Lolita
discussion
Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.
date
newest »
newest »
Au contraire, I think there’s a tendency in “modern culture” to denigrate intelligence and expertise. You wouldn’t be a fan of QAnon now, would you?
What's missing from a lot of the commentary on Lolita is a cold, hard look at the intent of Humbert and the effect on the reader even though many of the terms that can be used to explore those things are already in place, such as the word "seduction".If you think about it, Humbert could hardly have played his defense any better than he did. Many of the readers that were seduced say that this story isn't about morality or pedophilia but about beauty or aesthetic bliss or love, but they fail to see how such a switch or overlay serves Humbert's purpose of minimizing his crimes. They also fail to see what adopting his talking points says about them. They want it to say that they are discriminating readers, the superior kind of readers who know how to respond to beautiful language and that those that still have a problem with Humbert are unsophisticated and not as intelligent. What they value is this sense of being in an elite category like Humbert himself. This divide isn't new, but Humbert exploits it to his own end. I think Humbert craftily created a narrative which seeks to use the seduced reader's own ego and sense of identity to perpetuate the con. Why would the reader examine his own reactions when what Humbert gives him is exactly what he wants?
As with intelligence, being in love with words (or even seduced by language) is seen as a virtue. Unlike intelligence, which I said was a gift, being easily seduced by language can often be a problem. Facility with language isn't tied to any kind of other anchor or framework from which to test it. Without being able to think critically about the effect of the language, you'd be better off not having that tendency. Even people who are compromised morally such as incarcerated murderers often have a disgust of pedophiles, who are usually considered the lowest of the low. If a pedophile can tell you about his crimes, and your reaction is to say that the real point is the road trip or old world vs. new world, have you really been able to understand and put into perspective everything that was in the story?
I think one of the most interesting aspects of this particular novel is the way it functions like a rorschach test aka the inkblot test in which a person is asked what they see when looking at a inkblot and the answers are supposed to reveal how the person's brain organizes information. The truth is that Humbert doesn't just go with one type of defense in his narrative but with multiple different ones. Are you in love with pretty words? Then you will be won over by his descriptions of Lolita because it's art, and he immortalizes her with his words. Do you fancy yourself a cultured person surrounded by barbarians? Then you enjoy his contempt of Charlotte's middle class morality and Lolita's vulgar dedication to movie magazines. (In this sense, Lolita is only elevated as a love object by her fancy remakings by Humbert.) Are you a moralist? Then look at all the digs he makes at Lolita: accepting money for favors shows a drop in her morals and all her bratty behaviors while he plays the patient and long-suffering father figure. Are you a romantic? Then he is doomed to love her because of a girl he knew a long time ago. What catches in your mind and which information forms your ultimate impressions of the narrative is a sign of your weaknesses- the places in which you are susceptible to manipulation. Nabokov told a story when asked to give the origin or some kind of explanation in an interview. The story he told was about how a gorilla that lived in a zoo was given a sketchpad, and he drew the bars on his cage. At the time, I thought the gorilla refered to Humbert, but now I think it could refer just as easily to the reader.
The real trick with this book is to reflect on your own bars, which I think is actually very rare. People are too self-protective, so they concentrate on how other people are reading it incorrectly (not like how they read it) without giving a thought to the accuracy of their own reading. For example: What is the ultimate power of a criminal's pretty words? Do they absolve him of his crimes? Do they make us understand him better? Does being able to understand and enjoy his words mean we're better people than people who say, "I am not moved by how he describes it, that action is wrong."? Ultimately, if we are swayed by pretty language to condone acts that we would condemn in another who is not as articulate, what kind of moral compass do we have? Isn't our focus on pretty words about prioritizing our own pleasure? Is being swayed by pretty language a good thing or not? What exactly is it in the pretty language that we are responding to?
Instead of thinking about these things, I see a lot of back patting and self congratulation about one's own bars. In all the articles that have been shared, I think the majority have been glib and not self-reflective although I imagine the majority of them would trot out the old adage about art's purpose being to make people uncomfortable while not bothering to apply that to their own readings.
Mickey wrote: "I think one of the most interesting aspects of this particular novel is the way it functions like a rorschach test aka the inkblot test in which a person is asked what they see when looking at a in..."As a retired clinical psychologist, I am quite familiar with the Rorschach cards, used to diagnose psychopathology. A novel is a very different beast than a series of inkblots.
In making your point, Mickey, you take a remarkably judgmental stance, admonishing readers for their various “weaknesses” and for their susceptibility to manipulation by the author. Although you don’t explicitly state it, the implication is that you are superior to all of us sinners/sickos, and immune from manipulation. (Is this why you gave Lolita five stars? Because the novel proves how superior you are to the literati?)
In my view, all fiction involves manipulation by the author. Poor or mediocre writers do not manage to manipulate deftly, and their stories fall flat. Great writers are geniuses at literary manipulation. I don’t believe—as you apparently do—that this feat exposes the moral or psychiatric weaknesses of readers.
Great writers can manipulate readers into sympathizing with and even rooting for protagonists who commit murder. Frankenstein’s monster, created by Mary Shelly, is one such sympathetic villain. Others include Oscar Wilde’s Dorian Gray, Dostoyevsky’s Raskolnikov, and Patricia Highsmith’s talented Mr. Ripley. Shakespeare was renowned for creating sympathetic villains.
Part of the reason for writing about characters who are beyond the pale is to explore what it means to be human, even at the extremities of human experience and circumstance.
As the great playwright Terence—brought to Rome from North Africa as a slave—famously wrote: "Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto", or "I am human, and I think nothing human is alien to me."
Michael wrote: "In my view, all fiction involves manipulation by the author. Poor or mediocre writers do not manage to manipulate deftly, and their stories fall flat. Great writers are geniuses at literary manipulation. I don’t believe—as you apparently do—that this feat exposes the moral or psychiatric weaknesses of readers.Great writers can manipulate readers into sympathizing with and even rooting for protagonists who commit murder. Frankenstein’s monster, created by Mary Shelly, is one such sympathetic villain. Others include Oscar Wilde’s Dorian Gray, Dostoyevsky’s Raskolnikov, and Patricia Highsmith’s talented Mr. Ripley. Shakespeare was renowned for creating sympathetic villains.
Part of the reason for writing about characters who are beyond the pale is to explore what it means to be human, even at the extremities of human experience and circumstance."
You are recycling the same argument that you've made before. To me. Must I say it again? It's not my argument that there should not be main characters who are "beyond the pale". I've never made that argument. I don't know why you keep responding to me as if this is my argument.
If it is up to the author's skill (as you say) to make manipulations work, then how do you explain that not everyone is manipulated? And in exactly the same way? Does the author's skill diminish or strengthen on any given day? Does it depend on the season or the phases of the moon? No. Whether a manipulation works or not isn't dependent on the writer's skill but on the reader's weakness. It's the weakness that is manipulated and if a particular reader does not have that weakness, that is when the manipulation falls flat (for him).
Why shouldn't readers reflect on their reactions? Books aren't just props for showing off how intelligent we are. We should also think about them and our reactions to them, not just collect articles about them, parrot forewords or trade trivia. Certainly not spend our time patting ourselves on the back about our superior understanding.
Mickey wrote: "Why shouldn't readers reflect on their reactions? Books aren't just props for showing off how intelligent we are. We should also think about them and our reactions to them, not just gather articles about them or trade trivia. Certainly not spend our time patting ourselves on the back about our superior understanding."If anyone is patting themselves on the back about superior understanding it appears to be you. And although you bemoan the notion that people who write about the novel aren't self-reflective enough and don't share their own reactions to the text, when exactly have you done so here? Have you revealed how you were or weren't "manipulated" by the writing? Have you even stated why you gave the novel five stars? No, you prefer to harangue us with how others are misreading and misinterpreting the novel and being led astray by Nabokov.
Michael wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Why shouldn't readers reflect on their reactions? Books aren't just props for showing off how intelligent we are. We should also think about them and our reactions to them, not just ..."Hi Micheal,
I think you are flogging a dead horse here, "Mickey" has been writing about Humbert being a peadophile since 2012.
It seems to be an obsession.
Janet wrote: "Michael wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Why shouldn't readers reflect on their reactions? Books aren't just props for showing off how intelligent we are. We should also think about them and our reactions to..."Yes, Janet, I don't know why I get sucked in every time. I'm still interested in discussing and understanding this fascinating novel, and probably always will, but Mickey has her own agenda.
Michael wrote: "If anyone is patting themselves on the back about superior understanding it appears to be you. ."That's a weird statement seeing as how I'm not advocating a particular understanding of the novel at all. I'm saying that people should reflect on their individual reactions (which is why I likened the book to the rorschach test) in terms already widely in use when the book is talked about (that the book/narrator seduces the reader).
I'm guessing that what you actually find objectionable is the possibliity that taking a cold, hard look at it as a seduction is going to damage the fantasy that was a primary part of the seduction for you. In other words, you want to stay seduced. My guess, based on your posts here is that the fantasy of being intelligent and cultured enough to "see past" the pedophilia to the real story is more ego-driven than anything else. It's not surprising that you would think others are the same way: every reader just scrambling to get to the top of the heap with the "smartest" take even if he borrows it from somewhere else.
Another argument against the skill of the author being the cause of the seduction is that mooning over criminals is not uncommon in real life. Take the example of Richard Ramirez (aka The Night Stalker): During his trial, there was a faction of people who were termed his "groupies". You can watch old news stories that talk to these people (mostly young women) as they are asked why they approve of him. In their explanations, you get a sense of what attracts them personally to him (and there are different things). Sometimes there's an identification such as "He's a Satanist, and I'm a Satanist" (which you think would upset these people since he's giving Satanists a bad name). Another person explained her attraction in terms of being impressed by his power and daring. The one aspect that struck me about all the interviews was what little impression the crimes and the victims had on their understanding of the situation (as opposed to showing explicit approval for those actions). I'm sure they would say if asked something like they "transcended" the common moral understanding and achieved a higher vantage point; however, it's also more likely that their reactions reveal some weaknesses about them and their way of processing information. Although many people have argued that the pedophilia is incidental or "not the point", I actually think that (even especially for those that argue this) its absence would damage the effect of the book. If Lolita were in her 30's and this were a love affair between two adults, you would not have much of a moral question. Part of the fantasy that Humbert is selling is this transcendence from morality through elitism or this triumph of intelligence and sophistication over a more democratic view of right and wrong. Humbert is not to be judged for his crimes and to do so is "missing the point". Instead, Humbert is an artist and those who see and are seduced by the art share in his elevation.
But is this view an intelligent, thoughtful one, or does it simply prey on the weakness of people who want to be seen as intelligent?
I've been thinking about a way to explore the merits of the argument of people who are inclined to view the pedophilia as incidental and to insist that the point is more abstract-about literature or beauty or art or bliss. (All of these have been suggested.)Imagine an authentic snuff film that features the murder of a girl. The murderer is in control of the camera, and, as a result, it centers in on him.He makes himself and his feelings important and special while the girl is just his muse. It's all very artistic and highbrow, and he even recites an Edgar Allan Poe poem.
Two people who watched the film have different reactions to it. The first focuses on the murder and his reaction centers on that. The second claims that the other has "missed the point" and it is about the things that the murderer wanted the viewer to focus on: his bliss or art, for instance. Which view is actually the more intelligent? I think it would be the former because only he manages to weigh independently the value of what he saw and the latter just accepts without thought the narrator's stylings.
The biggest difference I see would be that the second viewer is more gullible and easily manipulated, not that he is more sophisticated.
Imagine, instead of an "authentic snuff film" (and jeezus what a dumb idea that is, because if you truly believe Lolita is the literary equivalent of that horrific criminal activity, then you're even more damaged than I'd originally thought), yes, instead of that, imagine you have a poem by a remarkable writer of the English language. Or two poems? Why not?So, if we take "Annabel Lee" by Edgar Allen Poe and...No? I didn't think so, too close to the original material for you, eh? Too perverted and creepy? Too much rape and torture and murder and incest? That damn Poe, marries his underage cousin and writes a bunch of filthy poems and stories and fools the whole world into thinking he's a genius, and then teachers go on assigning him in school for the next two centuries, the nerve of those gullible educators!
Okay, I get it, cool. So let's go more highbrow, eh? Forget that perverted American Poe. Let's choose the poetry of Robert Browning instead of your imaginary "authentic snuff film." No one ever accused Browning of being a pervert or an American. And then let's go find two imaginary people to read "Porphyria's Lover" and "My Last Duchess."
So, our two readers have different reactions to the poetry. The first imaginary reader focuses on the murders and his reaction to the poems centers on that. The second claims the other has "missed the point" and focuses on the art. Which view, you ask, is actually the more intelligent?
Well, the second reader, duh. The first reader is a moron and should probably stop reading poetry and trying to talk about it.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "if you truly believe Lolita is the literary equivalent of that horrific criminal activity, "Repeated child rape and kidnapping are pretty serious crimes. A person in jail for that would actually be treated worse than a murderer of an adult. Humbert's crimes were probably the closest equivalent to a child murderer. I think they're on par. Are you contending that what Humbert did was less serious? What makes it less serious? His ability to quote Poe? His verbal intelligence? How actually does that change anything?
I think there is a subset of readers whose main focus is to appear to be intelligent. They generally have little to say about the book but very generic things. I even suspect some of them see all books and reading as being essentially the same: same ideas, same conclusions, same values. The idea that a book would feature a narrator that uses their weaknesses against them (giving them Art to focus on while commiting pedophilia) would be difficult for them to grasp because they consider themselves in league with authors against those they consider inferior. They just use books, and they don't understand them. I think this particular book does a good job of exposing that mindset.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "So, our two readers have different reactions to the poetry. The first imaginary reader focuses on the murders and his reaction to the poems centers on that. The second claims the other has "missed the point" and focuses on the art. Which view, you ask, is actually the more intelligent?Well, the second reader, duh. The first reader is a moron and should probably stop reading poetry and trying to talk about it.I"
But there is literature that explores murder. I don't think the answer is always "Art". This "Defender of Art" stance is clownish. No one who tries it ever has an interesting argument.
Mickey wrote: "Humbert's crimes were probably the closest equivalent to a child murderer. I think they're on par. Are you contending that what Humbert did was less serious? What makes it less serious? His ability to quote Poe? His verbal intelligence? How actually does that change anything?"To me, Mickey, you seem like the folks who take the Bible—a collection of legends, fables, and allegories—as literal truth. You appear to have no understanding of the nature of fiction.
Fiction consists of lies. Novels may convey great truths, but they are constructed of lies and make-believe.
Humbert Humbert does not exist, except as a creature of fiction.
He commits horrible acts. Nabokov chose perhaps the most vile, reprehensible, shocking acts for his protagonist to engage in. And the author makes it clear from the start that HH has been arrested and faces severe consequences for his behavior. But is that all that the story is about?
Are readers who regard Lolita as one of the greatest novels of the twentieth century all perverts, suckers taken in by a seductive narrator?
What a sad, reductionist, dispiriting view of art you profess.
Mickey wrote: "What's missing from a lot of the commentary on Lolita is a cold, hard look at the intent of Humbert and the effect on the reader even though many of the terms that can be used to explore those thin..."What makes you assume that this intent exists in the first place? I think that viewing the book as manipulation of the reader is a very limited view on writing.
What if he actually sees the world that way and just said things the way he experienced them at that point, no filter, so that he'd get imprisoned for what he did to Dolores?
At some point there's a single paragraph (but since it's Nabokov, it's 2 pages long) where Humbert talks about his plans, his philosophy, his contradictions, his suppressed worries at that point which are mixed with hindsight confirmation and regrets.
This switching between times and contexts makes Humbert unaccessible to some people.
Additionally for example there are things that exist in context - like for example - "It was she who seduced me." exists in context of him saying it after like 10 chapters of describing him repeatedly sexually assaulting her because he has no self-control, describing his plans of sedating her and completely ignoring her agency and describing himself being a pedophile for a long time.
The problem with Humbert Humbert is that he's specifically bad at manipulation. The manipulations he employs in interactions with people are very basic and usually limited to stuff like a few lies or blackmail and mainly work temporarily because he has social status, looks and power over Dolores.
For example we don't see him actually grooming Dolores. It's the opposite. He mostly completely fails to treat her as a human being. The cunning manipulator that people see in Humbert would simply skillfully seduce Dolores and the book would end with him abandoning her and then meeting another girl.
We're talking about a guy that is a complete mess. He had some bizzarre idea of using Dolores without her knowing and described secretly preying on children before.
He accidentally seduced her because he couldn't stop himself from pawing over her and he was a chad.
But the only way he could temporarily keep her was with bribery and blackmail while she ended up running away to another child abuser that was less good looking than him (Dolores running away to Quilty and Dolores being "depraved" is a real thing, see post-scriptum of The Enchanter).
There's a reason why Dolores calls Humbert a brute. Like people act like he's some kind of a manipulative mastermind because they think they shouldn't have sympathy for bad people. Like if people want to see someone with semi-decent manipulation skills, they should look at Strane from My Dark Vanessa.
I think more could be said about intent of Vladimir Nabokov, than of Humbert Humbert. I cant' help an impression that he was exorcising some demons in The Enchanter and Lolita. Perhaps he actually was attracted to little girls more than to women and invented catastrophic stories about where acting on such desires would end with death. Or perhaps it was a sort of a warning for others. Like both in The Enchanter and Lolita, the protagonists think that they can somehow make it work and then fail, see themselves as monsters and die. Then there's a question of the supposed 1916 book that could be an inspiration for the topic of the story.
Like Nabokov is a guy that first doesn't want a little girl on cover and then in video interview his favourite cover is one with nude little girl.
Was he trolling, telling on himself or oblivious?
Ulzar, you seem to be saying that the discriminating reader would realize the sincerity, honesty, remorse, and general ineffectiveness of Humbert means that he could not be manipulating the reader, but couldn't that construction itself be a sign of manipulation? How is believing Humbert and having sympathy of him more intelligent than not believing him and having no sympathy? I would say that a true discriminating reader wouldn't be so resistant to entertaining the possibilty that manipulation could be happening in the scenario of a criminal defendant addressing a jury.
I have been focusing on a certain subset of reader: the ones who think themselves intellectuals, and I think that Humbert does make a big effort to seduce them in particular with his literary allusions, his fancy word play and his general disdain for everyone else, including Lolita herself. This book is probably a particular favorite with them because they think it does what these people long for: it elevates intelligence over morality as the defining factor when judging a person, and it fulfills their fantasy of being in league with the author against all the rubes and moralists who fail to be charmed by Humbert. However, this isn't the only group that Humbert goes after.
If the vast majority of people are against pedophilia, then how does this particular pedophile gain sympathy? He starts at a big disadvantage. So what is it about his particular situation that changes the equation? This is a question that readers should be asking themselves. Instead, what I've noticed is that most people tend to point at other people. This is particularly true with classics like Animal Farm, where it seems like everyone is saying the ire is directed at someone or something else, and there's little inner reflection.
Mickey wrote: "Ulzar, you seem to be saying that the discriminating reader would realize the sincerity, honesty, remorse, and general ineffectiveness of Humbert means that he could not be manipulating the reader, but couldn't that construction itself be a sign of manipulation?"Yes, but by Nabokov, not Humbert. Humbert and his story is carefully constructed to deliver Nabokov's message.
Of course Nabokov is claiming it's all about aesthetics and that it's not a morality tale. Like that's what his target audience would want to hear after all.
Mickey wrote: "How is believing Humbert and having sympathy of him more intelligent than not believing him and having no sympathy?"
Sympathy in itself is almost meaningless. For example Jordan Peterson displays capability of sympathising with people in various awful life situations and then goes on to promote social Darwinism anyway. Hell, he can't even integrate this sympathy for cases he brings up in his rants with content of his rants, they just exist in a sort of detached manner.
It's common for people to have near-meaningless sympathy. It's merely a way of gaining insight. How many people merely sympathise instead of helping?
Mickey wrote: "I would say that a true discriminating reader wouldn't be so resistant to entertaining the possibilty that manipulation could be happening in the scenario of a criminal defendant addressing a jury."
He's a stepfather accused of murdering a pedophile and child pornographer that seduced his stepdaughter. He could, like, not tell them about what he did to Dolores? And while we're at it, he could have, like, have not murdered Quilty and just move on? IMO the moment he decided to go after Quilty instead of moving on, he was already on self-destruction spiral and accepted that his place is in prison.
Like he could even visit Quilty and ask to be his apprentice or something XD .
But anyway, he's arrested for murder of Quilty. The Jury doesn't know he's a pedophile and doesn't know he had a history of preying on children and an abusive relationship before he even met Dolores until he tells them it.
The problem is that the action he's "manipulating" his jury towards by revealing all the information he reveals is locking him up and throwing out the key. Humbert Humbert shows psychological need to be imprisoned.
Humbert Humbert reveals lots of information that is making his situation much worse. For example he reveals lack of self control, history of child sexual abuse prior to meeting Dolores, abusive relationship, intent of sexually abusing Dolores, etc.
Like the whole point of the "It was she who seduced me." joke is that it's ironic that he said it after describing himself as a pedophile and pawing over her in the Haze house and describing his plans of sexually abusing her.
Which he shouldn't have revealed if it was a defence speech.
And then there's the whole thing that he didn't have to say anything about what he did to Dolores.
It could only be interpreted as a defence in that it contextualises his murder of Quilty.
Mickey wrote: "I have been focusing on a certain subset of reader: the ones who think themselves intellectuals, and I think that Humbert does make a big effort to seduce them in particular with his literary allusions, his fancy word play and his general disdain for everyone else, including Lolita herself. This book is probably a particular favorite with them because they think it does what these people long for: it elevates intelligence over morality as the defining factor when judging a person, and it fulfills their fantasy of being in league with the author against all the rubes and moralists who fail to be charmed by Humbert. However, this isn't the only group that Humbert goes after. "
I would say that they are reading Lolita wrong because it's about how Humbert seduced himself.
"While my body knew what it craved for, my mind rejected my body's every plea. One moment I was ashamed and frightened, another recklessly optimistic. Taboos strangulated me. Psychoanalysts wooed me with pseudoliberations of pseudolibidoes. The fact that to me the only object of amorous tremor were sisters of Annabel's, her handmaids and girl-pages, appeared to me at times as a forerunner of insanity. At other times I would tell myself that it was all a question of attitude, that there was really nothing wrong in being moved to distraction by girl-children."
I think that it's the kind of people that are least able to sympathise with Humbert because as a whole, Humbert's story refutes this worldview and shows it as leading to ruin.
IMO Lolita is clearly contextualised by Crime and Punishment and The Enchanter.
There's a pretty clear parallel between Humbert and Raskolnikov in conception of extraordinary individual that exists outside of morality. Just as with their failure to live up to it and therefore the failure of having it in the first place. Also, there's a clear parallel between failure, gaining of insight and self-destruction of the protagonist of The Enchanter and failure, gaining of insight and self-destruction of Humbert Humbert.
But it goes back to Nabokov. Humbert Humbert doesn't exist, but Nabokov exists. Looking at The Enchanter and Lolita, Nabokov's hatred and sadism towards the protagonist is clear.
While in The Enchanter, the sadism is visceral, in Lolita it's more subtle.
There's also a clear theme of futility of the immoral action and it leading to failure and self-destruction.
It's not exactly how real life works but what Nabokov wants readers to believe it works like.
Mickey wrote: "If the vast majority of people are against pedophilia, then how does this particular pedophile gain sympathy?"
As mentioned before, by not revealing that he's pedophile and not confessing that he repeatedly raped his step-daughter perhaps?
Ulzar wrote: "Yes, but by Nabokov, not Humbert. Humbert and his story is carefully constructed to deliver Nabokov's message....But it goes back to Nabokov. Humbert Humbert doesn't exist, but Nabokov exists." What I'm imterested in discussing is the manipulation that Humbert uses in the book. I think it is a feature of this particular book to have a main character who is able to gain sympathy from so many readers and exactly how he accomplishes that. You seem to want to change the discussion to something about Nabokov, and I find that change not only pretentious but also pretty generic. "Nabokov uses the story to deliver a message?" Doesn't every writer do that with every book? Personally, I don't see how that would be an interesting topic to explore. However, have at it. It's an open forum. There are a lot of people on this thread. Perhaps there are people who would like to discuss that.
Ulzar wrote: "He's a stepfather accused of murdering a pedophile and child pornographer that seduced his stepdaughter. He could, like, not tell them about what he did to Dolores? And while we're at it, he could have, like, have not murdered Quilty and just move on? IMO the moment he decided to go after Quilty instead of moving on, he was already on self-destruction spiral and accepted that his place is in prison.Like he could even visit Quilty and ask to be his apprentice or something XD .
But anyway, he's arrested for murder of Quilty. The Jury doesn't know he's a pedophile and doesn't know he had a history of preying on children and an abusive relationship before he even met Dolores until he tells them it.
The problem is that the action he's "manipulating" his jury towards by revealing all the information he reveals is locking him up and throwing out the key. Humbert Humbert shows psychological need to be imprisoned."
You seem to be forgetting that there is a prosecution in criminal court cases. You think Humbert would just be off the hook if he didn't say he raped Lolita? Lolita was still alive at this time. She could testify. Other people could also testify. Is it a good defense to deny everything when the evidence will clearly show you are lying? If the defense is that Humbert was outraged at Quilty's pedophilia and killed him because of it, the prosecution is going to be able to bring up his own pedophilia. This isn't the smart option you think it is.
If he is so remorseful and accepts prison, why is there even a criminal case pending? He could just plead guilty and ask for the maximum. Or is a big show of remorse and the chance to play for a jury too enticing?
Thinking it over, it is really self-serving that there is another pedophile who is a foil to Humbert. Humbert is "the good one" because he loved Lolita and was less immoral.
Mickey wrote: "You seem to be forgetting that there is a prosecution in criminal court cases. You think Humbert would just be off the hook if he didn't say he raped Lolita? Lolita was still alive at this time. She could testify. Other people could also testify. Is it a good defense to deny everything when the evidence will clearly show you are lying? If the defense is that Humbert was outraged at Quilty's pedophilia and killed him because of it, the prosecution is going to be able to bring up his own pedophilia. This isn't the smart option you think it is. "I guess you have a point. There's still a lot of stuff that he shouldn't have said, starting with Annabelle, him being a pedophile since he was a teen, looking for young prostitutes, considering raping a roommate's sister and killing himself, his abuse of Valeria, him considering murdering Valeria and her lover, him secretly sexually exploiting children, him deliberately planning to drug and sexually exploit Dolores without her knowing, him considering murdering Charlotte, Charlotte dying in accident because she was upset about finding out his plans, etc.
With Dolores he should have tried vaguely blaming her instead of saying it's all his fault and it all came from inside of him.
Mickey wrote: "If he is so remorseful and accepts prison, why is there even a criminal case pending? He could just plead guilty and ask for the maximum. Or is a big show of remorse and the chance to play for a jury too enticing? "
Isn't the part where he asks for 35 years in prison basically him pleading guilty on kidnapping and rape of Dolores and not guilty on murder of Quilty? 35 years is what the kidnapper of Sally Horner got so I assume it's maximum penalty.
I think he feels guilty for what he did to Dolores, but not for murdering Quilty.
But my main problem with such interpretation is that, what would jury do with someone so broken? Like Humbert doesn't exactly give off an impression of someone that has need of being let out and given a second chance and it doesn't exactly sound like a safe idea either. Like I think that basing on his story and the end chapters of it, locking him up for decades would almost be clemency.
Mickey wrote: "Ulzar wrote: "Thinking it over, it is really self-serving that there is another pedophile who is a foil to Humbert. Humbert is "the good one" because he loved Lolita and was less immoral."
Is he "the good one", though? Dolores loved Quilty and both Dolores and Quilty considered Humbert to be a brute. Quilty has saved Dolores from Humbert and didn't hold her captive.
I think that Nabokov made Quilty immoral to make him as bad as Humbert.
He's a mirror to Humbert in that Humbert is sentimental and a brute while Quilty is amoral and charismatic.
It's a sort of an ultimate insult to Humbert delivered by Nabokov. He couldn't have Dolores not because he was a pedophile but because he was a brute while another pedophile got her love but rejected it.
It's sort of an ultimate refutation of Humbert's sophisticated self-image.
When he sees himself for what he really is, he sees that he didn't even see her as a person just as a walking sex toy.
Ulzar wrote: "There's still a lot of stuff that he shouldn't have said, starting with Annabelle, him being a pedophile since he was a teen, looking for young prostitutes, considering raping a roommate's sister and killing himself, his abuse of Valeria, him considering murdering Valeria and her lover, him secretly sexually exploiting children, him deliberately planning to drug and sexually exploit Dolores without her knowing, him considering murdering Charlotte, Charlotte dying in accident because she was upset about finding out his plans, etc.With Dolores he should have tried vaguely blaming her instead of saying it's all his fault and it all came from inside of him."
But there were many times when he blamed Lolita actually. I think the problem that you are having is that this story is constructed to work in such a way that it functions like an optical illusion like the picture "Young Lady Or Old Woman Optical Illusion". (Wouldn't let me share the actual picture.)
There are all the elements there to see that picture as showing either an old lady or a young lady. How your mind interprets the story is going to depend on how you weigh the different elements. For example, you focus on the parts where Humbert feels guilty and is remorseful, yet you say that the times he blames Lolita are "jokes". (Although why someone who is remorseful would make jokes while confessing seems off.) Both elements are there, and each can ultimately help Humbert's cause of winning over the reader.
You say that Humbert shouldn't have confessed to what happened with Annabelle and other parts of his background, but you fail to see how those details could be used to elicit sympathy for him from other readers. Read over this thread. There have been readers who mention that he was not to blame for being a pedophile because of what happened with Annabelle. Maybe they are attracted to the concepts of trauma or tragedy. There are still others who want to focus on the literary content of the poem instead of examining the argument in a critical light. Both kinds of people get roped in. Humbert is not targetting just one type of reader with this story but many.
Another apt comparison for this narrative and how it works would be the inkblot test, which is a psychological test that shows inkblots to people and asks them what they see. It's about how minds process information and the test can reveal a lot about people's hang-ups or obsessions. For example, I don't think we've had another poster who focused in so much on comparing Quilty and Humbert or in Lolita calling Humbert a brute. Why do you focus on those details? What makes them important to you when they have not seemed that way to others?
Mickey wrote: But there were many times when he blamed Lolita actually. I think the problem that you are having is that this story is constructed to work in such a way that it functions like an optical illusion like the picture "Young Lady Or Old Woman Optical Illusion". (Wouldn't let me share the actual picture.)Or maybe some people are just functionally illiterate or are morally deficient.
Have you ever considered that perhaps Vladimir Nabokov didn't write Lolita to work as for example glorification or excuse of pedophilia for certain individuals but had a concept of an ideal reader that is literate and will generally arrive at moral conclusions that vaguely agree with his?
I'm pretty sure that my high school English teacher that came to conclusion that Lolita is about how girls like Dolores are dangerous and can break up marriages wasn't the target audience of Lolita. I suspect that Vladimir Nabokov could find her to be a despicable person and that he never ever intended for Lolita to be interpreted that way.
Mickey wrote: There are all the elements there to see that picture as showing either an old lady or a young lady. How your mind interprets the story is going to depend on how you weigh the different elements. For example, you focus on the parts where Humbert feels guilty and is remorseful, yet you say that the times he blames Lolita are "jokes". (Although why someone who is remorseful would make jokes while confessing seems off.)
I said one specific instance which is where he said "it was she who seduced me" is a joke.
I focus on the part where Humbert feels guilty because that's where the direction of the novel takes him. There's a reason why the elements of guilt concentrate in the first (where he was still struggling against his urges) and in the final parts of the novel and the sparse ones towards the middle sometimes include looking back at actions in narration, not his present feeling at that time.
Mickey wrote: "Humbert is not targetting just one type of reader with this story but many."
Is this Humbert in the room with us now?
I think the fundamental disagreement between us is that you're treating Humbert as a real person that is talking to the reader to manipulate the reader to support him (which implies that it's Nabokov manipulating the reader through Humbert to support pedophilia).
To me Humbert Humbert is a character in the novel by Nabokov upon which Nabokov imposes certain events and encounters to get him where he wants him to be.
To me Lolita is a book in tradition of Crime and Punishment that is in disagreement with moral nihilism with Humbert being another embodiment of moral nihilism. He thinks he's an extraordinary individual that is above morality and Nabokov leads him to seeing the falsehood of his ideas.
I call this concept Death of the Humbert.
Mickey wrote: You say that Humbert shouldn't have confessed to what happened with Annabelle and other parts of his background, but you fail to see how those details could be used to elicit sympathy for him from other readers. Read over this thread. There have been readers who mention that he was not to blame for being a pedophile because of what happened with Annabelle. Maybe they are attracted to the concepts of trauma or tragedy. There are still others who want to focus on the literary content of the poem instead of examining the argument in a critical light. Both kinds of people get roped in. Humbert is not targetting just one type of reader with this story but many. "
Here you're taking things out of their context. It's not just what happened about Annabelle - Humbert himself undermines the potential sympathy by saying that he doesn't know whenever he he's a pedophile because he lost Annabelle or if the intensity of her attraction to her was an early sign of his pedophilia.
It's also everything that he confessed afterwards. What he said about what he did to Valeria. You're completely ignoring that there, he reveals himself as a completely despicable individual. As an abusive monster who was terrorizing his wife and revelling in it, who was not only using being larger and stronger to abuse her but he went out of the way to attack her physical vulnerabilities and injuries.
"She had very vulnerable legs, and I decided I would limit myself to hurting her very horribly as soon as we were alone."
"In the good old days, by merely twisting fat Valechka’s brittle wrist (the one she had fallen upon from a bicycle) I could make her change her mind instantly;"
"My habit of being silent when displeased or, more exactly, the cold and scaly quality of my displeased silence, used to frighten Valeria out of her wits."
As far as I remember, he never expressed a bit of remorse for what he did to her.
What about the idea of raping another student's little sister and shooting himself? How does it evoke sympathy?
IMO the most interesting part of the part about the Annabell story is the contrast between his connection and passion for her and his complete objectification and callous treatment of Dolores. Additionally, him becoming cold in teenage years. Perhaps some of his sociopathic traits were induced by trauma.
I think that Humbert is so self-centred that he engages in endless self-analysis and simply expresses it in his writing. It culminates in him assigning himself a sentence and basing it on his personal feelings about which of his crimes are personally important to him and which are not.
Mickey wrote: For example, I don't think we've had another poster who focused in so much on comparing Quilty and Humbert or in Lolita calling Humbert a brute. Why do you focus on those details?
These aren't details. Humbert Humbert being a brute is one of his central traits - starting with his cruel abuse of Valeria, his animalistic urges and ending with the callousness he treats Dolores with. It's a trait that has massive impact on the story.
A brute is what Humbert Humbert is under the adornment of intellectual sophistication and sentimentalism.
There's a quote from Nabokov:
"We must distinguish between ‘sentimental’ and ‘sensitive’. A sentimentalist may be a perfect brute in his free time. A sensitive person is never a cruel person. Sentimental Rousseau, who could weep over a progressive idea, distributed his many natural children through various poorhouses and workhouses and never gave a hoot for them. A sentimental old maid may pamper her parrot and poison her niece. The sentimental politician may remember Mother’s Day and ruthlessly destroy a rival. Stalin loved babies. Lenin sobbed at the opera, especially at the Traviata.”
So, in the end, it's Nabokov calling Humbert a brute through Dolores and Quilty.
Mickey wrote: What makes them important to you when they have not seemed that way to others?
Not being functionally illiterate? Humbert has spend years before going to USA being an abuser and then he refers to that abuse when talking about his relationship with Charlotte. It's hard to miss.
I started reading Lolita in 2021 specifically because some video essayists on booktube had some weird opinions on the book and I had to refresh my rusty memory of the book and within 30 pages of the book I see this:
"I remember once handling an automatic belonging to a fellow student, in the days (I have not spoken of them, I think, but never mind) when I toyed with the idea of enjoying his little sister, a most diaphanous nymphet with a black hair bow, and then shooting myself. I now wondered if Valechka (as the colonel called her) was really worth shooting, or strangling, or drowning. She had very vulnerable legs, and I decided I would limit myself to hurting her very horribly as soon as we were alone."
And that's when I realised that lots of people talking about this book are functionally illiterate and morally deficient.
Mickey wrote: Another apt comparison for this narrative and how it works would be the inkblot test, which is a psychological test that shows inkblots to people and asks them what they see. It's about how minds process information and the test can reveal a lot about people's hang-ups or obsessions.
Is it, though? I think it's a novel written by Vladimir Nabokov that tells a story of a pedophile and abuser that had some funny ideas about morality and was proven wrong.
What makes you insist on treating this Humbert character as a real person with real world agenda that is enacting some sort of manipulation on the reader?
Ulzar wrote: "Why do you insist on treating this Humbert character as a real person with real world agenda that is enacting some sort of manipulation on the reader?"Thank you, Ulzar, for eloquently explicating what is so perversely wrong-headed about Mickey's take on this novel. Good luck, though, in your attempt to alter her views. I've tried for years and have given up.
As I wrote above, with no response from Mickey:
To me, Mickey, you seem like the folks who take the Bible—a collection of legends, fables, and allegories—as literal truth. You appear to have no understanding of the nature of fiction.
Fiction consists of lies. Novels may convey great truths, but they are constructed of lies and make-believe.
Humbert Humbert does not exist, except as a creature of fiction.
He commits horrible acts. Nabokov chose perhaps the most vile, reprehensible, shocking acts for his protagonist to engage in. And the author makes it clear from the start that HH has been arrested and faces severe consequences for his behavior. But is that all that the story is about?
Are readers who regard Lolita as one of the greatest novels of the twentieth century all perverts, suckers taken in by a seductive narrator?
What a sad, reductionist, dispiriting view of art you profess.
Michael wrote: "Ulzar wrote: "Why do you insist on treating this Humbert character as a real person with real world agenda that is enacting some sort of manipulation on the reader?"Thank you, Ulzar, for eloquently explicating what is so perversely wrong-headed about Mickey's take on this novel. Good luck, though, in your attempt to alter her views. I've tried for years and have given up."
To clarify, I meant it in context of the inkblot test question.
Michael wrote: "He commits horrible acts. Nabokov chose perhaps the most vile, reprehensible, shocking acts for his protagonist to engage in. And the author makes it clear from the start that HH has been arrested and faces severe consequences for his behavior. But is that all that the story is about?
Are readers who regard Lolita as one of the greatest novels of the twentieth century all perverts, suckers taken in by a seductive narrator?
What a sad, reductionist, dispiriting view of art you profess. "
My main problem with the idea of HH as a seductive narrator that is manipulating the readers is that it's a kind of an opinion that has its origin in stuff like "death of the author".
Like it completely disregards the fact that the book was written by an actual person and perhaps that person wouldn't want to manipulate people into accepting child sexual abuse. Maybe simply some people have a profoundly wrong interpretation of the novel that was completely unintended by the author.
I'm writing from perspective of having read The Enchanter and having read a bit by and about Nabokov and making it a part of my view on Lolita. It simply doesn't make for this book to exist if it's not a desperately honest confession of a broken man (a character broken by Nabokov himself).
For example through the character of John Ray, here Nabokov literally tells us how to interpret the novel:This commentator may be excused for repeating what he has stressed in his own books and lectures, namely that "offensive" is frequently but a synonym for "unusual;" and a great work of art is of course always original, and thus by its very nature should come as a more or less shocking surprise. I have no intention to glorify "H.H." No doubt, he is horrible, is is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jocularity that betrays supreme misery perhaps, but is not conducive to attractiveness. He is ponderously capricious. Many of his casual opinions on the people and scenery of this country are ludicrous. A desperate honesty that throbs through his confession does not absolve him from sins of diabolical cunning. He is abnormal. He is not a gentleman. But how magically his singing violin can conjure up a tendresse, a compassion for Lolita that makes us entranced with the book while abhorring its author!
From interview with Nabokov:
I would put it differently: Humbert Humbert is a vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear “touching.” That epithet, in its true, tear-iridized sense, can only apply to my poor little girl.
In his other comments he disagreed with Humbert's perception of America and people and places he encountered. So, this paragraph is pretty much Nabokov speaking to readers through John Ray.
Michael wrote: "Ulzar wrote: "Why do you insist on treating this Humbert character as a real person with real world agenda that is enacting some sort of manipulation on the reader?"Thank you, Ulzar, for eloquent..."?
By the way, the reason why that confession is so honest and self-centred is that it's not actually a legal document or even an appeal to actual jury.It wasn't meant to read by anyone as long as Dolores lived.
Another thing is that Humbert's heart disease appears somewhere in book two and Humbert keeps mentioning it, also talking about diagnosis. And he talked about how he needed to kill Quilty so that he could live a few months more. It makes me wonder if Humbert actually thought his days are numbered because of the heart disease that kills him in prison.
Also, his talk about trying to save his soul, not his life, referring to jury as "winged" suggests more of a pre-death confession than actual legal defence.
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 think there is a tendency in modern culture to elevate intelligence to a virtue, particularly in circles that would read serious literature like Lolita. Secondary characteristics would be part of this new ideal: urbane, sophisticated, and elite. If actual intelligence is the ability to understand and sythesize information, I would say that this new brand of intelligence is more concerned with separating itself from the majority (lots of times by emphasizing things like credentials or secondary source material) and aligning itself with an elite group (again by stressing credentials or using secondary source material). This is how you get several people coming on these boards saying Lolita is more about a road trip than pedophilia. They got it from elsewhere, and they think writing this signals that they are part of the intelligent elite who are too sophisticated to be bogged down by conventional morality. These views don't imply any real ability to process information-on the contrary, the only ability necessary is to parrot other's views.
Humbert uses this preoccupation of the reader to to be seen as intelligent by sprinkling in literary allusions and Easter eggs that don't seek to excuse his behavior (which might draw attention to it), In that sense, they are simply a distration from the rest of the story, but most susceptible readers will think that they have discovered the "real" story and clamor on here to have a discussion about (an example that actually happened) how one scene was like a scene from a Thomas Mann novel. If this is a seduction of the reader, then the people being conned are those that want to feel that there is a secret decoder ring out there that is understood by only an elite few, and the secret decoder ring reveals that the narrator's crimes are not the real point. Instead it is about beauty or aesthetic bliss that are (conveniently) not crimes.
I don't think intelligence is a virtue. Mostly because it's something that you are born with- so more in keeping with a gift. As with any gift, its main purpose isn't to elevate the recipient above others but to be utilized as a tool that's useful for others. There's no correlation between virtue and intelligence. There have been highly intelligent criminals in real life, and their crimes are not lessened by being committed by people of higher intelligence. As far as I know, higher intelligence is not seen as a mitigating factor when considering culpability or sentencing.
Another book/movie/tv show character that shows these same virtues would be Hannibal Lecter. I read a book once (which I really enjoyed) about him called Hannibal Lecter and Philosophy: The Heart of the Matter which featured a group of essays from philosophy professors or graduate students on that character, and I was struck by how the character's sophistication and intelligence created a schizophrenic response to him.