<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On a book called Lolita</title>
	<atom:link href="http://alongwithahammer.com/2008/11/10/on-a-book-called-lolita/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://alongwithahammer.com/2008/11/10/on-a-book-called-lolita/</link>
	<description>Classic books, modern take, no surrender.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:21:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diablevert</title>
		<link>http://alongwithahammer.com/2008/11/10/on-a-book-called-lolita/#comment-127</link>
		<dc:creator>Diablevert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:28:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alongwithahammer.wordpress.com/?p=159#comment-127</guid>
		<description>Aw, thanks. And ditto. In a way I think Humbert&#039;s seductiveness is the whole point of the book --- that one way of seeing it is as an exercise in what love allows us to excuse. I think that was the first way I explained it too myself --- as an one-sided love story. One-sided would normally imply unrequited --- but Lolita&#039;s age and dependance on him allow Humbert to possess her despite the fact that she doesn&#039;t love him back. That is one way in which I think Lolita can ask a question about the nature of love which extends beyond Humbert&#039;s grotesque lust for le fruit vert---what would you do if you could have the person you loved even if they didn&#039;t want you? Would you take them?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aw, thanks. And ditto. In a way I think Humbert&#8217;s seductiveness is the whole point of the book &#8212; that one way of seeing it is as an exercise in what love allows us to excuse. I think that was the first way I explained it too myself &#8212; as an one-sided love story. One-sided would normally imply unrequited &#8212; but Lolita&#8217;s age and dependance on him allow Humbert to possess her despite the fact that she doesn&#8217;t love him back. That is one way in which I think Lolita can ask a question about the nature of love which extends beyond Humbert&#8217;s grotesque lust for le fruit vert&#8212;what would you do if you could have the person you loved even if they didn&#8217;t want you? Would you take them?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Colleen</title>
		<link>http://alongwithahammer.com/2008/11/10/on-a-book-called-lolita/#comment-126</link>
		<dc:creator>Colleen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:25:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alongwithahammer.wordpress.com/?p=159#comment-126</guid>
		<description>Great review! I think you&#039;re absolutely right about Humbert being so dangerously compelling...finding him to be so when I first read the book (at age 13!!) was extremely uncomfortable. But the writing is some of the most beautiful I&#039;ve ever experienced. VN was, indeed, a genius.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great review! I think you&#8217;re absolutely right about Humbert being so dangerously compelling&#8230;finding him to be so when I first read the book (at age 13!!) was extremely uncomfortable. But the writing is some of the most beautiful I&#8217;ve ever experienced. VN was, indeed, a genius.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
