Reading Response
I would have to admit that this for me was probably the hardest reading response to do only because I found the reading so dense. Nabakov really outdid himself making Humbert in Lolita one of the most complex characters I have ever read. The way is uses language to manipulate his readers and make them sympathize with his actions is beyond imaginable. For most of my reading, I had to continually remind myself that he was basically speaking of rape to some degree and it could not be classified simply as a casual love affair with someone of age. The fact that this twisted narrator keeps addressing the reader directly is one of his many other tactics to bring the reader into his world and make them think that they would maybe consider the same actions he has if they were in his position. It was a somewhat scary read and nevertheless eye opening. As much as I wanted to be disgusted by it, I almost could not. He played the role of the victim so well, and in a way he was victim to society.
<!--StartFragment--> The documents we read all seemed to focus on the idea of sexual standards. What are sexual standards? How can they be generated with the world and society always changing? Just like rules, it seems, standards are meant to be broken. There can never be a consensual agreement that will last a lifetime obviously. Sex and sexuality will go through periods of moral acceptance and rejection. The media will influence it. Women, and sometimes even men, will be judged. The idea of consent will play different roles. Minors may start to be able to be seen as adults at earlier ages. We, as a society, will always continue to hear the ever so famous “that would never be allowed when I was a child” by the generations before us.
Lastly, the essay by Katz dealt a lot with classification. Homosexuality was never even a thought until the 19th century when homosexuality was recognized. Katz claims, “In the last 19th century, the erotic became the raw material for a new consumer culture.” Although homosexuality can be considered a very different idea than having sex with a minor, in this case it really is not. Perverts and nymphets have been around for centuries just as same-sex affairs have been. Whether we choose to open our eyes to these lifestyles is based on society. So, I came up with a few questions. At which point did we start saying that minors could not consent? What was this theory based on (what moral codes)? As crazy as it sounds, could it be possible that we are the ones that are immoral?<!--EndFragment-->
Comments
Disease and Our Dis-ease (or not)
Keshia, be sure to read all of the other responses as a way to catch up on missing the class discussion. As you say, this is a dense and complex novel, and one that brings the reader into the mind of the obsessed narrator in ways that are so intense that it produces discomfort precisely because we find ourselves not feeling it as much as we would expect.
In light of your second paragraph about standards being made and broken, as well as shifting over time, it would be helpful for you to recall Foucault’s overall argument regarding the increasing power relations of the deployment of sexuality. This goes against your statement that nymphets have always been around, since we can more accurately locate it as a term within the strategic unities he describes. As Katz indicates—and as HH himself points out in the novel—sexual relations between same sex partners or adult/child partners occurred in the past, but the perceptions about them were quite different from those that emerged over the 20th century. The novel gives us insight into that process from the perspective of one who is assigned a category. How does one "become" a category and what kinds of acts of resistance are available to undo that process?