Overall, I agreed with the general consensus of the article. Even before reading the article, I had rough ideas of Lolita's significance in Postmodernism and pop culture but far more separate before the article established the connection between the two.
The introduction establishes some mutual understandings and explanations of these ideas. This ncludes Frederic Jameson's idealogical definition of Postmodernism being that "there is no prior meaning, rather the cultural realm in itself makes meaning as it transpires."(Pg. 275) The speaker then explains this abstract idea that Postmodernism builds upon itself in pop culture, allowing for a constant evolution which is a characteristic of society itself. The speaker then relates the themes of Lolita to ideas of consumerism, Dolores being the commodity and Humbert being the consumer. As shallow as it might be to assume that the relationship is simply Humbert objectifying Dolores, it is a conclusion that is drawn from textual evidence. This also stems from the fact that Humbert is an unreliable narrator and not everything that he conveys to the reader can be taken as absolute. His intelligent use of prose works to mask his intentions from the reader.
While agree with the significance of the the novel with Postmodernism in pop culture, I am a little on the fence about the comparison to objectification and consumerism. However, the points presented are valid and hold as much value as any other opinion. I may be feeling this way because when reading the article, it felt like I discovered that a friend had been lying to me. I may have invested too heavily in Humberts narration to take it as trustworthy as I did. The article definitely brought me some valuable insight that I can apply to my further reading of the novel.
No comments:
Post a Comment