Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.

[Mickey]

Gary wrote: "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 think that this could even be expanded further (although I have to say: I don't see how Austen's novels could be termed as challenging social standards), I think there is a misconception out there that any classic will challenge social standards, in fact, that the challenging of social standards is what defines a classic. The view has become so engrained that looking for the particular challenge becomes a big part of studying the novel and showing that you "understand" it.

I also think that the culture we live in has set up a certain template for viewing controversy that will tend to lead people astray when it comes to Lolita. It's become a common method when you seek to change people's minds about a socially taboo subject to show it in positive light or at least to show it is not that different from the norm. For instance, family shows in the 1980's began to feature more nontraditional families. While showing these families, it was often stressed that, although they may look different, they were still functional and still recognizable as a family. This sort of engineering has been done with a lot of issues. People are used to this method of "normalizing" what was once considered abnormal. When they get to Lolita, they generally know that it is considered controversial, and so they respond to what they are used to, which is the template of artists pushing the envelope to normalize something that is considered taboo by showing it in a positive light. Nabokov's hints are so subtle that it is not a surprise that they go largely undetected, because they don't fit in with what people are expecting to find.

[Gary]

Mickey wrote: "I think that this could even be expanded further (although I have to say: I don't see how Austen's novels could be termed as challenging social standards), I think there is a misconception out there that any classic will challenge social standards, in fact, that the challenging of social standards is what defines a classic. The view has become so engrained that looking for the particular challenge becomes a big part of studying the novel and showing that you "understand" it."

Regarding Austen: I think it's fair to say that she was challenging the social class standards of her day. Nowadays her work looks mostly quaint--though I'm not entirely sure we're all that separate in terms of class consciousness.

In any case, there appears to be something of a push-pull situation regarding art, particularly literature and novels. Does art drive social change or merely document it? That is, can a book change the world, or is truth stranger than fiction?

If one looks at the amount of art and entertainment out there, and the relative quality of most of it, surely it has to be more the latter than the former. However, I do think there are times when a piece of literature is a driving force in social change--for good or not. Lolita is, arguably, one of those books, though its effects might be somewhat dubious overall. There are an awful lot of folks who use the term "Lolita" in a way comparable to Humbert, and in that sense Nabokov just gave the world a new term to use to justify their actions. Of course, there were terms that pre-date "Lolita" and he certainly didn't have anything to do with the social origins of the issues he addresses. On the other hand, some folks do seem to "get it" when it comes to his book, and there does seem to be a general--if haphazard--level of awareness when it comes to matters like sexual predation, the mentality of victims and victimizers.

Overall, though, I suspect Nabokov might be a little too esoteric for broad social influence.

[Mickey]

Gary wrote: "Regarding Austen: I think it's fair to say that she was challenging the social class standards of her day. Nowadays her work looks mostly quaint--though I'm not entirely sure we're all that separate in terms of class consciousness."

Exactly how did she challenge social class standards of her day? Like I said before, I don't see that. I think there is a definite trend towards treating novels like historical pieces, but that seems a very limited way to understand them, maybe even an insidious way to neutralize them. Putting the novels strictly in the past (where one already has a ready-made story of what it was like) can blind people to the full effect of the novel's characters and story and how it can pertain to modern life. Novels become nothing more than artifacts and reading classics a recreational activity for "smart" people.

Gary wrote: "In any case, there appears to be something of a push-pull situation regarding art, particularly literature and novels. Does art drive social change or merely document it? That is, can a book change the world, or is truth stranger than fiction?"

I happen to think that literature's relationship with social change is largely overstated and that a piece's success to bring about societal change doesn't necessarily make great literature. For instance, look at a book like The Jungle, which led to Theodore Roosevelt starting the FDA or the effect Nicholas Nickleby had on private schools set up for unwanted children. These books had some immediate effect by exposing existing practices, but they are not considered great literature, because the purpose of a book is not simply to effect social change. A book can be based on current events; look at a book like Demons, which was based on the murder of a student by a group of nihilists that can still be relevant if you focus on the theme of wanton destructiveness. It survives well if you take it out of the little historical box and think about the characters as having feelings, motivations and choices no different from you or me. I would say that gives it its full effect. Austen brought about no social change, but she is (rightly) regarded as one of the top writers without documenting any social change or pushing any envelopes.

Did Nabokov write something that either drove social change or documented social change? While I haven't read all his books, I would say, "No". I think Nabokov would be amused by the whole idea that either criteria would be a central tenet to good literature.

Gary wrote: "However, I do think there are times when a piece of literature is a driving force in social change--for good or not. Lolita is, arguably, one of those books, though its effects might be somewhat dubious overall. There are an awful lot of folks who use the term "Lolita" in a way comparable to Humbert, and in that sense Nabokov just gave the world a new term to use to justify their actions. Of course, there were terms that pre-date "Lolita" and he certainly didn't have anything to do with the social origins of the issues he addresses. On the other hand, some folks do seem to "get it" when it comes to his book, and there does seem to be a general--if haphazard--level of awareness when it comes to matters like sexual predation, the mentality of victims and victimizers."

How do you think Lolita was a driving force behind societal change? Through the coining of the term "Lolita"? And do you believe that the goal of Nabokov was to raise awareness of the mentality of pedophiles?

[Petergiaquinta]

The first line of Pride and Prejudice is the social class standard of the day...the rest of the book is Austen's challenge to that standard. She's not burning her bra or (wo)manning the barricades, but everything about Austen's writing is a challenge to the accepted conventions of gender, class and wealth of her time.

But you knew that, didn't you, and you're just being difficult again, right?

[Gary]

Mickey wrote: "Exactly how did she challenge social class standards of her day?"

This thread isn't really about Jane Austen, so I'm going to leave it by noting that the critique of the social values of the period in which she wrote is something of a standard theme in her work. If you google "Jane Austen Challenged Social Class" there are plenty of academic (and non-so-academic) papers on the subject.

Mickey wrote: "Did Nabokov write something that either drove social change or documented social change? While I haven't read all his books, I would say, "No". I think Nabokov would be amused by the whole idea that either criteria would be a central tenet to good literature. "

You don't think he even documented social change? The rise of teen culture? The contrast of the Old World culture and the New? The role of psychoanalysis in art and society? Great art is at a minimum a documentation of social values. Whether it rises to the level of driving social change is debatable, but it can't really be neither.

In any case, at the very least he documented what he saw and it's reflected in his work. Did he do so in order to be a force for social change? Maybe... He did, after all, say this about his own work:

“In fact I believe that one day a reappraiser will come and declare that, far from having been a frivolous firebird, I was a rigid moralist: kicking sin, cuffing stupidity, ridiculing the vulgar and cruel—and assigning sovereign power to tenderness, talent and pride.”
Strong Opinions

Was he successful in that endeavor? Debatable.

Mickey wrote: "How do you think Lolita was a driving force behind societal change? Through the coining of the term "Lolita"? And do you believe that the goal of Nabokov was to raise awareness of the mentality of pedophiles?"

I'm not particularly sure it was a driving force behind social change. But IF it did (or even if it is) I'd compare it to the work of someone like Dostoyevsky. Character studies like Lolita or Crime and Punishment can be done to "raise awareness" and maybe--just maybe--it does more than document the author's speculation about how that kind of person lives. If so, then it crosses over from documenting into change.

Does that happen with Lolita? I'm not so confident that it does. I am more confident that influencing people was Nabokov's intent. Aside from the quote above, what great artist sits down to work and says, "I'm going to make no difference at all this time!"

[Mickey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "The first line of Pride and Prejudice is the social class standard of the day...the rest of the book is Austen's challenge to that standard."

The first line of Pride and Prejudice is "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." This could be considered a social standard of the day. It could also be considered a social standard now insofar as I would say that there is still the social expectation that people will "couple up" within their lifetimes and that failing to do could lead to all sorts of assumptions. But does the rest of the book actually challenge this first line? I don't see the challenge. Two bachelors with good fortunes come into the neighborhood, and far from showing them not needing a wife, both are married by the end of the story. One man even changes for the better (in his own words) in order to properly woo the lady he loves. The misconception that novels seek to highlight societal change is so prevalent, that it distorts our idea of novels like Pride and Prejudice to the point that we will even say what is patently not true about the novel in order to have it fit the standards we are told it should fit.

Petergiaquinta wrote: "She's not burning her bra or (wo)manning the barricades, but everything about Austen's writing is a challenge to the accepted conventions of gender, class and wealth of her time."

Can you give specific examples in the stories of these direct and explicit challenges? Because I see very few in the actual stories themselves. I think because she was a woman, her voice and her content have been forcibly pressed into a pattern that she probably would not have recognized and might not have agreed with.

Petergiaquinta wrote: "But you knew that, didn't you, and you're just being difficult again, right? "

Do I know that there are people who believe that she wrote in order to challenge social norms? Yeah, I know there are people out there who believe so. I don't believe that Austen's writing shows a preoccupation with that. Her writings are much more universal and applicable to modern life than to be simply a forerunner to modern movement (which could only have sociological or historical significance). I mean, what social conventions did she specifically go after? Looking at the writing instead of the writing about the writing doesn't show this.

[Mickey]

Gary wrote: "This thread isn't really about Jane Austen, so I'm going to leave it by noting that the critique of the social values of the period in which she wrote is something of a standard theme in her work. If you google "Jane Austen Challenged Social Class" there are plenty of academic (and non-so-academic) papers on the subject."

I agree that it is a common (mis)conception that Jane Austen's work challenged contemporary social class values. I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that her works do not bear this assertion out, and that it is a case where people have a template in mind and they forcibly put her work in it. Just because an academic paper says it, it does not make it true.

Gary wrote: "You don't think he even documented social change? The rise of teen culture? The contrast of the Old World culture and the New? The role of psychoanalysis in art and society? Great art is at a minimum a documentation of social values. Whether it rises to the level of driving social change is debatable, but it can't really be neither."

But does Lolita really document the rise of teen culture? Is this specifically shown in the book? I mean, I know that the introduction of my copy of Lolita also makes that assertion, but this does not necessarily make it true. That there was (or soon would be within the next decade or so) a separate and distinct culture for teens is part of this new version of history that we are supposed to accept, but does Lolita show it or even document it? Lolita reads movie magazines, which feature adult stars and fashions herself (as far as we're able to see her) a sophisticated and grown woman. That is what she is aspiring to in her braver moments. She is not channeling a specifically adolescent spirit.

Gary wrote: "In any case, at the very least he documented what he saw and it's reflected in his work. Did he do so in order to be a force for social change? Maybe... He did, after all, say this about his own work:

“In fact I believe that one day a reappraiser will come and declare that, far from having been a frivolous firebird, I was a rigid moralist: kicking sin, cuffing stupidity, ridiculing the vulgar and cruel—and assigning sovereign power to tenderness, talent and pride.”
Strong Opinions

Was he successful in that endeavor? Debatable."

Specifically what social change was he trying to bring about? I mean, I think there are some writers who do hope to bring about social change, but I don't see Nabokov being one of them (and Nabokov is rather playful in his statements, I would hesitate to use a quote in order to definitively pin down either his meaning or his aim).

Gary wrote: "I'm not particularly sure it was a driving force behind social change. But IF it did (or even if it is) I'd compare it to the work of someone like Dostoyevsky. Character studies like Lolita or Crime and Punishment can be done to "raise awareness" and maybe--just maybe--it does more than document the author's speculation about how that kind of person lives. If so, then it crosses over from documenting into change."

What change is taking place in both these novels that you believe is captured by the authors? Pedophiles and murderers have been around since the beginning of humanity most likely. Neither book is preoccupied with advancing a different punishment for these transgressions or in advocating for a particular and specific social program to eradicate these ills. (Although one could argue about Dostoyevsky advocating for Christianity, but that's not a social program.)

Gary wrote: "Does that happen with Lolita? I'm not so confident that it does. I am more confident that influencing people was Nabokov's intent. Aside from the quote above, what great artist sits down to work and says, "I'm going to make no difference at all this time!" "

But I would venture that treating books as documents of social change actually impedes readers from feeling the full effects of a work. For instance, if Pride and Prejudice is seen as a critique of the social values of the Regency, what significance can that possibly play in our lives? However, if we view it as a exploration of the effects and insidiousness of pride and prejudice on relationships between people, there is some relevant material. What is more likely to really effect change? The former simply reinforces a trendy idea we are taught about class, gender, and wealth. The latter can have some real meaning and relevance to people. This can happen if we consciously ignore the template of social change that is put before us.

[Mickey]

Honestly, Gary, have you read Jane Austen? I'm getting the feeling that you haven't.

[Gary]

Mickey wrote: "Honestly, Gary, have you read Jane Austen? I'm getting the feeling that you haven't."

Funny. I was getting the same impression abut you.... Nonetheless, this thread isn't actually about Austen. I only mentioned her in a sidenote (along with Wharton) in a way I would have expected most folks would have taken "as read" because it was so obvious a statement as that it didn't need a lot of references. But if you really want to have this debate, I'm sure there are GR discussions about Austen where it would be more appropriate. You'll probably not find a lot of agreement with your stance there, but you could give it a shot.

[Petergiaquinta]

I'll bite on Austen....why not? There's no reason why a discussion thread can't veer all over the literary world. We're all better people and readers if we remain open to possibility.

Austen's texts have much complexity to them, and astute readers could argue that in her texts Austen manages to challenge, refute and confirm the social standards of her time, all at the same time...quite a juggling act, you might say.

But if we look at the broader picture, the historical context, her life, her texts as a whole (I've read much, but not all her life's work), I would argue strongly for the "challenge" side. Her very presence as a brilliant woman committed to a life of writing in a period with a dearth of similar figures makes her historically a "challenge" to stereotypical female roles to begin with. The strong female characters at the cores of her novels provide similar challenges to the typical roles allotted to women at the time, and although they are not unique, there are not many other similar female characters at the time to compare hers with. And, if we want to get more specific, the message at the core of Pride and Prejudice about what makes a truly good marriage with love, choice and balance as essential to the marriage relationship has to be understood as fairly revolutionary (without the guns, the barricades and the bra burning) for the tail end of the 1700s. After all, the Brontes are nearly a generation later.

There's simple social satire in Austen (which is a type of challenge to social norms); consider the depiction of wacky Mrs. Bennett who embodies social stereotypes of the day. But there's also more profound criticism of the social structures and hierarchies of the day, such as in Austen's treatment of the entailments (not a lawyer, not sure that's the actual term for it) impacting both the Dashwood and the Bennett daughters.

If Austen was not challenging the conventions of gender and power of her own time, Elizabeth would have jumped at Collins' offer of marriage. Everyone expects that she will, and it makes sense. It would be the prudent thing to do. But it's Charlotte Lucas who embodies the conventional response of the time, not Elizabeth. In contrast to that is the marriage between Elizabeth and Darcy, one involving choice and love and social stability, even better if the man has an estate like Pemberley. You could potentially argue that it's just a fantasy fairy tale, but the novel is a lot more than that. It has some very modern and even revolutionary aspects to the central relationship in the way Elizabeth can reject social and financial conventions to work through her developing relationship to achieve a sort of mutuality in the end between herself and Darcy.

And this is not just limited to the Regency, even if her novels can be read as a critique of those social values. Austen's ideas still speak to us today. We haven't resolved these issues of gender and hierarchy, although they are much changed. But look out the window and you'll see marriages much like that of Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, Charlotte and Collins, Lydia and Wickham. Reading Austen still helps us to understand our lives today. This is what good literature does.

[Petergiaquinta]

Sorry, "Bennet" doesn't have two "t"s...mea culpa.

[Mickey]

Gary wrote: "Funny. I was getting the same impression abut you"

Really? How so? I'm genuinely curious. I don't think it's necessary to read Jane Austen, but if someone speaks about what Austen's books are about, it's natural to assume they have some experience with them.

Gary wrote: "Nonetheless, this thread isn't actually about Austen. I only mentioned her in a sidenote (along with Wharton) in a way I would have expected most folks would have taken "as read" because it was so obvious a statement as that it didn't need a lot of references."

What statement was so obvious that it didn't need a lot of references? That Austen's books were about challenging social norms? Why is that obvious? I know you didn't think that it would be more than a passing reference, but having read Austen, I was curious about your interpretation and so asked about it. I figured, since you mentioned her, that you knew her.

Gary wrote: "But if you really want to have this debate, I'm sure there are GR discussions about Austen where it would be more appropriate. You'll probably not find a lot of agreement with you stance there, but you could give it a shot. "

Well, I mean, I have been on threads about Jane Austen. Why would you say that I "probably would not find a lot of agreement with [my] stance"? My stance is based on having read the books. I can give examples of why I feel that way based on the books.

Really, I simply was looking for you to expand on your stated views on Austen, I was not playing "Gotcha" in any way, but it seems like your views on Austen aren't from reading the actual books (which is fine, like I said), which could be read as rather dismissive of an author to sum her up without having read her.

It's sort of what I was getting at with the "Telephone" comparison in post #603. There is this idea of what Austen is like without having read her, which can cause for some misinterpretations.

[Mickey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "But if we look at the broader picture, the historical context, her life, her texts as a whole (I've read much, but not all her life's work), I would argue strongly for the "challenge" side. Her very presence as a brilliant woman committed to a life of writing in a period with a dearth of similar figures makes her historically a "challenge" to stereotypical female roles to begin with."

This statement shows a common ignorance of women in that time period, in which they are portrayed as without power or influence. You do know that when Jane Austen was writing, Catherine the Great had already finished her reign in Russia and that a few decades after Austen died, Queen Victoria began her reign. These are extremely public and verifiable examples of women with influence. Catherine was even known for the letters she wrote to some leading intellectuals of the day. But the idea that women were powerless and had little role in public affairs is a myth that keeps being repeated and believed. Even women writers were not unheard of. Some decades after this, George Eliot, another female writer wrote an essay called "Silly Novels by Lady Novelists" which clearly shows that female novelists were not uncommon. The stereotypes of women at this period come more from our era than theirs. Jane Austen was not uncommon in her time because she was a novelist. She might be considered uncommon because she was brilliant, but she would have been uncommon for that during any age.

Petergiaquinta wrote: "The strong female characters at the cores of her novels provide similar challenges to the typical roles allotted to women at the time, and although they are not unique, there are not many other similar female characters at the time to compare hers with."

I would beg to differ at the word "strong". Although that is pretty vague, I imagine that you are referring to what is commonly considered the ideal woman now: Headstrong, assertive/aggressive, action-orientated. This would not describe her heroines, though. Fanny Price (Mansfield Park) is not assertive at all, neither is Anne Elliot (Persuasion). Jane Bennet is generally pushed aside in favor of her sister, Elizabeth, but a careful reading of the book would show that Elizabeth is sharply criticized for her headstrong nature, while the author (and the reader) are more approving of Jane.

You are correct that the stories show women facing similar challenges as other women of the time (such as whom to marry and whether to marry). But this is also a modern predicament that modern women face as well. It is not critical of existing norms as they are but discusses women dealing with universal issues, which are largely ignored in order to show a false historical context.

Petergiaquinta wrote: "And, if we want to get more specific, the message at the core of Pride and Prejudice about what makes a truly good marriage with love, choice and balance as essential to the marriage relationship has to be understood as fairly revolutionary (without the guns, the barricades and the bra burning) for the tail end of the 1700s. After all, the Brontes are nearly a generation later."

What makes you say that the views of marriage are revolutionary for that time period? All through history, people have married for different reasons. Right now, people also marry for different reasons. I do not see a progression or a difference that started with Austen. Could you clarify?

Petergiaquinta wrote: "There's simple social satire in Austen (which is a type of challenge to social norms); consider the depiction of wacky Mrs. Bennett who embodies social stereotypes of the day. But there's also more profound criticism of the social structures and hierarchies of the day, such as in Austen's treatment of the entailments (not a lawyer, not sure that's the actual term for it) impacting both the Dashwood and the Bennett daughters."

I don't understand your reasoning as to why you would say that Mrs. Bennet is obviously an indication of social satire. That she's a humorous and ridiculous character, that's obvious. But there is nothing in the depiction that would suggest that this character was formed due primarily to the immoral or unnatural social structures at the time. A character like Mrs. Bennet could be just as easily fit into a modern story. There's more universality to her than as a product of her time and place.

While I agree that Austen could skewer people, she did not tie that to specific social institutions (Dickens did), but presented them as the foibles of people. Every age will have buffoons like Mr. Collins or pragmatics like Charlotte. It had little to do with the age and to say that it does, to my way of thinking, lessens the impact of her writing.

I also don't see a scathing critique on entailments. That they are mentioned as a legal fact of the time is natural, but they are not railed against like a social evil that needs to be changed. (Now some writers do exactly this, like Dickens, but Austen doesn't. I would say that shows that Austen is a different type of writer.)


Petergiaquinta wrote: "If Austen was not challenging the conventions of gender and power of her own time, Elizabeth would have jumped at Collins' offer of marriage. Everyone expects that she will, and it makes sense. It would be the prudent thing to do. But it's Charlotte Lucas who embodies the conventional response of the time, not Elizabeth. "

Why would a character have to jump at the chance to get married? I don't think this is historical. The books have many refusals. Anne Elliot of Persuasion was persuaded to reject the proposal of a man when she was young and then later rejected another man who was well off (and later married her sister). She regretted the first rejection. Marrying for love was not a new phenomenon in Regency times. People had been marrying for love for millenniums. Jane, when talking to Elizabeth after the refusal, supported her decision. That Charlotte chose to accept has more to do with her desire for a home and family. There are modern women who make this choice, it is not a choice rooted in the times.


Petergiaquinta wrote: " In contrast to that is the marriage between Elizabeth and Darcy, one involving choice and love and social stability, even better if the man has an estate like Pemberley. You could potentially argue that it's just a fantasy fairy tale, but the novel is a lot more than that. It has some very modern and even revolutionary aspects to the central relationship in the way Elizabeth can reject social and financial conventions to work through her developing relationship to achieve a sort of mutuality in the end between herself and Darcy."

You contrast two marriages here, but fail to realize that they both take place under the same social conditions, and so show a choice involved that was available at that time. Both women chose their marriage in the same way that women choose now. I do not see anything revolutionary or new that Austen is bringing into the mix.


Petergiaquinta wrote: "And this is not just limited to the Regency, even if her novels can be read as a critique of those social values. Austen's ideas still speak to us today. We haven't resolved these issues of gender and hierarchy, although they are much changed. But look out the window and you'll see marriages much like that of Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, Charlotte and Collins, Lydia and Wickham. Reading Austen still helps us to understand our lives today. This is what good literature does. "

I agree here. And because I agree with this (that these types of marriages are not tied to social conditions inherent at the time), it's disheartening to me to see Austen reduced to nothing but a forerunner of modern life. Her ideas and values are richer than that and deserve to be thoughtfully considered and not dismissed as "belonging to the bad old days before modern times" or twisted into something they are not. She did not make critiques of her time but made critiques about human nature that are worth reading today, not as a history lesson but as a story with its own viewpoints and ideas.

[Petergiaquinta]

@Mickey

You fault Gary for not reading Austen (which may or may not be true), but your comments about the roles available to women in the late 1700s indicate you don't seem to know much about Austen or her period. Catherine the Great rules Russia and this has some kind of bearing on the lives of women in Regency England? You say Austen doesn't have an opinion on the awful way entailments left women high and dry at this time period, and yet she included it as a major plot device in two of her novels? And Mrs. Bennet isn't a portrait in social satire?

You may have read your Austen, but you might try supplementing that with some history, commentary or lit crit. You have a bizarre take on some things. Why would you say Austen is more sympathetic to that milksop Jane? What do you suppose the future holds for Elizabeth after she rejects Collins' proposal (leaving Darcy out of the picture)? To claim that women chose their marriages then in the same way women choose their marriages now is odd (and historically inaccurate), and I really can't understand your refusal to recognize how groundbreaking and even revolutionary Elizabeth is as a character or Austen is as an author.

[Gary]

Mickey wrote: "Gary wrote: "Funny. I was getting the same impression abut you"

Really? How so? I'm genuinely curious. I don't think it's necessary to read Jane Austen, but if someone speaks about what Austen's books are about, it's natural to assume they have some experience with them."

Honestly, I am under the impression you haven't read Austen because you've posed this question. If you have read her work, you've not grasped it on its most basic thematic level. Austen challenged the social conventions of her day. It's self-evident. Asking the question about Austen and challenging the social class conventions of her day is comparable to asking how Lolita is about child abuse or Being and Nothingness is about existentialism. It's right in Austen's titles. What is the source of the pride and the prejudice of Pride and Prejudice? Someone who had read her work would have to really strain to ignore that theme.

But, again, this isn't the forum for that particular discussion. So, I have to recommend once more that you look for threads on the topic under her titles or--dare I say?--try one of her books?

[Mickey]

Gary wrote: " If you have read her work, you've not grasped it on its most basic thematic level. Austen challenged the social conventions of her day. It's self-evident. Asking the question about Austen and challenging the social class conventions of her day is comparable to asking how Lolita is about child abuse or Being and Nothingness is about existentialism. It's right in Austen's titles. What is the source of the pride and the prejudice of Pride and Prejudice? Someone who had read her work would have to really strain to ignore that theme."

What is the source of the pride and prejudice according to you? What social structures of the day do you think it critiques? (I'm of the opinion that it deals with human failings more than with social structure. Indeed, without those same structures, one could see it being updated easily for modern times.) I've given evidence of a working knowledge of the plot and characters. You haven't. It's more your reticence to give any sort of indication besides an "Of course it is!" that makes me suspicious.

[Mickey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: " You say Austen doesn't have an opinion on the awful way entailments left women high and dry at this time period, and yet she included it as a major plot device in two of her novels? And Mrs. Bennet isn't a portrait in social satire?"

You think an entailment was a major plot device in Pride and Prejudice? What major plot point did it bring about? It was in there, but it certainly was not a major plot point.

And I'm absolutely saying that the character of Mrs. Bennet is not a critique of that society. What social structure do you think would make Mrs. Bennet a product of that society? Do her characteristics do anything to sum up that time period? What about other portrayals of mothers such as Lady Bertram who is in many ways the opposite of Mrs. Bennet? And which portrayal stands for the many women present during the Regency period? I think if we were to set this in modern times, you could see how silly and insulting this is. If someone were to choose a character as the stereotype of women living in the early 21st century, how could you choose? Who would that woman be? It reduces women to one image and one set of characteristics, which can't be very historical.

Petergiaquinta wrote: "You may have read your Austen, but you might try supplementing that with some history, commentary or lit crit. You have a bizarre take on some things."

But, see, that's your problem. You don't see the actual story because you've been told what to think about it. You read literary critique and aren't critical of it. As far as history, you are talking about how women have no roles when there are queens who rule vast empires and you don't know that there are many female novelists except the more famous ones. As I've said before, you really need to start reading widely and to consider the reading itself thoughtfully. You're so concerned with appearing "smart" like all the readers you imagine all agree with each other.

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Why would you say Austen is more sympathetic to that milksop Jane?"

Elizabeth admired Jane and wished to be more like her, especially in the area of believing the best about people. One of the major themes that modern people tend to gloss over is the fact that Elizabeth was extremely uncharitable to Darcy and believed untrue things about him. It was a sharp lesson for her. This isn't something glossed over in the book, read the pages when Elizabeth finishes Darcy's letter after that first disaster of a proposal. There's a lot of pathos there. This notion that a woman must learn some unflattering fault about herself is a common theme in Jane's work: Emma Woodhouse and Catherine Morland had to do the same thing. Going back to Gary, "It's in the title."

Petergiaquinta wrote: "What do you suppose the future holds for Elizabeth after she rejects Collins' proposal (leaving Darcy out of the picture)? To claim that women chose their marriages then in the same way women choose their marriages now is odd (and historically inaccurate), and I really can't understand your refusal to recognize how groundbreaking and even revolutionary Elizabeth is as a character or Austen is as an author."

Proposals weren't as uncommon as you seem to think. Maybe you should think about watching a television program called "Regency House Party". It's a historical reality show about a group of people who learn what it's like to live in Regency times. It might give you a better background about social norms during that time, because you seem to think a lot of things that were commonplace are revolutionary.

What makes their choices so different? People can choose to marry for love, money, social status, a level of comfort, companionship, family. This is no different. This is a major part of Austen's theme, not "entailments" or "class questions".

[Petergiaquinta]

Mickey wrote: "You think an entailment was a major plot device in Pride and Prejudice? What major plot point did it bring about? It was in there, but it certainly was not a major plot point."

Uh...the entire reason it is so dire for the Bennet girls to get married and to get married well is because they will be out on their collective asses with nothing in a few short years. The entire novel--Mrs. Bennet's ridiculous desperation, Mr. Bennet's frustration, Collins' arrival, the proposal which Elizabeth rejects, and the golden opportunity of Mr. Bingley's arrival, not to mention the grumpy Mr. Darcy and the enticingly slick Wickham--all grows out of the conflict created by the entailment on the Bennet estate.

When you don't get something as basic as that in the novel, I'm inclined to go along with Gary questioning whether you really know Austen at all...forget the rest of your post. I have other things to do right now.

P.S. I'm sure you can google up some quick info about the way entailments impacted women during Austen's lifetime and how she addresses this social injustice in both PP and SS. It's on the Interwebs if you missed it in the books.

[Karen]

Mickey wrote;
"You're so concerned with appearing "smart" like all the readers you imagine all agree with each other."

You seem to be pointing out imagined faults in others that you yourself have and do not recognize. I have been reading your posts here and you do this often, do you enjoy it? Do you do this face to face with people or just on the internet where it's easy?

[Petergiaquinta]

Wait a minute, I do have time for this one:

"Regency House Party"? Really? Do us all a favor and don't cite reality TV as a source for a discussion of women's roles in the Regency period. This is where some lit crit and history texts could come in handy.

[Mickey]

The Bennet women ended up marrying for love, not for money, so the entailment did not impact their search or their ultimate choices. Mrs. Bennet's "nerves" are not a result of the entailment. That's the way she is. I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by "Mr. Bennet's frustration". Mr. Collins arrival had nothing to do with the entailment. He was looking for a wife. He did not have to propose to Elizabeth because of the entailment, and ended up marrying her best friend. What "golden opportunity of Mr. Bingley's arrival"? Or mentioning Darcy or Wickham? What do any of those men have to do with the entailment? You aren't making much sense.

I know how entailments work. I don't need to google it.

Really, you are making so many mistakes and misreadings (and basically ignoring all my clarifications) that it's getting a little frustrating.

[Petergiaquinta]

Mickey wrote: "The Bennet women ended up marrying for love, not for money, so the entailment did not impact their search or their ultimate choices."

You're a strange one, Mickey, and now you're just arguing for argument's sake. If you don't understand how the socio-economics of the Bennets' situation caused by the entailment drives the novel and its characters then you don't understand the novel at all. And repeated viewings of Regency House Party is not going to help here.

[Mickey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: ""Regency House Party"? Really? Do us all a favor and don't cite reality TV as a source for a discussion of women's roles in the Regency period. This is where some lit crit and history texts could come in handy. "

Absolutely! Don't let snobbishness hold you back from learning. There are several "House" TV shows, all set in different time periods that are peopled by volunteers to be a part of the project. I know there are some that are British (like Regency House Party and 1900 House) and some that are American made (like Colonial House, Texas Ranch House, and Frontier House). I even found one on the internet that was about Wales coal mining country.

You should try them and judge for yourself if there is any merit to them. There are historians who work with them and it's interesting to see modern people cope with different time periods. No need to be dismissive, it certainly doesn't make you look any smarter.

[Mickey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: " If you don't understand how the socio-economics of the Bennets' situation caused by the entailment drives the novel and its characters then you don't understand the novel at all."

Well, you gave me a bunch of reasons, and I showed how marginal they all were. There were some that made no sense, but I have a feeling you are not going to clarify, which means that you were just throwing things in. Really, Bingley did not come because of the entailment. I don't care what you read on google.

As far as whether I understood the novel or not, I know I'm a pretty good reader. You saying that I obviously don't understand it (if I don't agree with you) is rather cheap and unconvincing. Frankly, it's a cop-out.

[Gary]

Last year in this thread (pause and deal with that concept for a moment...) the whole situation with Woody Allen and his unconventional relationship with his long-time girlfriend's adopted daughter came up. So, I figured I'd leave this here:

Woody Allen Keeps It Creepy, Talks About Marrying His Girlfriend's Kid

Allen kept it creepy this week by saying that's why their marriage worked:

“I’m 35 years older, and somehow, through no fault of mine or hers, the dynamic worked,” the 79-year-old director told NPR in an interview published Wednesday. “I was paternal. She responded to someone who was paternal.”

“She deferred to me, and I was happy to give her an enormous amount of decision-making just as a gift and let her take charge of so many things,” he continued. “She flourished. It was just a good luck thing.”

He also said he didn't mean to marry her.

“I started the relationship with her and I thought it would just be a fling. It wouldn’t be serious, but it had a life of its own. And I never thought it would be anything more. Then we started going together, then we started living together, and we were enjoying it."

Full article: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/20...

[Michael]

Getting back to Nabokov, I think it's misguided to ever take him at face value, for he is forever playing games with the reader.

In a related thread I mentioned that Lolita has been viewed as a parody of and tribute to the dying art of the romantic novel.

Similarly, I think Lolita is a parody of the psychological novel, and showcases Nabokov's disdain for Freudian theories.

Humbert often refers to the tragic loss of his first love, Annabel Leigh, when they were thirteen years of age. He suggests that their thwarted sexual encounter and her death from typhus traumatized him, left him fixated on young girls, and turned him into a pedophile.

But anyone familiar with Poe's poem, Annabel Lee, understands that Humbert fabricated this history, stealing it from the poem, which was the last one Poe ever wrote:

Annabel Lee
BY EDGAR ALLAN POE
It was many and many a year ago,
In a kingdom by the sea,
That a maiden there lived whom you may know
By the name of Annabel Lee;
And this maiden she lived with no other thought
Than to love and be loved by me.

I was a child and she was a child,
In this kingdom by the sea,
But we loved with a love that was more than love—
I and my Annabel Lee—
With a love that the wingèd seraphs of Heaven
Coveted her and me.

And this was the reason that, long ago,
In this kingdom by the sea,
A wind blew out of a cloud, chilling
My beautiful Annabel Lee;
So that her highborn kinsmen came
And bore her away from me,
To shut her up in a sepulchre
In this kingdom by the sea.

The angels, not half so happy in Heaven,
Went envying her and me—
Yes!—that was the reason (as all men know,
In this kingdom by the sea)
That the wind came out of the cloud by night,
Chilling and killing my Annabel Lee.

But our love it was stronger by far than the love
Of those who were older than we—
Of many far wiser than we—
And neither the angels in Heaven above
Nor the demons down under the sea
Can ever dissever my soul from the soul
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;

For the moon never beams, without bringing me dreams
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;
And the stars never rise, but I feel the bright eyes
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;
And so, all the night-tide, I lie down by the side
Of my darling—my darling—my life and my bride,
In her sepulchre there by the sea—
In her tomb by the sounding sea.


In the novel's opening paragraph, Humbert asks: "Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, an initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea."

In fact, Nabokov's original title for the novel was The Kingdom by the Sea.

[Laureen]

Very cleverly discovered Michael. I have always felt that Nabokov was being much too clever for the average reader, me included. It didn't sit well with me that this was a simple story about a predatory man but I have not been able to explain why sufficiently.

[Somerandom]

Michael wrote: "Getting back to Nabokov, I think it's misguided to ever take him at face value, for he is forever playing games with the reader.

In a related thread I mentioned that Lolita has been viewed as a pa..."

Oh wow, that's awesome to know. And sheds an interesting light on Humbert. I mean I know whatever he says is to be taken with a grain of salt, but wow. Self justification straight off the bat.

Is this evidence of Humbert literally living vicariously through literature?
Humbert is obviously well read and seems to relish intellectuals, which he finds in his perusing of literature. And we know he lives in his own little warped world. So does he filter his worldview and his life through a lens of living in some kind of a book or as one giant "artistic" story of his own concoction or both?

[Michael]

Exactly. Humbert's field of expertise is French literature, and apparently there are numerous references to French Romance novels throughout the text. In this way, he's much like Don Quixote, who is steeped in chivalric romances and can't differentiate between literature and "real life."

[Somerandom]

Ahh. Cool.

[Michael]

Turns out that Nabokov translated both Annabel Lee and Don Quixote into Russian. The following is taken from his "Lectures on Don Quixote," given at Harvard in 1951-52:

"We shall do our best to avoid the fatal error of looking for so-called “real life” in novels. Let us not try and reconcile the fiction of facts with the facts of fiction. Don Quixote is a fairy tale, so is Bleak House, so is Dead Souls. Madame Bovary and Anna Karenin are supreme fairy tales. But without these fairy tales the world would not be real. A masterpiece of fiction is an original world and as such is not likely to fit the world of the reader."

Nabokov also translated Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass into Russian, and was particularly fond of those works. He is said to have had a life-long preoccupation with Lewis Carroll, and said in a Vogue interview: "I always call him Lewis Carroll Carroll because he was the first Humbert Humbert." This apparently refers to Carroll's infatuation with Alice Lidell (Although modern scholarship refutes the notion--held by Nabokov and many others--that Carroll was a pedophile.)

[Michael]

Okay, feel free to resume your Austen knockdown.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "Okay, feel free to resume your Austen knockdown."

Lol! I think you have steered us in a better direction.

[Mickey]

Michael wrote: "Okay, feel free to resume your Austen knockdown."

Frankly, I'm not interested in resuming. When the conversation turned to Jane Austen from the silliness preceding it, I figured that this had the potential to develop into an interesting conversation. That didn't pan out.

Just a random thought about conversations on this book site: It's interesting to me why conversations like Michael's (which contained some learned facts about Nabokov and some literary terms) tend to fizzle out on Goodreads. Sometimes I think it's because such posts tend to be considered more as monologues (which might get an "attaboy") than as conversation starters. When talking about books, why do very few people tend to follow the models we were taught in literature classes as to the proper way to discuss books? (Not that I'm complaining, oftentimes those posts seem unbearably self-conscious and pretentious.) There seems to be this great divide between actually reading (and the feelings and ideas it generates) and discussing the reading.

[Petergiaquinta]

Karen wrote: "Mickey wrote; "When talking about books, why do very few people tend to follow the models we were taught in literature classes as to the proper way to discuss books."

Well, here's what I was taught: a good reader (and one who is not intellectually lazy) is not hesitant to seek out secondary source material to provide insight into what he is reading, especially if it is difficult or removed from that reader's experience in time, culture, religion, etc. If you really want to know a book, why wouldn't you read what critics and scholars had to say about it? Why would you shy away from what academics had to offer regarding the historical background or the legal framework of the time, especially when the law plays such an important role in the book, as it does in Pride and Prejudice?

So I don't know if anyone has done any googling recently, but if not, here's an excellent link:

http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi...

This article is especially excellent because the author (a law professor) does a thorough job of examining the entail in Pride and Prejudice and discussing it against the historical reality of entailment during Austen's life. His knowledge of the novel is impeccable, and he goes to the book frequently. He's not quite sure that Austen (or her audience) really understands the specific details of the entailment in England at the time (an amusing thought that should remind us that few of us really understand the laws of the societies we live in now), so he discusses both the entailment as it is presented in Pride and Prejudice and the historical legalities of the entailment.

It's long, but it you're interested I think you'll find it fascinating. If you're lazy, then I'll cut to the chase. Here's what the prof has to say at the end:

"Austen's Pride and Prejudice illustrates the often unnoticed tensions between a society and its law. Austen may have used the entailment of Longbourn as nothing more than a convenient plot device, one that neither she nor her audience fully understood or cared to understand fully. Law misunderstood by literary authors--law reflected poorly in literature--supplies an interesting commentary on the relationship between law and society. The entailment of Longbourn worked well as a motif and impetus for relationships because people cared then (as now) more about blossoming romance between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy than the technicalities of land law in England. As Alan Watson has taught us, however, people should care about both to avoid funhouse mirror distortions."

Give it a read. It's great!

[Petergiaquinta]

And here's what I mean by "the frustration of Mr. Bennet," because he is an extremely frustrated man:

1) He has known about the details of the entail from early in his life, but he had always assumed he would have a son to leave the estate in the family. He tried and tried, but all he got was a houseful of daughters.

1a) I don't know if you're familiar with the experience, but having sex for the express purpose of procreation is extremely frustrating and not in the least bit fun. This frustration is compounded when a specific gender is the desired goal. You might ask Henry the Eighth about it...

1b) This intimate experience is even more frustrating when you loathe the partner you are forced to physically engage with night after night after night...again, ask Henry the Eighth. Mr. Bennet is not in a happy place in his marriage, and he hasn't been for many, many years.

1c) After 20-plus years of trying, Mr. Bennet has given up and resigned himself to biological reality. Frustrating!

2) Despite all the sweat and sorrow expended in his attempt to have a son, Mr. Bennet truly loves all those daughters of his, well, most of them...he seems to have lost track of the last couple, but he knows their names, I think. And his frustration at the knowledge that he has failed to provide for the futures of these dear daughters eats away at him. Come on, it's frustrating! Any parent would tell you so...

3) It's even more frustrating because all along Mr. Bennet assumed he would have a boy and so for many years he did not practice "economy," as Austen puts it. Now there is not much money to settle on those daughters of his and they will be put off the land. He knows he should have saved more. He didn't. That knowledge is frustrating.

4) It's even more frustrating to see his estate going to an idiot like Collins, and oops, now that idiot has come for a visit to gloat and look over the property and see what's coming his way in the near future. And Mr. Bennet has to be polite to him, all the while despising him.

4a) And it's even worse because Mr. Collins' father is someone in the family that Mr. Bennet really doesn't like. I have cousins I don't like. I'm sure you do too. What if their idiot offspring were about to inherit all your land? That's frustrating!

5) Here's some more frustration that the law prof in the article helped remind me of: apparently Mr. Bennet could have maybe done something about the entailment earlier, and he failed to act on it. This is not clear, and the prof goes into some detail trying to figure out what the book says and what the law of the land at the time was. But it's hinted that Mr. Bennet could have taken steps at some point, and he did not. That's gotta be frustrating...

5b) And what's even more frustrating is that his flibbertigibbet of a wife seems to know that he dropped the ball on this one! Ooh, now that's really frustrating!

6) And speaking of frustrating, forget all that. Here's what's really frustrating: the overarching frustration of Mr. Bennet's life is he married the wrong person, someone he was not suited to, someone who did not share his values or his views, someone who he could not happily co-exist with and grow old with as husband and wife. And that frustration may be the most important bit of his frustration in the entire novel because that is the basis of what Austen is telling us, her readers, to do: marry well, marry someone you are suited to, marry someone you have gotten to know, someone who will be your life partner emotionally and intellectually, someone you love.

Oh yeah, that Mr. Bennet is frustrated!

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote;
"1a) I don't know if you're familiar with the experience, but having sex for the express purpose of procreation is extremely frustrating and not in the least bit fun. This frustration is compounded when a specific gender is the desired goal. You might ask Henry the Eighth about it..."

LOL! Poor Mr. Bennet- if only Mrs. Bennet had an ovulation test kit, they wouldn't have had to do it so often.
And yes, I for one always read what critics and scholars have to say about a particular book I am reading. It's worth the time and effort.

[Mickey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "This article is especially excellent because the author (a law professor) does a thorough job of examining the entail in Pride and Prejudice and discussing it against the historical reality of entailment during Austen's life. His knowledge of the novel is impeccable, and he goes to the book frequently. He's not quite sure that Austen (or her audience) really understands the specific details of the entailment in England at the time (an amusing thought that should remind us that few of us really understand the laws of the societies we live in now), so he discusses both the entailment as it is presented in Pride and Prejudice and the historical legalities of the entailment."

I was rather surprised at this article, simply because it would seem to support my assertion (entailment was not a major part of the story and Austen was not a writer who was concerned with challenging social conventions through using entailments) than yours (the entailment was an integral and deliberate part of the story and that Austen used it to criticize gender, wealth, and class norms of her time). The author saying that Austen did not know about the ins and outs of an entail (to the point where he spends much of the article having to defend his view that it was an entail) and did not research it rather points to the idea that she was not using the novel as a way to protest entailment as it was practiced. It obviously hasn't been a problem with readers, suggesting (again!) its minor role in the book.

Despite your assurances that the author of the essay had an "impeccable" knowledge of the book, there were several points at which he makes assertions that I disagree with. For one, he claims that entails were used by writers (and presumably, by Austen) to comment on the choice of marrying for either economics or love. No character faced this choice in the book. While I enjoyed his take on Mrs. Bennet, he basically commented that she had the girls trolling around for rich men, if this was so, why was she so overjoyed with Lydia's marriage? To see children settled in life isn't that uncommon a wish, even now, and this is particularly so if the person is given to foreseeing catastrophes. He also makes the comment that entailment "damns women to a life of poverty and displacement", which, by the example of the book(which, in his opinion, showed a more strict form of entailment than was practiced), did not happen.


Petergiaquinta wrote: "Well, here's what I was taught: a good reader (and one who is not intellectually lazy) is not hesitant to seek out secondary source material to provide insight into what he is reading, especially if it is difficult or removed from that reader's experience in time, culture, religion, etc. If you really want to know a book, why wouldn't you read what critics and scholars had to say about it? Why would you shy away from what academics had to offer regarding the historical background or the legal framework of the time, especially when the law plays such an important role in the book, as it does in Pride and Prejudice?"

Frankly, I think you are misguided in several things concerning secondary source material. For one, you seem to hold it in higher esteem than the actual text. It's almost as if you have this idea that, "Smart people read classics, but really smart people read secondary source material about classics." I've read enough of it to know that it's not so impressive. It's doing you no favors as it's feeding into your sense of superiority and it makes you into a less interesting reader, because you're doing nothing but parroting what someone else said instead of coming up with your own ideas from the books

Secondly, you seem very uncritical about what is being written. In reality, secondary source material is written by humans, just like novels are. While it can be used to supplement a novel, it does not replace it. It does not tell us the meaning of the novel. That's what the novel does. Secondary source material, in my mind, is a lesser, not a higher form. People who write essays about novels are often (not always) encouraged to do so to further their careers. The quality varies widely, and there are some really poor excuses for critique out there that (IMO) does nothing to illuminate the novel, but to advance some political or social point that is poorly researched and even more poorly argued.

All that being said, I enjoy essays about books and books about books, but you have to sift and you have to look at it critically. On rare occasions, a critic can make such a compelling argument that he can change your mind about something, but that doesn't happen often. As far as reading an essay that seeks to illuminate some aspect of the novel that might be unknown to readers (like a religion or history), I fully approve of it if it's true and not some trendy thing like "Women had no power in Victorian times!" or some such nonsense.

[Petergiaquinta]

On rare occasions, eh?

[Mickey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "On rare occasions, eh?"

The reason I decided to respond and continue this conversation was because there was a post from you with actual content. Now we're going back into snark territory with one liners that don't correspond to the content. That's not an interesting conversation. Nobody gets anything interesting out of that. Let's stick to exploring the topic.

Yep, on rare occasions, an essay will be so good that it will change my mind about something. I can even give a recent example (although not one strictly about books): I read a book a few months back called The Psychology of Dexter, looking at the television show "Dexter" through different psychological theories. The essay I am thinking about contended that Dexter fit into the sexual sadist category of serial killers. The author took us through his kill ritual and I found myself agreeing with her. Although he doesn't fit the stereotype we'd have of a sexual sadist in that he doesn't sexually assault anyone, going through the different scenarios shows how the fulfillment of ritual serves the same purpose as a sexual assault. Dexter's tendencies toward sexual sadism have been shaped and controlled much like his need to kill. This is what good secondary source material does: it illuminates. Your essay that you shared doesn't necessarily illuminate Pride and Prejudice, but it doesn't seek to replace it either. I mean, the takeaway is simply that Austen's doesn't reflect a regular entail, which might impress some people that you know more about historical legal matters if you bring it up in a conversation about Pride and Prejudice, but it serves little purpose otherwise.

[Greg]

Just want to point out that in "Twilight" the lead male is 100+ years old and the young girl is 17. So I suppose if one liked "Twilight", one is going to LOVE "Lolita."

[Michael]

Anyone interested in resuming the discussion of Lolita?
Only Laureen and Somerandom responded to my posts:

1. Getting back to Nabokov, I think it's misguided to ever take him at face value, for he is forever playing games with the reader.

In a related thread I mentioned that Lolita has been viewed as a parody of and tribute to the dying art of the romantic novel.

Similarly, I think Lolita is a parody of the psychological novel, and showcases Nabokov's disdain for Freudian theories.

Humbert often refers to the tragic loss of his first love, Annabel Leigh, when they were thirteen years of age. He suggests that their thwarted sexual encounter and her death from typhus traumatized him, left him fixated on young girls, and turned him into a pedophile.

But anyone familiar with Poe's poem, Annabel Lee, understands that Humbert fabricated this history, stealing it from the poem, which was the last one Poe ever wrote: (quoted above)


2. Exactly. Humbert's field of expertise is French literature, and apparently there are numerous references to French Romance novels throughout the text. In this way, he's much like Don Quixote, who is steeped in chivalric romances and can't differentiate between literature and "real life."


3.Turns out that Nabokov translated both Annabel Lee and Don Quixote into Russian. The following is taken from his "Lectures on Don Quixote," given at Harvard in 1951-52:

"We shall do our best to avoid the fatal error of looking for so-called “real life” in novels. Let us not try and reconcile the fiction of facts with the facts of fiction. Don Quixote is a fairy tale, so is Bleak House, so is Dead Souls. Madame Bovary and Anna Karenin are supreme fairy tales. But without these fairy tales the world would not be real. A masterpiece of fiction is an original world and as such is not likely to fit the world of the reader."

Nabokov also translated Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass into Russian, and was particularly fond of those works. He is said to have had a life-long preoccupation with Lewis Carroll, and said in a Vogue interview: "I always call him Lewis Carroll Carroll because he was the first Humbert Humbert." This apparently refers to Carroll's infatuation with Alice Lidell (Although modern scholarship refutes the notion--held by Nabokov and many others--that Carroll was a pedophile.)

[Gary]

Greg wrote: "Just want to point out that in "Twilight" the lead male is 100+ years old and the young girl is 17. So I suppose if one liked "Twilight", one is going to LOVE "Lolita.""

Humbert specifically refers to himself as a vampire on more than one occasion too. Clearly he (and Nabokov) are aware of that element of the vampire story and employ it.

But, yeah, I've always wondered why that vampire age disparity doesn't skeeve more people out than it does. Of course, it's a long-standing vampire story component. Dracula is much older than Mina, and that relationship often gets portrayed as a kind of dark romance. Can it be that people aren't as bothered by it simply due to the fact that the vampire doesn't age physically, so we aren't confronted visually (even "visually" in prose) with the difference?

That's not, of course, the case with Humbert, though he does try to present himself as frozen in a particular mental state throughout the book.

[Petergiaquinta]

Michael wrote: "But anyone familiar with Poe's poem, Annabel Lee, understands that Humbert fabricated this history, stealing it from the poem, which was the last one Poe ever wrote"

I'm willing to buy that HH may have fabricated the name "Annabel Leigh" in the same way he creates the name "Lolita," but I see no reason to discount this story from his youth as a complete fabrication. HH tells us a number of stories from the past, and they certainly don't put him in a good light designed to get the reader on his side. (The worst one I can think of is that awful encounter he has in some village in Greece [?] where he thinks he is paying to receive the company of some nymphette and it all goes sideways for him...)

I don't see anything unbelievable in his story of the past with Annabel Leigh any more than in his stories about his wife or his breakdowns. Just because he is an unreliable narrator doesn't mean that we should flat out discount what he is telling us...and the parallels with the poem and with Poe himself are rather delicious, no matter what you think about HH. For starters, if HH relates to the speaker of Poe's "Annabel Lee," then right from the beginning he's identifying with a monster, a necrophiliac schizophrenic. Fun, eh?

In fact, both Nabokov the writer and HH the narrator are having some fun with us. But I don't think either of them want us to believe that HH's sad relationship with Annabel Leigh never happened.

[Petergiaquinta]

Except of course, it never did happen, did it?

Nabokov is a genius.

[Greg]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Except of course that it never did happen, did it?

Nabokov is a genius."
Here is the thing with "Lolita", to me: it's all about the words, the language. I think this book could have been about anything, it didn't matter much. I looked at this as sort of an on-the-road thriller, will HH get caught? From that POV, will he get caught for (insert a crime here). I would have LOVED to have seen Hitchcock do this movie. If HH is lying about everything, then so be it, cause he is anyway, cause Nabokov is.

[Greg]

Or maybe not.

[Greg]

And, to whoever reminded us: the name Lolita is fictional, HH makes it up. How did Lolita's mom really die? HH may have killed her himself in some way. But none of that matters, really. People lying in books? Why, Gillian Flynn uses that for 1/2 of Gone Girl!

[Michael]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Except of course, it never did happen, did it?

Nabokov is a genius."

Exactly. None of it happened, and Nabokov plays with the reader in so many ways, drawing us into believing certain things that are false, getting us to care about a monstrous character.

And yes, the novel could have been about anything. And I think Nabokov made Lolita so young because it was as scandalous as adultery was to the readers of Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary in the nineteenth century.

Two other details:
"Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta." Another reference to Annabel Lee.

Poe met his bride-to-be, Virginia Clemm, when she was 7 years old, and he was 20, and married her when she was 13.

[Karen]

Michael wrote;
"Humbert often refers to the tragic loss of his first love, Annabel Leigh, when they were thirteen years of age. He suggests that their thwarted sexual encounter and her death from typhus traumatized him, left him fixated on young girls, and turned him into a pedophile.

But anyone familiar with Poe's poem, Annabel Lee, understands that Humbert fabricated this history, stealing it from the poem, which was the last one Poe ever wrote: (quoted above)"

I had always thought that HH did not fabricate his story about Annabelle Leigh, now I am not so sure, but I saw no reason not to think it wasn't true. A good discussion topic.