John Phillips and LOLITA

Has anybody ever read LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov? I read it a few years ago before the Bob Gray scandal broke.

The main reason, of course, was to read the source material for the Stanley Kubrick movie. What changes were made as the novel was translated into film?

The most obvious change was the actress playing Lolita was not 12 years old. If you read the book, it would be very disturbing to see an actual 12 year old actress play this role. Instead, he got 14 year old Sue Lyon to play the role. I know, big change, right?

Kubrick also played down various aspects of the book which, if literally portrayed, would be the most expensive work of child pornography ever produced!

I don't believe Nabokov was a pedophile. Of course, I don't know that as a fact. No one does.

Nabokov does not seem to suffer from the stigma of Lewis Carroll.

Carroll was known for pedophilia, but let's not allow that to stop us from enjoying the new Walt Disney remake of his book, ALICE IN WONDERLAND! Just temporarily ignore the fact that Disney hired a convicted child molester, Victor Salva, to direct POWDER, and you can enjoy living in fantasyland all your life! Besides, without praising Disney films, how would ex-fundamentalists, especially those from Disney's arch-enemy, the Southern Baptist Convention, be able to prove they're cool?

Nabokov was not an activist. He was an artist, but I'm not finding any articles that indicates he had a problem with pedophilia. I now believe the mere fact that he was able to write about it should be offered as proof that he was not.

Those who might lean toward that pedophilia tend to want to cover it up. The last thing they want to do is openly broadcast it. If anything, his book demonstrated a network of child predators might exist, and he clue'd us in on their tactics.

When I read Mackenzie Phillip's book, I thought of LOLITA. In Phillip's book, John, her father, practically encourages his rock star friend, Mick Jagger, to engage in sex with young Mackenzie. He seems to have his personal network of enablers.

I've speculated openly on this blog whether or not such a network exists, or existed, amongst fundamentalist preachers who've engaged in this crime. In LOLITA, the rivalry between Humbert Humbert and Clare Quilty seems to imply the existence of a network.

The movie downplays the drugs that Humbert uses to have his way with Lolita. In the book, he drugs her. He takes her while she is passed out. The movie does not bring in drugs, consequently we're left with the view that this is a consensual relationship.

In Mackenzie's book, John Phillips drugs her and has his way with her while Mackenzie is passed out. Mackenzie gets hooked on drugs and, as an adult, goes to her father for more. He gives her the drugs, she passes out, and he has his way with her. At no time in Mackenzie's book do we read that she is EVER FULLY AWAKE during these encounters. She went to him FOR DRUGS NOT SEX. The sex only happened after she passed out.

This is what passes for 'consensual' whenever we hear critics of Mackenzie overuse that word. I guess they're hoping no one will actually read the book to find out that 'consensual' somehow includes being passed out on drugs while your father gropes and mauls you.

Barry Crimmins writes an excellent article about 'consensual' and the role drugs played in the abuse of Mackenzie Phillips. It's worth reading, especially if you've never read Mackenzie's book and, for whatever reason, continue to hold on to the word 'consensual' as an excuse to ignore her message.

Article: Child abuse. No laughing matter.