Is the act of representation problematic?
From bestselling authors to big-budget Hollywood films, when they are willing and able to represent a minority in their media, it is often met with great support – sometimes even when the representation is not even accurate. However, what I personally do not see talked about a lot is when representation can be possibly problematic. Take, for example, Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. Lolita is a novel about a pseudo named literature professor named Humbert Humbert and his obsession with a 12-year old girl, Dolores Haze, who he becomes sexually involved with when he becomes her stepfather. The book has been adapted several times on stage and on the screen. It’s safe to say that a middle-aged man that lusts over a child is a pedophile. Does making a pedophilic protagonist give representation to a group of people that are regarded as criminals and does that, in turn, make this representation problematic? Perhaps it is the ethics of essentially glorifying pedophilia through attractive language that puts this portrayal in a negative light. The language of the text can pull readers in enough so that they eventually become invested and begin to relate to the protagonist – not in the sense that they begin to condone pedophilia, but rather understanding Humbert’s need and his lust – they begin to empathize. This may leave many people feeling uncomfortable and ashamed which could eventually lead the text to backlash from the public. Personally, I believe that representation is important in terms of all kinds of groups. However, I also believe it becomes problematic when representing something like pedophilia turns into glorifying it through different forms, for example – the way Nabokov utilizes language and choice vocabulary to make the story seem more attractive.
How does the meaning and impact of texts change over time?
The meaning and impact of Lolita have definitely changed over time. In 1959, a small town in Texas that had already donned the name Lolita found themselves horrified to find that the name of their beloved town now had a different connotation than what it once had after Lolita – the book was published. This quote from a petition run by R.T Walker at the time clearly indicates how people saw the book Lolita at the time of its release, “The people in this town are god-fearing, church-going, and we resent the fact our town has been tied in with the title of a dirty, sex-filled book that tells the nasty story of a middle-aged man’s love affair with a very young girl.” Clearly many were disturbed by Nabokov’s work. However, if you look at present-day media, the concept of Lolita has become popular in the sense that many artists and artworks use the idea of “desirable young girl” very often. The role is rarely ever played by an actual child and is played by an adult to obviously avoid legal issues and such but you can see examples of this in celebrities like Britney Spears and Melanie Martinez and the way that they act doe-eyed and innocent to turn themselves into a Lolita fantasy while not explicitly making it seem as though its pedophilia. This change of zeitgeist shows how texts can be seen completely differently over time and perhaps Lolita became more accepted when sexual behavior became more accepted in society.
How are we affected by texts?
Nabokov writes in a way that makes the readers have no choice but to empathize with Humbert even though they completely do not condone his actions through the course of this book. It shows how we can be affected by texts through somehow identifying with something you never thought you would and sometimes that can lead to a positive or negative headspace. We are certainly affected by texts in the sense that it could make you change your opinions about certain situations and ideas – not that you would ever condone pedophilia just because you think Lolita is interesting.