So, uh, there is probably a Lolita reference in Twilight. Huh? We've been operating under the assumption that S. Meyer is relatively unaware of her own outrageousness, the case for that primarily being that outrages like Quil (and now Jacob) imprinting on a child go relatively unexplored: Bella gets angry then she and Jacob ride their bikes. That's it. When Quil and his imprint victim re-appear in Breaking Dawn, Quil's love for her is emphasized over the horror of the whole situation. The horror of the whole situation is not even addressed, as if S. Meyer thinks she has convinced us otherwise, that it is okay. So I'm not totally sure what to do with my realization this morning that Quil imprints on Claire and Humbert Humbert's chief rival pederast in Lolita is named Clare Quilty. That's a level of awareness I didn't really expect and don't otherwise see in this book. But anyway, there you are.Meanwhile, a few days ago I published a brief essay expanding on my observation that Bella's birthing scene was like a "Republican wet dream." More on that thought is available at MOBFD.
Throw Me The Statue, "Lolita"
6 comments:
I feel like theere aren't nearly enough people saying "HOLY FUCKING SHIT" at this, Zach. Would you younger readers be aware of what Lolita is and the stink that surrounded/surrounds it?!??
LOOK THAT UP, BOYS AND GIRLS.
This is something I am going to try to articulate better soon, but the IMPORTANT difference is that Lolita understands its own evil, you know? That's the point. I read Lolita like I watched The Sopranos, I felt like I was being DARED to sympathize with the protagonist.
But Twilight emphatically DOES NOT understand itself as evil. It doesn't regard these developments as evil in the least.
Twilight wears its themes on it's sleeves... or rather, it writes them on its jeans in Sharpie. You would think that the evil of Jacob and Quil imprinting on babies would be spelled the fuck out but it is not.
And yet this Lolita reference seems like some level of awareness about how wrong their relationship is.
UNLESS S. Meyer read Lolita, and didn't understand what the problem was.
huh. You know, Lolita is one of my favorite (sort of) books and I never made that connection. I guess I never really expected Meyer to have read it. Yeah, though, that is really bizarre.
I'm another big Lolita fan-- both the book and the Kubrick movie, though I haven't revisited either in years--and it took me this long. I was in the middle of writing, referred to Jacob as "Jacob Humbert" and then it just hit me. A little bit of googling has revealed that I am not the only one to catch it, though some doubt that it was intentional.
There is absolutely NO chance that that shit was an intentional reference. No chance. We've seen how awkwardly and ham-handedly she deals with her references (R&J, Wuthering Heights). She hasn't got a subtle bone in her body. If she was making a Lolita ref she would name the little girl Lolita, or, like, Flolita. There'd be a huge, flashing, neon sign over that blinked,"GET IT? WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE!!"
Well said, Kira. I suspected as much.
Post a Comment