Never Grow Up

I do not know how to interpret the motives behind the disturbed character of Humbert Humbert.  The uncomfortable feeling I feel every time I open this book will never cease.  I cannot understand how a man of late 30s can love a girl as young as 12.  Humbert Humbert understands that his sexual thoughts about young girls are morally wrong, but he does nothing to stop his urges.   As we continue to read in class the vulgar images continue to appear in my head.  Humbert’s obsession with his nymphets is what haunts my mind the most.  Just the definition of a nymphet, and Humbert’s openness to verbalizing his fantasies with these nymphets makes me sick to my stomach.  Humbert’s use of sophisticated language casually masks his vulgar thoughts, and makes it hard for us as readers to understand the deeper meaning.  At the first read, Humbert sounds intelligent and playful, but as we read deeper into the underneath layer we realize how disturbed Humbert truly is.   

Why is Humbert so disturbed?  What is the seduction of a nymphet so exhilarating?  Why is Humbert affected by the thought of having sexual relations with a minor?  I cannot bring myself to understand the sick mind of Humbert Humbert.  The sick, but also intelligent, mind of Humbert constantly comes back to the simple pleasures of young children.  Humbert writes, “Rope-skipping, hopscotch… Let them play around me forever. Never grow up” (Nabokov 20-21).  For such an intelligent man, he focuses on silly games of children.  Why?  Is this a way for Humbert to connect to his lost childhood?  Or is he trying to he recreate the sexual sensations he felt with his first “girl- child” Annabel?  What do the references of childish games really mean?  I do not know what the mentions of these games mean, but I believe that Humbert is trying to find a young child who reminds him of his Annabel.  Even though years have passed since Annabel’s death, Humbert wants to regain his childhood.  Humbert wanting young children to play around him is not only for his disgusting sexual fantasies, but to help him never grow up.  Humbert’s childhood was ruined by his relationship with Annabel.  Their young age combined with the adult act of sex forced Humbert to grow up, and ruined his sense of reasonable thinking.  Humbert’s mind continues to disintegrate as he finds more young girls like Annabel.  His pleasure only comes from young girls, because Annabel was the only girl to please him. Humbert’s attempt at hiding secret messages behind his intelligence will not make us forget that he will be nothing more than a pedophile.  

The Power of Language in Lolita

Humbert Humbert is successful with impressing us as the readers with his use of language. We know his actions and thoughts are morally wrong and vulgar, but his intelligence is impressive. He uses French as an emphasis to his seduction of the readers-which is ultimately his goal. Humbert wants the reader to view his perspective, and to not characterize him as a child molester. Although I am impressed with his use of sentence variety and use of French, I do not feel sorry for Humbert nor do I favor him in any way.
We as the readers explore Humbert's thoughts. He reveals his desires and experiences with his first love Annabel and random nymphets. As Humbert reveals himself to us, I cant help but feel more disgusted. What made me dislike him more was when he stated, "I should say, generally thirty or forty, and as many as ninety in a few known cases, between maiden and man to enable the latter to come under the nymphet's spell"(Nabokov 17). Humbert is blaming children for his issues and desires, but is still using advanced language to make us impressed with him. This makes me disgusted because he knows his actions are wrong, but he is trying to manipulate us into thinking he is a functioning person.
"While my body knew what it craved for, my mind rejected my body's every plea"(Nabokov 18), this quote is another example of Humbert trying to get us to understand his motives. If a man cannot control himself and cannot have normal relationships with women and children, then it is obvious that he has a mental issue. The fact that he is in jail comforts me. I feel that I would be more disturbed if he was not punished for his crimes. I am curious to know if I am the only one who is disgusted with Humbert. Does anyone feel impressed with his language, or feel sorry for him in any way?

Have Humans Changed Throughout History?

As I read Act III of The Skin of Our Teeth, I tried to make sense of the war, the family conflict, and the hours of philosophers and planets. I think the war is portrayed to show that war and violence will always exist; war existed in ancient times, and it is still prevalent today.  Will we ever reach a state of peace?  This question is particularly pertinent to today, as I’ve seen several people express their thoughts on violence following the Boston Marathon explosions.  Individuals are asking themselves when violence and terror will stop, but will it ever cease? I think it will always exist because it is a tendency of human nature that cannot be removed. The elements of mankind remain the same throughout history, especially in regards to the potential for good and evil.

The war is then juxtaposed with philosophers representing different hours of the night.  I think this conveys that intelligence and ideas are always around us, just as the planets comprise the galaxy; even if we cannot see them, they are there, just like freely floating ideas.  Mankind will always advance itself in knowledge and discovery, but not always in a way to improve its nature and savage tendencies of war.

On page 107, Sabina says, “That’s all we do—always beginning again! Over and over again. Always beginning again,” demonstrating the cyclical nature of the play.  Although every generation seems different from the next because of advancements in knowledge and technology, have individuals truly changed throughout history? Are there any differences in human nature? Will individuals always be the same at the core? Perhaps the Antrobuses have lived for five thousand years to show that they could represent any individual in history in their attitudes and sentiments.  Is this a dark truth Wilder intended to convey? 

In the Darkness

As we are progressing through the play, I would like to emphasize that despite the humor, there are areas of this play that linger in the darkness. In act one, the play begins amusingly enough. Characters break character and are often jesting to the audience. The humor is outlandish, with dinosaurs and the discovery of the wheel, but as the act moves forward, I think it is important to realize the terror that lurks in the play. If the characters are genuinely frightened, as Sabina most certainly is, can we laugh anymore?

Act two follows a similar structure, only there is something less amusing about the whole event. Is it simply not as funny – or is there something else? I believe, and this is only my opinion, that Wilder is hinting at something more corrupt and more disturbing (which will be emphasized in act three). Also, since the audience knows that serious danger is lurking for the characters, we (as the audience) are concerned for the characters. I know I'm always filled with a genuine fear for the characters.

When we reach act three, I think we’ll see something different than maybe we expected. Something so much darker than we could have managed; possibly something you might consider sinister or evil. Wilder’s play is overwhelmingly effective (for me) and I think this is emphasized because of the tonal changes throughout the play. One minute we’re laughing and the next we’re filled with dread. As Sabina says, “In the midst of a life, we’re in the midst of death (aside) and a truer word was never said.”

Will Sabina be disciplined?

We have not read very far into Thorton Wilder’s The Skin of Our Teeth, yet, I have already been questioning many things. The Skin of Our Teeth is evidently a work from the existentialist movement. Through the postponing of the end of the world and the talking dinosaurs, we see the existentialist concepts of unnatural society and and irrationality. While studying the maid, Sabina, one underlying concept that existentialism takes into consideration stuck out to me—the importance of personal responsibility and discipline. It is clear that Sabina lacks responsibility and discipline. She does not do her chores as a maid such as keeping a fire lit, showing her lack of responsibility. Also, Sabina is clearly a mistress of Mr. Antrobus. Mrs. Antrobus addresses this to Sabina, who justifies her actions by saying, “but you’re not a beautiful woman, Mrs. Antrobus, and that’s the God’s truth” (Wilder 15). Here, we see Sabina’s lack of discipline. If personal responsibility and discipline is crucial in this existentialist book, will Sabina soon pay for her lacking of these traits?

The Strangest Play

     Although we have just began reading The Skin of Our Teeth I cannot help but realize how strange the play is. The characters and the age of some characters is strange, plain and simple. First, two of the characters are a dinosaur and a mammoth. Why would Thornton Wilder use a dinosaur and a mammoth as characters in his play? These animals are extinct; therefore, why would he use them? I believe Wilder wants the play to be extremely strange, which is why he included a dinosaur and a mammoth as characters.

      

     The play is not only strange because of the dinosaur and the mammoth, but because of the age of some characters. For example, Mrs. Antrobus says, “George, he’s only four thousand years old.” Mrs. Antrobus is referring to Henry when she states his age. I find it extremely strange that Wilder would make Henry four thousand years old and also say that four thousand years old is young. Why would Wilder not pick a normal age for the boy? Why would he choose four thousand years old to be his age?

      

     We are only one act into the play and I cannot help but realize how strange the play is. I feel like each page has something new, that I find strange. If the other acts are similar to the first one, than we can be sure to find more strange things about the characters, and just the play in general. Why is the play strange? I do not know the answer to this, but I do know for sure, that the play is only going to get stranger the more we read.

Persepolis: Movie vs. Graphic Novel

          After viewing the movie version of Persepolis, I only felt disappointment. I believe that if I had viewed the movie without reading the graphic novel, I would have considered it to be a great film. However, certain omissions and changes from the original literature, no matter how minor, can change the meaning or the effectiveness of a movie. With Persepolis, there were certain differences between the graphic novel and the movie that made me feel disappointed, rather than impressed, with the film.

          The most important change for me was the scene where Marjane falsely accuses the man of indecency. In the graphic novel, Marjane falsely accuses a man who happened to be an innocent bystander. His facial expression gave no indication of guilt of any kind. In the movie, the man does stare at her butt and only stops when he is caught staring. He is portrayed as perverted. In the story, we feel anger towards Marjane for having an innocent man imprisoned. However, the movie changes our view of the innocent man, making the viewer less angry towards Marjane and wondering just how innocent that man truly was.

         
          An important omission from the movie was Kia, Marjane’s childhood friend who served for Iran during the war. In the graphic novel, the story of Kia was powerful. A young man who had lost both his arm and his leg in the war. Yet, his joke about the man who had been blown into pieces and reattached shows he still managed to retain a sense of humor, even if it was making fun of a serious issue. An issue that he could relate to. This could have served as a powerful scene in the movie, as although it shows the effects of war and violence, it also shows that even the most unfortunate can still be optimistic and retain a sense of humor. It was an opportunity to create a powerful scene that was wasted.

        Although these omissions and changes are very minor, they did have a big effect on how I perceived the Persepolis movie. 

Are we insane?

Barth feels that authors are complacent with traditional format of stories, and I think Barth wants Title to be an original piece, which implies that Barth wants to defy the traditional rules. Barth writes, “I’ll ignore her, he vowed” (Barth 1063), which implies that Barth is choosing to reject traditional writing styles, because he does not want to “same old story” (1062). Is this insane?

Comparatively, Pygmalion, written in 1912 (the same century that Title was written in), is a traditional rags-to-riches story, or a Cinderella story- a plot so common that it has its own name. Barth remarks, “[It has] become an exhausted parody of itself [literature]” (1064).Barth criticizes authors who follow this modeled writing. Is that insane?

Is Barth’s mockery of his literature peers for writing the same story insane or is reading or writing the same story insane? According to Albert Einstein, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Are we insane for reading these books or watching these movies, when we can already predict the ending? Do we expect things to change in the final chapters or scenes and have an ending we could have never expected, or do we want the perfect, predictable ending? If so, then why do we want it?

I think we do want to perfect ending, not because we are insane, but because we need some predictability. Even Barth is willing to admit that the style of writing he is criticizing is “even enjoyable. For…both of us [the author and audience]” (1062). We all want to underdog or the protagonist to overcome his or her obstacles, because we sympathize with Eliza Doolittle and her struggles, and Cinderella with her evil step-mother. We are not crazy; we just understand what the characters are feeling.

I attached Underdog by Imagine Dragon, because I think the chorus summarizes what I am saying. “That sounds like my luck.” We understand the character’s situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsnvLX-1GMc