Brain Pain discussion
This topic is about
Lolita
Lolita - Nabokov 2013
>
Discussion - Week Two - Lolita - Part Two, section 1 - 17
date
newest »
newest »
I'm in the middle of Chapter 3 of Part 2.At the end of Part 1 Humbert tells Lolita that she cannot call her mother because her mother is dead.
In last week's thread we discussed that there are two narrators -- Humbert and Nabokov. In this case, I feel that Nabokov has made a decision to not let us (the readers) know how Lolita felt about her mother being dead. Or, did Nabokov decide that Humbert doesn't want to share this information with the readers?
Either way, I have a strong sense that neither Humbert or Nabokov want the readers to like Lolita, and in my case they have succeeded. I think Lolita is way more than a spoiled and selfish girl -- she is also a girl who is not concerned for anyone other than herself (not even her own mother). Maybe. I could be wrong, but this is how I feel at this point.
I don't like Humbert either. So it's not easy to read a book when you don't care about the characters, but Nabokov's writing is so remarkable that I am definitely interested in reading this all the way to the end, even though I don't give a flying rat's tail about the characters.
Jim, thank you for your summary. I knew I had overshot our mark, and didn't notice where the division line was, when I went past it on Kindle.I feel a little facade-crumble in this section, and the voice of God (Nabakov) in the machinery. First, Hum is definitely not your textbook pedophile (exeunt reality). The roadtrip is full of numerology, odd pseudo-Freudian names(Lake Climax?) and direct addresses to a reader with whom the narrator seems to have a rather strange relationship--"you veteran crime reporter, you grave old usher, you once popular policeman,now in solitary confinement...you wretched emeritus read to by a boy!" Such a convolution of Shelleyan romantic language and Wildean sarcastic decadence ! We are admonished not to fall in love with Lolita. And, I am beginning to suspect, she may be a figment of the writer's (which writer's? ah, there's the rub! which, indeed!) imagination.
No real criminal of the typical perversive bent would have behaved as Hum, willing to set up housekeeping and risk being caught. No "nymph" would have been given the combination of freedom and slavery Lo was. The repeating motif of Enchanted Hunters surely offers some hint back-stage. Someone is telling tales, and even Lo's sound suspect, she of the quid pro quo.
I want to come back to the concept of the non-guilt inspired confessional here, because something more than soul-salvation drives the narrator. The purpose of confession is all in the audience--with the right one it becomes instead The Big Brag. Or some other form of aesthetic expression.
Mod
Either way, I have a strong sense that neither Humbert or Nabokov want the readers to like Lolita, and in my case they have succeeded. I think Lolita is way more than a spoiled and selfish girl -- she is also a girl who is not concerned for anyone other than herself (not even her own mother). Maybe. I could be wrong, but this is how I feel at this point.
I don't like Humbert either. So it's not easy to read a book when you don't care about the characters, but Nabokov's writing is so remarkable that I am definitely interested in reading this all the way to the end, even though I don't give a flying rat's tail about the characters..."
Humbert is very much self-centered so he likely doesn't know, or care, how Lolita feels about her mother's death. She is likely in shock since Humbert tells her Charlotte is dead shortly after they first have sex. Instead of telling us how she responded, he gives us a list of the toys and trinkets he gave her to make her feel better. Humbert doesn't really know how she feels because he doesn't really see her as a complete person, but merely as a collection of erotic parts for him to indulge in and as a symbol for his ideas of perfection/innocence/purity à la Annabel.
And of course, by painting Lolita as a rude, inconsiderate brat, his hope is that we will give some of our sympathy to him for what he had to endure from his demoniac nymphet. Much like the characters in Madame Bovary, there is not much to like here.
Mod
In this week's reading, and especially next week's sections, the facade definitely begins to crumble. Humbert self-reports his history with sanatoriums and psychiatrists, so it's easy to imagine that the stress of maintaining the father-daughter facade is putting a huge strain on his psyche and his weak (physically and emotionally) heart.
For the confession, you're probably right about the guilt angle. It might likely be more ego-based - a kind of "this is who I am (was)" statement for posterity. His scholarly work is in collecting great works of literature into textbooks, so maybe his confession is his contribution to the Great Conversation.
I think that in Part 1 Humbert was telling the story of his growing obsession. He attempted to hold it in check and place restrictions upon it by vowing not to harm Lolita, but all the time he was edging closer to an abyss. Charlotte acted unknowingly as a barrier between HH and the object of his obsession, and once she died it seemed to me inevitable that he would cross the invisible lines he'd drawn. Once he'd crossed that one there was nowhere to go but down, really. His obsession consumed him and in this week's reading he tells us of the aftermath. I think it's inaccurate to say Lo didn't care about her mother. Most 12-13 year old girls have the capacity for full-on brattiness. She seemed to have an antagonistic sort of relationship with her mother. There could be a number of reasons for this, but since HH doesn't address them I won't either. I'll just note that our perceptions of the mother-daughter relationship are colored by passing through the filter of HH's narration.
I think it's obvious she does care that her mother is dead, and she is grieving. The final passage of Part 1 indicates as much. She comes to Humbert's bed after a storm of tears because she has "nowhere else to go." It seems to me in Part 2 that she is deeply unhappy and is acting like it. She's also alone in the world and her "protector" is also her abuser. How else would you expect her to act?
Humbert relates the story of their year on the road and it seems a rather desperate adventure to me. His only concern is to keep her quiet and acquiescent. I think he's so consumed by lust and possession that he can't spare a thought for the damage he's doing to the girl.
I think it's interesting the way Nabakov (or HH) plays with the genre of the American Road Story. Or is it road trip story? Not sure. Anyway, typically the travelers make a journey of discovery, and are cleansed by the experience. They are changed by the wealth of beauty and experience America offers. In this story, quite the opposite occurs. HH and Lolita seem to shrink into themselves and spread corruption along their route. The sites they see are tawdry tourist attractions, momentary distractions, and no more. The natural beauty this country has to offer goes unappreciated because they aren't open to it.
In Part 1 Humbert often waxes poetic when describing Lo. You can tell that disturbing sexual content is coming because his language becomes almost lyrical at those moments. In Part 2 he leaves most of that behind and it's a little jarring for the reader. It was for me anyway. I had a hard time with this section. I was frequently seething with rage at Humbert for his Ill treatment of the girl. He displays a callow lack of regard for Lo's feelings and well being.
I think the language in this section is intentional (language is used very deliberately throughout the novel). We're meant to feel angry. I'm not sure why but I will theorize that HH is angry himself. He had an entire year with his Lo belonging only to him and it was a rather sordid affair. He was so wrapped up in his obsession that he missed the opportunity to form a real bond with the girl. He gave in to his basest instincts and probably caused her a great deal of harm. Even Humbert, with his mastery of language as a manipulator, can't disguise this.
Jennifer wrote: "I think that in Part 1 Humbert was telling the story of his growing obsession. He attempted to hold it in check and place restrictions upon it by vowing not to harm Lolita, but all the time he was ..."There is a lot to your second paragraph. I think that crying scene is put there to make the astute reader realize that HH's perspective is imperfect. I believe that Nabokov wants us to at least see Lo doesn't see things like HH. I think it's intentionally done to make him look unsympathetic which seems against the "street" interpretation.
You've all had some really great things to say. I've enjoyed reading your comments. This section of the book was difficult for a lot of reasons. It feels a little bit desperate. Like HH was trying to outrun the reality of his situation (and himself).HH (Nabokov) does a good job of kind of keeping Lolita very one dimensional and almost not like a real individual. I'm sure he saw into her heart much more than he lets on but it's a ploy to get us to kind of forget Lo is a real person, still a child, an orphan taken advantage of by HH's perversions. The constant and destinationless driving around, the staying at tawdry roadside inns and visits to cheap roadside attractions kinds of mirrors the empty sex and thrills in which HH is partaking. HH is manipulating us, his confessors, to view him and sympathize with him more as a sensitive poetic, caring individual who is just doing the best he can in a difficult situation (Lo's loss of her mother, his dual role as father figure/protector and lover)and less as a criminal. As Lo starts to grow up, become more experienced with life and her unique situation, it forces her to become sophisticated beyond her years, and she realizes who really holds the power in this relationship. And now she takes HH for a ride.
Mod
The key word here is obsession. Humbert developed an obsession as a young man that over time became his pathology. Does he "love" Lolita in any kind of healthy emotional way? No. Instead he loves that he "has" her to himself and takes all kinds of risks to protect his precious object of lust. Humbert repeatedly tells us about how he fools psychiatrists, nosy neighbors, suspicious parents, but ultimately, Humbert is fooling himself. He is driven by obsession, lust, and childhood delusion and spends as much time conning himself as those around him. In the end, its impossible to truly sympathize with Humbert; at best, we might pity him.
Mod
Exactly. Once they're back on the road, Lolita is calling the shots, as we'll see in detail in next week's discussion.
Coupla of very entertaining satirical pieces in this section. Especially those regarding Beardsley. Section 4, pp176ff, we see one of those few places where Herr Nabakov meets M. HH :: that is, when Pratt is explaining to HH Beardsley's curriculum we get the growing paranoia within HH about the four D's, especially that of Dating; and simultaneously we get the wrath of Nabokov about the stupefying function of education, then in terms of turning girls into efficient housewives (who needs Latin?), today turning them (and boys too(!)) into MBA's who produce nothing of value. Of course, Pratt's prattling on about dates may be in HH's head; but why? Immediately following the description of this appalling curriculum, we see Nabokov being very unkind to HH :: blocking his view of the neighboring school playground. Take that you dirty old man!!@!
Did anyone else see the blocking of the playground as a symbol of HH's loss of control over Lo? Just wondering because Nabokov has said he doesn't like symbolism and allegory.Which makes me wonder if it really is a symbol - an intentional one? And if so, why? Is Nabokov playing with our heads? Or is he okay with a small amount of symbolism as long as it's used sparingly?
Jennifer wrote: "Did anyone else see the blocking of the playground as a symbol of HH's loss of control over Lo? Just wondering because Nabokov has said he doesn't like symbolism and allegory.Which makes me wonde..."
I'm on board with Nathan's interpretation, that this is essentially Nabokov tormenting HH.
Mod
And maybe to signal that his old modes/behaviors are no longer going to be available to him. In this new life, certain pleasures will be blocked as HH's power declines and Lolita's power ascends.
Jim wrote: "maybe to signal that his old modes/behaviors are no longer going to be available to him."I think so. There is a turn that happens right about that inexplicable and uncompleted construction. It does mark a bend structurally, but I don't think it should be interpreted through a mode of symbolism. Structural parallel, or same event--different level. It almost directly signifies rather than symbolizes.
To prolong his nymphetical bliss, Humbert takes his Lolita on a year-long road trip. Ten thousand dollars later (1948 dollars), the happy couple arrive in Beardsley to setup housekeeping and get little Lo back in school. Humbert and Lo settle into domestic bliss. Gaston and Humbert become chess-buddies and secretly sigh about their predilections. Lo and Humbert exchange goods and services. Lolita is bitten by the acting bug. After a stormy confrontation, Hum and Lo decide to take their show on the road again.
To avoid spoilers, please limit your comments to p. 3 - 216