Midterm Paper... (I say pornography a lot!)

Lolita was published in American in the year 1958 and was almost immediately called pornography. The mainstream American public learned of its subject matter, a middle aged man falling in love and seducing a twelve year old girl, and jumped immediately to a disgusting conclusion without considering the artistic merit of Nabokov’s work. The man in charge of this class even regaled us with a tale of a dirty old man recommending him the dirty novel, Lolita.
After reading this book and studying it a bit I would be lying if I were to call this book in anyway pornographic. Nabokov said it best himself when he stated in “On a Book Entitled Lolita” “It is also true that in modern times the term ‘pornography’ connotes mediocrity… Obscenity must be mated with banality because every kind of aesthetic enjoyment has to be entirely replaced by simple sexual stimulation.” (Nabokov, p.313) This is not in any way a description of Lolita. Even the parts pinpointed by the media as pornographic upon close inspection are far from it. On page 57 of the novel begins infamous event on the davenport. Some who have only just glanced over this exchange between Lo and Humbert would say it is extremely disturbing and of an exceedingly pornographic nature. However, there is nothing pornographic about it, everything is implied in this scene, nothing is stated outright. With pornography everything must be perfectly understood, there is no room for subtlety in the world of sexual entertainment.
Even the moment at the end of part 1 of the novel when Humbert finally gets what he wanted from his Lolita is not at all pornographic in the assumed sense Humbert says “My life was handled by little Lo in an energetic, matter-of-fact manner as if it were an insensate gadget unconnected with me” BE STILL MY BEATING HEART, oh wait a moment, there is nothing at all erotic about that statement. It is not, as Nobokov said of pornography, mediocre or banal. The descriptions of implied sexual acts are not lewd; they are artistic and very, very much exclusively implied.
As this is meant to be a focused essay I cannot go into the specifics of what is erotic but the topic of intentions and purpose of pornography compared with intentions and purpose of Lolita. Pornography is meant for immediate physical satisfaction, simple as that. It would seem that Vladimir Nabokov’s purpose with Lolita the novel is for prolonged, intellectual satisfaction, the thrill up the spine that has been discussed in class. There is a place in this world for pornographic material, a very useful and specific place, which is possibly the most egregious affront brought about by referring to Lolita as pornography
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines sensual as “devoted to or preoccupied with the senses”, however, in contrast Merriam-Webster defines pornographic as “material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement”. The former is an excellent and succinct way of describing the novel Lolita, the latter is not. Pornography is void almost entirely of intellectual and artistic merit; Lolita is full to bursting with both of those things. I do have a final remark, if you found this book to be pornographic or smutty, you are more than probably a depraved, disgusting person who should, of course, write in a fancy prose style.