Lolita
discussion
Nabokov left an "Easter Egg" for re-readers. Did you find it?
If it's the thing above, then I caught it the second time :)
I would be surprised if, with the oblique way it was presented (being buried in a paragraph about minor characters), anyone remembered the name the first time they read it. If someone did, I'd say that's really impressive. That's a remarkable memory. But now I'm wondering if I missed something else. (It's entirely possible Nabokov has all sorts of things going on in that introduction.) Was there something I missed?
From what I've read about Nabokov, being off-hand about this revelation is standard for him. I think (and I apologize if I'm getting any of this wrong, I do not have a picture-perfect memory) that Nabokov used to say to his classes when he taught that they needed to "fondle the details" of books. His students were graded on things like the layout of Austen's Mansfield Park mansion or the precise type of beetle that Kafka's Gregor Samsa turned into.
Could someone tell me what that easter egg is? I read the book, loved it, but did not find it.Thanks
Audrey_e wrote: "Could someone tell me what that easter egg is? I read the book, loved it, but did not find it.Thanks"
Have you re-read the introduction? I think people are trying to be very vague about the details here so that you'll experience it through Nabokov's words like he intended.
Nice twist then! Now, just how much does this affect the novel as a whole?
Katy, Nabokov wrote in his memoir "Speak, Memory" about the childhood game "Find What the Sailor Has Hidden" -- his fiction is rather like that: a series of carefully-placed clues leading the attentive re-reader to an overall picture or solution. VN was also an expert writer of chess problems, loved crosswords, etc. I tell my students we shouldn't expect stories to be 'problems to be solved,' but when we read his "Signs and Symbols" they look at me afterwards, and I typically reply, "OK, this one we do have to solve..." (smile)
Mickey, you're absolutely right about 'fondling the details' -- that was VN's real message in his own teaching, and he did in fact test his students on details re Kafka, Austen, Flaubert, Stevenson, et al.
Great thread, all, although I'm wondering specifically, Katy, what you're referring to: there are a few interpretations about the "Intro" one could consider. Message me, if you like, or I'm sure you could just write in CAPS: SPOILER BELOW. That's perfectly okay to do.
BTW, if you like fiction that does contain, let's say, riddles, my own novel, "The Englishman and the Butterfly," is coming out on October 1st. See my website for details: www.ryanasmussen.com
Best, guys,
Ryan
literally just read this - and nope I found no easter egg - please enlighten me!
Now I am really curious!I will re-read the introduction and I hope that it is possible to find this easter egg also in other languages (I have the Italian edition).
I cant find this Easter Egg, but am really intrigued! Could someone message me what I am missing?Thanks
woohoo - I found it! Thanks for pointing out :)
Its been a while since I've read this. I'm really curious, can someone private message me what it is?
Been a long time since I read this. No plans to re-read it, but now I'm curious. Can someone message me?
You are guys are annoying me. It's not a spoiler or anything important. It's a mere easter egg. The writer mentioned in the intro is Nabokov's full name in an anagram: Vivian Darkbloom.
Karl wrote: "Good for you."Bit narky there Karl, bit frustrated with yourself? Is a annoying when being smart doesn't pay off, isn't it?
Oh I know all about Mrs Schiller, but many wouldn't know about the Vivian Darkbloom/Vladmir Nabokov reference either and that's what I thought people were alluding to.I just think all the hush hush about her dying in childbirth in the foreword is ridiculous. You're not reading an Agatha Christie whodunnit or watching a Hitchcock movie. You don't read pretentious literary fiction for twists in the tale.
Well I, for one, thank you for calling attention to this detail that I missed.
I think you're unfair Karl. I think its fair enough that if the Author of the forum considers it a spoiler and is keeping hush and you find the topic interesting enough to join in, you should respect their intention. It doesn't hurt you does it?I found in it intriguing, thanks for pointing it out Katy
I am at a loss to understand why you are crapping all over this thread. Other people are enjoying it, and respecting the general Goodreads practice of avoiding spoilers.
You confronted me with your petty smugness and under-estimated my literary knowledge.Public forum, people will say what they say. Don't be so sensitive.
I have never seen evidence of this good lord you speak of.......
Thanks, Katy, for emailing me. Smug? It's not as though anyone is withholding the "easter egg."
Nope, wrong again. I didn't google it. And accusing me of being a troll just exposes you as overly-sensitive and unimagnitive. Really? A troll? I'm one of the best liked and well known contributors on goodreads. But sure, you and your cheerleaders have fun!
Thanks, Karl, for posting it. I'm not sure why spoilers are relevant. Why would anyone be here if they haven't read the book?
I think the reason why Katy didn't want people talking openly about the contents of the "Easter egg" was because she wanted people to find it for themselves. Let's face it, none of us here can set the scene like Nabokov did. It's better to let people come to the situation through Nabokov's own words. I'm not sure why Karl is being rude to Katy. Karl's the one who's spoiling things for others, apparently because he's upset that he didn't understand what people were talking about at first and when Katy corrected him, he considered that "underestimating [his] literary knowledge".
@Mickey. Re-post the comment where I called Katy a TROLL? I remarked that her calling me a troll was clearly a knee-jerk reaction on her part and typical of someone to say that when losing an argument on the internet. Next, I'll be compared to the Nazis.Also, I understood the allusion in the novel, in fact, I spoke of 2 allusions, so I'm on top of things there.
@Scott, Thanks Scott, You are welcome.
Karl, do you know what an allusion is? Neither one of the things we are talking about is an allusion. But you're right, you didn't call Katy a troll. I'll correct it in my previous post. I think she was correct in calling you a troll. Your first post was trying to spoil what you thought we were talking about.
Yes I do and yes it is. Nabokov is alluding to Lolita through the use of a different name in the foreword.This is for all the Twilight readers: 1.An expression designed to call something to mind without mentioning it explicitly; an indirect or passing reference.
Yes, correct your post (You wouldn't want any lurkers thinking you are a bully?). It's a good day for you in getting one thing correct, at least.
Nope I wasn't spoiling anything out of spite. If Katy's thread purports to be a discussion (Her words) and nobody is actually discussing anything interesting, I felt the need to come and spice things up a bit. All I saw was insipid and banal comments saying please tell me send me a private message ect ect.
Even among book-readers, message boards bring out the dregs of society.
It wasn't just Katy who thought you were a troll. That is exactly what I thought even before I had read Katy's post saying that.Sorry, man but if you go back and read your first few messages, it looks *exactly* like a troll. Just looks like someone stirring up shit for absolutely no conceivable reason.
@Chris, the irony of your post above won't be lost on anyone considering you came into the thread requesting the information and you couldn't be bothered to read the short introduction to find out for yourself. I guess only the dregs of society would do that sort of groundwork?@Peter. Read my comment above, it explains my original post.
Karl wrote: "Yes I do and yes it is. Nabokov is alluding to Lolita through the use of a different name in the foreword.This is for all the Twilight readers: 1.An expression designed to call something to mind without mentioning it explicitly; an indirect or passing reference."
You don't understand what an allusion is. Look it up. Calling someone by a different part of their name is not "alluding" to someone. If you refer to Barack Obama as Barack or President Obama, that does not make it an allusion. It's his name. Each is a direct reference.
How is the anagram an allusion, according to you? (I know I shouldn't feed the troll...)
Given that the dregs I was referring to got the groundwork wrong, I'm not sure you're right there.Being curious doesn't necessarily amount to seeking out a book I've already read and re-reading it. Katy was kind enough to fill me in, while being respectful of those who did care to re-read. If she were an elitist, she'd have made me seek it out again. I'm just a tad busy with other work at the moment to bother proving myself to a group of strangers.
Go on, have the last word if you like it.
Thanks all.
I dunno. This is a pretty fun troll. I'd still like to hear how he read the thread and came to the conclusion that I was talking about the anagram.
Karl, regardless of what is or is not the case regarding the novel or the definition of literary elements, or what indeed constitutes a troll, your attitude is very unpleasant: aggressive and egotistic. And I don't care that this is an online "public forum" -- civility should apply online as it should off.
No need to reply...
I deleted my explantion. I'm not doing your thinking for you.
Katy,Despite Karl's deep protestations, I don't think he knew about the Easter egg. The hints weren't that broad. If he knew about both the anagram and the Easter egg, he would've known what we were talking about.
I think, with this particular troll, it's very important for him to impress his overall superiority to the rest of us. I don't think he could handle being honest and forthcoming.
Mickey wrote: "Katy,Despite Karl's deep protestations, I don't think he knew about the Easter egg. The hints weren't that broad. If he knew about both the anagram and the Easter egg, he would've known what we w..."
Nope, because they are both contained at the start of the novel. You could actually argue there's a lot more to mention at the start of the novel.
Listen, you guys can choose the safe, comfy option that I am being egotistical or agressive, but I didn't see any real discussion going on in the thread. I'll admit I probably hi-jacked Katy's thread but didn't mean anything spiteful by it. Sorry katy.
Karl, do you think your contribution to the discussion has led to it being more real or thoughtful? You spoiled the Easter egg for those who would want to find it themselves and then insulted a number of people. I fail to see how this is an improvement. Can you explain?
If anyone didn't want the secret spoilt for them, they probably wouldn't have read the whole thread anyway. It's rather silly to start a forum conversation and then proceed to have that conversation in private messages with people individually. I have to admit it was driving me nuts too.
My contribution started some discussion, at least.But I did apologise to Katy above if I came across as aggressive.
Scott wrote: "If anyone didn't want the secret spoilt for them, they probably wouldn't have read the whole thread anyway. It's rather silly to start a forum conversation and then proceed to have that conversati..."Let's talk about the new Batman movie, private message me what you thought of Bane's decadence speech at the prison gates? :-)
I wondered how to do those but I couldn't figure out how. I wanted to use spoiler tags because pm'ing people was a bother and I didn't like to act as if I had some special secret. That's not what I meant at all.I'd only meant to have fun and share something I enjoyed about this book, but I ended up making something annoying and stupid that offended people. I'd delete this discussion if I knew how.
It's not like it was just you, Katy. It's amazing to me not one person on this thread knew how to spoiler cut something *lol*
Katy wrote: "I wondered how to do those but I couldn't figure out how. I wanted to use spoiler tags because pm'ing people was a bother and I didn't like to act as if I had some special secret. That's not what I meant at all.I'd only meant to have fun and share something I enjoyed about this book, but I ended up making something annoying and stupid that offended people. I'd delete this discussion if I knew how."
I don't think you need to feel bad about sharing something you noticed and your idea of keeping spoilers out was a good one. I would rather find the information myself than be told it by someone over the internet. I'm sure there are others who felt the same.
You didn't offend anyone. Karl's a nasty troll. He will throw a fit and be insulting about anything. It's not a reflection on you or a reasonable reaction to what you did.
Isa wrote: "It's not like it was just you, Katy. It's amazing to me not one person on this thread knew how to spoiler cut something *lol*"I know how to hide spoilers. In fact, I had the answer in a hidden spoiler on the second post, but I decided to change it. I think people should get the information from Nabokov's words, the way it was intended. No one can phrase it as well as he did.
Edit: The "Easter Egg" that the OP talked about is located in the Foreword section of the book. It's a little information that rereaders may recognize, but which Nabokov chose to downplay, so he left a little something for careful readers. If you would like to look for it in the foreward, there are enough hints on this thread to point you in the right direction.
If you wish to just be told what the "Easter Egg" is, I've put the paragraph containing it here: (view spoiler)[
For the benefit of old-fashioned readers who wish to follow the destinies of the 'real' people from this 'true story', a few details may be given as received from Mr. 'Windmuller' of 'Ramsdale', who desires his identity to be supressed so that 'the long shadow of this sorry and sordid business' should not reach the community to which he is proud to belong. His daughter, 'Louise,' is by now a college sophomore. 'Mona Dahl' is a student in Paris. 'Rita' has recently married the proprietor of a hotel in Florida. Mrs. 'Richard F. Schiller' died in childbed, giving birth to a stillborn girl, on Christmas Day 1952, in Gray Star, a settlement in the remotest Northwest. 'Vivian Darkbloom' has written a biography, 'My Cue,' to be published shortly, and critics who have perused the manuscript call it her best book. The caretakers of the various cemetaries involved report that no ghosts walk.
In the middle of this paragraph, we learn that Lolita aka Mrs. 'Richard F. Schiller' died giving birth to the child she was carrying when she last saw Humbert. Because of the use of her married name and the fact that it's buried in a paragraph about minor characters, it often takes a few readings to recognize whom is being talked about. That's the "Easter Egg". (hide spoiler)]