I wasn't going to blog about this because I have a really short attention span and I've already put that horrid book behind me. (It's about thirteen feet behind me under the cabinet in the kitchen garbage, as a matter of fact...)
But I was looking at my response and it hit me that I read Lolita (I even saw the movie) and that story did not revolt me like the one I just read. I had to wonder why. I think it's because the narrator of Lolita was so twisted and sick that you KNEW that he Knew he was doing something wrong. The story ends with Lolita married and pregnant - and living a normal, normal life with someone else - and with Humbert dying in prison for having murdered the man who took Lolita away from him.
Somehow, Lolita remained untouched by the narrator's debauchery and illness. And the author didn't try to sully Lolita, as the author in Turning Angel did to the young characters in his book. In Turning Angel, all the kids were either drug addicts, sex fiends, or saints...
So how did the author of Lolita carry this off? Because he shows that it's sick. He shows the harm and pain the affair causes. He even has the narrator admitting how hateful and monstrous he is - and he Never once tries to justify the sickness.
In Lolita, the sickness is held up like a mirror through the whole book - and the relationship becomes a symbol of good and bad, innocence and debauchery. Turning Angel tries to justify a man of 42 falling in love with and getting a 17 yr. old girl pregnant by having everyone else be the sick ones, (including the poor wfe and exchange student) while the lovers are the normal ones.
Anyhow, this is not a funny post.
I'll try to do better tomorrow when I blog about how inspiring Bush-onomics have been to my life as a multi-billionaire.