Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[Peder]

Background II

[continuing]What are we to make of Lo saying

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

One answer is, of course, to do our best to give it a meaning. But how?
At this point, in another context, Brian Boyd said "Trust Nabokov."

Brian Boyd is a leading authority on Vladimir Nabokov and also author of a very well received biography of Nabokov. The preceding advice comes from a full length book of criticism and interpretation which Boyd wrote, devoted solely to Pale Fire, wherein Boyd presents his own interpretations of many allusions in that work. I think it is fair to say they are very imaginative, at the least, and the jacket blurb calls Boyd's a "singular reading" of the novel.

The point is that Boyd said, by way of justification, that one could trust Nabokov, meaning that if one followed the allusions through dictionary, literature and imagination, then one could and would find that interpretation which truly fit.

If one truly believes that Boyd's idea also applies to Lolita, then the answer to the interpretaion of that sentence-and-a-half must already lie within the covers of the book. And that we will know it when we have it.

All of which is a long way of saying that we must be able to put together a plausible understanding of why Lolita said what she said, and what her whole thought must have been before she cut it off. And that we can have confidence in our conclusions, because the book was written by Nabokov and, therefore, the information must be there.

Now to get on with thinking about an interpretation,
Peder

 

[Peder]

Interpreting Lo I

To any who are still interested and still reading

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

Just staring at that sentence for a while and thinking of likely ways it might be continued can be productive, I think. How many typical words might follow "I mean" anyway?

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, if only ---"

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, if he would---"

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, if I could ---"

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

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, except that ---"

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, if there were ---"

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, if you ---"

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

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

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, provided that ---"

I mean. I mean. I mean. ....

There are not so many grammatical ways of continuing that sentence with a logical thought, it seems to me. And it also seems to me that the likely continuation in some sense is in oppostion to the first part of the statement, or a clarification/retraction of part of its meaning. So there is hope yet for what she might have been going to say.

The continuation I prefer is the first one listed, partly because, looking ahead, I already know what my suggestion is going to be and why. /evil grin/ hee hee

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, if only ---"

But at this point the thinking is of course open to everyone, as it always has been, so I suggest that everyone consider what they think their own plausible continuation(s) would be. It's not difficult to do, given how much we now know about Dolly and Cue. And if it is still a Rohrschach test, then so it is, but I think it is a little less open-ended than that.

And now I'm going to rest the eyeballs,
And also plain rest,
It has been a long day,
Peder

 

[Peder]

Interpreting Lo I

To any who are still interested and still reading

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

Just staring at that sentence for a while and thinking of likely ways it might be continued can be productive, I think. How many typical words might follow "I mean" anyway?

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, if only ---"

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, if he would---"

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, if I could ---"

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

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, except that ---"

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, if there were ---"

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, if you ---"

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

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

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, provided that ---"

I mean. I mean. I mean. ....

There are not so many grammatical ways of continuing that sentence with a logical thought, it seems to me. And it also seems to me that the likely continuation in some sense is in oppostion to the first part of the statement, or a clarification/retraction of part of its meaning. So there is hope yet for what she might have been going to say.

The continuation I prefer is the first one listed, partly because, looking ahead, I already know what my suggestion is going to be and why. /evil grin/ hee hee

"I would sooner go back to Cue. I mean, if only ---"

But at this point the thinking is of course open to everyone, as it always has been, so I suggest that everyone consider what they think their own plausible continuation(s) would be. It's not difficult to do, given how much we now know about Dolly and Cue. And if it is still a Rohrschach test, then so it is, but I think it is a little less open-ended than that.

And now I'm going to rest the eyeballs,
And also plain rest,
It has been a long day,
Peder

 

[Peder]

Oh great!
I found out how to dual post.
Sorry.
P.

 

[pontalba]

Peder

"I would sooner go back to Que. I mean..."

.......surely you can understand that?

.......you must realize that..

.......you've got to know that.

?????

 

[pontalba]

While looking for another passage that is teasing me, I ran across this interesting tidbit. p.190, middle paragraph regarding one Eva Rosen. She is one that had a claim to "nymphetry". HH spoke French to her "(much to Lo's disgust)".

Miss Lolita dropped Eva like a hot potato "...despite "that French kid's uncle" being "a millionaire""

Does Jealousy rear its lil ole haid??

 

[SFG75]

While looking for another passage that is teasing me, I ran across this interesting tidbit. p.190, middle paragraph regarding one Eva Rosen. She is one that had a claim to "nymphetry". HH spoke French to her "(much to Lo's disgust)".

Miss Lolita dropped Eva like a hot potato "...despite "that French kid's uncle" being "a millionaire""

Does Jealousy rear its lil ole haid??

Ahhhhhh, interesting finding!. Now this has me intrigued because one moment, we see that Lo is a calculating and cunning young lady who conspires to leave H.H., use hospital staff to help her out, as well as to manipulate H.H. into buying her treats and what not. Add to this her dropping of Eva as a friend for reasons of jealousy, for what else could the reason be? Now look at the "victim" Lo-the girl who cries every time she is raped by H.H., the insecure girl who turns to Q. in order to get away from the all-encompassing H.H., and finally, the girl who is poorly treated by her mother. So which is she, cunning Lo or victim Lo?

 

[pontalba]

So which is she, cunning Lo or victim Lo?

Chameleon Lo.......

 

[pontalba]

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




.......he at least gave me freedom.

It occured to me that as she focuses on the money right after that aborted sentence, perhaps it could be something like,


.......at least he was honest with me about where his interests lay.

??????

 

[Peder]

Pontalba, SFG
You guys are way too sharp for me this morning!
I'm going back to sleep.
Love your comments,
All of them


Peder

 

[pontalba]

Pontalba, SFG
You guys are way too sharp for me this morning!

Peder

Hah! That'll be the Day.

We merely await the Master's Return and put forth our poor efforts.

 

[SFG75]

Hah! That'll be the Day.

We merely await the Master's Return and put forth our poor efforts.

Good lord, isn't that the truth!. My head just spins whenever Peder posts. I then have to go back like the class dunce and read up(again) on whatever he's talking about that I thought wasn't significant.....but is.

 

[Peder]

Interpreting Lo II

Arg, back to the land of the living I think.

Pontalba,
Those are elegant continuations! Elegant. Simply elegant I tell you!.
I never even came close to any of them as you can tell. And not close, of course, here means missed by a country mile. /groan/

But "...because he at least gave me freedom"? Boy do I like that one! It is the point of the story I finally came across!

SFG
Cunniing Lo, or Victim Lo? Or Insecure Lo, as you might well have also added.
All of the above? Including Chameleon Lo?
I think so. All of the above. And maybe also Aching-For-Love Lo? She is so hard to get a fix on. And every time I look at the book I see something new. Like for example that Eva story! And I'll post a couple others that were lost in my memory someplace, which now show her complete desolation while with Humbert, in addition to the endless crying..

And to all
Sorry to have posted all those words. They were my train of thouight on the train into the City yesterday (no pun) as I wrestled with getting some kind of handle on that strange sentence. Lo is hard enough to decipher, without that sentence gumming up the whole works completely, so I just couldn't shake wondering whether Nabokov had lost his marbles.

But finally the story I came across that seemed to make sense, is told in (almost) her own words on pp 275-276, where Humbert is relating what she told him, (which doesn't help at all with the he/her/hims)

"No, she had not betrayed me [she said]. I was among friends [!]. Edusa [ding!] had warned her that Cue liked little girls, had been almost jailed once in fact (nice fact) and he [Cue] knew she knew. .... [Lo] Waxing reminiscent. [Cue] saw ... through everything and every body, because he was not like me and her but a genius. A great guy. Full of fun. Had rocked with laughter when she confessed to him about me and her, and said he had thought so. It was quite safe under the circumstances to tell him...Well the idea was he would take her in September to Hollywood and arrange a tryout for her...Alas it never came to that ....He was a great guy in many respects. But it was all drinks and drugs. And he was a complete freak in sex matters, and his friends were his slaves. I just could not imagine what they did at Duk Duk Ranch (I, Humbert could not imagine!). She refused to take part because she loved him, and he threw her out."

So, I finally thought she was starting to say:

"I would sooner have gone back to Cue. I mean, if only I didn't have to be part of the sex."

But, what I missed, the front part, is that he was the promise of freedom for her, even as far as Hollywood (which she actually believed). But freedom! A life! And with the only man she ever loved! What could be more appealing to her, now that I think of it!

So maybe that strange sentence was, after all, a way that Nabokov was nailing that point, to drive it home, in a very obscure and Nabokovian way. I could bonk him on the bean, if that is what he was up to. But smilingly, of course! Of course

Of course, also, we never saw that smiling happy relationship between Lo and Quilty. Clues hidden from the reader? Bad detective story? Pulling bunny out of the hat? No fair, do I hear you saying? Or, maybe just Nabokov expecting that on the nineteenth rereading we would finally get it all.

Enjoy the day,
It is clear here,
Peder

 

[SFG75]

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.

Only you Peder, can get away with posting about horny traders, playboy, and enormous racks.

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.

The smothering aspect is something that I took from the Hitchens article, didn't consider it before as I had merely looked at how his raping of Lo was the only thing to harm her entirely.....not that in the end it wasn't, but the smothering was equally, if not a greater evil on H.'s part. The scene where he wrecks the car and he's standing on the hill is perhaps the scene where H's guilt is so transparent, and so intense, that you really know that while he isn't in jail *yet* that his inner jail and torment will forever be the greater punishment. He mumbles earlier about feeling guilty, but this scene equals any other where a character has the proverbial dagger plunged into theri chest.

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.

We have more than a few currents of thought running right now, we have a LOT more discussing to do before we tie things up on this one.

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!

Thou douth protest too much Peder!. Why does the good girl like the "bad" boy? Why do some women stay with men who mistreat them and who are genuine scumbags? Why do people drink decaf? Perhaps a sense that they "deserve it"? Perhaps a sense that they can really *change* the person? Love isn't always smart, sometimes it's naive and dangerous.
But more on that later.

I am not done with him, and he is going to hear from me! Mark my words!

Wow, has Humbert joined the conversation?

Good morning all,
Yawning and stretching

And good morning to you good sir!. I now have to fill my mug with caramel truffle flavored coffee and be off to work-though I will lurk during reading and test time.

 

[Peder]

Hah! That'll be the Day.

We merely await the Master's Return and put forth our poor efforts.

Oh Pontalba and you too SFG,
I hadn't seen those posts until now. ROTFFALOLTIC plus pounding on the floor with hands and feet!

Pontalba I'll see you behind the woodshed!

And SFG, You were merely induced into crime by a woman's wiles.
So you get a pass! But that other one! I don't know what I'm going to do with her.

You guys are fantastic!

Peder

 

[Peder]

I am going to soothe my fury by going over to Borders and looking at Nabokov books.

CUL
You can come out of hiding now,
Peder

 

[Peder]

SFG

Only you Peder, can get away with posting about horny traders, playboy, and enormous racks.

I was assuming that everyone knew that there are essays by 13 authors and others in it about Lolita -- it being the fiftieth anniversary of her first publication. But it did take a long time thumbing through the magazine to find out where they were exactly.
And I might say, that the first essay, by Joyce Carol Oates, is a model of fantastically clear, well-organized English writing. i didn't know English sounded like that. Not after some of the obscure, contorted, brilliant mud we have been wading through lately. (Sorry N.) The contrast is amazing, like being on a different planet!

The smothering aspect is something that I took from the Hitchens article, didn't consider it before as I had merely looked at how his raping of Lo was the only thing to harm her entirely.....not that in the end it wasn't, but the smothering was equally, if not a greater evil on H.'s part. The scene where he wrecks the car and he's standing on the hill is perhaps the scene where H's guilt is so transparent, and so intense, that you really know that while he isn't in jail *yet* that his inner jail and torment will forever be the greater punishment. He mumbles earlier about feeling guilty, but this scene equals any other where a character has the proverbial dagger plunged into theri chest.

Agreed, taking her childhood from her is certainly one of his crimes, but I'm not so sure I'd go as far as Hitchens in saying that is what the book is "about," If that is indeed what he said. The book can be about many things, but let me try, really just for argument's sake, to suggest that the book is "about" Humbert. Or is it "about" Lolita? I am going to have to reread Hitchens with pencil in hand, but I think it exaggerates things to suggest -- as I think Hitchens almost does -- that the book is about why you should not smother children. Any more than the book is "about" how to rape children, for example. I thought his views were very quirky, as if he were deliberately trying to be different. But maybe that's what it takew to be famous. Probably. Look at N and Lolita. Or maybe I was just reading too carelessly.

We have more than a few currents of thought running right now, we have a LOT more discussing to do before we tie things up on this one.

Sounds wunnerful to me!

Why does the good girl like the "bad" boy?

Beats me! Every time I see it. And I wonder.

Why do people drink decaf? Perhaps a sense that they "deserve it"?

Oh them! They do deserve that punishment if they are going to drink it. j/k j/k all you decaf lovers, but there really is nothing like real coffee, with real Danish,.... but wait! I digress!

But more on that later.

That should be interesting because Lo certainly fell in the category of "a handful." Do you see children like that, he asks innocently!

Wow, has Humbert joined the conversation?

Good point! But sometimes I do think that H is really N, even if not there, or most places. But just think of the remarks about psychiatry, for example. Or, I suspect, the final words. Or maybe almost anyplace he talks about art.

And good morning to you good sir!. I now have to fill my mug with caramel truffle flavored coffee

Oh, now you really do know how to hurt a guy!

CU when your toil is done,
Grade easily
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Well Fellas..........what wonderful insightful posts all.

Peder
To a child that has been smothered, freedom is of paramount importance. And to Lolita evidently it almost was more important than "performing" for Que. (and thanks )

As to de-caf............ewwwwwww.
Plus, you'd better add some chicory to that black, oil like substance we call coffee. Sorry de-caf drinkers, I know there are some good medical reasons for some, but I tried for 6 years, and I repeat ewwwwwwww.

 

[StillILearn]

I have just now finished my second reading.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am here to say that we have been duped. Seduced and duped by a self-procaimed monster who says of himself right off the bat:

"You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style."

We have been enchanted by a deranged monster who assures us that one sure sign of nymphetry is (among other things) a child's high cheekbones?

A man who tells us this?

With the quiet murmured order one gives a sweat-stained distracted cringing trained animal even in the worst of plights (what mad hope or hate makes the young beast’s flanks pulsate, what black stars pierce the heart of the tamer!) I made Lo get up …

And this?

She complained of a painful stiffness in the upper vertebrae—and I thought of poliomyelitis as any American parent would. Giving up all hope of intercourse ...

And this?

I turned into the shadow of a picnic ground where the morning had dumped its littler of light on an empty table; Lo looked up with a semi-smile of surprise and without a word I delivered a tremendous backhand cut that caught her smack on her hot hard little cheek-bone.

And then the remorse, the poignant sweetness of sobbing atonement, groveling love, the hopelessness of sensual reconciliation.

I could go on (and so could all of you), but, winged ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am here to say that we have been taken. We have been (oh, so artfully) seduced, enchanted, duped, and taken for a ride by the ever-so-humble and charming HH.

Talk about blaming the (twelve year-old) victim? I mean ---

 

[Peder]

I have just now finished my second reading.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am here to say that we have been duped. Seduced and duped by a self-procaimed monster who says of himself right off the bat:

We have been enchanted by a deranged monster who assures us that one sure sign of nymphetry is (among other things) a child's high cheekbones?

I could go on (and so could all of you), but, winged ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am here to say that we have been taken. We have been (oh, so artfully) seduced, enchanted, duped, and taken for a ride by the ever-so-humble and charming HH.

Talk about blaming the (twelve year-old) victim? I mean ---

StillI Learn,
Sounds like you enjoyed it? /he says, tongue deep in cheek/

Yes you are right on both counts. They are definitely an indictment that wouldn't need a hanging jury to hang him. And yes we get seduced into all the other writing that deflects from his evil.

And I don't think I can say any more than that, without thinking long and hard about it, because you are entirely correct and I agree with everything you said.

Maybe in the face of what you said, the question is why we read such a book? Yes, I know, literature, and humor and all that, but there has to be a deeper reason, and I don't mean a deeper darker subliminally criminal perverted reason. Just a real reason why the book is attractive to (some of) us.

So, maybe I can ask, like a wag, "Do you think you'll read it a third time?"
If so, why? Seriously. If not, I can guess why.

Sincerely,
And definitely intrigued,
Peder