Lolita is one of the most unconventional literary classics of the century. Lolita is a twelve-year-old girl, who is desired by the European intellectual Humbert Humbert. As the narrator of the story, Humbert chronicles his abnormal childhood, adolescent experiences, and an adventure in a booming American as a European tourist and pedophile. But it is key to realize his first heartbreak as a boy manifests into his desires for nymphets. This point is made clear in both the novel and movie. I will show that the movie Lolita, is a solid rendition of the novel of the same name.
	Now some critics might see the novel as something more than I took it, like a contrast between the modernistic character of Humbert Humbert against the post-modern Americans that he encounters. Forget all that, I honestly thought the movie to be a convincing love story. On the surface level it was about an obsessive man and his love for nymphets, who met Lolita, the object of his desires. There were differences between the movie and the novel, yet I felt some scenes were left out of the movie that did not hurt the story at all. Also, some scenes were added which actually strengthened the story line in the movie.
	I bet professional critics say the new version of Lolita did not measure up, well I loved it. Dominique Swain was awesome (a little hottie as well) and she perfectly played the character of Lolita. She may have even been more manipulative in the film version. An example of this was when Lolita was toying with Humbert as she rubbed her foot all over him in order to get a raise in her allowance and be able to be part of the play. You could not be much more sexual, manipulative girl than Lolita was! On minor change was that Lolita was twelve in the novel and fourteen in the movie. This was simply done to make the relationship a bit more accepting in the viewer’s eyes. I don’t believe it harshly affected the story at all. In both works, Lolita was just a manipulative girl who had no idea what life was about. She was almost sucked into the porn business by a pathetic man who she worshipped as a Hollywood star. Plus, she handled Humbert perfectly in setting her escape to live with Quilty.	Humbert was also played brilliantly, yet I felt there was more longing in the novel Humbert, though we were still able to see his burning desire for nymphets and Lolita in general.
In both the film and the book Bernice Bobs Her Hair, there are some main ideas that mirror and deflect on another. In the book, everything has to be detailed and described down to every last detail, while in the movie, the director had to make sure that the items in the house, barbershop, and in any setting was just as it was in that time period. Many things that were explained in the story go by so quickly in the movie and you have to take notice of every little detail that went into the making of the film. The only things that were changed in the film were slight, if not, unnoticed to you that were mentioned in the book. As well as how they leave you hanging at the end of the story.
Also, it shows the Valmont character as being more heroic, which in Dangerous Liaisons, he was not quite so heroic. In the movie, it does not really say what happened to Ronald (Danceny). He fights with Sebastian, and that is the last we see of him. Catherine (Merteuil), like in the book, also has her reputation ruined, but she gets humiliated in a more dramatic way (in front of the student body and faculty). Also, there is the issue of drugs.
Overall, the movie and book have many differences and similarities, some more important than others. The story still is clear without many scenes from the book, but the movie would have more thought in it.
I don’t like the movie as much as I like the book because the movie doesn’t really demonstrate the futuristic world that the author depicted. It disappoints me because, like I’ve said earlier, the setting of the story is what interested me the most. But the movie, unfortunately, was not able to convey it. And I didn’t expect the movie to create a futuristic world either because back in 1966, technology was not advanced. Aside from technological issues, there are some changes in the movie. In the book, the girl who inspires Guy Montag, Clarisse McClellan, dies due to a speeding car, but in the movie, she still lives. I personally prefer the book’s way because I think Clarisse’s death was a key factor in leading to the main conflict of the book. Overall, I think that the book is far more interesting than the movie because the book is just more descriptive and
"Anxieties regarding the threat of crime against children often take on panic-like proportions. In the USA, where FBI statistics indicate that fewer than 100 children a year are kidnapped by strangers, the public concern with child abduction is pervasive. [...] The same inflated sense of danger prevails in the UK. Many parents do not believe that, over the years, the number of children murdered by strangers has remained fairly static. On average it has been five per year. A few highly publicized child murders have helped shaped the impression of such tragedies 'could happen to every child'" (Furedi 24).
The movie is, most likely, done well enough to intrigue its intended audience. It captured the theme and story line of the book. It falls short, though, when compared to the beautiful, sensitive and contemplative prose of Natalie Babbitt. One could only hope that a viewing of the film will lead the watcher to try the book and be delighted all the more.
...ror of Pecola’s first sexual experience: her father rapes her), and a difficult marriage situation (caused by his own drunkenness). The “bads” certainly outweigh the “goods” in his situation. Thus, the reader ought not to feel sympathy for Cholly. But, Morrison presents information about Cholly in such a way that mandates sympathy from her reader. This depiction of Cholly as a man of freedom and the victim of awful happenings is wrong because it evokes sympathy for a man who does not deserve it. He deserves the reader’s hate, but Morrison prevents Cholly covered with a blanket of undeserved, inescapable sympathy. Morrison creates undeserved sympathy from the reader using language and her depiction of Cholly acting within the bounds of his character. This ultimately generates a reader who becomes soft on crime and led by emotions manipulated by the authority of text.
Steidel, S.(Ed.). (2000). Missing and Abducted Children: A Law Enforcement Guide to Case Investigation and Program Management. Washington, D.C.: OJJDP
Gun control is a really good idea. Not only does it prevent all of the above but it also prevents a lot of accidents. Accidents from innocent people and especially children. As Norman L. Lunger explains in his book Big Bang: The Loud Debate over Gun Control. He writes, “Saving Lives With Gun Control. It's a common item on the evening news: A child picks up a loaded gun and it suddenly goes off, killing the child or a bystander. In Florida, two young boys found a shotgun under a bed in their grandparents' home. A six year old pulled the trigger, and a five year old fell dead. In Illinois, two teens found a handgun in their grandmother's apartment. The gun went off in the hands of a sixteen-year-old boy, killing his fifteen-year-old cousin. In Michigan, a six-year-old boy found a handgun in a shoebox at the house where he was staying with an uncle. He took the gun to school, pulled it out of his pocket, and shot a girl in his first-grade class. She died on the way to the hospital.” (Lunger, Big Bang: The Loud Debate over Gun Control) As he shows innocent children are being killed by other innocent children just because a gun was lying around. There is no way to go around it. Innocent children killed because there is no gun control. Not convincing enough? Lunger also says, “They note that firearms take the lives of some 30,000 people in the United States each year. About six hundred of the victims are under age fifteen, and about thirty-five hundred are aged fifteen to nineteen. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a federal agency, firearms take the lives of a far greater proportion of children in the United States than in other industr...
They believe that if background checks were required for private sales, which they describe as “firearms sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere” then the “Gun Show Loophole” would be eliminated (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence). As evidenced by the call for an increase in gun control after mass shootings people believe that with stricter gun control, we would have less incidences of gun violence. Gun control advocates argue that if we have stricter gun control then we will have a safer country, with less shootings. According to a study done by the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University between 2005-2007, the number of police officers who “were convicted of firearms violations” were convicted “at a .0002% annual rate” (Fund). According to this study .0002% is “about the same rate as holders of carry permits in states with “shall issue” laws”
For the past couple of weeks, I have been exploring what it means to be a Lolita. I already had an interest in learning more about the subculture, and it was not until I did some background research that I found the Lolita subculture to have many similarities to the Punk. These similarities sparked my interest in learning more about what type of people join the subculture, and why. This lead to my research question, “To what extent does Punk and Visual Kei play a role in creating the Lolita subculture?” The Lolita subculture is not very known in the United States despite its similarities to the popular Punk subculture. I sought to find out the border between the two subcultures, and through the results of my research I hope to let others know the meaning behind the Lolita subculture.
Guns are always represented as a sigh of terror, violence and insecurity due to which, gun control is always being a significant and controversial issue from both political and self defense point of view. Guns and humans had a shared part of the past history, during that period guns were used for hunting and protection from the invaders. The second amendment of the U. S. constitution even made the guns/arms more debatable on the basis of keeping guns as their right. Their is a no harm keeping a gun for self protection under a proper law and order, which will be regulated by different background, physical check and the awareness of proper use of the guns. These checks will help lower down the statistical data of misuse of firearms and reduce
They create an imbalance in the relationship by controlling all aspects of it. They also threaten the victim with death or injury. These situations can cause the victim to express an unconscious and desperate act of self-preservation. The example of this would be the kidnapping of newspaper heiress Patricia Hearst. In 1974, after ten weeks in captivity, Patty helped her kidnappers rob a bank in California (Patty Hearst kidnapped). Despite her claim that she was brainwashed by her captors, she was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison. Her sentence was commuted after twenty-one months and she was later pardoned by President Clinton in 2001(Patty Hearst kidnapped). Another example would be at age fourteen, Emily Smart was kidnapped from her home. She did not attempt to escape her captors even though she was tethered to a tree, raped daily and cut off from all contact with the outside world. She testified after her rescue that she did not run away or reveal her true identity to people she came into contact with when her captors took her out in public. Elizabeth Smart commented that,” you don’t need to have affection for a captor in order to be compliant-fear is enough(2010, November 13).” This proves that the survival instinct is at the heart of Stockholm syndrome.
Clarice Lispector, a Brazilian female writer of Jewish descent, tied her writing with her very life, for her writing reflects her viewpoint on many aspects of her life. She was well-known for her existentialist writing involving themes revolving around women’s roles. Through the characters and their interactions in her works, Lispector explores the societal status of women. The male subjugation of women influences many of the themes found in her works and a better understanding of women’s social status ultimately leads to a better understanding of the relationship between the characters in her works and actions by those characters. Thus, the evaluation of women in the society contemporary to the era Lispector lived in influences the overall existentialist ideas and the motif of women’s roles in her work.
With his 1955 novel Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov invents a narrator by the name of Humbert Humbert who is both an exquisite wordsmith and an obsessive pedophile. The novel serves as the canvas upon which Humbert Humbert will paint a story of love, lust, and death for the reader. His confession is beautiful and worthy of artistic appreciation, so the fact that it centers on the subject of pedophilia leaves the reader conflicted by the close of the novel. Humbert Humbert frequently identifies himself as an artist and with his confession he hopes “to fix once for all the perilous magic of nymphets” (Nabokov, Lolita 134). Immortalizing the fleeting beauty and enchanting qualities of these preteen girls is Humbert Humbert’s artistic mission