Brain Pain discussion
This topic is about
Lolita
Lolita - Nabokov 2013
>
Discussion - Week One - Lolita - Foreword and Part One
I'm still reading but a few things have occurred to me. First thing, the whole Annabel Leigh backstory seems like a weak attempt to excuse his later carnal longings. I mean we've all fallen in love with an Annabel Leigh when we were 13-14 years old. And most of us were pretty unsuccessful in our carnal quests! Then, well we moved on! Also, as horrible and depraved as Humbert is, I just can't hate him. And, my god, he's is a sicko! Like when Lolita had her legs in Humbert's lap and he got off on that but considered it "okay" because she didn't know and he really didn't touch her anyway. As scheming and diabolical as he is, there is a small kernel of innocence about him, somehow. I disagree with everything about him, but I almost feel bad for him, too, against my will. It's weird.
Sandra, I think that's what makes Nabakov such an amazing author. The protagonists are generally disgusting and unlikeable but they're so enjoyable to read about! I can't say I'm feeling much sympathy for H.H., but I am thoroughly enjoying the novel. I'm not finished with Part 1 just yet so I'm sure I'll have more to say in a couple days.
I'm only at page 76, so once again I'm trailing behind the group schedule. I'll try to catch up over the next few nights.As Sandra wrote in Message 2 of this thread about Humbert: "I just can't hate him" -- I completely understand. It's difficult for me to hate him because of the way he's telling the story. There is something about his personality that has kept me from hating him.
However, he does absolutely disgust me. There's no question about that. AND, I know it's way too early for me to say this (because I sort-of "cheated" and read some parts further along in the book, and it does seem to get much better later in the novel), but I do have to say that the first 76 pages went pretty slowly for me. To the point that I keep asking myself: "How on earth does this novel show up on the 'Top 10' or 'Top 20 Best Novels of All Time' lists????????"
Again, I should finish the novel before I make a comment like that, but at this point I am absolutely NOT loving (or even necessarily "liking") this novel. It's just "OK."
Jennifer wrote: "Sandra, I think that's what makes Nabakov such an amazing author. The protagonists are generally disgusting and unlikeable but they're so enjoyable to read about! I can't say I'm feeling much sympa..."I agree Jennifer. Nabokov's ability to create an absolutely immoral character who is yet somewhat (possibly) sympathetic is part of his talent. I read this novel a year ago and it is still floating around in my skull. HH was a horrible character, who believed himself to be driven by innocent, explainable urges. In the beginning of this novel he gives us what he believes to be an explanation for his urges; and he thinks this makes his urges OK. Talk about unreliable narrator!!
This is, I think, my 3rd time reading this book, and in some ways my thoughts have changed, in others, not. First, I was with Barbara about not understanding why this is always on the greatest novels list. My daughter, who went through a rather strenuous Literature program, raves about it as did, I'm assuming, her professors . So I'm going to talk about my changing opinion on two levels.#1: with each read I am more impressed with Nabokov's style and word play--in that way it is truly among the modern stuff, mixing high and low art, etc., just like Eliot, Joyce, all the big hitters. And how that ability is utilized so cleverly as part of Humbert's character. And that brings me to
#2--Humbert Humbert's character. Yes, he is an impressively unreliable narrator--cheers, Sandra, for the point about Annabel, that smelled fishy to me too, but I didn't really take it as far as you did to consider that maybe he made up the whole thing to garner sympathy--I completely agree.
I hadn't remembered that he so often talked about other little girls in a salacious manner, (and more appropriate women as undesirable) and mistakenly remembered him arguing that Lo was an unusual case for him. Noted this time!
That yucky couch scene, by the way, I think is highly attributable to the scene in ULYSSES that got the book banned in the first place. It has lots of similarities in action, ifyaknowwhaddamean, and might explain the allusion to Ulysses finally being deemed non-pornagraphic, the court case and Judge mentioned in the forward/intro--can't remember if it's HH or the other guy who brings it up. I think it has something to do with the ideas Nabakov is playing with here, the whole "I know it when I see it" definition of "prurient interest". And HH, to me, if nothing else, is prurient , to the max.
I see why readers consider him sympathetic-- especially when he gets silly and playful, like a child. But, the truth is, each time I've read this book, I start to get restless. Because I get tired off HH and his obsessions--he's very predictable, even if the plot isn't. And it really is a story driven by him. If he says one more lugubrious French phrase......and I like studying languages!
One thing that really got me peeved with him (ha! as if he is real! and probably now that I'm more middle aged), is his simply awful perspective on Charlotte. Because everything about her comes through his filter and his sometimes admittedly hilarious insults of her, I find myself wanting to sort out if she really as bad as he thinks. Obviously not, but, it starts to become frustrating when you start considering that he is capable of some whoppers.
So, for example, did Lotty really want to send darlin' Lo to boarding school? Or is that A Lie to entangle the audience? Did she really have so little remembrance of her own pre-teen years to not recognize the pattern and roll with it? Granted, I deal with this territory every day in my job, and find unsympathetic parents tiresome.
I want to think she must have had some sort of shallowness to not see through this slickster, but he was even willing to let "mistakes" appear in print, presumably in anticipation of covering future tracks. Did they even get married?
Did Lo really make the first move on that fateful night? Hmmm. Of course, that doesn't matter, and that's part of HH's con.
I wonder how much of his perfect childhood was lifted from Poe, and his occupations always sound vague and intended to impress, like a con artist's. For one thing, for someone who had such a normal, lovely upbringing-on the sunny Riviera, yet, he sure doesn't seem to like people much. I mean, ANY people, male, female, old, young. In fact, I would argue he doesn't really like Lo all that much, beyond the surface.And-- what about the car accident? Did that really happen? Once you start down this trail the whole thing gets aggravating. You feel like you want to call a lawyer and start interviewing witnesses.
And why does our culture persist in perpetuating HH's mythology that a "lolita" is a sex charged little demon--she seems like a fairly normal, even typical hormonally crazed pre-teen to me.
I find all the historic justifications rather entertaining.
Since I've forgotten the ending , even after two previous reads, (years ago) I hope I haven't said something leading.
Re HH's assertion that it was Lolita who made the first move. Child abusers ALWAYS say this; always; when Nabokov wrote the novel, any discussion of child abuse was a huge no-no...which meant that a large percentage of the female population thought they were the only ones it had ever happened to, and that they were the instigators.
Mod
I also find myself wondering how much of the confession is "true". However, we have only HH's account, which is Nabokov's account of a fictional series of events. For our discussion purposes, it would be best to stick with the "facts" we are given. This isn't a court case, but a novel, so if anything, we should analyze Nabokov's choices about what to reveal, etc.
@Elizabeth - for our purposes in discussing this fictional work, Lolita made the first move. This "fact" is what contributes to Nabokov's manipulation of the reader. (more about this in my next comment)
I used the word innocence to describe Humbert and that definitely isn't the correct word. If anything besides a pedophile, Hubert is also a schemer and a manipulator. The correct word would more likely be childish. Humbert's preoccupation with getting what he wants and the way be colors his observations and explanations seems very childlike and self centered. Inside his mind Humbert has not matured past that 13 year old boy pining for his Annabelle Leigh. He definitely doesn't seem like a grown man and he's what, in his mid 40s? Yeah, highly doubt Lolita made the first move that fateful morning. What 12 year old, no matter how "experienced" would? I call bullshit.
Mod
The first writer is Humbert who has placed a provision in his will that his account of events should be published after his death. The intended audience would be any of the survivors of the events as well as psychologists, criminologists, and crime fans. His purpose is to explain himself and purge whatever guilt he may have had about the affair with Lolita and the murder mentioned in the Foreword.
The second writer is Nabokov. A relatively new arrival in the U.S., Nabokov quickly analyzed the norms and prejudices of his new home and went for the jugular when he wrote this book. I would propose to all of you to keep in mind how this book would be perceived in late-1950's America with its celluloid virgins and toothpaste commercials and christian prudery. He also was aware of the fascination with psychology and true crime stories, which still make up a large part of American entertainment in books, movies and television. By using the formal element of the Foreword written by a Ph.D., as though introducing a true crime story, Nabokov sets up the 1950's reader to perceive this novel as factual documents from a real crime. Given the notoriety of this book, he clearly succeeded.
Also, he interrogates the question of what constitutes a "child" and how does one confine "consent". He effectively pokes and prods those dark corners of our sexual psyches and forces us to recognize that sexuality is a strong force that will not obey the statutes of a society. In brief, he forces us to face the fact that our "children" have genitals and they are ready willing and able to use them no matter what we might try to legislate. And further, that these strong forces are nearly impossible to control in the case of sexual predators. Again, Nabokov succeeds in making us squirm...
Mod
Humbert was 37 when he met Lolita. Lolita was 12 years, 7 months when they consummated their affair. Why do you doubt she would make the first move? She already had the crush on Humbert, she was already having sex while at camp, she and her mother were in competition and conflict, so making a move on Humbert would be a strike against her mother.
I think you're right about 13-yr-old Humbert. I suspect if he and Annabel had not been interrupted on the beach and had become lovers, he would likely not have become obsessed with that lost moment, especially if she hadn't died a few months after. That first sexual encounter would have been followed by another and another, different girls, different ages, but instead, he ends up frustrated, then in mourning, then obsessed.
Well, since I'm already bored with Hum, I think I will direct my attention to Nabokov. Some things stuck out to me this time through: that allusion to the Ulysses pornography trial, and all the references to psychology , admissions of incarceration in both mental and criminal institutions, historical interpretations of "age" concerning childhood, and nods to the audiences you mention, Jim, psychologists, etc. I'm glad you brought up the "criminologists and crime fans"--I hadn't thought of this angle. The 40s/50s were the heyday of film noir and pulp fiction, all which had that sort of undertow of sadomasochistic sexuality--and a sort of sensationalized pop psychology. Girls in bondage--drugged into submission, The Big Sleep. Hitchcock traded unmercifully on those Freudian ideas. These had to be the sexual outlets of the day, after all that sunny, Doris Day, Sandra Dee virginity. Yes, we must have appeared a strange, schizophrenic culture to an outsider--something we still haven't fixed.
Maybe it is more than guilt that drives Hum to write his confession. And it would explain why he would even tell us the gory details of his feelings for Lo et. al. He's maybe something of a fame addict---he keeps alluding to his intellectual interests, but we don't see so much evidence of that other than his language skill. He was reading his surroundings. He's willing to trade his reputation for immortality, the lurid memories the currency of the trade. He certainly likes to live dangerously at times--courting trouble.
Also, this makes me interested in the time period Nabokov is writing for--I read somewhere that the British Victorians were the ones who invented modern childhood--all that wealth made it possible to shelter and coddle children in the nursery, allowing them an exception to hardships and working in, say, mines for example. (Of course this is upper class only, Dickens shows the lower class children working in factories, etc.) In the same era, American kids were still doing hard labor on the farm; it even regularly interrupted their schoolwork. I know several of my ancestors were married in their teens, and my grandfather was working full time in a print shop at 14. And life expectancy then? But after WWII, the wealth, and perhaps concepts of childhood? were transferred to America. Nowadays, we are practically extending childhood into our 30's.
Mod
Pay close attention to the paragraph in the Foreword that begins "Viewed simply as a novel, "Lolita" deals with situations..." (p. 4 - 5). Nabokov has his Ph.D. quote the actual Judge's name from the Ulysses obscenity trial, as you noted. He also points out a lack of profanity, no pornography, ergo, no obscenity. This is Nabokov making a per-emptive strike against American censorship. He has a fake Ph.D. cite a real world Judge to predispose us that Lolita is not a pornographic book. A crafty devil he was!
On a separate topic, Vivian Darkbloom is mentioned in the Foreword. "Vivian darkbloom has written a biography..." This name is an anagram for Vladimir Nabokov.
Also, child labor laws of the early 20th century helped define "child" which then lead to "minor".
I'm with you! I wondered about the pre-emptive strike. I've often wondered if this book's publication ever gave Nabokov any legal trouble or if others started wondering about his own relations with children. Do you know anything about that?
What does everyone think about Charlotte?Here are a few thoughts I have about her, and Humbert as well:
1) In Chapter 16 she sends the letter to Humbert, declaring her love for him. I admire her for this. She realized that she did not want to feel tortured by his presence in her home, so she asked him to leave if he did not feel the same about her. THEN, in Chapter 18, she "interviewed" him about his religious beliefs (so, in spite of her strong feelings for him, she would not have married him if he did not share her religious beliefs? Actually, she said she would commit suicide if he did not believe in "Our Christian God.") Humbert tells his readers that she was a woman of principle. I have to agree that to a certain degree she is a woman of principle.
2) BUT, in Chapter 19, Humbert tells his readers: "Oh, she simply hated her daughter!" I think he's exaggerating. It's very clear that Lo annoys Charlotte to no end, but I don't think this would be described as "hate." Does anyone agree with me? There's no question that this mother and daughter get on each other's nerves, but I don't think this is very unusual for a 12 year old girl and a single mom. Lo does seem to be a lazy and spoiled child (and selfish), so I don't know if we can blame Charlotte for feeling frustrated with her.
BY THE WAY -- I am only as far as Charlotte's accident at this point. I have not reached the point in the story where Lo is told that her mother is dead, so I don't know what Lo's reaction is to her mom's death. While I do not believe that Charlotte actually "hates" Lo, it's quite possible that Lo has certain feelings of hate toward her mother.
3) In Chapter 20 when Charlotte and Humbert are walking from the parking lot to the lake and Charlotte tells Humbert that she wants to send Lo to a boarding school as soon as she returns from camp, I found Humbert's reaction very interesting. He felt that he couldn't comment on this because Charlotte would immediately realize how Humbert feels about Lo. Is Humbert being paranoid? Or do you think Charlotte really would "get it" if Humbert tried to interfere in her plans for boarding school?
4) When Charlotte and Humbert were swimming and he had the perfect opportunity to drown her, why do you think he didn't take advantage of the situation? Yes, Humbert is a disgusting, hideous man, but maybe he really does not have it in him to kill another human (no matter how much easier his plans for his "fun with Lo" would have been). After all, he had no idea that she would be hit by a car very soon after the "lake incident." Could it mean that Humbert is a disgusting pervert who is mentally deranged in terms of his sexual desires but other than that he's "not bad enough" to be a killer? (Again, I am not even up to page 100 yet, so I still don't know all that Humbert is capable of.)
Mod
Here are a few thoughts I have about her, and Humbert as well:
1) In Chapter 16 she sends the letter to Humbert, declaring her love for him. I admire her..."
I think you'll have a better picture of what Humbert thinks about Charlotte, etc., when you finish reading Part One.
That said, Charlotte doesn't hate Lolita; she is annoyed by Lo because she is in pursuit of Humbert and Lo keeps horning in on the action, like when they are sitting on the veranda and Lo sits down between the two of them, for example.
Separate message, because it contains one of My Crazy Theories. I believe that the sexual abuse of little/young girls has not only been ignored, not only condoned, but actually encouraged by Western Civilization. For obvious reasons; a little girl who has to carry that much guilt is not going to be anything annoying, such as self-confident and assertive.
Barbara wrote: "What does everyone think about Charlotte?You said:
" I found Humbert's reaction very interesting. He felt that he couldn't comment on this because Charlotte would immediately realize how Humbert feels about Lo. "
I felt a weirdness in this passage--either it's not what really happened, or Hum's reaction is abnormal--who would have naturally jumped to that conclusion? My 3rd analysis is that it was a clunk in Nabokov's plot device, because if the story is going to go where it will, Charlotte cannot be talked out of boarding school at this point.
Elizabeth: I tend to agree with your theory (but limiting it to Western?), and I think perhaps that is part of Nabokov's satire about American culture, as Jim so astutely put it, going straight for the jugular of our weakness. Very clever of him, almost Humbertesque, to masque his criticism with an unctuous foreigner for a narrator...
For myself I am rather appalled at how callously H treats Lo--a motherless child, no concern for her schooling, her mental health, her future. He wants what he wants now; the future be damned.
So Jim, you're saying that Nabokov, upset at the treatment of fellow writer Joyce re the obscenity trials, decides to write a novel that will be about the most obscene thing he can think of (child molestation, pedophilia) but write it in such a way that nothing is ever explicitly said but rather alluded to so that there can be no complaints of it being obscene? To write about such a subject, to allude to sexuality in children, make the reader squirm because of where our own minds take us by simply telling a story, is genius. But that said, just because we squirm when thinking about children and sexuality does not mean we are being hypocritical. We still have a responsibility to protect our children. As far as we've come since the 50's in regards to sexuality, open-mindedness to homosexuality, mixed race families etc. we still feel very strong disgust with regards to pedophilia and I wonder what people would say if this book was published today? It almost seems like today we feel even more negative in regards to this topic because of the more open way we discuss such topics. Back in the 50's it was kind of swept under the rug and thought of as something rare whereas today, unfortunately, we know how common and devastating this really is.
Mod
Mod
I made no mention of Nabokov's feelings about Joyce.
Drop Humbert out of the equation for a moment and think about Lolita and her sexual activities at camp, as well as young Humbert and Annabel's thwarted attempts at intercourse. These 12 and 13-year-olds are engaging in full-on sex. So are they then children? Or adults? Or some intermediate status?
The obvious issue is that Humbert is 37 and Lolita is not yet 13. Obviously wrong and so end of discussion. So then the bigger questions go back to the "children". Once they reach sexual maturity, how should society look at that? Should the young boy from the camp be arrested? Should the girls be arrested for having sex with an underage boy?
The reason I'm posing these questions is because Humbert goes out of his way to present the facts about Lolita's sex life both with him and with others. He presents the facts to create the idea that she is a willing participant. He does this rather well, which is why some readers find some sympathy for Humbert instead of just killing him on the spot.
So as I mentioned back in comment 10, this is the craftiness of Humbert's confession, and the skill of Nabokov to affect the readers of the novel.
Lolita is a participant in the sexual acts, yes, but I don't know about how willing. Just because children may have full on sex with other children does not mean they are sexually mature adults. Yes kids will experiment from 3 year olds playing doctor to preteens engaging in different levels of sexual expression. I do consider that normal behavior, not shocking in the least as we ARE sexual and spiritual creatures.But that in no way excuses Humbert's behavior in regards to Lolita. (view spoiler) I still have a hard time believing Lolita seduced Humbert in the first place... just can not see that happening in this case. If Lolita had been sexually abused in the past, mentally unstable in some way, maybe. But she is depicted in this book as the average preteen, maybe a bit more sexually adventurous than some, but not abnormal. I would consider a 12 year old seducing a 37 year old as abnormal behavior. Oh yeah, Humbert is crafty all right! Just because Lolita may have had sex with a 13 year old boy does not mean she is ready to have sex with a full grown man. Is she ready to have sex with a 15 year old? I would still say no. Should she have sex again with a 13 year old? Still no, logically. But are 13 year olds logical? No. Should adults be logical? Of course. Is a pedophile logical? You can go round and round...
Jim wrote: "Sandra wrote: "So Jim, you're saying that Nabokov, upset at the treatment of fellow writer Joyce re the obscenity trials, decides to write a novel that will be about the most obscene thing he can t..."Jim, I think I'm going to have to disagree. Of course, there is some discussion about the grey line between adulthood and childhood in this book, but is this really the center of the message? We presently have this issue of teenage boys being branded as sexual predators for experimenting with their slightly younger girlfriends---something I find ridiculous--but was this what Nabokov was concerned with? That's a recent phenomenon.
Maybe my problem is I really don't feel particularly sympathetic to H's point of view. Especially on this 3rd read. I can certainly see where he's trying to look sympathetic. Maybe males feel more sympathy? I see it more like the lurid, look-at-that-car-wreck! fascination human beings have for sensational things--the mind of a serial killer, a predator...it goes at least as far back as MacBeth where Shakespeare plays with this idea.
Mod
Those are opinions more than facts. And of course, Lolita is fictional, so her attitudes and behaviors are created by Nabokov who again posits the question, "should 13-yr-olds have sex?" and with whom. Why is it logical that two 13-yr-olds shouldn't have sex with each other?
BTW, Nabokov doesn't say Lolita seduced him. If anything, they seduced each other for many weeks before the night in the hotel. In my edition, Humbert specifies her first moves on pages 43/4, 113, and 132, and probably a few other places. Humbert makes many moves on her as well. Humbert gives his evidence that it was an even match - from his perspective.
Again, this is fiction and we are only given Humbert's account of events, so naturally we're going to be suspicious about the details. That's what creates interest and involvement in the novel, so the two writers - Humbert and Nabokov - continue to create the tension of who did what when? In Part Two, even though Humbert is theoretically in the position of power, Lolita calls many of the shots. But that's to discuss next week.
Mod
Definitely this. It's added into the opinions of the Ph.D. in the Foreword.
So now here's a really big question: Why is this novel included in college reading curricula all over the world? Why would a book like this have gained such a following/interest/lurid fascination? Why does this book consistently make its way on to "best of" lists?
Maybe Elizabeth's theory from comment 17 is correct:
I believe that the sexual abuse of little/young girls has not only been ignored, not only condoned, but actually encouraged by Western Civilization.
Jim wrote: "Tracy wrote: "Jim wrote: " I see it more like the lurid, look-at-that-car-wreck! fascination human beings have for sensational things--the mind of a serial killer, a predator...it goes at least as ..."I agree. Human beings secretly love a good train wreck. Witness the number of explosions in American movies.
I am reading Lolita by taking Nabokov at his word that what he is interested in is "aesthetic bliss"; ie, "Art for art's sake." By this he means to claim an independent sphere for the aesthetic experience, one not subsumable under the moral sphere or moral categories. Nabokov has written a work of art, fiction. A beautiful piece of art. The so-called moral content is included to force the decision by the reader for the sake of art. I think something is lost when the aesthetic sphere is submerged underneath moral categories, categories including the question of whether one can "sympathize" with HH or not. What we are asked to do is see from HH's first person position his experience of beauty, even if the object of his experience (Lolita) is a morally incorrect object for his attentions. He still experiences beauty when he contemplates his Lolita. This experience mirrors the beauty we are asked to experience when we contemplate our Lolita (the work of art). Discussions about the characters in the book, in my most humble opinion, simply miss the argument of the book, which is that the aesthetic sphere needs to have a clear independence if we are going to have an opportunity for free experience.
Nathan "N.R." wrote: "I am reading Lolita by taking Nabokov at his word that what he is interested in is "aesthetic bliss"; ie, "Art for art's sake." By this he means to claim an independent sphere for the aesthetic ex..."Of course, you are right. And thank you for that as I can understand what you mean. But art also evokes feelings and emotions and it is sometimes hard to keep a pure experience of art separate from the emotions... but yes, this is a pure way to experience the book, just difficult for some (me!).
Sandra wrote: " sometimes hard to keep a pure experience of art separate from the emotions"Not to over state it, but in a manner of speaking I think Nabokov is kind of poking a stick in our eye. His argument would be much weaker were he to write a beautiful book about a beautiful soul in ecstasy to an (morally) acceptable beautiful object. And as Jim points out above, Lolita is two times "fictionalized": immediately, as she appears to HH and we don't know anything about Lolita except as she appears to him (can Lolita-in-herself be seen? perhaps with the aid of readerly imagination); and secondly as a product of Nabokov's imagination. Nabokov's role isn't to attract us to Lolita as a beautiful object, but to bring us to experiencing HH seeing Lolita as a beautiful object. Of course we also see HH torn between his two obligations, the moral and the aesthetic, just as we readers are torn between the desire to condemn HH (even as a fictional entity) and to claim for ourselves a realm of aesthetic independence, the work of art as art. In a way then, the co-incidence between reader and HH is much closer than the question of sympathizing with him; we are him.
Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Sandra wrote: " sometimes hard to keep a pure experience of art separate from the emotions"Not to over state it, but in a manner of speaking I think Nabokov is kind of poking a stick in our eye. ..."
It works the same way in MacBeth, possibly one of the most suspenseful plays in history,or at least in the Renaissance. There is a brilliant essay by Thomas de Quincy, I think it is, called "The Knocking at the Gate". It tries to express why, the scene immediately following MacBeth's murder of the king (after we have dithered with him through multiple soliloquys, and bullying and questioning of his manhood by Lady MacBeth, about why he should or should not do the deed) why is it the aftermath, is the scene that puts the audience on edge, over the top.
De Quincey's argument is essentially the one Nathan makes--we have become MacBeth. As he stands next to Lady MacBeth with his hands covered in gore, driven mad by hallucinations of daggers, etc., we are not sure if he has it together enough to stick his hands in the bucket to clean "this filthy witness" from them, before someone wakes up. Owls' cries, wind's moans, and Lady MacBeth chastising him add to tension as he refuses to follow through with the plan to plant the daggers on the drunken guards. Oh, my droogs, it is a tense scene, and, at its height, someone, someone, begins banging on the gate. And the audience thinks--MacBeth!! Don't be stupid!! Stick you hand in the damn bucket!!
Kids have pointed out to me that quite a few modern slasher movies use the same device, the camera angle comes through Jason's mask. We get the vicarious thrill of being a killer without really dirtying our hands.
I think HH is a bit like that. He just keeps putting himself in more danger, and we say, Humbert!!!...what are you doing??
Wow. Thanks Nathan. I never considered that, but there are a lot of parallels beyond even that--like his first night of angst in Bed with Lo--should he, shouldn't he--just like MacBeth. And, just like there's a lot of Hamlet in Stephan Daedalus.
Can you tell me where Nabokov said that stuff about aesthetic bliss?
Tracy wrote: "Can you tell me where Nabokov said that stuff about aesthetic bliss? "From the afterward to my Viking edition, page 314:
"I am neither a reader nor a writer of didactic fiction, and, despite John Ray's [cf. the Foreword] assertion, Lolita has no moral in tow. For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm. There are not many such books. All the rest is either topical trash or what some call the Literature of Ideas, which very often is topical trash coming in huge blocks of plaster that are carefully transmitted from age to age until somebody comes along with a hammer and takes a good crack at Balzac, at Gorki, at Mann."
I'm no Nabokov scholar, but the "aesthetic bliss" item is central to his work and I'm sure he must discuss it more in his lectures and essays.
Also, to clarify, I don't mean by "we are HH" that we somehow take his first person position as a character within the fiction, but that we each have our Lolitas ;; HH has his Lolita (character in the book) and we have our Lolita (the novel) which we want to love but experience guilt about loving a book "about pedophilia." On the other hand, true, I suggested that we attempt to glimpse HH's' first person subjective experience of beauty, but that is a point distinct from the one about both HH and the reader struggling between beauty and conventionally acceptable objects of love.
And thanks for the parallel with MacBeth.
Mod
From the afterward to my Viking edition, page 314:
"I am neither a reader nor a writer of didactic fiction, an..."
FYI, we'll be discussing the essay Nathan is referring to at the end of Lolita, in Week Three of our discussions.
Jim wrote: "FYI, we'll be discussing the essay Nathan is referring to at the end of Lolita, in Week Three of our discussions. "Did that constitute a spoiler? ; )
Many folks will benefit perhaps from reading it after reading the novel itself. My tendency is always to read around a novel first, so I couldn't help but go straight to Nabokov's word.
Mod
I don't think so. I don't remember if there are any spoilers in the essay.
Reading the essay after the novel gives us a chance to look at it as a bookend to the Foreword.
Although I was curious to see how many times "disgusting" would be used to describe Humbert, I was grateful for Nathan's shifting of the conversation. Nabokov's great passion was collecting butterflies or Lepidoptera. What female names can be plucked out of those letters? (-s)
I would warn people against being too gullible and believing everything Nabokov says about what his intentions in writing the book were because he's very manipulative and cruel to his readers / critics. I mean, not in the novel or in other circumstances when he assumes a fictional persona, but in interviews, afterwords etc. For example, he repeatedly says that only ~perverted homosexuals~ would think Lolita is about anything except chaste poetry. As you might imagine, this is pretty hard to swallow for me (as, ahem, a perverted homosexual), but once I realized that Nabokov "tricks" you into seeing nothing "sexual" in his actions by implying that if you do, you're the one who's guilty of them or that this knowledge somehow "perverts" you more than the actions themselves "pervert" the doer - I realized that this is the kind of logic Humbert applies to Lolita by implying that because Lolita knows things (which children are not supposed to know), she must not have been "innocent". And the way Humbert is homophobic when implying this as well, e.g. when they kiss for the first time, he says a boy couldn't have taught Lolita "that" (meaning, how to kiss), it must have been "a Lesbian". Nabokov makes sure to use the old fashioned classical capitalization to reassure us that, unlike Lolita, Humbert - and the editors of his text (possibly including Nabokov??) - are entirely innocent of any knowledge about the mysterious ways of Lesbians.
Mod
Humbert must know the mysteries of Lesbians or else how would he know that Lolita learned from one? Just sayin...
Andreea wrote: "I would warn people against being too gullible and believing everything Nabokov says about what his intentions in writing the book were because he's very manipulative and cruel to his readers / critics. I mean, not in the novel..."No, not in the novel, because the novel, as fictional, is in-itself manipulative. I want to be tricked. That's what we're here for.
Nabokov makes sure to use the old fashioned classical capitalization
Why Nabokov? HH is the author of what we are reading.
But I too wouldn't want to be caught dead using the term "perverted homosexual." I would say "prude."
But aren't your comments simply displacing the moral question re: pedophilia to the more current moral questions of identity politics? Aren't you saying that what HH's and Nabokov's opinions about these questions are is what the book is really about? That's where I take exception.
I'd add, too, as a rumor I've heard about Nabokov, is that he's rather virulently anti-Freudian. I don't know what that means, except maybe to suggest that the questions about what the novel really means deep down, or what the novel says about Nabokov's psyche are questions which will be intentionally frustrated. But that nexus of sex=Freud=Lolita=pedophilia=HH=ETC would surely shed some light on the economy of the novel.
Mod
Yes, Nabokov referred to Freud as Fraud on several occasions. Freudian interpretations of his work made him vomit.
Andreea wrote: "I would warn people against being too gullible and believing everything Nabokov says about what his intentions in writing the book were because he's very manipulative and cruel to his readers / cri..."Thanks for that information, and I think the Forward and various other parts of the novel hint at his feelings for readers/critics, plus it's not hard to read various comments as anti-psychology, anti-Freud in the Forward and later. The stuff in the novel of course needs to be read as HH's opinion, but the Forward is another step removed( and, admittedly, not as clear-cut in opinion.)
Jim: re: what Nabokov might have known about Lesbians
Terry Castle argues that Lolita might be partly inspired by The Price of Salt which was hugely popular (and controversial) at the time since it shares a lot of plot / structure similarities - I don't want to give away anything about either book. Nabokov refers to trashy gay pulps in the Afterword (and I promise this is the last time I mention the Afterword here), The Price is better written than most and really not that trashy but it does give you a taste of what those books were like - and what Nabokov might have know / read.
Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Andreea wrote: "I would warn people against being too gullible and believing everything Nabokov says about what his intentions in writing the book were because he's very manipulative and cruel to h..."
HH might be the author of the text, but it's clear that (even within the text) he is not its editor. While we can't attribute what HH says to Nabokov, the split between narrator / author becomes very unclear when it comes to things such as capitalization, font choices, chapter order etc - at least to me. If Nabokov really had not control over how this book, why does it say that the author is "Vladimir Nabokov" on the cover? Why would HH want his text attributed to this Nabokov person he never mentions?
I don't think pointing out that Nabokov frequently uses homophobia to bully people into agreeing with him about what the novel means is saying that the novel is "really" about "identity politics"?
Jim wrote: "To redirect this discussion a bit, I would propose we focus in on the two writers and the two intended audiences.The first writer is Humbert who has placed a provision in his will that his accoun..."
Jim, thank you for your explanation in Message 10 in this thread. It definitely helps to focus on the two writers (Humbert and Nabokov) and their two intended audiences. I'm almost at the end of Part One, and now that I'm reading Lolita the way you had suggested I am finally understanding the reasons why this novel always shows up in the "best novels of all time" lists.
Tracy -- thank you for your comment in Message 6. It took at least 60 or more pages for me, but now I can finally enjoy and appreciate Nabokov's style and wordplay.
Although this is my first time reading Lolita, I have always known what it was about. I knew that I would find the story repulsive, which is probably the reason I never read it before.
But when I saw it on the reading list for this group, I thought it would be a good idea to read it with the group so that I could understand why a novel on such a horrendous subject would be considered one of the greatest novels ever written.
I liked Humbert's story about his childhood and his story about his "relationship" with Annabel, which took place in the first 30 pages. But the following 40 (or so) pages seemed to be one long, obsessive, stream-of-consciousness about Lo, and about 13 year old girls in general. Never mind the fact that Humbert's thoughts are absolutely disgusting -- I also found it to be rather boring.
But I found Charlotte to be an interesting character, so the story picked-up for me when Humbert and Charlotte got married.
And now that I'm just ten pages away from the end of Part One, and I'm finding the scene at The Enchanted Hunter to be tedious at times, I have finally allowed myself to "let go" (a bit) of the story so that I can really enjoy Nabokov's humor, sarcasm, wordplay, absurdity, and of course his writing style.
I do have to admit that I was a bit disappointed that the blue pill didn't seem to work at first, because I just wanted them to "do it" already so that the story could move on to the next step.
In the Vintage International 50th Anniversary edition, the wordplay at the top of page 127 is wonderful. It's a short conversation between Humbert and a man on the porch of the hotel (while Humbert left Lolita in the room so that the pills could kick-in). This short conversation (which starts out with Humbert thinking the man said "Where the devil did you get her?" when the man actually said "the weather is getting better") shows us how paranoid Humbert actually is. For me, this is the kind of stuff that shows us how interesting and brilliant Nabokov is.
Mod
Let's definitely revisit this topic in Week Three. Nabokov is nothing if not a shrewd user of language. I would substitute "manipulative" for "bullying", but I know what you mean. 'Til then...
Andreea wrote: "Jim: re: what Nabokov might have known about Lesbians
Terry Castle argues that Lolita might be partly inspired by The Price of Salt which was hugely popular (and controversial) at the time since..."
Good detective work, Andreea! After reading the synopsis of Price of Salt, I think you are on to something...this is why reading in groups can be a good thing!
Barbara: I also thought that imaginary? Hallucinated? discussion on the porch was very interesting and insightful into Hum's state of mind, and also reinforces my thought that Nabokov was drawing from Macbeth, who also has auditory hallucinations during his crucial moment :"There was one, methought, cried, 'Murder!' as he did see me with these hangman's hands..." Thanks for highlighting that conversation and prodding my weak memory.
I hope my kindle Vintage Int'l version has this hotly anticipated Afterword...
Oh Wow.Okay, I haven't read this thread yet, and I've only gotten a little bit of a start on this book (really just a few pages), but I now think it's going to be great.
A few things prejudiced me.
First, I really liked the Kubrick film, but felt that the narrative was flawed (at first I couldn't articulate why). I also saw the later remake of the film, and found the same element of the narrative flawed. (view spoiler) I assumed, then, that the flaw must have been present in the source material.
Second, I've only read one Nabokov novel, The Defense (a.k.a. The Luzhin Defense), and I didn't like it much, particularly its conclusion. So I started with a seed of skepticism for the author.
Third, I read the Foreword, and it almost turned me off to reading the book. I perceive that it was written as a sort of mockery, an ironically badly written foreword in which an editor throws around big words while demonstrating no ability for actual writing. The problem for me was that it was not funny, and it's a kind of tempting but cheap joke to intentionally write poorly, which is always easier, of course, than to write well. Well... that was my impression anyway.
But getting into the book, and the section with Annabel, I was immediately converted. The writing has a great wit, a surprising abruptness, but it also reveals a real understanding for the passions and sentiments of its character... again, immediately! It's not easy to achieve so much so quickly, I'd say.
(A perfect summary of the abruptness, humor, and pathos in one sentence is from the episode on the beach: "I was on my knees, and on the point of possessing my darling, when two bearded bathers, the old man of the sea and his brother, came out of the sea with exclamations of ribald encouragement, and four months later she died of typhus in Corfu."
If you didn't simultaneously laugh *and* feel the pain of disappointment in that moment, go back to the start and read again. I want to write this way!)
Now, I'm still in suspense as to whether my hopes will be dashed or fulfilled in the further development of the book, but so far so good.
Mod
If you didn't simultaneously laugh *and* feel the pain of disappointment in that moment, go back to the start and read again. I want to write this way!)..."
This abruptness is found throughout the book. Whenever Humbert reveals a detail that a psychiatrist would see as a clue to Humbert's condition, he drops it into a sentence with no inflection, and moves on. Humbert is not exactly a sane and balanced man, and this emotional abruptness could be interpreted as avoidance of pain or an inability to directly deal with his issues.
I approve of the strategy (Nabokov's and Humbert's).
I am popping in here, having not read through the thread yet, to say i've finished part 1 (now well into part 2) and am completely blown away by this book. I don't think anything I've read has made me feel so consciously manipulated as a reader. Get out of my head, Nabakov! I am completely creeped out and yet besotted with the writing / language and eerily charmed (intrigued?) by Humbert - or at least I was charmed throughout the first part of the book, but without saying too much I now find him loathsome. And yet, wow!! I'm hooked.
Brain Pain
Books mentioned in this topic
Notes from Underground & The Double (other topics)The Defense (other topics)
The Price of Salt (other topics)
Nabokov starts off with a Foreword by a fictitious editor who has been asked to prepare the manuscript of Humbert’s confession for publication.
Humbert begins his tale with some background information about his childhood and upbringing. He share the innermost pains of 13-yr-old Humbert and his unsuccessful carnal attempts to join his flesh with his first love, Annabel Leigh. He continues on through his young adulthood and lands in Ramsdale where he finds the light of his life, the fire of his loins. Slowly but surely, he moves in on his prey, adapting to changing conditions and even marrying Dolores’ mother to remain close to his little nymphet. And in a deus ex machina to end all deus ex machinas, mother Haze meets an untimely end and Humbert wins his prize.
To avoid spoilers, please limit your comments to p. 3 - 142