Brain Pain discussion
This topic is about
Lolita
Lolita - Nabokov 2013
>
Discussion - Week Three - Lolita - Part Two, section 18 - 36
date
newest »
newest »
This book gets more surreal the further it goes. I think that's why the first two quick reads I did in the past didn't stick. Hum does not get any more sympathetic for his "too little, too late" realizations, and his final act of revenge doesn't win him points either, although there is some grudging sense that Quilty was an even worse cat than Hum, if you can believe his pov. At any rate, one hardly feels sorry that Quilty is dead, or that Humbert dementedly "sacrificed" himself for Lo's honor, or whatever. That last scene in Clare's gross house reminds me, for whatever reason, of scenes in David Lynch movies--all that decadent indifference to others. I have expected to see Dean Stockwell come waltzing out and singing, "The candy colored clown they call the Sandman...."
I suppose the exit essay helps make Nabokov's concept clearer, although it does seem odd for someone who plays so many games with the audience--is it part of the game? Taking it straight, I'll just say I'm not that keen on a work that is projecting pure aestheticism, and makes the reader feel so little for the characters' fate. I'm reading THE IDIOT right now and it's like going to opposite land, as far as compassion for characters is concerned.
That's not to say I didn't find it to be exceptionally well written, and enjoyable in that. Of course, I don't consider it pornographic, for what that's worth.
Oh, one of my favorite scenes, is immediately after Quilty's murder, when Humbert gets back on the highway. He decides since he as disregarded some of the finer points of civilized behavior , he might as well indulge himself by driving on the wrong side of the road. And if you expected this then to turn into some sort of suspenseful, French Connection, dangerous type car chase scene, it doesn't--Hum just leisurely drives at 20 mph, until he is finally stopped. A good final action for this book. Hilarious.
For those of you who recall my post in the first week's discussion thread on Lolita, in which I clearly stated that I was up to page 76 and did not enjoy or appreciate the book, WELL, here I am, 233 pages later, and finished with this masterpiece, and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT. It's brilliant. Lolita is such a deep, thought-provoking, humorous (when appropriate), poetic, philosophical novel, and I absolutely love Nabokov's writing.
Jim wrote: "This discussion covers Part Two, section 18 – 36, p. 216 – 309Essay: On a book entitled Lolita, p. 311 – 317
The closing essay was written at the request of the original publisher to help “defend” the book from possible obscenity charges. Did the essay make the book any more palatable/acceptable?
I can see parts of the closing essay "attempting" to defend the book from possible obscenity charges, but I did not find the book "obscene," so the closing essay didn't make any difference to me.
Of course I saw Humbert's obsession with 12 and 13 year old girls to be quite horrendous. Before he met Lolita, and then when he first met her, his descriptive reasons as to what he liked so much about young nymphs was TOO descriptive (for my personal taste) and I found it disturbing to read his graphic thoughts (which he repeated over and over again). This is probably the main reason it took me at least 76 pages (see Message 3 in this thread) to be able to appreciate the story and the writing as much as it deserves to be appreciated.
But I definitely do not think the book is obscene or pornographic at all. Humbert acknowledges his obsession, and he is aware that he is a "madman." This certainly doesn't give him a free pass for what he put Lolita through, but I was glad that the fact that he was "mentally ill" and had an "obsession" was mentioned a lot throughout the novel, and I'm glad that Humbert expressed remorse at the end (whether the remorse was real or he just wrote about it for the sake of the reader).
I need to read the closing essay again. I was tired when I read it, so I may have missed some points. I may have misread it, but I found parts of it to be Nabokov "explaining himself" to the reader... and defending himself as well. Is this my imagination?
Mod
For the record, the closing essay was not Nabokov's idea. His publisher insisted that he write the essay to "help people understand" why he wrote about this subject matter. The idea was that the explanation would help ease people's minds, reduce government challenges, and hopefully keep Nabokov's career from being marred by the book. For our purposes, we could look at the essay as part of the history of the book, separate from the novel itself.
Tracy wrote: "This book gets more surreal the further it goes. I think that's why the first two quick reads I did in the past didn't stick. Hum does not get any more sympathetic for his "too little, too late" ..."Tracy & Jim, you both commented on Humbert's "too little, too late realizations" (Tracy's comment, Message Two of this thread) and "...Humbert finally meditates (for the reader’s benefit) on Lolita’s time with him and how little he actually cared for, or even thought about, who and what she might be thinking about and feeling..." (Jim's comment, Message One of this thread).
I love the fact that Nabokov made it a point to let us know that Humbert was thinking about this. Here is one of my favorite passages on the "too little, too late" issue:
At the home of Lolita and Dick, Humbert asks Lolita to leave her "incidental Dick" and spend the rest of her life with him (Humbert). In response to Humbert's plea for Lolita to leave with him, this is the dialogue between Lolita and Humbert (with Lolita speaking aloud, and Humbert's "inner" dialogue):
"'No,' she said. 'No, honey, no'
She had never called me honey before.
'No,' she said, 'it is quite out of the question. I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean--'
She groped for words. I supplied them mentally ('He broke my heart. You merely broke my life')."
This dialogue provided a good sense of closure for me, and gave me a much clearer understanding of Lolita's feelings and of Humbert's understanding about Lolita's feelings.
Jim, when you commented on this in Message One, you said that "Humbert finally meditates (for the reader’s benefit)..."
Are you saying that you don't believe Humbert really "Meditated on Lolita's time with him and how little he cared for her or even thought of her..." ???
As we all agree, Humbert has a serious mental illness. But do you really think that he ONLY "meditated on these thoughts" JUST for the reader's benefit? I felt that he really did finally realize how little he actually noticed the "real" Lolita as a "real" human being. And I felt that he really regretted this. (But it's quite possible that Humbert has done a good job of fooling me).
Mod
Are you saying that you don't believe Humbert really "Meditated on Lolita's time with him and how little he cared for her or even thought of her..." ???
As we all agree, Humbert has a serious mental illness. But do you really think that he ONLY "meditated on these thoughts" JUST for the reader's benefit? I felt that he really did finally realize how little he actually noticed the "real" Lolita as a "real" human being. And I felt that he really regretted this. (But it's quite possible that Humbert has done a good job of fooling me)..."
Humbert wrote his confession as his final legacy to literature. He was an intellectual and scholar. His confession, then, is a fiction in the sense that he knows it is the last thing he will write before he dies, so the contents aren't a reliable reflection of his true feelings. He has told us repeatedly how he fools psychiatrists, friends, lovers, through his acting and role playing. Sure, he may have noticed Dolly during that last meeting, but the idea of him taking her away to save her from a life of poverty with Dick is more about him regaining some control of what he lost rather than a sincere feeling of love. Remember, if he had succeeded in keeping his Lolita, his plan was to use her to breed more daughters and grand-daughters to debauch...
Jim wrote: "Barbara wrote: "I need to read the closing essay again. I was tired when I read it, so I may have missed some points. I may have misread it, but I found parts of it to be Nabokov "explaining himsel..."For the record, the closing essay was not Nabokov's idea. His publisher insisted that he write the essay to "help people understand" why he wrote about this subject matter. The idea was that the explanation would help ease people's minds, reduce government challenges, and hopefully keep Nabokov's career from being marred by the book. For our purposes, we could look at the essay as part of the history of the book, separate from the novel itself.
This is very interesting, because as I was reading this closing essay I had a feeling that Nabokov was "cocky" and/or "conceited" and/or "angry." I thought he had an attitude, and I was disappointed because I enjoyed his writing so much, so I wanted to "like" the man behind this writing.
So it's quite possible that he is not a cocky or conceited or angry person with an attitude (well, he's entitled to be somewhat cocky), and the only reason he came across this way is due to the fact that his publisher insisted that he write the essay. (I would be angry if I had a publisher who insisted that I write an essay such as this one).
I guess we'll find out what type of man Nabokov actually is when we read Speak, Memory.
Mod
If you have some spare time, check out the Lolita lectures from Yale online. I posted the links in the Questions and Resources thread. The professor and grad student give some interesting perspectives on the novel that you might enjoy.
No,' she said. 'No, honey, no'She had never called me honey before.
'No,' she said, 'it is quite out of the question. I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean--'
She groped for words. I supplied them mentally ('He broke my heart. You merely broke my life')."
Barbara: I'm so glad you highlighted this passage, because I had forgotten about it, and to me it seems quite central to the whole Humbert/Lolita relationship in its finality---
Some random thoughts to untangle:
1) Humbert wants Lolita in his life even though she's no longer a nymph, 12, and is heavily pregnant yet?
2) He seems genuinely moved that she called him "Honey"
3) what to make of the aftermath of Lolita still preferring Cue to Humbert? If anything the story makes him five times grosser than Humbert--so what are we to make of Lo's taste?
4) Does it seem strange that Lo goes from this completely debauched life to an ordinary, sweet, even, marriage? Something doesn't jive in my brain with that. It's this kind of dissonance that made me less impressed with the plot/character development the first times I read it, and makes me a bit perplexed about Nabokov's intent. I mean, I now sense something, that this wasn't just sloppy closure: there is some purpose behind this characterization that is --like Tom Stoppard says , a grotesque blur in the corner of my eye.
Barbara--your question about the cockiness of the closing essay is also something that was there for me too. I'm just wondering how many layers here are facade?? It does make me also wonder about the real Nabokov.
Tracy wrote: "No,' she said. 'No, honey, no'She had never called me honey before.
'No,' she said, 'it is quite out of the question. I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean--'
She groped for words. I supplied them..."
Tracy, you've brought up some very important and interesting points in Message 10.
I want to go through your post again and make some comments, but I will have to wait until tomorrow or Sunday. Sorry about the delay!! As usual, I'm dragging myself through a deadline!! But I look forward to returning and commenting on your post.
Thanks. I want to hear what you have to say--look forward to it!
Well, I am finished this now and have just had a quick read through your comments. I am off to write a review now. Tracy, I felt exactly the same as you about the Humbert's wonderfully non-dramatic demise on the wrong side of the road. Hilarious! An excellent example of humour in a story that is at once completely awful and wonderful, tragic and comic.
Thanks again Jim for posting the link to the lecture which I intend to get to soon.
Mod
Maybe what she found with Dick was simple peace and satisfying sex with a man of her own age and station, instead of mucking about with the mid-life crisis drama of the two pedophiles, Quilty and Humbert. Sometimes Dick is enough...
Mod
Tracy, I felt exactly the same as you about the Humbert's wonderfully non-dramat..."
The lectures are a nice complement to this book. Enjoy!
Tracy wrote: "No,' she said. 'No, honey, no'She had never called me honey before.
'No,' she said, 'it is quite out of the question. I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean--'
She groped for words. I supplied them..."
Hi Tracy. In Message 10 you brought up the following points (below), so I thought I would just add some of my comments/thoughts to the points that you made:
TRACY WROTE: 1) Humbert wants Lolita in his life even though she's no longer a nymph, 12, and is heavily pregnant yet?
MY COMMENT: Yes, I found that interesting as well. But earlier in the novel Humbert was imagining that he would marry Lolita, have children (girls, of course) with her (a new set of 12 year old girls with whom he could "have his way" with), and when his girls get older they would have baby girls as well, who would also become 12, 13, and 14 year old girls that he could also have his way with.
But, I did still find it interesting how much he wanted the "grown up" Lolita, especially since she seemed SO MUCH like Charlotte (the way she spoke, the cigarettes, etc.) I'm also thinking that at this point it may have been more of a "control" and "ego" issue for Humbert. Who knows how he would have treated her if she walked away from Dick and decided to be with Humbert.
TRACY WROTE: 2) He seems genuinely moved that she called him "Honey"
MY COMMENT: I'm not sure if Humbert is capable of being "genuinely moved," but I did find it interesting the way he "commented to himself" about the fact that she had never referred to him as "Honey" before. The little thoughts and remarks that went through Humbert's mind were some of the most fun parts of this novel.
TRACY WROTE: 3) what to make of the aftermath of Lolita still preferring Cue to Humbert? If anything the story makes him five times grosser than Humbert--so what are we to make of Lo's taste?
MY COMMENT: With Humbert, everything was "all about Lolita." There were no other people around, and Humbert barely let her out of his sight. Yes, both men are disgusting, but Cue seemed to be more of a "free spirit" and for Lolita this was probably much more fun than feeling trapped with Humbert.
Cue gave her space, introduced her to other people, and I think she loved the fact that he was somewhat of a celebrity. In Chapter 29 of Part 2, Lolita tells Humbert that Cue was the only man she had ever been crazy about. I do think she had a "crush" on Humbert when he first came to live at the house -- maybe it was even more than a crush. But as soon as they had sex for the first time (I'm not going to use the term "made love"), she seemed completely turned off by him, and shortly after this she told Humbert that she wanted to call her mother (at which point, Humbert told Lo that her mother was dead).
I'm actually more curious about why Lo clearly had a "thing" (or a simple crush) for Humbert, and so suddenly seemed disinterested in him. Does anyone have any thoughts on this???? Is it because the sex was disappointing? Or, maybe the sex was fine, but once they "did it" she lost interest in him. Or did she lose interest in him when he told her that her mother was dead? Did she think he killed Charlotte?
4) Does it seem strange that Lo goes from this completely debauched life to an ordinary, sweet, even, marriage? Something doesn't jive in my brain with that. It's this kind of dissonance that made me less impressed with the plot/character development the first times I read it, and makes me a bit perplexed about Nabokov's intent. I mean, I now sense something, that this wasn't just sloppy closure: there is some purpose behind this characterization that is --like Tom Stoppard says , a grotesque blur in the corner of my eye.
MY COMMENT: I agree with what Jim wrote in Message 14 of this thread. Dick is her own age, he doesn't seem to be the controlling type like Humbert, and after a few years under Humbert's control and watchful eye, life with Dick must be so peaceful for her.
It's probably even a good thing that Dick is hard of hearing -- it could mean that Lolita is the stronger of the two, and after Humbert, it might be nice to be with someone that makes her feel stronger -- as though she's "behind the wheel" this time. Remember how quiet Dick was when he met Humbert? AND, of course, as Jim said, sometimes Dick is enough.
Barbara wrote: "Tracy wrote: "No,' she said. 'No, honey, no'She had never called me honey before.
'No,' she said, 'it is quite out of the question. I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean--'
She groped for words. I..."
Interesting..will think on it. But one thing that stands in relief to me is the anti-psychological stance of Nabakov, and Lo never seems to fit that stereotype of the abuse victim that we may tend to see in our pop psychology culture? She represents something else, not a powerless victim, even when the tables turn, but what i can't figure--how awful it is to be loved? I am sometimes reminded in this story of Wilde's "Ballad of the Reading Gaol" where a man "kills the thing he loves". About her losing interest in him after they "consummate", I have to consider that the crush aspect may be a coloration by our most demented, unreliable, and egotistical narrator--extoling his own handsomeness one day, wallowing in the self-pity of his rejected ape-ness the next?
Assuming this is the place to comment on the book in its entirety, I'm once again skipping over whole threads of comments to first record my impressions raw. Then I'll go back to discover who already said what I wanted to say, but better, and who has aimed to get my goat and succeeded.I really love this book, and I was in no way let down, even though I had a few niggling complaints along the way... I think to some extent my occasional dissatisfaction here and there came from my own selfish thoughts along the lines of "I wouldn't have approached the narrative in this way," but I also recognize that what I was really reacting to was the unconventionality of the book, and now that I've seen the whole, I've come to embrace it as it is.
I was rather afraid from the start that my appreciation would be tainted by having already seen the movie versions, but particularly the Kubrick version which I've seen several times. That fear may have been partially justified. However, I now think the deficiencies in the film are not a reflection of the book, but merely reflect the difficulties of adaptation and the necessities of making it filmic.
One thing which I was marginally unhappy with was the occasional flight of fancy which went a little beyond the bounds of credibility. I'm thinking of the notion that one of his ex-wives and her lover wound up as test subjects in some kind of human/simian-like psych lab. The Beardsly teacher's counceling session in which she babbles about anal and genital phases, etcetera also kind of irked me as the lampooning/parody aspect, I feared, might detract from the experience of the genuine. Well, I'm not saying it quite right. Anyway, The conflict raised in my mind by certain scenes pivoted on the dilemma that: If this is literally happening, then the absurd universe could somewhat diminish our interest in Humbert as a unique individual (that is if he's a madman among madmen and a pervert among perverts, then he fades into his environment too much and loses much of his charm); or, if these are reflections of his subjective exaggeration, or if he's delusional/occasionally psychotic, then we lose much of the poignancy of knowing that his brutal behavior and sociopathic attitude is occuring in the real world.
By the end, though, I accepted the ambiguity and realized that Humbert did not lose, had not lost, his charm, and the book retained a great deal of poignancy.
I also decided that some of the events of the early part of the book were justified by, and in turn they justified the events near the end. The borderline implausible/charicatured vignets made it more possible for us to accept Quilty's pusuit, which really does demand that we stretch our credulity some. Also, the comical scene in which Humbert must endure the humiliation of sitting and watching the taxi driver abscond with his wife (whom he'd rather be rid of anyway, were it not a point of honor), where he is constrained by some sense of social decorum, sets us up for the final meeting with pregnant Dolly and her good but vapid boy Dick.
There was also a feeling that the author, in different writing sessions, had taken different perspectives on his own work, so the tone and mood shift But this also becomes a part of Humbet's character, and his narrative voice, as he is multifaceted and there are countless ways that we can perceive and approach him.
The multifaceted aspect of this character allows us to sometimes see him as truly sociopathic, while at the same time being able to appreciate his self-loathing and remorse, which we might otherwise think impossible for him. At least briefly though, by entering his mind, we can feel that the profoundest remorse can only be felt by a profound monster. And we can also suffer sympathetically with him in his hopeless plight which, which makes him feel that, yes he did everything wrong and there can be no redemption but still... maybe... if she could in the end love him at least to the extent of preferring him to some other, if she could imply that he was human to her and not just her destroyer... but no, that can't be, he knows what he's done and he knows the price he's paid and the price he's forced her to pay... but he sees within her an infinite potency, the power to change his universe and everything in it including its laws and ethics, only she simply won't.
This is an incredible literary accomplishment.
And then the whole Quilty affair and the absurd urge for revenge play out as messy and unfillfilling and degrading, just as they should.
Ooh--Shiva the destroyer by "love"! I like it! You made me think, lots.I like your last paragraph about his redemption could have been found in Lo's love and preference of him--that is quite profound.
I'm glad to share... now I guess I'm hooked and must read Pale Fire too!
Mod
You must.
If this is literally happening, then the absurd universe could somewhat diminish our interest in Humbert as a unique individual (that is if he's a madman among madmen and a pervert among perverts, then he fades into his environment too much and loses much of his charm); or, if these are reflections of his subjective exaggeration, or if he's delusional/occasionally psychotic, then we lose much of the poignancy of knowing that his brutal behavior and sociopathic attitude is occuring in the real world.
This goes to the core of Humbert's craftiness. The narrative is intended as his confession. These scenes of everyday madness and perversion are intended to have the very effect you pinpointed - that in such a world as this, is loving a nymphet such a bad thing? And of course, to some extent, we fall for it. Yes, we condemn his actions, but we still find some space to think of him as a faulted human rather than a demonic monster. But of course, throughout the book, Humbert gives us small asides about how he has fooled psychiatrists and others, which implies the confession was written to fool us too - so which is he? Flawed man or evil monster? The balance Humbert/Nabokov creates makes it difficult to be 100% in either camp.
Essay: On a book entitled Lolita, p. 311 – 317
On the road again, it appears the power dynamics are shifting between Hum and Lo. An Aztec Red convertible feeds Humbert’s rear-view paranoia. Lolita’s flu leads her to freedom. Humbert retraces their trail with little result. Humbert kills time and his liver with Rita the sloppy drunk, until he receives a letter from one Mrs. Richard F. Schiller. Humbert pays a visit to the newlyweds and gets all the information he needs to seek his revenge. On the road back to Ramsdale, Humbert finally meditates (for the reader’s benefit) on Lolita’s time with him and how little he actually cared for, or even thought about, who and what she might be thinking about and feeling – too little, too late. Humbert straightens out a few business details in Ramsdale before driving out to visit his nemesis. Mission accomplished, Humbert concludes his confession.
The closing essay was written at the request of the original publisher to help “defend” the book from possible obscenity charges. Did the essay make the book any more palatable/acceptable?