Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.

[Michael]

Karen wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote; "The Haze woman has a circle of female friends, and they seem to find HH attractive in a European kind of way. Why wouldn't they?"

But how do we know this? Didn't HH tell us ..."

This begs the question: what can we consider "true" within a fictional narrative? Most fiction--prior to postmodern works--is based on the implicit agreement between author and reader that we will suspend disbelief and take the story as true. But on some level we know that it is all contrived.

[Karen]

Michael wrote;
"This begs the question: what can we consider "true" within a fictional narrative? Most fiction--prior to postmodern works--is based on the implicit agreement between author and reader that we will suspend disbelief and take the story as true. But on some level we know that it is all contrived."

Especially with HH, such an unreliable narrator. It's reasonable that he was an attractive man, Charlotte Haze married him after all. HH reminds us more than twice in the novel how attractive he is, and this I think is probably an exaggeration. But he did seem to blend in with the community in Ramsdale, so reasonably, he could be a pleasant person.

[Michael]

This quote from Roger Ebert's review of "The Grand Budapest Hotel" captures what makes me uneasy about much of what has been written about "Lolita" in this thread:

An odd thought occurred to me a few hours after I saw writer/director Wes Anderson's "The Grand Budapest Hotel" for the first time. It was that Anderson would be the ideal director for a film of "Lolita," or a mini-series of "Ada." Now I know that "Lolita" has been filmed, twice, but the fundamental problem with each version has nothing to do with ability to depict or handle risky content but with a fundamental misapprehension that Nabokov's famous novel took place in the "real world." For all the authentic horror and tragedy of its story, it does not. "I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art," Humbert Humbert, the book's monstrous protagonist/narrator, writes at the end of "Lolita." Nabokov created Humbert so Humbert might create his own world (with a combination of detail both geographically verifiable and stealthily fanciful), a refuge from his own wrongdoing.

Correction: The quote was from RogerEbert.com but the review was written by Glenn Kenny.

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "This quote from Roger Ebert's review of "The Grand Budapest Hotel" captures what makes me uneasy about much of what has been written about "Lolita" in this thread:"

That's a good quote. It's hard to watch those films (particularly the 1997 adaptation) because there's very little sense of irony in the characterization of Delores/Lolita, and we get so much of HH's perspective presented with the veracity of video PLUS no sense of irony from Nabokov's prose. It's hard to really see how someone could present that prose in film, though I don't think either Kubrick or Lynn were the guys who should have tried....

[Esdaile]

I think you feel as I do, that the focus of the book might be understood as not HH's venality but the generosity, benevolence and goodness of the story's heroine, Lolita. She is all forgiving and all good. And the good tend to lose, do they not?

[Karen]

Benjamin wrote: "Xdyj wrote: "Humbert is supposed to be a horrible person & IIRC I don't think it's Nabokov's intention that readers would sympathize w/ him at all."

Rather, I think Nabokov 'drugs' any reader who ..."

Good post! It's Humbert though, Herbert wouldn't have the same effect, lol.

[Michael]

Benjamin wrote: "Rather, I think Nabokov 'drugs' any reader who sympathises with *Humbert through his virtuosic use of the English language. *Humbert manipulates and sedates Dolores, granted, but we are the victims of a greater moral panic, and Nabokov catches readers off-guard by implementing such masterful writing."

Yes, I agree. As I wrote in another thread:

Critics have written that the true love affair that takes place in “Lolita” is that of Nabokov’s love affair with the English language, which was not his mother tongue. Nabokov takes the most sordid and outlandish material and by means of his astounding skill as a writer, turns it into art that is uproarious, heartbreaking, and sublime. He also concocts a thoroughly despicable protagonist and manages to get us to empathize with him.

[Michael]

Esdaile wrote: "I think you feel as I do, that the focus of the book might be understood as not HH's venality but the generosity, benevolence and goodness of the story's heroine, Lolita. She is all forgiving and a..."

Although we can't help but sympathize with Lolita and be saddened by her fate, I wouldn't describe her as "all good." Granted that we only know her from Humbert's descriptions--and she has been traumatized by Humbert and the loss of her mother--but although she can be sweet and loving and funny and delightful, she can also be manipulative, stubborn, whiny, vulgar, and superficial.

[Padmini Sukumaran]

I, along with some of my friends, really saw Lolita as an unusual entity, a nymph who seduced HH. HH tries to resist Lolita at first, but eventually gives in to her allurement.
For the record, I am not condemning or blaming Lolita here. I am just objectively stating what I perceive as the case. I believe that HH was truly in love with Lolita and cared for her. Lolita did not seem to have much emotion, but just be a nymph.
I do not think that there is any rape done here since it is not a realistic story, but a satire. I would have had different views if it were a realistic story.

[Padmini Sukumaran]

One of the posters mentioned that Lolita died. I did not think that happened in the novel. I just thought that HH said that the novel was to be published after both he and Lolita died.

[Padmini Sukumaran]

Nabokov himself describes Lolita as a nymphet in his interview with Playboy, "There is a queer, tender charm about that mythical nymphet." So that goes to show that his intent was to portray Lolita as the nymphet figure, a sexually precocious girl, rather than a victim of rape.

[Gary]

Padmini wrote: "Nabokov himself describes Lolita as a nymphet in his interview with Playboy, "There is a queer, tender charm about that mythical nymphet." So that goes to show that his intent was to portray Lolita as the nymphet figure, a sexually precocious girl, rather than a victim of rape."

The full interview is available here:

http://longform.org/stories/playboy-i...

In context, I don't think that quote indicates what you're suggesting. First, his use of the adjective is telling. She is not a nymphet, but a "mythical" nymphet. His book is a myth--created in Humbert's mind, as illustrated by a sentence that precedes the one quoted above: "She was like the composition of a beautiful puzzle—its composition and its solution at the same time, since one is a mirror view of the other, depending on the way you look." Lolita is a mythical nymphette; Delores Haze is the real girl. The sex between Humbert and Lolita is a myth; the reality is a rape. Second, in that quote he was talking about the book and why it was his most successful. He wasn't summarizing the character, plot or prose, but describing the appeal of the book. Lolita, as a construct in Lolita does have a "queer, tender charm" but that character is a construct of Humbert's thinking. That charm is Humbert's delusion, but it's no less charming for its insanity. Hence, the consistent reading of the character as a seductress, and the book itself as a love story.

[Karen]

Michael wrote:
"Critics have written that the true love affair that takes place in “Lolita” is that of Nabokov’s love affair with the English language, which was not his mother tongue. Nabokov takes the most sordid and outlandish material and by means of his astounding skill as a writer, turns it into art that is uproarious, heartbreaking, and sublime. He also concocts a thoroughly despicable protagonist and manages to get us to empathize with him."

Exactly! I was thinking this very thing as I was reading Lolita, and finished it last night. It's amazing what Nabokov did, and at the end I actually felt great empathy for HH- I think part of the reason this book bothers some of us so much is that we don't want to feel this conflict- empathy for a pedophile and a murderer? I knew already Lolita had died in childbirth, and when HH was describing of how he robbed her of her childhood I was so profoundly sad. A great book.

[Gary]

Cemre wrote: "She died after giving birth to a dead girl, which ı think is symbolic."

I think you're right. In the "Foreward" Mrs. Richard F. Schiller/Lolita/Delores dies in childbirth and on Christmas Day no less. She dies in "Gray Star, a settlement in the remotest Northwest."

Lots of Christian symbology there. Does that make her some sort of Mary/Christ figure? Interesting.

[Mickey]

I am currently reading a book by Chuck Klosterman called I Wear the Black Hat: Grappling With Villains which is a nonfiction book dealing with how and why some people are excoriated as villains while others who do the same things are often seen as folk heroes. There was a line in there that reminded me of Humbert:

When talking about the new spate of TV shows that feature drug dealers who are sympathetic, Klosterman writes, 'Perhaps it's no different from The Sopranos or Dexter, where people comfortably root for mobsters and serial killers simply because they're the center of the story (and we've all been trained to experience fiction through whichever main character we understand most deeply).'

[Mickey]

I thought this might be of interest for some: a case of a twelve year old girl abducted in the late 1940's. Nabokov knew of it and used it as inspiration

http://penguinrandomhouse.ca/hazlitt/...

[Gary]

Mickey wrote: "I thought this might be of interest for some: a case of a twelve year old girl abducted in the late 1940's. Nabokov knew of it and used it as inspiration

http://penguinrandomhouse.ca/hazlitt/......"

Thanks for the link, Mickey. That's quite an illuminating historical link.

[Clivialee]

Fatin wrote: "macgregor wrote: "Fatin wrote: "But for me rape is a more serious offence than murder."

This is a ridiculous statement to make."

What I mean by that is, I would rather be murdered than raped. Of ..."
While I don't presume to judge your moral convictions, your view is highly disturbing to me. I would be certainly devastated if anyone I love thinks that way.

[Laureen]

Oh, Mya, how beautifully put. I can't argue with anything you have said. Well thought!

[Padmini Sukumaran]

I think, however, that Nabokov meant for Lolita to be a nymph- an unusual, one-of-a-kind, precocious girl that tempts and manipulates Humbert Humbert. My friend told me that Humbert Humbert does not get in legal trouble for having sexual relations with Lolita since she is a nymph.
I am not condemning Lolita. I am just saying that I empathize with Humbert Humbert. Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that it is acceptable to sexually abuse children. I just do not think that Humbert Humbert molests or rapes Lolita.

[Padmini Sukumaran]

Thanks, Mya. That makes sense.

[Erna]

Wow thanks for making it clear that he was a pedofile hahaha :D He didn't rape her. She wasn't a virgin and she voluntarily had intercourse with him.

[Steve]

Michael wrote: "This quote from Roger Ebert's review of "The Grand Budapest Hotel" captures what makes me uneasy about much of what has been written about "Lolita" in this thread:

An odd thought occurred to me a ..."
That is quite a remarkable statement, considering Roger Ebert has been dead for the past few years. Snark aside, where is this from?

[Michael]

Agrimorfee wrote: "Michael wrote: "This quote from Roger Ebert's review of "The Grand Budapest Hotel" captures what makes me uneasy about much of what has been written about "Lolita" in this thread:

An odd thought o..."

Sorry, I thought I had corrected my post after thinking the same thing. I've now added this correction:

Correction: The quote was from RogerEbert.com but the review was written by Glenn Kenny.

[Elma]

This book is a great way of entering into a pedophile's mind. Love it!

[Elma]

Edward wrote: "Elma wrote: "This book is a great way of entering into a pedophile's mind. Love it!"

If you dig sick minds there's plenty available on Hitler."
I know. Thank you :)

[Esdaile]

Clivialee wrote: "Fatin wrote: "macgregor wrote: "Fatin wrote: "But for me rape is a more serious offence than murder."

This is a ridiculous statement to make."

What I mean by that is, I would rather be murdered t..."

It does not even have to be rape. In the times in which we live, perhaps the least intelligent since the Neanthertals (and I wonder if I am being unfair to Homo sapiens neanderthalensis on that one!) the merest intimation of a love which dare not speak its name is considered by the mob to be worse than murder.

[Jennifer]

Think about how much of this discussion is presuming that all humans have equal capacity for understanding decency, (decency, not mere propriety) self control, and empathy. It's ridiculous to judge another human, to deem ourselves worthy of the job. Removing people (humanely) from access to what they endanger should be a dispassionate endeavor. How do you expect a pedophile to come forward before he offends if we all are too busy having a celebration of our self righteousness? Humbert's a monster but I'm surprised he's not an even more unreliable narrator, considering the audience he is confessing to.

[Gary]

I don't know, Jennifer. We're not really in a gray area in discussing this book in which judging another's actions is going to put the reader at peril of indulging in a celebration of self-righteousness. Certainly when it comes to children in general there is that concern. The "think of the children!" argument is more often than not a version of the kind of over-wrought, but essentially meaningless cliche, but in Nabokov's novel we've got a character who stalks, kidnaps and rapes a child. That's not the kind of guy who'll likely respond to a cultural attitude of equanimity and dispassion in a reasonable way.

I do think you make a valid point about the preventative nature of social attitudes, and how there should be an effort to diffuse such a thing where practicable. I'm not convinced such an effort will really prevent a lot other than relatively mild offenders or those who are somehow recognized by experts in some other way and are more or less gently guided into some sort of treatment. My understanding, however, is that therapy is of relatively limited value in a lot of cases, so even the effort to bring such people out of the shadows may yield only marginal results.

We need to be reasonable in dealing with even the most horrific of crimes, but forgoing judgement isn't a way to achieve reason as a standard. Reason requires judgment, and we can be worthy of judging other people by using some very basic standards as a guide. The details of which are found in things like an understanding of natural law for adults, and developmental psychology for children--and the long-established "Golden Rule." Tempering judgement with education, compassion and understanding is reasonable. Excluding judgement entirely is to give up any sort of social good, and prevent no social evil.

[Michael]

Mya wrote: "To enjoy this book fully requires that the reader put their social views aside. Of course Humbert is wrong for his actions, but he is in love/obsessed with Lolita. In that context I think there ..."

I agree completely. Too many readers approach this novel as if it were a documentary or case history rather than a work of art.

[Laureen]

Mya wrote: "To enjoy this book fully requires that the reader put their social views aside. Of course Humbert is wrong for his actions, but he is in love/obsessed with Lolita. In that context I think there ..."

Again well put Mya. I loved the book for the same reasons. An everyday love story can be amusing and entertaining but Lolita opens up a whole lot of questions about real life that stimulate the brain and expose the flaws in human kind. Something to mull over for years and give us a deeper understanding of the importance of nurturing our children and understanding their needs without smothering them. Lolita never had that. As for Humbert, we still don't know enough about his upbringing but Nabokov paints such a detailed character that we can only guess his childhood was lacking in the same things as Lolita's.

[Laureen]

Thank you Mya. It's good to have someone else who finds redeeming factors in Nabokov's work which is so much more interesting than mundane storytelling. I always look for literature that educates us about people in the hope that we can find in ourselves a better understanding and hopefully compassion for others.

[Esdaile]

Michael wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "I think you feel as I do, that the focus of the book might be understood as not HH's venality but the generosity, benevolence and goodness of the story's heroine, Lolita. She is all..."

Michael wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "I think you feel as I do, that the focus of the book might be understood as not HH's venality but the generosity, benevolence and goodness of the story's heroine, Lolita. She is all..."

You are right. On reflection "all good" is an exaggeration. But she is a heroine; but perhaps therein lies a trap engineered by the author?

[Shruthi]

I don't think the author tries to justify what Humbert did or that he tries to push the idea that there was no rape because Lolita was attracted to Humbert. All he tries to do is look at this event from Humbert's point of view. He is a pedophile and is dangerously attracted to Lolita and he acts upon his feelings. However, the author also tries to show that throughout this he knows that he doing a terrible deed. I think he wants the readers to understand the state of mind of a person with a psychological disorder such as Humbert. He knows he is wrong, but he can't help it. Thats his sickness and he has to live with it.

[Shruthi]

Edward wrote: "Shruthi. wrote: "I don't think the author tries to justify what Humbert did or that he tries to push the idea that there was no rape because Lolita was attracted to Humbert. All he tries to do is l..."

I am not saying that what he did was right or legal. All I am saying is that he can't help it. What he did was terrible and he knew that while he was doing it. But he is sexually attracted to young girls and he can't change that about himself. Maybe thats what the author wanted us to understand.

[Shruthi]

Edward wrote: "Shruthi. wrote: "Edward wrote: "Shruthi. wrote: "I don't think the author tries to justify what Humbert did or that he tries to push the idea that there was no rape because Lolita was attracted to ..."
Just a rational opinion and an attempt to understand why the author would dedicate an entire book to a pedophile's point of view instead of following the mainstream 'emotionally damaged girl' point of view.

[Emily]

I think Nabokov wrote this to test morals and humanity. Could we ever rationalise such a controversial relationship?

[Laureen]

Emily wrote: "I think Nabokov wrote this to test morals and humanity. Could we ever rationalise such a controversial relationship?"

No.

[Emily]

Laureen wrote: "Emily wrote: "I think Nabokov wrote this to test morals and humanity. Could we ever rationalise such a controversial relationship?"

No."

Exactly. But some people are...

[Sheila]

Emily wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Emily wrote: "I think Nabokov wrote this to test morals and humanity. Could we ever rationalise such a controversial relationship?"

No."

Exactly. But some people are..."

LOL, Emily.

+1

[Laureen]

Edward wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Thank you Mya. It's good to have someone else who finds redeeming factors in Nabokov's work which is so much more interesting than mundane storytelling. I always look for literatu..."
I didn't read Lolita to "turn me on" as you put it. Nabokov is recognised as a writer of classics and rightly so or this message board would have finished long ago. That is why I read Lolita many years ago and my comments have only been from my lasting impressions of the book. Only a classic could have that effect.

You appear to have an obsession about paedophilia! Man (humans) is weak and there are few of us in a position to "cast stones"/judge others. I have asked before, what makes someone into a paedophile? Now, I know that there can be no excuse; that we are all responsible for our own behavior, but why do I detect pure hate in this discussion. We have murderers including mass murderers, plunderers, corruption in high places, wars, racism, torture etc etc.

I would hope another author would understand that and perhaps realize the importance of literature in helping us mere mortals re-examine our belief systems and our bigotry to understand more clearly the flaws in others. The bigger question here is, did the parents of both Lolita and HH have a hand in what eventuated in the story? I have asked before and got little response. I feel that Nabokov had more in mind for the reader than the act of paedophilia as bad as paedophilia is especially when it causes great psychological damage to the victim. I think society's refusal to look further than the perpetrator (of any crime) for a more detailed explanation does nothing to solve criminal behavior and perhaps even leads to more criminal behavior.

In medicine, we have come to believe that prevention is better than cure. Why not so for those so damaged that they hurt others?

[Laureen]

Edward wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Edward wrote: "Laureen wrote: "Thank you Mya. It's good to have someone else who finds redeeming factors in Nabokov's work which is so much more interesting than mundane storytelli..."

Why? I am not the one with the closed mind. I am merely trying to balance the discussion and throw some light as to "what ifs". This is a book worthy of discussing but I guess you don't agree about that either. Why must you get so personal? Are you afraid there might be something in what I say? Well, don't be. I am expressing a view, that is all! And, in case you were wondering, I am not Religious, but I do like to see a balance in a discussion and whilst I know I can't solve the world's problems, I would like it if I could at least help people to be more open minded instead of dogmatic about their opinions. My comments were aimed at doing that so I am sorry if this was the wrong place to do it. It is just that it is literature that has helped me to see that "everything is not always as it seems".

[Gary]

Emily wrote: "I think Nabokov wrote this to test morals and humanity. Could we ever rationalise such a controversial relationship?"

I don't think that was his intent, though I'm confident he expected it to happen. There's an interesting interview with him on the page for his entry here on GR in which he is discussing the book with Lionel Trilling. There are a few notable things in that interview, not the least of which is Nabokov's refusal to give anything away directly. (His involuntary smile when the interviewer reads off quotes from critics, however, is telling.)

Probably the most important bits for our purposes here are Nabokov feeling obligated to differentiate between his views, intellect and attitude and that of his character, Humbert. Conversely, he doesn't even blink when the interviewer asks about why he chose a "debased love" as the focus of his book. The other really interesting moment is when Trilling describes his view that the book is about an "actual love" and he goes on to describe his reading of the book as trying to rejuvenate a "great love affair" etc. Nabokov's body language is very telling in that section, and he argues the point with Trilling until the interviewer steps in to parse the point into meaninglessness.

In that context, I don't know if folks have seen this GR thread: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

That one has a link to a video that posits a very interesting theory about Nabokov's background and the "riddle of Lolita" that the author constantly intimates and talks around when discussing his book (and his work in general.) While I'm not entirely convinced about the interpretation of the details presented in that video, it does make a compelling overall argument, and one that should make a huge difference in the context of this thread.

Edit: So, overall, I think what he was doing was saying "This is how people rationalize such a relationship" not how can the reader do it.

[Karen]

Erna wrote: "Wow thanks for making it clear that he was a pedofile hahaha :D He didn't rape her. She wasn't a virgin and she voluntarily had intercourse with him."

Yes he did rape her, and we don't know if she was a virgin or not. My goodness- Delores was 12. While I love the novel, let's be clear about who was guilty here, and that a 12 year old is not to blame.

[Karen]

Cemre wrote: "I think Nabakov likes Dolores as a person. I don't think he shares Humbert Humbert's views. I've read his book on Russian Literature and he didn't strike me as a misogynist, but ı don't know much a..."

Nabokov was maiied for decades and sought his wife's opinion and approval for all his novels.

[Karen]

Cemre wrote: "Isn't it still rape when the victim isn't a virgin ? (It is not directed at your post, Karen. You've explained it quiet well.)"

Thanks, and yes it does not matter if the girl is a virgin or not.

[Karen]

Edward wrote: "Most definitely. The question is surprising."

It is surprising!

[Gary]

Cemre wrote: "It is not my question. I've asked it ironically out of the disbelief that someone used Lolita not being a virgin for proving that she was not raped."

Irony?! Irony!? In a discussion about Lolita? How is anyone expected to comprehend the concept of irony in the context of a book about a deranged child molester narrating the story of his rape of a 12-year-old as a romantic tale of love lost? Psh. I say PSH!

[Michael]

Gary wrote: "Irony?! Irony!? In a discussion about Lolita? How is anyone expected to comprehend the concept of irony in the context of a book about a deranged child molester narrating the story of his rape of a 12-year-old as a romantic tale of love lost? Psh. I say PSH! "

At long last, a sensible comment about this novel! But no, let's return to the question of whether or not Humbert Humbert rapes Delores.

[Karen]

Cemre wrote: "It is not my question. I've asked it ironically out of the disbelief that someone used Lolita not being a virgin for proving that she was not raped."

Oh, sorry! Now I get it.