Lolita end Part I

"...her cheeks looked hollowed and too much lentigo camouflaged her rosy rustic features; and that first impression (a very narrow human interval between two tiger heartbeats) carried the clear implication that all widower Humbert had to do, wanted to do, or would do, was to give this wan-looking through sun-colored little orphan aux yeux battus (and even those plumbaceous umbrae under her eyes bore freckles) a sound education, a healthy and happy girlhood, a clean home, nice girl-friends of her age among whom (if the fates deigned her to repay me) I might find, perhaps, a pretty little Magdlein for Herr Doktor Humbert alone. But "in a wink," as the Germans say, the angelic line of conduct was erased, and I overtook my prey (time moves ahead of our fancies!), and she was my Lolita again- in fact, more of my Lolita than ever." (page 111)

This quote puts a unique perspective on the coming events at the end of part one. As Humbert is finally granted full control and possession over Lolita's life he seems to ponder the possibility of fulfilling the expected fatherly duties. Humbert questions his own capability of fulfilling the paternal role despite his original intentions being purely nymphatic attraction to young Lolita. There is a definite glimmer of remorse for how the fates have dealt Humbert complete and unobstructed control of Lolita while he holds such sexually driven emotions for her. It seems as though Humbert wishes he could simply appreciate the wonderful blessing of the opportunity to provide for Lolita the rest of his life, and that if he doesn't take advantage of this miracle for his own personal benefit possibly the fate will subsequently repay him for undertaking Lolita in the form of other young girls becoming more frequent in his life. This paragraph seems only to serve as a brief mental flash of morality and duty within Humbert's mind as he is beginning to comprehend his new-found control and access to Lolita. Unfortunately for the reader, his nymphatic mentality and selfish intentions with regard to Lolita's life and innocence are re-assumed just as abruptly as they left.

Q: Is the reader expected to believe the possibility of Humbert's success as a father figure, or to merely juxtapose this theory to the in-surmounting inevitability of Lolita's life being harmed by his presence?

Lolita: End of Part 1

“I insist upon proving that I am not, and never was, and never could have been, a brutal scoundrel. The gentle and dreamy regions through which I crept were the patrimonies of poets-not crime’s prowling ground. Had I reached my goal, my ecstasy would have been all softness, a case of internal combustion of which she would have hardly felt the heat, even if she were wide awake. But I still hoped she might gradually be engulfed in completeness of stupor that would allow me to taste more than a glimmer of her.” (131)

These lines show his desperate attempt at obtaining sympathy from his audience. He describes this inexcusable scenario to make it appear as if his advances were with good intentions. His self-delusion only succeeds in enforcing his unconvincing case. As a reader I still cannot sympathize with his argument. What he proposes as physically harmless may mentally be more troublesome when the child has matured and can look back at the experience with a better perspective. If his intentions were truly rooted in love and not lust one would think that he would wish for her complete awareness and consent.

The last line of this paragraph makes me question if he is not only using the sleeping pills to knock her out, but because this is the only way he could actually control her. She seems to hold power over him and he now can be the dominant force when she is drugged.

Q: Do you think that secretly Humbert wishes he could be this “brutal scoundrel” that would not have to drug his victims to exert his dominance?

Not Exactly a Blog Post

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44699167/ns/today-books/t/risky-reads-books-have-been-banned?gt1=43001

I felt this was relevant to us. :)

LOLITA end of part 1

"I am trying to describe these things not to relive them in any present boundless misery, but to sort out the portion of hell and portion of heaven in that strange, awful, maddening world--nymphet love. That beastly and beautiful merged at one point, and it is that borderline I would like to fix, and I feel I fail to do so utterly. Why?" (page 135)

I am still trying to pin down where exactly Humbert stands on the entire issue of his "nymphet love". It seems he is completely torn. He explains and revels in all the details of his sexual desires while at the same time admitting that its wrong and that he "tries" to be good. In the same breath he delights in but then condemns his own behavior. It is both heaven and hell for him, beastly and beautiful, and this passage so clearly displays the chaos and controversy that is going on inside his mind. He can't seem to reconcile his guilt with his passion and the reader can't tell which he has more of, shame or desire. We are left wondering if Humbert would even change this habit and get rid of these fantasies if given the option. Also,  it is not clear whether or not all of the events that take place with Lolita actually happened as he says they do or if they take place inside his twisted mind. The line between Humbert's delusion and actual reality seems to have disappeared in some way. The way that Humbert writes in a very eloquent way, with elaborate detail and attempting to relate to the reader makes us want to believe the validity of the events that occur. However, we know that he is mentally unstable and all the details of his encounters that he describes could very well just be a part of his delusion and fantasy.


Q: How do you think Humbert would "fix" the "borderline". Do you think, if given the choice, Humbert would rid himself of his "nymphet love", his pedophilia? Do you think he in any way wishes he could be attracted to adult women over adolescents?

-Annie B

Lolita

"Please, reader : no matter your exasperation with the tenderhearted , morbidly sensitive, infinitely circumspect hero of my book, do not skip these essential pages ! .... try to discern the doe in me , trembling in the forest of my own iniquity " (129)



This moment illustrates another boldly obvious strategy of Humbert to mask his innocence and victimize himself . He confidently describes himself as an "infinitely circumspect hero." The idea of Humbert considering himself a hero is simply appauling. Maybe he considers himself a heroine for being able to have cautiously come thus far, and discreetly not be suspected of his true intentions with Lolita. He never fails to remind us that he is merely a protector of her "purity."Humbert urges us not to skip these "essential pages, " because his aversion from his actual crime is not yet complete. Ironically, the pages following this quote portray Lo as the instigator of it all . He describes himself, " trembling in the forest of my own iniquity." In a simplified version, Humbert, is a trembling victim of his own wickedness. He seperates his evil deeds/thoughts/nymphile desires/fantasies as an entire entity of its own, and even victimizes himself from his own actions. Humbert clearly is on a mission to convince his jurors/audience that everything was forced upon him. In his eyes, fate and the sequence of events intertwined to fulfill his lustful nymphile hunger.


Q: Why would Humbert consider himself a hero ?

Lolita 24-end of part 1

"'Okay,' said Lolita, 'here is where we start.' However, I shall not bore my learned readers with a detailed account of Lolita's presumption. Suffice it to say that not a trace of modesty did I perceive in this beautiful hardly formed young girl whom modern co-education, juvenile mores, the campfire racket and so forth had utterly and hopelessly depraved. She saw the stark act merely as part of a youngster's furtive world, unknown to adults."

This is the big scene where Humbert finally gets what he wants from his Lolita. So, I have to wonder why, being such a romantic poet and all, he does not describe the actual act. The man who never fails to reveal his revolting fantasies with beautiful, ornate descriptions simply claims to not want to bore his readers. This entire section is proof that Humbert is not a trustworthy narrator. For one, it hardly seems likely that Lo was the one seducing him. However, we can entertain that idea for now. Humbert's depiction of Lo to his "jury" is his attempt to be seen as innocent. He tries to justify his actions by claiming that Lo is not the little girl she seems to be. Instead, he describes her as having "not a trace of modesty," and later claims, "I was not even her first lover." Humbert skillfully manipulates the language he uses in order to portray himself as the victim. Perhaps, the very reason he chooses not to relive the act with the reader is to maintain that role. Humbert makes it seem as though sex is merely a game to Lo anyway, but to him, it is the fulfilling of his deepest desires. Without describing the dirty deed, Humbert, in a sense, keeps the romance alive, while Lo speaks freely about sexual encounters with both boys and girls at camp as though they are no big deal.

Q: Is Lo's sexuality a product of Humbert's imagination or has she really had these sexual encounters that Humbert says she described to him?

-Amber Riley

Lolita Part 1 Ch 25-33

“My scheme was a marvel of primitive art: I would whizz over to Camp Q, tell Lolita her mother was about to undergo a major operation at an invented hospital, and then keep moving with my sleepy nymphet from inn to inn while her mother got better and better and finally died.” (106)

I think this illustrates one of two things: either a change in the way Humbert manipulates people, or a trend that we have been unable to notice up to this point. His plan is to tell Lolita a complete lie and keep her away from Ramsdale, assumedly forever. He has obviously manipulated other people in this story, but this is the first time, I think, where he completely puts his whole situation on one lie, that if exposed seems like it could ruin everything for him. Later, as it turns out when he has to tell Lo the truth, this is not the case because, as Humbert points out, “she had absolutely nowhere else to go” (142). but it seems to be a lot riskier venture than anything else he’s done.

The other thing I mentioned could be the fact that he has been telling lies like this the entire time. We’re supposed to believe what he says, but with the story he came up with to tell Lolita about her mother, how do we know he hasn’t been making up entire sections of his story? He seems to have just given us another reason to distrust him, even more so than before.

Why does Humbert want to keep Lolita from returning to Ramsdale for her mother’s funeral, or for any reason, and why does he feel the need to hide how she died?

--John Schaefer

Lolita Ch 24-end of Part 1

"'You chump,' she said, sweetly smiling at me. 'You revolting creature. I was a daisy-fresh girl, and look what you've done to me. I ought to call the police and tell them you raped me. Oh, you dirty, dirty old man.'" (141)

This seems to be a critcal moment in Dolores's and Humbert's relationship. Previously Humbert envisioned Dolores as his ideal nymphet and how he would be able to manipulate her. However, reality is far different from his fantasies. In fact, Dolores is alot like her mother because Humbert believed he could manipulate her too. He believed he was so handsome and eloquent that they would be mere puppets, however that was not the case. In fact in their marriage, Charlotte actually seemed to be the one in control of Humbert. The same has occured with Dolores. Humbert pictured himself as a handsome man all women swoon over, yet Dolores explicitly calls him a "dirty, dirty old man" implying his ideas of his beauty are only in his fantasies. And his belief that he could manipulate Dolores failed as they had with Charlotte, in fact Dolores is in command. Humbert actually has to ask her if they can have sex and she can and has said no, showing he has so little control.

I think this is key evidence of how Humbert Humbert truly is. He says he is some eloquent hunk, but in actuallity he appears to be a sociopathic, manchild. He seems sociopathic because he shows the symptoms: manipulative behavior (which he has shown with his writing, though in actual practice he fails at most manipulation attempts; ie. the marriage, the pills, etc.) and his lack of empathy (which is obvious via his constant justification of his pedophilic actions and how he never shows an ounce of remorse, rather he seems more curious on manipulating things to fit his way). And he appears as a manchild because he has no actual job, he doesn't plan ahead (given he went into a marraige for access to a girl who will no longer be a nymphet in two years, which is short-sighted), he is incredibly submissive to any sort of authority (his wife dominated him, and even his step-daughter dominates him), and he throws tantrums when he doesn't get his way (he wants to kill his wife when she plans to send Dolores to boarding school and he bluntly tells Dolores her mother is dead when he can't easily control her). All of those qualities fit the definition of an immature, manchild.

How many see Humbert Humbert as a hysterical character with his mental arrogance, but with an outward childish behavior?

Lolita Ch. 11-24

I felt proud of myself. I had stolen the honey of a spasm without impairing the morals of a minor. Absolutely no harm done. The conjurer had poured milk, molasses, foaming champagne into a young lady's new white purse; and lo, the purse was intact. Thus had I delicately constructed my ignoble, ardent, sinful dream; and still Lolita was safe -- and I was safe. What I had madly possessed was not she, but my own creation, another, fanciful Lolita -- perhaps, more real than Lolita; overlapping, encasing her; floating between me and her, and having no will, no consciousness -- indeed, no life of her own. (62)

In this passage, Humbert Humbert justifies his abuse of Lolita by twisting both morality and language to suit his needs. Humbert is clearly an unreliable narrator – his masterful manipulation of words threatens to earn the sympathy of the audience and force them to question what is morally ‘right.’ Flowery language distracts the jury from the vulgarity of the matter at hand; Humbert uses euphemisms such as “the honey of a spasm” to describe his release and refers to himself as a “conjurer” who has skillfully preserved the “white purse” of Lolita’s innocence. The juxtaposition of a disgusting act with poetic language makes the reader uncomfortable - how can a description of something so immoral seem beautiful? Humbert is not only free of guilt after his encounter, but also proud of himself for taking advantage of Lolita’s innocence without her knowledge. He defends his violation of a young girl by separating this “creation” of his fantasy from Lolita herself. Since the imaginary girl whom he “madly possessed” had “no consciousness” and “no life,” Humbert reasons, his actions were harmless. His ‘what she doesn’t know won’t hurt her’ philosophy is flawed, however; this “fanciful Lolita” becomes real to Humbert, and the child herself becomes a mere blank slate upon which he paints his desires and ideals. As he sucks away her childhood and vigor. Humbert reincarnates his dead childhood love within Lolita’s empty shell. It is this contrived nypmhet with whom he falls so madly in love, not Lolita herself.

Q: Did you find yourself feeling sympathy rather than repulsion for Humbert at any point during the reading? If so, did this make you uncomfortable?

Lolita 11-24

“I have all the characteristics which, according to writers on the sex interests of children, start the responses stirring in a little girl: clean-cut jaw, muscular hand, deep sonorous voice, broad shoulder voice, broad shoulder. Moreover, I am said to resemble some crooner or actor chap on whom Lo has a crush.” (45)

In this section, Humbert Humbert recalls events that transpired in a journal he once kept. In particular, he describes a lake outing with Mother Haze and Lolita. He is so set on going, mentioning it days before it actually happens, planning out his whole trip and fantasizes about slipping away with Lo, which is just incredibly disturbing. He then goes off on yet another tangent about nymphets and tries to justify his love as normality by describing Harry Edgar’s marriage to a 14-year old girl.

This section is a fine example of the perverse and disturbed nature of the narrator. By referring to writers, who I highly doubt exist, who research his kinds of interests, he tries to make his condition seem more legitimate. It’s like he’s saying, “I can’t help having these girls be all over me, and because of that, I definitely can’t help being attracted to them.” Again, his use of lustrous vernacular detracts from the fact that he is talking about attracting young girls. Humbert Humbert And again again, he makes a brief allusion to Hollywood, by stating that he resembles some actor that Lolita happens to have a crush on. What a coincidence.


Q: What has changed that no longer makes it decent to marry young girls?

Lolita ch 11-24

"What I had madly possessed was not she, but my own creation, another fanciful Lolita- perhaps, more real than Lolita; overlapping, encasing her; floating between me and her, and having no will, no consciousness- indeed, no life of her own"(62).

Throughout the novel prior to this passage, the story of obsession has reminded me of the Greek myth about Persephone and Hades. Hades, God of the Underworld, is usually depicted as an older man. Persephone, daughter of Demeter and goddess of spring bloom, is always seen as a young girl. Hades (Humbert) became obsessed with Persephone and plotted to kidnap her. He placed a single lily in her field to lure her into his rhelm. As she picked the lily, the ground split where she stood and Hades kidnapped her and made her his queen. It may be by coincedence, that in the novel, Lolita is introduced to Humbert alongside a garden of lilies. Demeter, distraught after the loss of her child, was forced to compromise with Hades that for 6 months (winter) she would reside in the underworld as his queen. However, the following 6 months (summer), Persephone belonged to Demeter. The selected passage shows that Humbert possessed Lolita as a creation in his twisted mind. The creation aquired no life of her own, resembling Persephone's time as the queen of the underworld. However, Humbert lost his queen when Lolita goes to summer camp on her mother's request. The passage shows how truely contorted Humbert's reasonings to his obsession is because through his thoughts and actions, he believes Lolita is far from harms way.

sorry for the super nerd response. Im an ancient civilizations major, its just what came to my mind.

Regardless of a moral standpoint, if a touch is simply a touch to a child but that same touch is a "possession" to the adult, is harm done?

Lolita Chapters 11-24

"I knew I had fallen in love with Lolita forever; but I also knew she would not be forever Lolita...in two years she would cease being a nymphet and would turn into a "young girl," and then, into a "college girl"--that horror of horrors. The word forever referred only to my own passion, to the eternal Lolita as reflected in my blood. The Lolita whose iliac crests had not yet flared, the Lolita that I could touch and smell and hear and see, the Lolita of the strident voice and rich brown hair..." (65)

This passage reinforces about Humbert's attraction to Lolita what we already know--that he is drawn to her merely for her physical appearance, and his enchantment has nothing to do with her innermost character or feelings. Although he describes his attraction to her as a kind of love, at this point it seems to be purely lust, as he constantly describes her nymphetic qualities and objectifies her. He does not venture to say anything that shows he is at all fond of her character, even quoting in the passage, "in two years she would cease being a nymphet and turn into a young girl...that horror of horrors." If Humbert truly loved Lolita for her personality this should not matter, but here we are reassured that he is only drawn to her because of her tender age and connection to Annabel; in two years time when she grows out of her nymphet stage Humbert can move on to someone else. Humbert is drawn not to Lolita herself but to the idea of a "Lolita," although this idea consumes and overcomes him so much that he is willing to marry her mother even though he knows that this attraction to her daughter is only temporary. This excerpt and the chapters that follow really give us an idea into just how far Humbert is willing to go in order to satisfy his perverted needs.

Q: If Humbert had happened to be staying somewhere else with a 12 year old girl, that in the slightest resembled Annabel, would he have been nearly as obsessed with her as he is Lolita?

Lolita Ch. 11-24

“Then, with all possible caution, on a mental tiptoe so to speak, I conjured up Charlotte as a possible mate. By God, I could make myself bring her that economically halved grapefruit, that sugar-less breakfast.” (70)

In this excerpt, Humbert Humbert contemplates Charlotte’s marriage offer in a way that makes the reader picture a figurative light bulb above his head. He references the ad that Lolita has cut out from a magazine in which a handsome man (labeled H.H.) is modeling a robe and carrying breakfast to his lover who is still in bed. This sentence stuck out to me for several reasons, but mainly because it proves that Humbert is, in many instances in this novel, an actor and manipulator. By comparing himself to the model in the ad, he admits to himself and the reader that he is willing to play a role and go so far as to marry Charlotte in order to get what he wants. The wording of the sentence also seems significant in representing what the marriage would be – “sugar-less.” This sentence makes a comparison between the model in the ad who is bringing his lover a “sugar-less breakfast” to the manipulating Humbert who is willing to enter in to a loveless marriage. This passage proves that Humbert should not be pitied or sympathized with, for he is an evil, manipulative "nymphetophile" who is willing to go to drastic measures in order to obtain his darling Lolita.

Q: Is Humbert so accustomed to the success of his lies and manipulation as to actually think that Charlotte would believe the love letters are not actually meant for Lolita?

Cami Morrow

Lolita Ch 11-24

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the majority of sex offenders that hanker for some throbbing, sweet-moaning, physical but not necessarily coital, relation with a girl-child, are innocuous, inadequate, passive timid strangers who merely ask the community to allow them to pursue thier practically harmless, so-called aberrant behavior, their little hot wet private acts of sexual deviation without the police and society cracking down upon them." (87-88)

This passage reveals the purpose of the novel, an attempt to prove that what he does is not wrong. He tries to say that the relations do not need to be sexual or "coital," which we know is a lie since he's already masterbated to Lolita's clothing. He tries to say how he is harmless or the acts are yet before he evaluated whether he ruined some girls with his thoughts because he wanted some effect on them. His entire plea that he sets up is ruined by the thoughts and actions he's published previously in the novel. But to me the kicker is the "colloquial" manner in which he describes the actions of sex offenders. It's as if he believes everyone else thinks in that rustic, more than likely Southern dialact, usually associated with hicks or uneducated individuals. In otherwords he sees himself as a poet, as he claims a bit later, and everyone else as inferior to him. This speal reveals him for what he is, an ego-manical, manipulative pervert.

Does he honestly believe his words will fool anyone?

Lolita CH 11-24

"Humbert Humbert sweating in the fierce white light, and howled at, and trodden upon by sweating policemen, is now ready to make a further "statement" (quel mot!) as he turns his conscience inside out and rips off its innermost lining. I did not plan to marry poor Charlotte in order to eliminate her in some vulgar, gruesome and dangerous manner such as killing her by placing five bichloride-of-mercury tablets in her preprandial sherry or anything like that; but a delicately allied, pharmacopoeial thought did tinkle in my sonorous and clouded brain. Why limit myself to the modest masked caress I had tried already? Other visions of venery presented themselves to me swaying and smiling. I saw myself administering a powerful sleeping potion to both mother and daughter so as to fondle the latter through the night with perfect impunity." (71).


In this passage, Humbert Humbert is considering his options for the proposal from Charlotte Haze. He had just finished reading a letter from her admitting her love for him and giving him the option to stay and marry her or leave forever. This puts Humbert in a tough situation. If he leaves (because he obviously has no feelings whatsoever towards Charlotte), he will never again see his lovely Lolita. But if he stays and becomes Charlotte's husband, he can show affectionate love to Lolita every day. I think this passage shows the darkest side of Humbert's character. He's considering taking on a father-role, but yet planning on possibly slipping them both some sleeping medication so that he can molest an unconscious child. He doesn't even consider the damages that could be done in the long run to either one of them, especially Lolita because one day she could realize that how he had been treating her for years was perverse and out of character for a normal father figure. I find this passage to be extremely disturbing and I can only hope that men like Humbert Humbert take a step back and realize their how perverse their actions/thoughts really are.

Question- I believe Humbert's passion for Lolita is very conditional. It is so strong because of her sweet appearance and young age. In two years when Lolita is no longer a nymphet, would somebody with a character such as Humbert find himself regretful for agreeing to a marriage such as this one, or would they look back and be pleased with their decision?

Madelyn Moon

Lolita Loungerie

This ad from the French company Jours Après Lunes features their new line of lingerie for girls ages 4-12. The image eerily mirrors the first time Humbert see Lolita lounging in her backyard as he described his "Riviera love peering at me over dark glasses....the same chestnut head of hair. A polka-dotted black kerchief tied around her chest..." (39). The girls in this picture illustrate the sweet yet sultry look a nymphet emanates. The targeted age range of the company is also similar to the age range that Lolita, who is 11, is.

Lolita

Lust and erotic desire is in the eye of the beholder. A Lolita could seemlessly be unaware she is seducing. The first photgraph could represent the innocence of her.

Everyone may hold her as the little girl she is, but Humbert has a different view of her.The second photograph portrays the erotic pedophilic desire Humbert sees in his sexually precocious sun-shot beauty. In his eyes , she is deemed as a sex symbol that ignites fire in his loins (p.9). Lolitaness brings to mind the forbidden lustful fruit that one may desire the most.

Lolita Ad

This image is one of many other ads with this young female model. The advertisement was done by Lee Jeans and titled "Lolita." The image illustrates what I understand it to be by this obviously young girl posing in a quite sexual manner. Lolita has come to be know in contemporary society as a very young girl who has a sexual desire. In layman's terms, she's an adolescent nymphomaniac. Even the title of the campaign by Lee helps support the term and it's understanding.

- Paul Weber

Lolita

This is an ad from French Vogue that's advertising Christmas gifts. The model in the ad is 10 year old Thylane Lena-Rose Blondeau. This ad very accurately illustrates the definition of a "Lolita", a seductive adolescent girl. Thylane is portrayed as promiscuous primarily in the way that she is posed. She is being presented in a posture of submission, her shoulders are slumped and her frail limbs, which are too small to reach the ground or comfortably sit on the arm rests, are nakedly enticing. She is also wearing lots of make up, a revealing dress and tall heels which are generally reserved for older women. These are things that have been accepted as tools in society for attracting males.

-Molly Cook

Lolita Image

This picture is from a website called Model Mayhem. I have a friend who is an amateur photographer and she started using this site to hire models for her photoshoots. Therefore, it's a place where photographers can browse for models to complete their vision and vice versa. When I saw that there was a listing for "Baby Doll/Age Play" type models, I realized that this is what Lolita has come to be in our society. The models are posing to be the opposite of a harlot, but in the end are seen as sexually attractive. Some males have developed a certain fascination with the idea of innocence, but then have contradictory impure thoughts about these "innocent" looking girls. The whole idea of lolita is a paradox. Ironically, hebephilia springs from innocence. I personally think it's twisted. I don't know why people would promote 20 year old models acting like 7 year old girls to "turn guys on".

-Madhu

Lolita

This picture demonstrates the term "lolita" because this young girl has the innocent beauty that attracts Humbert. He defines "lolita" as a sexually precocious young girl, usually between the ages of nine and fourteen. The ringlets pinned up in her hair signify her young age, as well as the lolly pop in her hand. The fluffy dress and blushed cheeks only add to her sweet persona and make her look even more like a child. Humbert classifies these sexual girls as nymphets and he longs to be with them, even after he's grown far too old.

Madelyn Moon

Lolita-ness to me seems to be looking like a young girl and perhaps being "sexually precocious" at the same time. This image of the japanese fashion called "Sweet Lolita," besides just the name, seems to fit the Lolita-ness because of the style. The soft pink and frills appear like what a children's doll used to look like or how little girls dressed a few years back. The childish clothes exude an attempt at looking like a sweet young girl. Which fits the first part and the placement of her hand and the half smile remind me of the character Lolita which by the author's definition means she is "sexually precocious."

Brave New World

"It was a large room bright with sunshine and yellow paint, and containing twenty beds, all occupied. Linda was dying in company – in company and with all the modern conveniences. The air was continuously alive with gay synthetic melodies. At the foot of every bed, confronting its moribund occupant, was a television box. Television was left on, a running tap, from morning till night. Every quarter of an hour the prevailing perfume of the room was automatically changed. "We try," explained the nurse, who had taken charge of the Savage at the door, "we try to create a thoroughly pleasant atmosphere here – something between a first-class hotel and a feely-palace, if you take my meaning" (180).
...
"You mean, of her not dying?" (He nodded.) "No, of course there isn't. When somebody's sent here, there's no …" Startled by the expression of distress on his pale face, she suddenly broke off. "Why, whatever is the matter?" she asked. She was not accustomed to this kind of thing in visitors. (Not that there were many visitors anyhow: or any reason why there should be many visitors.) "You're not feeling ill, are you?" (181)

The first paragraph stands out because it resembles how a person dies the same way they are decanted. This room is much like the conditioning room with the rows of beds. However, I do not understand why there are so many accomodations for the dying. If everyone has beed conditioned to accept death without emotion or question, why put so much work into making it happier for the dying? I would have thought they would simply give them a few grammes of soma and let them drift to death. If they are attempting to make them comfortable with televisions and perfume, then they must understand that death is in fact not pleasant.  Also, I found it ironic that ultimately, Linda suffered in her death, clenching her throat with terror in her eyes. On the reservation, the sacrificed boy accepted his death and while being beat, did not utter a sound. He appeared to have died an honorable death since John was jealous of him. On the contrary, Linda, back at home died a spectacle for 8 year old twins. I also thought it ironic how while on a soma holiday, she dreamt of the reservation. She had been begging to be back home for years and after returning, longed for Pope and the Savage world.

The motto that "everybody belongs to everybody" suggests that instead of one person loving you, everyone does. This is why it surprised me that there were absolutely no visitors. I understand that there are no emotions toward one another as to avoid heartbreak and grief but since there are friendships, I would assume there would be visitors. I guess this passage is why I wonder if Henry was dying would Lenina visit?  If Lenina was dying would Fanny Crowne visit? If Bernard was dying, would Helmhotz visit?

Brave New World and Happiness

“Of course it does. Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn’t nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented had none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand.” (227, Chapter 16)

The question of “what is happiness” if brought up many times throughout the novel. The Savage believes that happiness is not a chemically-induced joy brought about by soma, but that it is caused by meaningful experiences. Mond agrees that true happiness which can be felt deeply is enjoyable, but that it also comes with a price of feeling despair. To quote Alexander Dumas in The Count of Monte Cristo, “Only the man who has experienced extreme agony can experience true happiness.” Huxley, like Dumas, is saying that happiness is relative to all the other not so pleasant experiences in one’s life. Happiness is not quite so ‘grand’ for the citizens of World State because they have never been subjected to suffering. The “glamour of a good fight against misfortune” is instigated by the triumph of victory against misfortune. This new society chooses superficial happiness in order to forgo pain. The World State sacrifices the emotion of happiness for stability.

Is this world without pain or true happiness better than our world with suffering, passion and joy? What is the difference in the meaning of happiness between The Brave New World and reality?