Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[pontalba]

Oh and by the by, I have ordered the "The Annotated Lolita : Revised and Updated (Vintage)". Should get it in a couple of days.

Peder
I don't think she was miserable with Schiller, I felt that she loved him very much. As for HH, the whole monologue you refer to seems to be hinged on this:

".....I had hoped to deduce from my sense of sin
the existence of a Supreme Being." p. 282

He had a terrible guilty (Hah! Quilty!!) conscience about what he'd done to Lolita and wanted to be forgiven.

 

[Peder]

Oh and by the by, I have ordered the "The Annotated Lolita : Revised and Updated (Vintage)". Should get it in a couple of days.

Peder
I don't think she was miserable with Schiller, I felt that she loved him very much. As for HH, the whole monologue you refer to seems to be hinged on this:

".....I had hoped to deduce from my sense of sin
the existence of a Supreme Being." p. 282

He had a terrible guilty (Hah! Quilty!!) conscience about what he'd done to Lolita and wanted to be forgiven.

Pontalba,
Hooray on ordering the book! But I always thought you had it. What have you been using that has produced so many specific references to pages in the book, and such accurate and excellent knowledge, if I may ask? Not mental telepathy!?
--
It does seem that at the end HH does more thinking about what he has done than throughout the book. And there is even an additional remark to fit in with the 'hospitalization' remarks by him that you uncovered earlier.

I've just had my last coffee of the day (decaff) and finished the book. You mention forgiveness, and I have been wonderiing whether Lo's comment that "you were a good father, I guess" might count as forgiveness, or at least as much as he was going to see. Later she also calls him honey, which I think reflects a friendly turn of speech, more than a specific endearment for him, but she is remarkably calm and gentle during their last meeting, and definitely wishing to put the past behind her. As if she has mellowed from the hellion that Charlotte had to deal with, and the difficult girl that Humbert had to deal with. She might have justifiably been full of recrimination and barely repressed anger, but she isn't. She says it is because she doesn't want her husband to know, but I don't think that excuse by itself can have produced such a total change as seems to have occurred.

So I think her comment says worlds about how he treated her and how she viewed him. All of which could fill a long separate post!

And I agree that he had a very guilty conscience and was very contrite, finally, in the closing pages of the book. That would be another whole post!

Peder

 

[Peder]

Peder

'Tis rather depressing when you realize that nobody got out alive....... But otoh, HH really did the world a favor by getting rid of a slime ball like Quilty. What really slays me is that Lolita in the end after all the shouting was over actually preferred Quilty!! Ye Gods!

But as to your thoughts on this:
""It had become gradually clear to my conventional Lolita during our singular and bestial cohabitation that even the most miserable of family lives was better than the parody of incest which, in the long run, was the best I could offer the waif."

I don't think it referred to her marriage at all. I would have to suppose she meant literally that any miserable, crummy 'family life' was better than what she had with HH. Well, I could argue with that, as there are/were things that would even more terrible, but she wasn't far wrong.

Pontalba
Your comment on her preference for Quilty baffles me. At the end, she preferred him?! Or at the beginning?

But yes I like your more general meaning for that sentence. No matter how I tried to straighten it out, it still came out like a pretzel and I couldn't make a specific detailed meaning fit all the contortions.

Peder

 

[pontalba]

Pontalba
Your comment on her preference for Quilty baffles me. At the end, she preferred him?! Or at the beginning?

But yes I like your more general meaning for that sentence. No matter how I tried to straighten it out, it still came out like a pretzel and I couldn't make a specific detailed meaning fit all the contortions.

Peder

On p. 279, right after the 'honey' remark, Lolita says: "No, it is quite out of the question. I would sooner go back to Cue, I mean---"

 

[SFG75]

Well, I came home and happened upon my first complimentary issue of The Atlantic Monthly and in flipping through the pages, what do I see? A great write-up on Lolita by none other than Christopher Hitchens!. This good article is definitely worth venturing over to the library and reading in its whole entirety if you are not fortunate enough to have a subscription.

In reading the Hitchens article, it was interesting to note that Lolita, is not just about sexual seduction, it's about one individual completely overtaking another, smothering the other person until they are just reduced to next to nothing and in Lo's case, unable to recover after trying to piece together some resemblance of sanity in her life. I haven't thought of the book in this light before, and perhaps it's something that a lot of people overlook in just hearing about the book and getting all hot and bothered about the sex stuff.


I would have to agree with Pontalba that:

I don't think it referred to her marriage at all. I would have to suppose she meant literally that any miserable, crummy 'family life' was better than what she had with HH. Well, I could argue with that, as there are/were things that would even more terrible, but she wasn't far wrong.

in regards to:

""It had become gradually clear to my conventional Lolita during our singular and bestial cohabitation that even the most miserable of family lives was better than the parody of incest which, in the long run, was the best I could offer the waif."

Quilty definitely looks like the better of the two when Lo is trying to evade H.H. and is smothered by him, but I'm not certain which character is worse.

 

[pontalba]

Peder

No Mental Telepathy involved! Thats what I call 'spot-reading', along with a number 2 pencil and book marks.

Do you mean the remark on p.308 where HH mentiones that he is writing from, at first a "psychopathic ward for observation, and then in this well-heated, albeit tombal, seclusion............." ? Well, I reckon if the cops found someone wandering about a roadway at a snail's pace and bloody with a gun in his pocket..........or did he ditch the gun?? Anyway that thars a high recommendation for the padded cell.

Something else that highlighted his distaste for himself is on the same page where he speaks of the different pseudonyms he considered. "....but for some reason I think my choice expresses the nastiness best." Ouch!

 

[Peder]

On p. 279, right after the 'honey' remark, Lolita says: "No, it is quite out of the question. I would sooner go back to Cue, I mean---"

Pontalba
Yup, you are right again. I read that only a couple hours ago, but it hardly registered it seemed so 'opposite.'
That is another one of those irritating remarks by Nabokov where he takes back with the left hand what he has given with the right hand! It makes it so difficult to figure out what he/she/anyone has in mind.
Grrrrrr
Peder

 

[Peder]

In fact, I can't calculate that remark at all!

 

[pontalba]

Peder That makes two of us. She shuddered at the thought of Quilty, and then would rather go to him than Humbert????

Didn't anyone get my guilty---Quilty pun??

 

[Peder]

Peder That makes two of us. She shuddered at the thought of Quilty, and then would rather go to him than Humbert????

Didn't anyone get my guilty---Quilty pun??

Pontalba,
/raising hand and waving it/
I did, I did!

Peder

 

[Peder]

And now I have to get some sleep.
But it's not the company!
zzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[pontalba]

Pontalba,
/raising hand and waving it/
I did, I did!

Peder

Yay!

BTW, SFG That article is great!! Thanks!

 

[Peder]

Well, I came home and happened upon my first complimentary issue of The Atlantic Monthly and in flipping through the pages, what do I see? A great write-up on Lolita by none other than Christopher Hitchens!. This good article is definitely worth venturing over to the library and reading in its whole entirety if you are not fortunate enough to have a subscription.

In reading the Hitchens article, it was interesting to note that Lolita, is not just about sexual seduction, it's about one individual completely overtaking another, smothering the other person until they are just reduced to next to nothing and in Lo's case, unable to recover after trying to piece together some resemblance of sanity in her life. I haven't thought of the book in this light before, and perhaps it's something that a lot of people overlook in just hearing about the book and getting all hot and bothered about the sex stuff.


I would have to agree with Pontalba that:



in regards to:

Quilty definitely looks like the better of the two when Lo is trying to evade H.H. and is smothered by him, but I'm not certain which character is worse.

SFG
OOPS! It looks likes your post was up there when I signed off last night and I am so sorry I missed it! My sincerest apologies 100%
Glad that you mentioned that Hitchens article. It sounds like there may be others in the magazine? Under the overall title "Hurricane Lolita"? In any event, I'm going to hope my luck holds and that I can catch up with an actual copy today.

Yesterday, on my trip into the City, I managed to find the last remaining copy of the December Playboy in a magazine rack. The January issue is now out all over the place, so this particular Borders just seemed to be slow in getting them into the rack. (Wall Street, no less! How will the horny traders ever live?!) And, briefly, I was carried all the way back to my youth, searching for Playboy. I must say that rack has really expanded enormously since I last looked, about a hundred years ago.

As far as smothering Lolita, I think that is what Humbert may also finally believe is the full evil he has done to her. There is the short poignant scene, with him on the hillside expecting to be arrested, where he hears the voices of children coming up from the valley and realizes that Lolita's voice is not among them. And never can or will be. That stabs this reader's heart (and deserves a full hanky all to itself ). It is on pg 308, facing the last page of the book.

Quilty is panderer and pervert to the end as far as I can tell, in his final scene with Humbert, so my opiniion of him has not come up at all now that I have finished reading the book. Finished reading, but no-way finished discussing! There is so much that comes up in the concluding episodes. Especially on L and Q and the events involving them.

But that line about Lo blurting out that she would rather go back to Quilty still really annoys me. For the first time, I am really miiffed with my favorite author! But more on that later. I am not done with him, and he is going to hear from me! Mark my words!

Good morning all,
Yawning and stretching
Peder

 

[Peder]

SFG,
Oh! I now see that "hurricane Lolita" was the title of the book review by Hitchens. My eyes are bginning to focus
But i am definitely going to go looking for that Issue.
I know a place!
And I'm going to be collecting a bunch of ammunition on my train and subway rides.

So, CU all later,
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Peder

yes! I wanted to bring up that scene you mention on p.308, regarding the lack of Lolita's voice among the children forever. I think originally that was the scene that really made me realize that Humbert had a real and active guilty conscience and fully realized just what and how much he had stolen from Lolita. But I have to say that the remark that Lo passed about Q did irritate me no end. She realized how much HH had stolen from her, but didn't yet have the maturity to realize just what Q would have done if given the chance. How she didn't I can't imagine! I suppose because HH's abuse was over such a long period of time she could not see that fully.

SFG

That article is really interesting, there were a few points that I sort of didn't quite agree with, but at this hour of the morning..........(there really is a sun up so soon?) I find it difficult to focus. I did subscribe to the magazine, as it looks yummy. I'll have to see if I can get a hard copy in town, if I can get in today.

 

[Peder]

Well, SFG,
I did catch up with a copy of The Atlantic and now I'm almost afraid to say another word about Lolita, much less even think about Lolita, without being convicted one way or another of exceedingly criminal unconscious thoughts and wishes! And maybe I have already indicated enough of my thoughts in this single paragraph that I can already be convicted!

Zounds, what an aggressively acidic analysis of the book and its reader!

I only read the article once, on the train home just now, and I may have it all wrong, but it sounds to me like an extended and very vigorous riff on the theme "Nice people don't read books like that!" Sort of like, nice girls don't wear patent leather shoes either.

Phew!

Peder

 

[Peder]

Pontalba,

yes! I wanted to bring up that scene you mention on p.308, regarding the lack of Lolita's voice among the children forever. I think originally that was the scene that really made me realize that Humbert had a real and active guilty conscience and fully realized just what and how much he had stolen from Lolita.

I agree with you totally there. (But watch out for Hitchens! )

But I have to say that the remark that Lo passed about Q did irritate me no end.

It has continued to irritate me, and I have been working on figuring out an interpretation of what she (might have) meant, but haven't yet got my comments down to less than about 6 posts worth! So stay tuned for the full counter-attack.

there were a few points that I sort of didn't quite agree with,

Re the Atlantic article, only a few points,eh? See eruption above!
But I agree with you it looks like a very nice magazine.

Now for some lunch,
Red meat, grrr
CU later,
Peder

 

[Peder]

BTW re Humbert's hospitalization(s)

Pontalba et al, StillILearn(?) or Libra6Poe(?) who raised the question,
It took digging but I did find the statement I was thinking of. I quite agree with your observation that a maniac wandering around with Little Chum would end up in the criminal psychiatric ward pretty quickly. But that would be "for cause." Ample cause!
The one I was thinking of I found on p. 255, after he cleans her things out of the car.
"Then when I understood that my mind was cracking, I collected these sundry things .. and shipped them off..." etc etc"
Then he continues:
"At the time I felt I was merely losing contact with reality; and after spending the rest of the winter and most of the following spring in a Quebec sanatorium where I had stayed before, I resolved first to settle some affairs of mine in New York and then proceed to California for a thorough search there," for the yet unknown Trapp/Quilty person.
Then follows what I thought was a very nice, simple poem of his heartbroken state.
So, add one more to the "voluntary commitment" column.

Now for lunch,
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Peder

I didn't get the impression that Hitchens was saying anything terrible about people that read Lolita, I found him to be extremely to the point and acerbic. I only read it once late last night, so my impression may be fuzzy, so I'll have to go back and recon.

Everytime I see the expression Little Chum it cracks me up. What absolutely bloody understatement and off handedness! I was the one that mentioned that scene (meandering drive at the end) as the only one of his 'commitments' that was not voluntary. I believe the Quebec sanatorium was the one that was coupled with his hopeful foray to the Catholic Church, speaking to the priest that really seemed to attempt to help HH. /sigh/

After spending time with the DMV this afternoon, I didn't have time to try to find the hard copy of the Atlantic, so I may try tomorrow.

As far as the irritating comment of Lo's, the only conclusion I can come to is to take it literally. She was with HH so long that to her he must have seemed the worse alternative. Well, in truth, its like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

 

[Peder]

Background I

To all who ever wondered who knew what when,,

At issue is Lolita's remark to Humbert after he finds her again, married and pregnant, and asks her to come away with him:
"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 --- " (pg 279).

Sooner go back to cue?!!! What on Earth are we to make of that? Especially since we never get to learn how she would have completed that interrupted sentence "I mean ---"

Two preliminary thoughts present themselves before getting on to trying to figure out that sentence and a half.

First of all, it is quite typical of Nabokov (and probably not him alone) to use an interrupted thought, or sentence, or episode to give the reader just so much information at that point as he Nabokov wishes, and to defer the rest of the information to later for dramatic purposes in the telling of the story. Especially when the deferred information happens to be vital to the story and would really clear things up for the reader, if revealed! Nabokov doen't make it that easy; it is part of his layering technique.

An example occurs when Edusa Gold pulls up at the red light alongside Humbert's car with Lolita sitting alongside him in the front seat.

"What a shame it was to tear Dolly away from the play -- you should have heard the author raving about her after that rehearsal"
"Green light, you dope," said Lo under her breath, and simultaneously, waving in bright adieu, Joan of Arc ... violently outdistanced us to swerve into Campus Avenue. (pp 208-209)

Here, Lo is eager to get going when the light turns green. However, she is even more eager to cut off the conversation because it might lead to revelations about just who that suthor was. And, if continued, the conversation might just also lead to revelations from Edusa Gold about Dolly and that author. She did know about him.

But most important, Nabokov himself is eager to cut off the conversation at that point for exactly the same reasons! So the light turns green! (magically at the right moment!) And Edusa zooms off.

Later on we do learn that Edusa warned Dolly off about Cue, but not until VN is ready to have us learn that. So he has left the thought hanging, almost without us knowing that he has done that. Or in my case, completely without my knowing that he has done that.

In another case (actually in another story) Professor Pnin is about to introduce a new arrival to all the guests already at his cocktail party, when one of the guests already there says "Oh we all know Tom. He doesn't need any introduction!" True enough, but in the comedy of errors which is part of that story, the interruption prevents the reader from realizing that Professor Pnin did not know it was Tom, but thought it was someone else and was going to announce the wrong name. tee hee. At least that's the way I read it.

So Nabokov interrupts Lolita's thought with a long dash, to prevent our knowing what she was going to say:

"I would sooner go back to Cue, I mean ---"

But in this case he never does provide the missing information, and we are left hanging with an incomprehensible stated preference for Cue, the pornographer. Yek! So what are we to do?

[To be continued]
Peder