Copyright 2015 by the National Art Education Association Studies in A rt Education: A Journal o f Issues and Research 2015,56(2), 156-167 “Questioning Lolita: Genealogy of a Cover Girl SHARI L. SAVAGE why something The Ohio State University ‘is,’ tracing At the publication of Vladimir Nabokov's controversial novel Lolita its genealogy, (1958), the author insisted that a girl never appear on the cover. This discourse analysis of 185 Lolita book covers, most of which and altering feature a girl, considers the genealogy of "Lolita" in relation to representation, myth, and tacit knowledge construction. How its historical does the content and context of the narrative function to promote and propel erotic girl imagery and reiterate blameworthiness of underpinnings the girl as seducer? Using visual discourse analysis (Rose, 2001) to analyze book cover representations, findings suggest cultural offer relevant understandings of "Lolita" are connected to mythic signifies and popular culture notions of girlhood gone bad. Also described and purposeful and analyzed, a recent book cover contest that asks designers to create a Lolita book cover that does not use a girl. This study classroom encourages art educators and their students to question how inquiry.” culture perpetuates myth, and more specifically, why. Correspondence regarding this article may be send to the author at [email protected] 156 Savage / Lolita: Genealogy o f a Cover Girl [Lolita] One of my all-time favorites... when I first encountered this edition I assumed our supposed Lolita's pose was flirtatious. One knee bends in front of the other— in almost a curtsy. She seems locked in some sort of stylized sexual demurral. However as tim e passes (and my reading of the text evolves) I begin to factor in the stark, ominous lighting, and the gaze o f the photographer becomes threatening; the pose of the subject is one of real discomfiture. The knee crosses protectively. What seemed to me at first as "come hither" has evolved into "please don't." (Mendelsund, 2011, para. 7) ike Mendelsund's comment above, than enable the concept of myth; it natu­ this article brings new light to a ste­ ralizes it. Indeed, the eroticized girl seen Lreotypical piece of visual culture: so often in popular visual representations the covers of multiple editions of Lolita has been naturalized by contemporary (Nabokov, 1958). Using discourse analy­ culture (Bordo, 1998,1999; Durham, 2008; sis (Rose, 2001), I considered 185 differ­ Levin & Kilbourne, 2008; Savage, 2009). ent Lolita covers and an additional 60 This article encourages art educators and images from a book cover design contest their students to question how culture that asked artists and designers to re­ perpetuates myth, and more specifically, represent the novel. This study, inspired why. and informed by previous research proj­ Background ects, generates insights into present- day cultural myths in general and the When Russian-born author Vladimir Nabokov first published the controversial novel Lolita genealogy of "Lolita" myths in particular (1958), he insisted there never be a girl featured (Savage, 2009, 2011a, 2011b). As peda­ on the cover of his book (Vickers, 2008, p. 8). For gogical practice, cultural myths and their Nabokov, 12-year-old Dolores Haze— referred sociohistorical underpinnings are ripe for to as "Lolita" in the novel— was meant to be student inquiry. This article illuminates unveiled slowly. She existed in the margins, her how one novel and its long-misunder­ voice rarely heard, her image a series of metered stood heroine have come to be repre­ descriptive phrases that resist coming together sented through mythic visual narratives into a cohesive form (Bouchet, 2005; Shute, of girlhood "gone bad." Challenging and 2003). The reader finds little about Dolores that causes empathy, though she was sexually critiquing such narratives is important, molested starting at age 12. Not relatable, or Barthes (1973) argued, because "we reach even likable, her abuse has been somehow less here the very principle of myth: it trans­ important to the story than her blameworthi­ forms history into nature" (p. 129). This ness (Bayma & Fine, 1996; Bordo, 2003; Savage, transformation, he suggested, does more 2011a). Nabokov argued that a girl should never Studies in Art Education / Volume 56, No. 2 157 appear on the cover of his book, but his edict gerous (APA, 2007; Durham, 2008; Kilbourne, was ignored.This study of 185 Lolita book covers' 1999, 2006). As Walkerdine (1997) reminded us: published between 1958 and 2011 makes clear "images cannot say'no'" (p. 166). that publishers disregard of the author's request Visual Methodologies has continued to sell the mythic version of Lolita This study used both genealogy research and her bad-girl reputation. and discourse analysis to consider covers of the A book cover, originally used to protect the book Lolita. Genealogy research refers to inquiry delicate pages, is most often used today to that examines the ways in which interpreting advertise paperback novels that are quickly and evaluating subjects changes over time, bought, read, and often as quickly recycled. including the social systems of thought and Covers attract attention, indicate the book's the historical factors that influence how sub­ contents, and—most important in our fast- jects are constituted (Schwandt, 2007, p. 125). paced world— do so in an expedient manner. Schwandt explained that genealogy's purpose The original European printing of Lolita (1955), "is to disturb the taken-for-granted and alleg­ from Parisian publisher Olympia Press, carried edly self-evident character of our interpreta­ no image and was a two-volume set (Appel & tions of'subjects'as, for example, men, women, Newman, 1970). What the plain green cover did boys, girls, criminals, adolescents, and so on" do, however, was alert United States Customs (p. 125). Patnoe (1995) asked, "why didn't the agents to its pornographic content as Olympia's Lolita myth evolve in a way that more accurately Green Traveler series was well known as books reflects Nabokov's Lolita? Why isn't the definition with salient themes (Appel, 1991). Since the of'Lolita"a molested adolescent girl'instead of American publication of Lolita in 1958, the a 'seductive' one?" (p. 83). Genealogy and dis­ majority of Lolita book covers have used eroti­ course analysis assist in locating pivotal shifts in cized imagery to represent the same salient Lolita mythmaking. themes, often highlighting Lolita's blamewor­ thiness (Savage, 2009). Lolita-like or eroticized Foucault argued that discourses are prac­ girl representations in media have been preva­ tices "composed of ideas, ideologies, attitudes, lent and have articulated a narrative about courses of action, terms of reference, that sys­ sexuality that can be harmful (APA, 2007; Levin & tematically constitute the subjects and objects of Kilbourne, 2008; Savage, 2009). Durham (2008) which they speak" (as cited in Schwandt, 2007, p. agreed: 73). Discourse analysis, when connected to visu- Myths are, by nature, untrue. But ality rather than language, explores "how images myths cannot be dismissed as fictions construct specific views of the social world" or fairy tales, because they have real (Rose, 2001, p. 140). Tonkiss (1998) took this idea impact on girls' lives. When sexuality further, in that discourse analysis is more con­ is understood only in terms of cultural cerned with "how images construct accounts of and social myths that operate in ways the social world" (as cited in Rose, 2001, p. 140). that are counterprogressive, hidebound, Genealogy is part of the inquiry of determining and restrictive, we have a problem. It is how images construct views and accounts of our imperative, therefore, to examine myths. social world or culture. I used Rose's framework (p. 60) for discourse analysis and visual culture from her As art educators, we share a commitment to 2001 book, Visual Methodologies, for this study. challenge sociocultural ideologies that oppress, Discourse analysis considers texts (both lan­ marginalize, or otherwise objectify. A culture guage and images), intertextuality, and contexts, that regularly sexualizes girls and then assigns and interrogates the way images and verbal texts blame to them for their desirability is dan­ produce discursive formations. Multiple repre- 158 Savage / Lolita: Genealogy of a Cover Girl sentations of Lolita on book covers have served that Lolita, as understood in popular visual as a discourse through which meaning has been culture, is socially constructed by mythic signi- articulated. fiers derived from the original novel— a cultural A thorough understanding of the novel is development with contextual tentacles embed­ necessary in order to identify referents, meta­ ded in invention, illusion, and lore (Danesi, 2007; phors, and other significant thematic threads. Hall, 2003). Lolita (Dolores Haze) is a fictional girl; Critical literary analyses from 1956 forward assist understood through inaccuracy, misinterpreta­ in illuminating the ways in which Lolita (1958) tion, and fantasy, thereby producing a cultural has been understood and questioned through representation with mythic attributes that are history, including the earliest book reviews then projected onto real girls. It is the "blame­ (Hicks, 1958; Hollander, 1956; Trilling, 1958). worthiness" of her reputation that has made this Feminist analyses have offered additional layers particular cultural myth dangerous. Feminist of inquiry— critical and