Lolita
discussion
Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.
Yeah, Boho, you're right on both counts...goddam dirty pederasts writing brilliant works of literature!Kee-rist, why don't some of you just stop reading altogether if you're really that dumb?
Boho wrote: "I take this book as an attempted justification of hetero pedophilia, just as "A Death in Venice" served as a justification of homo pedophilia; recurrent word; PEDOPHILIA."Lolita is definitely about pedophilia (though there are a lot of folks who like to quibble about the au courrant psychological terms; hebephilia and ephebophilia) but if you've read the book as a rationalization of that crime then you've got it wrong. Nabokov did quite the opposite. His book is an in-depth look at the mind of a pederast in which he satirically demolishes the logic and rationalizations used by such a person to justify his (or her) crimes.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Yeah, Boho, you're right on both counts...goddam dirty pederasts writing brilliant works of literature!Kee-rist, why don't some of you just stop reading altogether if you're really that dumb?"
LOL !!!!
Laureen wrote;"For all those who are knocking Dagwood's comments, I have to agree with him that young girls, rightly or wrongly, were prime "meat" in the bargaining power of the parents in all poor nations. It was culturally accepted that once a child reached pubity, they could be offered up in marriage. This is not what I believe should happen, but it is a fact that it did happen - more often than not."
That's not what Dagwood said.
This conversation is depressing. Nobody can really know definitely what Nabokov was saying so let's leave it at that for goodness sake. The beauty of the book, in my mind, is that it has raised issues for us to contemplate and we can not argue that he succeeded admirably, surely.
Laureen wrote: "This conversation is depressing. Nobody can really know definitely what Nabokov was saying so let's leave it at that for goodness sake. The beauty of the book, in my mind, is that it has raised i..."Nope. I just can't. Do. That. Sorry, it's just not in me. Agree to disagree about the fundamental nature of one of my favorite books? I'm a book guy. This is a book website. This is what we do here. It's why we suffer through the idiotic Goodreads advertising algorithm and the invasive marketing statisticians of Amazon.com. Hell, I'd throw down over Kirk versus Picard (it's Kirk, BTW) so leave those who don't just fail to understand the basic theme of what is, arguably, the best novel ever written, but regurgitate the arguments that Nabokov himself was tearing to shreds in his novel? That's not going to happen. It's a vulnerability, I'm sure: if an enemy wants to sneak up behind me, he'll only need an accomplice to say, "Lolita is a love story" to distract my attention. But I guess I just can't be surprised when I'm surprised that way.
That said, I honestly don't think the message Nabokov was sending was at all difficult to comprehend. He does use a lot of florid prose, but it's right there in the text. He comes flat out and says it on several occasions, but the themes
1. Humbert is insane.
2. He attacks and sexually assaults Delores.
are a constant refrain of the narrative.
Take, for example, this excerpt from part of Humbert's ruminations in Part 2, Chapter 3:
...the thought that with patience and luck I might have her produce eventually a nymphet with my blood in her exquisite veins, a Lolita the Second, who would be eight or nine around 1960, when I would still be dans la force de l'age; indeed, the telescopy of my mind, or un-mind, was strong enough to distinguish in the remoteness of time a vieillard encore vert--or was it green rot?--bizarre, tender, salivated Dr. Humbert, practicing on supremely lovely Lolita the Third the art of being a granddad.Now, that's a supremely well-composed bit of writing. It's also half the paragraph, which is itself a single sentence; a technique sometimes called "interior monologue." I mention that because Nabokov very well knew it, and used that technique as a literary device to say that he was giving us Humbert's true thoughts at that moment--or, at least, as true as they could be given the narrative arrangement: a man in an asylum post-rationalizing his crimes in a long, rambling confession.
I don't think there's an ambiguous message or theme in that paragraph. I don't think it's Nabokov being in any way ambivalent or indirect. He has Humbert dreaming about breeding his own children to molest. Generations of them. It's pretty clear. The "art of being a granddad" is, in this text, Humbert's dream to sexually assault his own eight-year-old granddaughter. How does one, as a reader, come away from that paragraph thinking this is a love story, or that Humbert's predation is a matter of socially debatable issues regarding the age of consent?
Maybe it's the French insertions that distract people? Maybe it's the way his utilizes romantic vocabulary in his satire? Perhaps, it's the pre-conceptions of the readers that dominate their comprehension of his text? I'm sure there are a lot of reasons why people so terribly get this one wrong. However, I don't think it's a matter of reasonable people agreeing to disagree. There are a lot of issues for contemplation to be had from this book, but the core events and Nabokov's thematic purpose really aren't among them.
Gary wrote: "Laureen wrote: "This conversation is depressing. Nobody can really know definitely what Nabokov was saying so let's leave it at that for goodness sake. The beauty of the book, in my mind, is that..."
Gary, once again you have written a wonderful piece on Lolita and Nabokov.
I have to believe, having just paged through the book again -- not reread, I read it too recently, within the last few months to do that again with enjoyment-- that many people simply don't retain what they read, or concentrate solely on the perceived-to-be salacious portions of the book.
This entire manuscript (for it is HH's manuscript, as I believe you've said) reminds me of nothing so much as the endless correspondence I see IN REAL LIFE from convicted inmates justifying their actions and denying the facts upon which they have been found guilty. Except in what I see, the writers can barely use pen on paper, can rarely spell, and the comparison ends there -- Lolita is literature. My endless letters from murderers and rapists and, yes, "pedophiles," are not literature.
For one thing, HH calls himself a boy in a man's body. He's still the boy who lost Annabel to death. He's just developed a man's body.
His father had given him a few cursory pieces of guidance on sex, he says early in the book, and then father goes on to tour Europe with his mistress and her young daughter (was father like son?).
These are, with the exception of the retelling of the actual sexual use of the child Lolita's body, the perceptions of an ill mind. Most readers don't even recall that after being used by HH, Lolita would turn into her pillows and weep. This is a complicit child?
In all these ways, it is a brilliant portrait of HH, one who, for his own perfectly logical purposes, can justify anything and everything he's done. Why does, for instance, In Cold Blood, not elicit the same responses from reading? Because HH's pathology is sexual, and we cannot, most of us, see beyond the sexual to the illness and criminality that can and do accompany any Great American Dream, in the hands of the wrong person.
This is the story of the logic of a pathological mind. It is irrelevant whether Lolita or her mother were perceived by him as complicit. People, some of them, read from one "dirty" passage to the next, skipping over the uninteresting parts. If they read carefully, they could not come away with what they come away with.
Ill-equipped and untalented readers, inculcated in the simplistic fundamentalism of the Americna mind. You can talk to them until you're blue in the face.
Gary, once again you have written a wonderful piece on Lolita and Nabokov.
I have to believe, having just paged through the book again -- not reread, I read it too recently, within the last few months to do that again with enjoyment-- that many people simply don't retain what they read, or concentrate solely on the perceived-to-be salacious portions of the book.
This entire manuscript (for it is HH's manuscript, as I believe you've said) reminds me of nothing so much as the endless correspondence I see IN REAL LIFE from convicted inmates justifying their actions and denying the facts upon which they have been found guilty. Except in what I see, the writers can barely use pen on paper, can rarely spell, and the comparison ends there -- Lolita is literature. My endless letters from murderers and rapists and, yes, "pedophiles," are not literature.
For one thing, HH calls himself a boy in a man's body. He's still the boy who lost Annabel to death. He's just developed a man's body.
His father had given him a few cursory pieces of guidance on sex, he says early in the book, and then father goes on to tour Europe with his mistress and her young daughter (was father like son?).
These are, with the exception of the retelling of the actual sexual use of the child Lolita's body, the perceptions of an ill mind. Most readers don't even recall that after being used by HH, Lolita would turn into her pillows and weep. This is a complicit child?
In all these ways, it is a brilliant portrait of HH, one who, for his own perfectly logical purposes, can justify anything and everything he's done. Why does, for instance, In Cold Blood, not elicit the same responses from reading? Because HH's pathology is sexual, and we cannot, most of us, see beyond the sexual to the illness and criminality that can and do accompany any Great American Dream, in the hands of the wrong person.
This is the story of the logic of a pathological mind. It is irrelevant whether Lolita or her mother were perceived by him as complicit. People, some of them, read from one "dirty" passage to the next, skipping over the uninteresting parts. If they read carefully, they could not come away with what they come away with.
Ill-equipped and untalented readers, inculcated in the simplistic fundamentalism of the Americna mind. You can talk to them until you're blue in the face.
Gary wrote: "Laureen wrote: "This conversation is depressing. Nobody can really know definitely what Nabokov was saying so let's leave it at that for goodness sake. The beauty of the book, in my mind, is that..."I bow to your superior knowledge/interpretation. I read the book when I was like 19 so my feeling about the book could have changed since then, though I doubt it. My instincts are usually good. I never said that this was a love story but I did say that HH was an extremely troubled soul and so was Lolita, though young. Lolita was bound to grow up with a warped psyche even without her experiences with HH.
I simply don't remember the passage where HH was dreaming about breeding his own children to molest. That would have definitely rung alarm bells for me. I agree that prisoners find ways of justifying their anti-social behavior but not all prisoners are guilty of hideous crimes. There are some like those portrayed in the Shawshank Redemption who blame themselves too much for the unfortunate circumstances their life has created.
That is the only reason I question Nabokov's meaning/message in writing the book. We are never told about HH's background or growing up experiences. He says, himself, that he is a child in a man's body. However, I hope nobody takes my comments as an apology for the most serious crime of child molestation. I would be appalled if readers thought that.
Laureen wrote;"That is the only reason I question Nabokov's meaning/message in writing the book. We are never told about HH's background or growing up experiences. He says, himself, that he is a child in a man's body. However, I hope nobody takes my comments as an apology for the most serious crime of child molestation. I would be appalled if readers thought that."
I don't think anyone thinks that. We are told a bit about HH's early experiences- his love for Annabelle Lee. We really don't have to be told anything else. And the novel doesn't have to have a moral message. Why don't you read it again? I read it once at age 27 and again last year. It's always better the second time! Or the third.
Laureen wrote: "I read the book when I was like 19 so my feeling about the book could have changed since then, though I doubt it."Fair enough. I'd suggest you have a look at it again. It's the kind of book that really needs more than a single reading. I couldn't say how many times I've read it myself (6-10 maybe) and I pick out new details every time. What's more it's one of those books that one really should read at different times of life. My reading when I was, I think, sixteen was very different from a reading in my thirties. I can practically guarantee you that if you read it again, especially with an eye towards some of the comments made here on Goodreads, you'll come away with a very different understanding of the book.
Thank you Gary and Karen. You are right, of course. I definitely should read it again. My other favorite was Crime &Punishment. Another book I should read again. I love delving into the human condition and contemplating what goes wrong with the miscreants in our society. The comments here will give me a new perspective, I'm sure. Oh, if only my reading list was not so long and my reading time was able to be expanded!
P.S. Karen, HH's life experiences do not get a mention so far as I remember, outside of his musings about love. We don't get to hear who his mother & father were or what his childhood was like. Whether he felt loved and respected for who he was. Maybe he was a product of a resentful family that locked him under the stairs in a cupboard at night which was filled with creepy crawlers or maybe he was sexually abused by his parents. Who would know? That's the quandary I have with Nabokov's "message". Where ever he is in spirit, I am sure he is having a good chuckle over the complexities of our discussion.
Laureen wrote: "P.S. Karen, HH's life experiences do not get a mention so far as I remember, outside of his musings about love. We don't get to hear who his mother & father were or what his childhood was like. Whether he felt loved and respected for who he was."You are right, the only thing mentioned is his love for Annabelle Lee. But we don't need to know anything else- family background can have little bearing on becoming a sex offender. Pedophiles don't necessarily have to come from abusive or neglectful families.
Don't even try, Boho...
Laureen wrote: "He says, himself, that he is a child in a man's body."When did Humbert say this? I did not get that impression at all. Humbert always seemed to revel in the control as an adult he had over Lolita and spent much of their time together emphasizing his "Papa" role. Even in the passage Gary shared where he imagines a second or third Lolita he emphasizes his adult role in relation to them. He does not attempt to become a child in his relationship with her, nor does he act in a way that is childlike.
Great article on the novel in The Daily Beast;AMERICAN DREAMS: CHARMING PEDOPHILE CRUISES CRASS U.S.
BY NATHANIEL RICH 07.19.1512:01 AM ET
Mickey wrote: "Laureen wrote: "He says, himself, that he is a child in a man's body."When did Humbert say this? I did not get that impression at all. Humbert always seemed to revel in the control as an adult he..."
I was quoting from something Ellen said in Message 593. She seemed to be sure that HH thought of himself as a "boy" (not child, my apologies) in a man's body. It is 45yrs since I read the novel so in no way could I remember specific quotes or passages.
However, it is confirmation of Nabokov's talent that I still remember very well the feelings I had in reading it.
Laureen wrote: "I was quoting from something Ellen said in Message 593. She seemed to be sure that HH thought of himself as a "boy" (not child, my apologies) in a man's body. It is 45yrs since I read the novel so in no way could I remember specific quotes or passages. "One of the side effects of places like Goodreads is a more pronounced and widespread "Telephone" effect. (For those that are unfamiliar with the game, Telephone is a children's game played with a big group sitting in a circle. One person is selected to start, and he makes up a sentence and whispers it into the ear of the person next to him in the circle, and then the second person whispers into the ear of the person next to her until it goes through the circle, each person listening to the sentence and whispering what they heard. By the end, what the first person said is usually much different from what the last person heard.) Some of the instances around here are honest-to-goodness differences of interpretation and others are factual mistakes or "misrememberings". Soon, there can be a whole group of people who are asserting things that contradict the story. Not that I'm saying before the advent of reader forums, there was perfect understanding of books. Reviewers are known to get things wrong and then have people read their reviews and (having not read the book or even having trouble understanding the book), rely on the review as a good critique, passing them on in conversation.
I imagine it's a bit disconcerting to authors that they take the time to write a novel only to have it misunderstood or popularly misremembered. It probably happens to controversial books more often than others, because the larger conversation means more people with opinions who have not necessarily read the book.
To Mickey, thanks for the vote of confidence, not! I may have read the book a long time ago but what you seem to be implying here is a naively on my part that I feel is entirely unwarranted. My interest in this novel has always been the human element. I have made a personnel study of how and why people think the way they do throughout my life. I try to choose books that give me new insights into human behavior. I don't believe I am naive but I could be wrong and so could you.
Laureen wrote: "To Mickey, thanks for the vote of confidence, not! I may have read the book a long time ago but what you seem to be implying here is a naively on my part that I feel is entirely unwarranted...."Laureen, there's an expectation in a book discussion that people can be asked why they hold a certain view. You said that a character "definitely" said a certain thing. When I asked you where or when that was, you replied that you were simply repeating what another poster said. I then made an observation about how common it is for misrepresentations to spread.
I said nothing about you being naive, so I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about in your last post. Kindly don't put words in my mouth.
Read the below posts- Mickey, Laureen never said that you said she was naive, she said it was implied. Telephone anyone??Laureen wrote"
"To Mickey, thanks for the vote of confidence, not! I may have read the book a long time ago but what you seem to be implying here is a naively on my part that I feel is entirely unwarranted."
Mickey wrote;
"I said nothing about you being naive, so I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about in your last post. Kindly don't put words in my mouth."
May I thank you Karen? I didn't bother replying to Mickey because he/she seems to have a problem with my point of view and that's fine - I just dislike the disrespect I feel is coming from Mickey's point of view. I have agreed that I may be wrong as I read the book a long time ago but I stand by my instincts - that was all I was trying yo say. I remember my impressions of the story from reading it like 45yrs ago. I think that has something to say about Nabokov's writing whatever one's interpretation is of this particular story.
Laureen wrote: "May I thank you Karen? I didn't bother replying to Mickey because he/she seems to have a problem with my point of view and that's fine - I just dislike the disrespect I feel is coming from Mickey'...":) I just wanted to point out the truth. You should read it again If it is still stuck in your mind- yes, Lolita is one of those books!
As interesting as this side conversation is (and that would definitely be sarcasm), I don't feel like getting involved in silly spats with people. I was thinking this morning about this whole idea of an obvious villain being the center of a story and how it changes people's perception and orientation to the events and it seemed to me to be a very current topic.
As maybe some of you know, we are living in a sort of golden era of television. There are many shows coming out that are critically acclaimed. The new trend is to have a central character very much like Humbert. I'm thinking of characters like mob boss Tony Soprano in "The Sopranos", meth cook Walter White in "Breaking Bad", crooked politician Francis Underwood from "House of Cards", serial killer Dexter Morgan from "Dexter" and motorcycle gang heir apparent Jax Teller in "Sons of Anarchy". There is even talk about how fans "root for" these characters that in real life they would excoriate and whether this translates to a loosening of morals and a dulling of compassion for the victims of criminals in real life.
It's interesting to reflect on how art can shape and manipulate our views so readily to the point where any moral compass is drowned out by our-what? Maybe love of story? Baser instincts? Fantasy of breaking out of social constraints and behaving badly?
O tempora! O mores!You forgot Dexter Morgan, but you can stop the hand wringing, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth, as well as your typical holier-than-thou discussion thread shaming and bullying. Walter White has no more precipitated a decline in moral values today than Humbert Humbert did in the '50s or Holden Caulfield before him or Huckleberry Finn before him or the Artful Dodger, Tom Jones, Macbeth, Hamlet, Falstaff, Iago, all the way back to the unsavory figures from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and those nasty, nasty folks from the ballads and tales from long before Chaucer.
For a long time in my life, I naively believed that people who read were smarter than people who didn't. But thank you, GoodReads, for setting me straight on that deluded notion.
Great art, meaningful literature and well-scripted characters on pay-TV don't cause moral compasses to spin awry and civilizations to crumble into dust any more than Harlequin romances or episodes of Starsky and Hutch did a generation ago.
My grandmother, who knew full well the dangers of dancing or playing cards or shooting pool and would often let us know, would have liked your post. But she's dead.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "O tempora! O mores!You forgot Dexter Morgan, but you can stop the hand wringing, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth, as well as your typical holier-than-thou discussion thread shaming and bullyin..."
Thank you Peter
Mickey wrote;"As interesting as this side conversation is (and that would definitely be sarcasm), I don't feel like getting involved in silly spats with people."
Then don't.
I called you out on your hypocrisy, you didn't like it, and yet you just did it again.
Wow. Something in the water around here? I just refuse one silly spat and another immediately comes my way? I'm actually going to bother to respond to this one because it at least has some content.Petergiaquinta wrote: "You forgot Dexter Morgan"
Uh...no, I didn't. He's there. I'm not saying that's an exhaustive list, by the way. Those are just the TV shows that I'm a fan of. I'm sure there are others.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "you can stop the hand wringing, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth, as well as your typical holier-than-thou discussion thread shaming and bullying."
I haven't started any hand-wringing, wailing, or gnashing of teeth. You really should stop creating straw men. Having a discussion about ways the story is portrayed, particularly about how the focal point being on the villain changes our understanding can be enlightening and interesting, if people are being thoughtful with their replies.
As far as the shaming about the bullying, if you're referring to the 1984 thread where a bunch of grown-up posters ganged up on a young girl because of her religion, I'm not the least bit sorry I did that. I hope that I always have the courage to stand up when people are being bullied and that I say something. That's something I aspire to.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Walter White has no more precipitated a decline in moral values today than Humbert Humbert did in the '50s or Holden Caulfield before him or Huckleberry Finn before him or the Artful Dodger, Tom Jones, Macbeth, Hamlet, Falstaff, Iago, all the way back to the unsavory figures from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and those nasty, nasty folks from the ballads and tales from long before Chaucer....Great art, meaningful literature and well-scripted characters on pay-TV don't cause moral compasses to spin awry and civilizations to crumble into dust any more than Harlequin romances or episodes of Starsky and Hutch did a generation ago."
So this is your argument for your views. Does this seem very adequate for you? You are basically saying, "Of course it doesn't" and cite a whole bunch of other characters or shows. There isn't really an argument there. Because some of them happened a while ago, it obviously didn't corrupt any morals? Were people who lived previously any better? You don't seem to think much of your grandmother, so it doesn't seem likely that's what you're trying to get at. Because the world didn't come crashing down, there's no reason to think about it? That's pretty weak. We have a lot of opinions that don't rise to the level of life or death situations.
The debate has actually gone on much longer than you think. Plato famously banned poets from his ideal city because of their ability to sway the people. Part of your problem is that you seem to think that everyone agrees (all the "smart" people anyway), and that is simply not true.
I disagree with you about art. I think it most definitely can persuade and affect people. I think it's important and I like to pay attention to it.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "For a long time in my life, I naively believed that people who read were smarter than people who didn't. But thank you, GoodReads, for setting me straight on that deluded notion."
I think your main problem may be that you probably don't read very widely. What you believe to be "smart" is simply a few faddish ideas you think readers share. I think it's a good thing that you've learned that there's a bigger world out there. Artists come in all shapes, races, genders, nationalities, political views, and any other categories you can think of. (Readers are the same way.) I would suggest you start branching out of your little bubble and start thoughtfully immersing yourself in it.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "My grandmother, who knew full well the dangers of dancing or playing cards or shooting pool and would often let us know, would have liked your post. But she's dead."
Again, I don't think I've expressed an opinion about the dangers of dancing, playing cards, or shooting pool or even about having villains as main characters. However, you seem to be saying that I should be ashamed that your grandmother would like my post, which is an odd thing to say. There are plenty of people who dislike or disapprove of those activities, yet it does not mean that they then drop to some subhuman level of understanding. They may not belong to the "smart set" you identify with, but this does not mean that you should be so dismissive about them.
Mickey wrote;"I think your main problem may be that you probably don't read very widely. What you believe to be "smart" is simply a few faddish ideas you think readers share. I think it's a good thing that you've learned that there's a bigger world out there. Artists come in all shapes, races, genders, nationalities, political views, and any other categories you can think of. (Readers are the same way.) I would suggest you start branching out of your little bubble and start thoughtfully immersing yourself in it."
I know Peter can answer for himself, but I just want to point out his extensive reading list-have you seen it? Also, you won't respond to my posts because you don't want to be wrong, I get it.
This book is about so much more than that though. I understand how readers could be disturbed or put off by the actions of Humbert, but it goes deep. I also like the fact that the age difference is disregarded by Humbert. It plays on the fact that love doesn’t always turn out the way we plan it. H thought that he could marry Lolita and impregnate her with another Lolita and use her as well. However, it was beyond the sex and forbidden lust to him. Even though he did come across as selfish because he never thought about what Lolita wanted, you could tell he cared about her. Also, some people work in a way where if it sounds good for the moment you should do it. People can be blinded by lust and do things without thinking. He just wanted human interaction, to break all social norms and to have Lolita love him back. To me it reflected on the concept of Stockholm Syndrome. Lolita didn’t love him back entirely and it shows that the human spirit is willing to give up so much for love. Love can make you do crazy things and make you feel invincible. For example in the book Lolita said, “’Carry me up the stairs. I’m feeling rather romantic to-night.” Afterwards, Humbert recalls crying because he loved her so much. But you can tell that emotions can switch so fast and leave you wondering, “Why does something that makes you feel so amazing hurt you so bad?” By the end after Humbert figures out Lolita is pregnant with another man’s child and will never come and stay with him again. He goes insane and makes irrational decisions. Lolita’s innocence being crushed is bitter-sweet. In the beginning of the book though he felt he had to drug her just to touch her. Later on, she ended up leading him on and allowing the things that happened to happen. The interesting thing though is that it isn’t sexually descriptive but it says just enough to make you think. The book was there so we could learn about the types of people who are out there, to open up our eyes to the thought processes of some people and introduce us to such a controversial piece of literature. This happens to be one of my favorite books.
Molly wrote: "This book is about so much more than that though. I understand how readers could be disturbed or put off by the actions of Humbert, but it goes deep. I also like the fact that the age difference i..."
Wow- I don't know what to say.
You do realize that Humbert raped Delores Hayes, whom he referred to as Lolita? She was 12, he was about 40?
Karen wrote: " Also, you won't respond to my posts because you don't want to be wrong, I get it."To be more accurate, I don't want to respond to your posts because it would be boring and pointless.
*Sigh*
But go ahead.
You're doing the heavy lifting. The contention is that I called Laureen naive in post 603. Show me where I did that.
@MickeyOh, I'm quite fond of my dead grandmother, but she didn't pretend to be a know-it-all and surely didn't annoy people on discussion threads with her sanctimonious attitudes about literature and popular culture. She just inflicted it on family. But then she was an old lady. You might aspire to something better.
And yeah, you're a hand wringer and teeth gnasher from way back...if you need an example, forget about other threads, although the evidence is plentiful there. Just scroll back a few posts...
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Oh, I'm quite fond of my dead grandmother, but she didn't pretend to be a know-it-all and surely didn't annoy people on discussion threads with her sanctimonious attitudes about literature and popular culture. "I'm curious about what sanctimonious attitudes about literature and public culture you think I hold. I ask that because I suspect that the path from my posts to your brain isn't very direct, as evidenced by the idea you seem to think I was vilifying the TV shows I'm actually a fan of.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "But then she was an old lady. You might aspire to something better."
You're wrong there. I absolutely aspire to be an old lady one day. What part do you find distasteful? The old or the lady?
Petergiaquinta wrote: "And yeah, you're a hand wringer and teeth gnasher from way back...if you need an example, forget about other threads, although the evidence is plentiful there. Just scroll back a few posts."
Again, this is very vague. Why don't you be more specific? Is this a common obsession of yours? Do you generally find women who express their opinions to be "hand wringers" and "teeth gnashers"? Is this how you discount what they have to say?
Mickey wrote: "Karen wrote: " Also, you won't respond to my posts because you don't want to be wrong, I get it."To be more accurate, I don't want to respond to your posts because it would be boring and pointles...
*Sigh*
But go ahead.
You're doing the heavy lifting. The contention is that I called Laureen naive in post 603. Show me where I did that."
Who's? I never said you CALLED Laureen naive. Post 603 says nothing about it. It says a lot about the game Telephone though, which you must have failed at playing. No heavy lifting here.
Karen wrote: "Who's? I never said you CALLED Laureen naive. Post 603 says nothing about it. It says a lot about the game Telephone though, which you must have failed at playing. No heavy lifting here."So...you have no point. What's your problem then?
Mickey wrote: "Karen wrote: "Who's? I never said you CALLED Laureen naive. Post 603 says nothing about it. It says a lot about the game Telephone though, which you must have failed at playing. No heavy lifting he..."So you have no point. What's your problem then?"
LOL !!!! My goodness! You are unbelievable, and laughable.
Mickey, You do come across as thinking you are morally superior and intellectually superior. You do not know me and so shouldn't assume anything. Peter appears to have a much more generous way of communicating although I do not know him either. How can you appear to be so sure of your superior reading and knowledge of the world and courage to "stand up for those who are bullied"? You are a know-it-all and the readers here have no reason to believe that you are in anyway deserving of your self assessment
Wow. The trolls are really out. Laureen and Karen have decided to totally forego any conversation pertaining to Lolita in order to name call and accuse. Very mature, ladies. The truth is that all readers will decide individually the merit of every other reader's responses. It seems like we mutually don't care much for one another's, Laureen. I'm fine with that. You don't seem to remember the book well, and I distrust someone's interpretation who makes a definitive statement and when asked about it, can only recall a feeling about it and rests on the fact that someone else in the conversation said it first. That's not a good sign. As far as your personal ideas of what I'm like and how I think about myself, I don't know why you think that would be of any interest to me. Given how fuzzy your views on Humbert's characteristics are (and you had an entire book with him), it's reasonable to think that this is not a particular strength of yours.
Mickey wrote: "Wow. The trolls are really out. Laureen and Karen have decided to totally forego any conversation pertaining to Lolita in order to name call and accuse. Very mature, ladies. The truth is that all..."
At least Laureen is mature enough to admitt when she is wrong, and she's much better at playing telephone than you are.
Mickey wrote: "Wow. The trolls are really out. Laureen and Karen have decided to totally forego any conversation pertaining to Lolita in order to name call and accuse. Very mature, ladies. The truth is that all..."
And you call me and other readers trolls? Pot calling the kettle black, I think.
I know what it's like to be sucked wrathfully into a swirling vortex of inconsequential internet sparring, butI need you, the readers, to imagine us, for we don't really exist if you don't. So pretend we're all playing bunko at Petergiaquinta's dead grandmother's house and we're all having a friendly conversation about a novel none of us wrote.
I've spent probably an hour reading through old posts and I've been enjoying the hell out of this thread. Please continue forever, as I would like to spare the time and effort of hack reviewers and persons who move their lips when reading.
Laureen, Karen, you make admirable points. Mickey, you're obviously a very passionate reader. Agree to disagree and then let this thread play bunko again.
Maybe sly HH is better at slight of hand and the art of distraction than I ever realized.
My dead grandmother would never approve of Bunko as that game involves dice, which are the devil's playthings. But she was a great fan of Racko, which uses cards that are not playing cards and therefore not a sin. Shall I deal you in?
Idle dice, idle hands, idle morals. Your dead grandmother is rife with corduroy courtesy. Racko is a little too convivial. How did she feel about canasta? I'd bet you a whole box of Nilla wafers I could take this whole mother down in a rowdy round of canasta.
Canasta? Good Heavens, no!I know you're young, and therefore it might be hard to imagine living, breathing human beings like this (I have met some recently on GR discussion threads, but I have no real proof that they are actually "living"), but playing cards are absolutely the tools of the devil.
Racko cards are fine. Uno is good clean fun. An Old Maid set is great. But don't go trying to play Old Maid at my dead grandmother's house with a deck of playing cards. That's playing with the fires of hell, and for sure you'll get burned.
Canasta...you might as well have suggested five-card stud!
Being young is truly the best temporary state of existence. I'll tuck away Dante's infernal deck of cards and take up knitting. Speaking of five-card stud, how about that Humbert Humbert?
(Don't worry, I'll keep my day job as a professional comedian and leave the literary criticism to the masters.)
Samantha wrote: "Being young is truly the best temporary state of existence. I'll tuck away Dante's infernal deck of cards and take up knitting. Speaking of five-card stud, how about that Humbert Humbert?
(Don'..."
Well Samantha, if you don't like the argument you don't have to join in. What about that Humbert then? Did you like the book?
Molly wrote: "I also like the fact that the age difference is disregarded by Humbert."I've been mulling this one over for a bit, trying to decide exactly how to respond. From what I can tell there are three main misreadings of this book.
The first misreading is that Lolita is a demented kind of erotica or, at least, a proscriptive sex book, justifying child rape. I'm sympathetic to this view even though I think it's wrong. More important than getting a novel's theme right is that someone who takes that view might very well be dealing with what we, as readers, should be ever-vigilant of: an overwhelming personal experience. While other readers might want to argue the points regarding the theme of the novel, one has to recognize the profundity of that experience and its fundamental moral suasion means one can't really find too much fault with the error.
The second is that it is really a love story. This misreading seems to have an awful lot to do with misunderstanding the vocabulary and tone of the writing (the ever-problematic issue of the unreliable narrator) and seems to combine with a background of reading other authors--like, say, Austen or Wharton--who make challenging social standards part of the romantic ideal. Accustomed to that kind of theme, readers of Lolita assume that Nabokov was presenting his own version of a challenge to what are, really, just social conventions.
I am entirely convinced that that is not at all what Nabokov did with Lolita. However, I'm more sympathetic to this view as the error is understandable, maybe even laudable on a certain naive (or hopeful?) level. A romance that is a challenge to the status quo regarding May/October relationships? Sure, why not? There's a vast history of the novel that forms the basis of that kind of reading. Arguably, the novel itself as a literary form exists as a Romance (capital R--check Wikipedia) originally and right up to the present day. Something like 45% of the titles printed every year are romances (small r.) Lolita isn't about a May/October relationship, though. It's "January/October" if you will. However, the existence of that standard of romance challenging social norms makes the confusion understandable.
The last major misreading if the book is a kind of hybrid of the first two. The argument is that Lolita is a charming little romance and it's right to be so because having sex with 12-year-olds is natural or even some sort of expression of freedom. There's a range of justifications brought up in this context from ancient Greek pederasty to the biological drives inherent to both men and the burgeoning sexuality of girls. Variations on the language of civil rights (particularly gay rights) or twisted libertarian terms are employed (read: stolen) as part of this argument. Humbert is, in this reading, a hero and Lolita is a sort of manifesto.
All three misreadings have been pretty well exemplified in this thread.
Now, I don't mean to pick on Molly here. Her post strikes me as the second (and arguably most understandable) misreading. Since the book was first published, people have made comparable arguments or characterized things in a way that I'm sure is inspired by the irrationality embraced by Romance and romance. A lot of that is down to the terminology. I don't think, for example, that "the age difference is disregarded by Humbert" describes the theme of this book. Were we talking about Harold and Maude then I think that would make sense, but in Lolita Humbert isn't making a kind of gesture to challenge our preconceptions. Rather, he targets children throughout the novel; Delores is the first (that he admits) carrying out his lifelong sexual obsession with juvenile or pubescent kids.
Furthermore, it can be particularly confusing given the way Nabokov composed the novel. The quote “Carry me up the stairs. I’m feeling rather romantic to-night.” does appear in the novel. In context, it occurs right after Delores has attempted to escape (again, the word "escape" is expressly used) from Humbert and he has physically chased her down and returned her to his house. There are techniques and tips that Nabokov uses throughout the novel to cue the reader that Humbert is lying, and several appear in that section. But if one isn't clued in, why wouldn't one read the words that Humbert tells us "his Lolita" has said as legit? In reality, Humbert is blaming Delores for his taking her out of school and on the road again, where his activities won't be observed, and he can continue to molest her. But how is the casual reader to know that this sequence is Humbert spinning out a tale to explain why he (again) runs off with Delores after her attempt to escape and neighbors calling because of the fighting and screaming going on in his house?
(Hint: There is no character named "Lolita" in Lolita.... "Lolita" is the product of Humbert's delusional thinking and/or post-rationalization of his actions. When Humbert refers to Delores as "Lolita" he is lying.)
Karen wrote: "Excellent post Gary, I may have responded to her too harshly."Honestly, my first reaction was very negative, which is why I waited a bit before posting something. Part of the strength of Nabokov's writing is that readers should be duped by the rationalizations made by Humbert. The book is an elaborate "ex post facto" version of events. It's about characterizing events in a way most sympathetic to the criminal by the criminal himself. It's easy to get lost in that.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Enchanter (other topics)
Hannibal Lecter and Philosophy: The Heart of the Matter (other topics)
My Story (other topics)
Lolita: A Janus Text (other topics)
More...
Harriet Beecher Stowe (other topics)
Jon Ronson (other topics)
Rebecca Solnit (other topics)
Rebecca Solnit (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Crime and Punishment (other topics)The Enchanter (other topics)
Hannibal Lecter and Philosophy: The Heart of the Matter (other topics)
My Story (other topics)
Lolita: A Janus Text (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Elizabeth Smart (other topics)Harriet Beecher Stowe (other topics)
Jon Ronson (other topics)
Rebecca Solnit (other topics)
Rebecca Solnit (other topics)
More...
I disagree with you. Teenage pregnancies come with elevated risks for hypertension, preeclampsia, anemia, low birth weight, and premature birth among other things. (http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/teen-...) Dagwood is saying that men are naturally responding to women who are at the ideal age biologically to bear children, regardless of social mores. This doesn't explain Humbert's situation (who starts losing interest when a female approaches the age to have children) or the realities of teenage pregnancies biologically. If it is a case of a man responding to the best shot at healthy progeny, he would be more interested in adult women, not teenagers.