EDITOR
Erin Gibson
OPINION
EDITOR
Cliff Hicks
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Nancy Christensen
Brad Davis
Sam McKewon
Jeff Randall
Bret Schulte
VIEW
Touchy
1 philia
Nabokov s work worthy
of celebration
He led the world to fall in love with the
story of a pedophile.
Imagine Vladimir Nabokov being criti
cized for not having a sense of humor.
A self-described social cripple and obses
sive perfectionist, the author of “Lolita” was
actually a notoriously warm man. His first
love as a young boy was lepidopterology (col
lecting butterflies); he studied Russian and
French literature at Cambridge, and as an
unabashed romantic, the Russian emigre
stayed devoted to his lifelong love, wife Vera,
until his dying day.
Aside from his most famous work - the
story of a snobbish European engaged in a
trans-American tryst with a pre-pubescent girl
- the whole of Nabokov’s life could be most
easily captured by a white picket fence.
Friday marks the centennial birthday cele
bration of the misunderstood and controver
sial figure, sparking renewed applause as well
as scorn for the man who brought the word
“pedophilia” to global consciousness.
Forty-four years later, this persists as his
legacy.
Since the release of the book in 1955,
Nabokov’s name has been synonymous with
the concept of sexualized nymphets and
molestation. In truth, “Lolita” is a testament to
the author’s farsighted approach to literature
and even love. After the sexual revolution, the
rock ’n’ roll revolution and the PC revolution,
Nabokov remains a visionary, who, although
dead for more than 20 years, is still ahead of
his time.
I he issue at stake with Lolita is not one
of pedophilia but censorship. The world will
never know if “Lolita” is a modem love story
(the greatest of our time, according to some)
or if it is a sympathetic gesture to obsession.
Some feel like it is a mockery of Freudian
thought.
The argument is a moot one. The true topic
of “Lolita” is understanding why it was writ
ten and what it means to popular culture.
Indeed, the book itself is an examination of
culture and its values. Humbert Humbert, the
nymphet-obsessed protagonist, represents
snobbery and elitism. His pedophilic tenden
cies are thus ironic and hypocritical.
Nabokov, a liberated member of the pre
Bolshevik autocracy, wrote pedophilia into
this story as a challenge to popular culture.
Needless to say, it failed.
Today, “Lolita’s” story is still relegated to
the shadows, and both film versions, Stanley
Kubrick’s in 1962 andAdrianLyne’s in 1997,
faced issues of censorship by both church and
state.
It is true that Nabokov is sympathetic to
Humbert Humbert in “Lolita,” and it is a rivet
ing tale of passion and, indeed, pedophilia.
But there is not a flicker of such deviance in
the life of the creator, and Nabokov asks us to
act in the same way: above judgment and with
love of literature.
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of
the Spring 1999 Daily Nebraskan. They
do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its
employees, its student body or the
University of Nebraska Board of Regents.
A column is solely the opinion of its author.
The Board of Regents serves as publisher
of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The
UNL Publications Board, established by
the regents, supervises the production
of the paper. According to policy set by
the regents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely in
the hands of its student employees.
Letter Policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief
letters to the editor and guest columns,
but does not guarantee their publication.
The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to
edit or reject any material submitted.
Submitted material becomes property of
the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
returned. Anonymous submissions will
not be published. Those who submit
letters must identify themselves by name,
year in school, major and/or group
affiliation, if any.
Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln,
NE. 68588-0448. E-mail:
letters@unlinfo.unl.edu.
M &
' :$Hpt,
Horsey’s
VIEW
WHtf'5 UP,
mom?m
JUSTGOWGTO
SCHOOL!
No answers
Colorado school massacre hits too close to home
TASHA E. KELTER is a
senior news-editorial
major and the Daily
Nebraskan copy desk
chief.
I don’t think I’ve ever been so
appalled by a news story. It might be
the coincidence of my own upcoming
graduation that’s keeping the emo
tional roller coaster in full operation.
I’m sure it has something to do
with the fact that I grew up across
town from Littleton, Colo., site of the
now-famous massacre. Whatever the
cause, my co-workers can attest to
the fact that I’ve been quite disturbed
by the whole thing.
Aside from the outward weepi
ness and phone calls to and from my
mom (who still lives in Denver), I’ve
been constantly reading the news
online. I’m trying to put facts togeth
er, to draw conclusions based on the
sobbed quotes of students who lost
their friends, the scared descriptions
of the so-called Trench Coat Mafia.
I’m not doing this to be morbid; I’m
doing it to come to a conclusion, to
figure out the answer to one elusive
question that everyone is asking:
Why?
I know, that seems sort of trite, a
good way to direct one’s train of
thought back to the track; a single
question placed pointedly after a
nice, effective colon. I’ve been won
dering, though. Why did Eric Harris
and Dylan Klebold go into their high
school with guns and start offing
their classmates? Why did they target
minorities? Why did they ask, before
blowing someone’s head off, “Are
you a jock?” Why did they laugh as
they murdered kids their own age?
The supposed mafia was made
up of outcasts, surviving students
say. The clique’s members were
quiet, brooding, intimidating in their
obsession with death and Nazism.
They respected Hitler, some said.
They wore all black. They backtalked
their teachers. They talked about
guns.
One gunman is reported to have
said, “This is because you picked on
me last year.”
We all went to high school with
those types. To an extent, I was one
of those types -1 listened to death
metal, I wore all black; sometime
during my sophomore year, my mom
started calling me Morticia. I wrote
morbid poetry and a lot of my friends
sat around brooding about the mean
inglessness of it all.
Some of my classmates wore
exclusively Hilfiger and Eddie
Bauer, some were cheerleaders and
joined the business-management
clubs and some wore marching band
jackets wherever they went. For the
same reasons, a lot of my friends and
I wore black and acted existential to
make an identity for ourselves - to be
seen as those paving the “alternative”
route we wanted to seem like we
were taking.
However, we were missing the
racist/violent ethic that apparently is
present four years later and 15 miles
across town. I’m sure there were big
ots in my group, as there are in any.
The difference is that we didn’t iden
tify with racism and violence as our
characteristics. I’m first-hand proof
that black clothes and death metal
don’t make a high school killer.
So, what does?
I don’t know the circumstances of
Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’
lives. I don’t know whether they were
abused, I don’t know whether they \
were drunks or had a history of men
tal illness.
l just Know wnat me news reports
say - and yes, I trust the news
reports! All I know is that they were
bitter about being ostracized, they
were into Hitler and death and they
hated jocks.
Obviously, nothing is obvious.
There’s no clear solution. There’s
nothing to look out for; there’s noth
ing to try to curb. Tell a murderous
kid what clothes he can and can’t
wear and see how far it gets you. The
outward traits have nothing to do
with the result. Sometimes, even
upbringing has nothing to do with
what sort of atrocities someone will
commit or how successful he will be.
It’s all up in the air. Nothing, so
far, has determined who will grow up
a killer and who won’t. If anything,
it’s more dependent on rapidly
changing circumstances and philoso
phies that spin out of control - at
least that’s the conclusion I’m draw
ing from this case, which hit so close
to home that I’m actually stopping to
analyze it.
And in the final analysis, which
is what I’m supposed to be provid
ing, we can only do two things:
«—
I don't have an
answer. Were on the
path to a society
where ‘a school
shooting'is close to
becoming a cliche
comparable to
‘going postal.' These
scenes make it
obvious that nobody
has the answer"
We can accept the randomness of
tragedy and of the human psyche; we
can live hedonistically and nihilisti
cally, because after all, there’s no
control and nothing’s certain. We can
adopt a life of inaction, apathy and
misplaced jokes.
Conversely, we can try to elimi
nate the circumstances that lead to
bloody murder - such as intolerance,
ostracism and scorn.
We are a culture of insults and we
don’t even know it. If someone feels
accepted, tolerated and not chal
lenged at every turn, I think that per
son is, quite frankly, less likely to go
nostal
I’m not blaming the “jocks” of
Columbine High School, the kids’
parents or Marilyn Manson. I’m
blaming Klebold and Harris. To do
anything else would be absurd -
that’s settled. Now all I’m trying to
do is see if there’s a way of prevent
ing it from happening again.
Why didn’t those boys step back
and look at their situation with some
sort of perspective? What is it that
turned admiration of Hitler into a
real-life mass murder?
I don’t have an answer. We’re on
the path to a society where “a school
shooting” is close to becoming a
cliche comparable to “going postal.”
These scenes make it obvious that
nobody has the answer.
But the least we can do is give it a
little thought.