rather complex and this is a subtle point. Another finite verb tricks in the same sentence has an understood subject, quite validly. But I'm glad you agree with me.

The question of the accuracy of the claim concerning Humbert's motives for drugging Lolita is a good one. But this raises the question of sources for plot details. Wikipedia is not entirely consistent on this point in my opinion, so it's a can of worms.

I have not read the book, and just assume that whoever wrote this had. Several editions are given as general references, and while they are primary sources they are often considered valid for such claims. The book is written in the first person, so it would deal with the thoughts and motives of Humbert.

I am reluctant to challenge it without a source to the contrary, simply because if this were done consistently, we would lose an enormous amount of content, and I see no chance of consensus support for doing this generally.

What complicates this is the two film versions. It is also possible that whoever wrote this is relying on one of them. Perhaps WikiBlame can tell us who wrote it, and we can then ask them. Andrewa (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Plot Summary -- overwritten, subjective

Although the recent reverted anonymous edits were a bit tendentious, the current state of the plot summary isn't great -- too long, with far too much subjective language and frankly some slightly precious attempts to sound Nabokovian that don't belong in a Wikipedia summary. Can we work on shortening it an simplifying and neutralizing the language? Distingué Traces (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you tell us some of the worst examples of "subjective language and ... precious attempts to sound Nabokovian"? Sundayclose (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree about the length of the plot summary. This is considered one of the greatest works of literature written in English. Therefore, it deserves a longer than average summary. Lechonero (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the overview being subjectiv; there is a claim that Humbert Humbert is an "unreliable narrator", even though he seems to do his best to tell the story as he remembers it, including when he is uncertain whether certain events really occurred. And I can't find a single place where I the reader is catching Humbert lying. So it seems to me that if Lolita is, then *all* books written in 1st person has to be classified as written by an "unreliable narrator". Memories are unreliable. But I don't think that's the meaning of "unreliable narrator". If I'm wrong, please provide a reference that supports this claim that Humbert is an "unreliable narrator". 84.55.110.150 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this too. Comparing the English version of the article with the Spanish one, for example, it's quite obvious this version makes too many judgement calls in the intro. "Unreliable narrator" is an odd description as well. Humbert doesn't seem all that unreliable; he's pretty honest with all the things he's done (like trying to drug Lolita). There's no reason to think the events, the actual facts, didn't happen as he told them. I get the impression that the insistence on presenting him as unreliable narrator comes from a desire to "sanitize" the novel, or make it more palatable to modern audiences. The point which seems to sit bad with many readers, is the fact that it was Lolita who initiated the sexual relationship. Humbert wasn't doing anything special at that time. So the unreliable narrator is used to arbitrarily discredit that part, and make it seem as if Humbert actually raped her. This paints things much more black and white than they're really in the novel. 2A0C:5A87:D000:CE00:154C:845B:7B09:FFD5 (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Lolita Express

There should be at least one small footnote or mention of important references to this story, such as Jeffrey Epstein's plane, the Lolita Express. 12.69.119.131 (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hebephilia / pedophila?

Is the use of the word "hebephilia" instead of "pedophilia" a product of consensus and/or backed up by RS?

Because 12 years old fits the diagnostic criteria of pedophila (<13, per Pedophilia), and even more so considering that the protagonist is attracted to girls from 9 years old.

To me "hebephilia" in this context sounds like an euphemism. Amberkitten (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)