• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

I have read (just) past the couch scene.

My first impression is that it is repulsive, though I can imagine that might change... do we ever empathise with him? She doesn't appear to be aware of what is happening, if her conversation with Charlotte immediately afterwards is anything to go by. Yet she squirms on his lap.

The end of this scene comments on "Lolita being solipsidized".

sol·ip·sism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy
The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
The theory or view that the self is the only reality.
Click to expand...

????????????

The scene before the "couch" scene, where he licks something out of her eye is... weird. Even at 12, you would think she would have an idea what is going on.
 
Steffee Creepy to the nth degree, Yes. When I first read it, number one, it creeped me out, but then, I thought, how could Lolita not have known? :confused: But I think she did. Notice the aftermath on p.61:
"Immediately afterward (as if we had been struggling and now my grip had eased) she rolled off the sofa and jumped to her feet--to her foot, rather--in order to attend to the formidably loud telephone that may have been ringing for ages as far as I was concerned. There she stood and blinked, cheeks aflame, hair awry.............".

In the notes in the annotated version on p.365, it says:
"safely solipized: see 12/2. An important phrase.... The verbal form of solipsist is of course HH's coinage--a most significant portmanteau suggesting that Lolita has been reduced in more than size, as HH comes to realize. Although HH's 'moral apotheosis' is expressed at the end of "Lolita", hints of it are fleetingly glimpsed early on shortly, when HH addresses the nymphet's solipaized condition:"

Here Appel quoted a paragraph on p. 62 as follows:

"What I had madly possessed was not she, but my own creation, another, fanciful Lolita--perhaps, more real than Lolita; overlapping, encasing her; floating between me and her, and having no will, no consciousness--indeed, no life of her own."

Perhaps I am being simplistic, but its reminiscent of the question.......if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there, does it make a noise? I know I probably don't have the wording just right, but you get the drift. If Lolita didn't know it had happened, did it count? (according ot Humbert!).

Well the answer is a resounding YES, but not in HH's book evidently.
 
steffee said:
I have read (just) past the couch scene.

My first impression is that it is repulsive, though I can imagine that might change... do we ever empathise with him? She doesn't appear to be aware of what is happening, if her conversation with Charlotte immediately afterwards is anything to go by. Yet she squirms on his lap.

The end of this scene comments on "Lolita being solipsidized".



????????????

The scene before the "couch" scene, where he licks something out of her eye is... weird. Even at 12, you would think she would have an idea what is going on.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should have quoted what is on 12/2...........

"solipsism: A central word in Lolita An epistemological theory that the self knows only its present state and is the only existent thing, and that "reality" is subjective; concern with the self at the expense of social relationships.
 
Humbert is very persuasive, as an educated 'man of the world' he certainly has the tools, i.e, language/historical justifictaions re older men and young girls etc to tell the story his way - that is from his point of view. So for a while I was convinced that Lolita knew what was going on and was actively encouraging him. However, thinking about it, i'm not so sure. Humbert is a pedophile - he watches girls in the playground, also when his 'first' girl Annabel is mentioned he can only recall her vaguely but he recalls their physical sessions in detail - is it just me or was this the opposite to his treatment of Lolita - that is he describes her in detail but the physical encounters seemed a little more ambiguous in comparison to the ones with Annabel. Which leads me to think that Lolita was perhaps not consiously aware or encouraging - it was Humberts pedophile mind misinterpreting her behaviour in justification of his own feelings/needs.
 
Gem
Humbert is all you have written. As far as Lolita's encouraging him in his obsession, I believe that she did. But let me hasten to say that she did was not old enough, or mature enough to understand just what she was encouraging. She was all for exploring and craving affection (lack of any parental affection being the case). She was all emotion and hormones with no one to curb or guide her. All she seemed to receive from her mother was a careless sort of discipline. Her mother actually seemed to dislike, or even resent Lolita. On p.46 Charlotte goes on about how spiteful Lo was from the age on one. Now really, how hateful can one mother be. Well, all of this is a tangent, but it goes to Lolita's reasons for looking for attention anywhere she could. Lolita was as manipulative as the day is long.

Anyway, as to HH's description of first Annabel and then Lolita, on p.39-40 he actually melds the two together, with HH calling Annabel his "dead bride", and prototype for Lolita. And there were some fairly descriptive accounts of his sexual encounters with Lolita.

With all of that HH did in fact constantly attempt to rationalize his behavior, so perhaps in true Nabokovian style, its both.:)

And btw, welcome!:D
 
A new Humbert?

Gem said:
Humbert is very persuasive, as an educated 'man of the world' he certainly has the tools, i.e, language/historical justifictaions re older men and young girls etc to tell the story his way - that is from his point of view. So for a while I was convinced that Lolita knew what was going on and was actively encouraging him. However, thinking about it, i'm not so sure. Humbert is a pedophile - he watches girls in the playground, also when his 'first' girl Annabel is mentioned he can only recall her vaguely but he recalls their physical sessions in detail - is it just me or was this the opposite to his treatment of Lolita - that is he describes her in detail but the physical encounters seemed a little more ambiguous in comparison to the ones with Annabel. Which leads me to think that Lolita was perhaps not consiously aware or encouraging - it was Humberts pedophile mind misinterpreting her behaviour in justification of his own feelings/needs.
Click to expand...
Gem
Ahh, to tell the story his own way, even though he says not. How to figure that out?

I think you have put you finger on an important point and I will agree with you about the difference between his descriptions of the Annabel and the Lolita encounters. That seems right to me, from memory, without looking back at the book. And still right, even if he was unaware of the difference while writing his version. It might also cut in a different direction as well, namely that his relationship to Lolita 'was different,' that she was 'one of a kind' to him, and that he may indeed have felt differently about her, and her only.

One very vexing question that just won't go away is whether he loved her, finally, and was genuinely contrite. And I think that your observation may be fine evidence that just maybe he did and maybe he was. I have never heard your observation before and you may have seen through the forest to find the one 'right' tree. Put another way, that is very neat textual criticism you have done!

But he's such a rat in other ways! Or may one argue that they were only evidence of his earlier self, before his contrition, and that they are washed away by it? "She raped me," and the whole perverted idea that he was going to rape her "without her knowing it," are the two most disgusting things that are said or done in the book, in my view. They will take a lot of washing away before one can become sympathetic toward him. But, then again, genuine contrition is exactly what is claimed can make such radical changes.

Or was he just feeling sorry for hmself after losing her?

Your post has much food for thought.

As for Lolita, she is the other vexing question that will not go away, but let me put that in a second post.

(continued)
 
A new Lolita?

Hi Gem, here again,
(continuation)

Was she or wasn't she? Did she or didn't she?
Was she innocent? Did she entice him?

We have trouble getting a good focus on her, or at least I do.

I see that Pontalba has posted while I was typing my previous. By both your leaves, let me continue with my thought and then we can see how we compare.

I'm inclined to suggest that she falls into the category 'risk seeker' whereas I think most people are 'risk averse.' I've known exactly one man who was a risk seeker and, let me tell you, he was different!

That train of thought began when Steffee described the episode where he licked the corner of her eye as "weird." It was indeed, and I can't even imagine how Nabokov coiuld dream up such a thought to put on paper. The first time Humbert was helping clear her eye, but why did she stand for it a second time?

It is hard to argue that she deliberately enticed him to lick the corner of her eye a second time, by gesture or otherwise, and much harder to suggest that she deliberately put the cinder in her eye in the first pace.

Maybe she deferred to his status as an adult, unusual for her(!) Or maybe she thought "Oh well, if that's what he wants to do, I'm game and let's see where it leads."

On the couch, (after she regained the apple?), I can imagine her flopping back and throwing her legs across his lap, seeking attention and as if to signal "Hey I'm still here, and I'm still playful." In exactly the same manner and for the same reason that she covered his eyes later on. And shuffled into his room reading something, and gradually floated toward him, to get pulled gently to him, to sit on his lap.

On the couch, when she became aware ('when' rather than 'if') that more was going on than might meet the eye, again I can imagine her thinking "Well well, let's see where this leads."

I suggest that those would be the thoughts and actions of a 'risk seeker.'
And exactly the sorts of actions that Humbert could describe to his advantage.

Perhaps she was more of a risk taker than most flirts are, I'm assuming. :confused:
And also more innocent, because 'health' education was much less informative then than it is now.

So, perhaps we have the possibility of two new ways of looking at both Humbert and Lolita?

I await the shrieks, :D
Peder
 
Little Lo was Curious. She wanted to see what "Life" was all about, taste it all do it all. Here comes someone that is totally out of her realm and experience. Combine that with the personality type you describe as a 'risk seeker' Peder, add in Charlotte...........and there ya go.

'Risk Seeker'.......interesting description. But she was thus only to the point where she was being smothered by HH, and not allowed the freedom to be a kid. Rebellion. Boy oh boy was Quilty a risk!

After all, if she wasn't someone willing to risk it all, she would not have been willing to go all the way to Alaska, would she? By her own admission, she didn't know much about the job offer her husband was taking, So there she was, pregnant, travelling cross country (again!) to an uncertain future.

I'm beginning to like her a little better. :)
 
Pontalba, all
"Curious" is a great word that you chose for Little Lo. Around that age, 12-ish, there is definitely one thing that children start getting real curious about! :rolleyes: (or, at least, once did :) ) And that would certainly fit Lo's more provocative behavior to a T. Even, dare I say, to her 'demonstration' to Humbert in the hotel room of one of the things she learned at camp, as he feigned ignorance. :eek: :eek: :eek:

And I like your observation that she was willing to jump out into the void, so to speak. Alaska in those days probably really sounded like the end of the world! Even today I have known only one real person who has done it. He retired up to there! Exclamation point not because of Akaska; it's just not quite as warm as Palm Beach, and the flow from NYC is definitely southward at every chance people get.

Oh, and last thought. Re solipsism, I found two definitions over at wiktionary and they introduce an additional flavor to the word: self absorbed, and seeing only one's own feelings, thoughts and desires and no one else's. These are links:

Solipsism

and

self-absorption

First time I've seen a definition that non-philosophers might understand.

Cheers with the Notes :)
Peder
 
Peder She certainly had chutzpah!
[ya know I had to look up the spelling of chutzpah, and the defination fits Lo even better than I thought!]

:shameless audacity, impudence :D :p :eek:


p.s. and if your links don't fit Humbert, I don't know what does! Ye Gods!
 
Originally Posted by pontalba
When I first read it, number one, it creeped me out, but then, I thought, how could Lolita not have known? But I think she did. Notice the aftermath on p.61:
"Immediately afterward (as if we had been struggling and now my grip had eased) she rolled off the sofa and jumped to her feet--to her foot, rather--in order to attend to the formidably loud telephone that may have been ringing for ages as far as I was concerned. There she stood and blinked, cheeks aflame, hair awry.............".
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree she must have known 'something' was going on.

Thank you for the "self-absorbtion" definition, Peder, it certainly makes more sense now. But most (if not all) 12 year old girls are "self-absorbed". The world revolves around them, and "curiosity" is the forefront of all of their actions. But there's curious, and there's curious, of course.

I once read somewhere that young people "test" their flirting skills with "safe" people of the opposite sex. I don't remember doing this, but my sister, at that age, developed a "crush" on a family friend. I found her diary and, being three years older, was shocked at her descriptions of him... his strong arms, nice hands, "gorgeousness". He was in his late 30s. She did indeed "flirt" with him, but the key point here is that he was "safe".

Maybe Lolita is doing the same. 12 year old's don't know (too much) about sexual relationships, but are "curious". Maybe she was "testing" what she perceived as a "safe" elder male, a father figure in her life. The 'hands over the eyes' and even sitting on his lap, are examples of her "curiosity" and "testing". But he wasn't "safe" for her, far from it...

I like the "rebellion" description, and think her relationship with her mother appears strained, at least upto the point I am with the book.

The fact that she is 12 years old is the crux. A 14 year old would surely know what was happening; a much younger child, most likely wouldn't (at this point anyway), but 12? She is still a child, he an adult, and children do like to please adults, particularly those that aren't their parents. They trust that adults know better, for all they may argue with and rebel against them, and even if they feel uncomfortable, they are likely to continue to "please" this adult (as we have seen in many cases of sexual abuse).
 
steffee said:
Thank you for the "self-absorbtion" definition, Peder, it certainly makes more sense now. But most (if not all) 12 year old girls are "self-absorbed". The world revolves around them, and "curiosity" is the forefront of all of their actions. But there's curious, and there's curious, of course.

The fact that she is 12 years old is the crux. A 14 year old would surely know what was happening; a much younger child, most likely wouldn't (at this point anyway), but 12? She is still a child, he an adult, and children do like to please adults, particularly those that aren't their parents. They trust that adults know better, for all they may argue with and rebel against them, and even if they feel uncomfortable, they are likely to continue to "please" this adult (as we have seen in many cases of sexual abuse).
Click to expand...
Steffee,
Yes, I thought those definitions said it in a way that I could imagine in my own words. And with that new insight, I looked back at Appel's definition, from pontalba up above, and found that now I could understand what his individual words meant. Earlier I could just not get it.

And 12? You convince me that Nabokov sure picked the right age for his nymphet, to keep everything shrouded in ambiguity forever. Without her father, and near rejected by her mother, Lo must have been just absolutely yearning for a man to turn up in her life, a ready-made father replacement. And, yes, he might well have meant everything to her. So are we to see Lo as head over heels in love? It could fit. And could provide a much fuller explanation for why she was so angry with him for 'betraying' her and (she thought) sending her off to camp. She was feeling jilted by the man she loved? (How grown up that phrase sounds.)

Which gets us back around to solipsism. 12 year olds I guess are self absorbed, as you say. And for this story the truth may be that our capacity for getting 'outside of ourselves' and seeing the other person as a person, and having a capacity to empathize with them, must be part of the personality that grows within in ourselves as we mature. (Perhaps even the definition of maturing?) /reaching into total darkness here, because psychology is totally remote from my background/. And that is a question, whether Humbert ever achieved anything like that level of maturity, or any level of emotional maturity.

That's quite a snowball of jumbled and clashing emotions to try to decode for our two characters. But I think the possibilies are there, described in those terms. Which is what Appel has been trying to tell us? Duh!

Fascinating,
Peder
 
pontalba said:
Peder She certainly had chutzpah!
[ya know I had to look up the spelling of chutzpah, and the defination fits Lo even better than I thought!]

:shameless audacity, impudence :D :p :eek:


p.s. and if your links don't fit Humbert, I don't know what does! Ye Gods!
Click to expand...

Pontalba,
I think we are converging! :D
Peder

p.s. your p.s. is of course directed toward Appel. They were his words and he now seems to have known what he was talking about, even if we/I didn't.:)
p.
 
I suspect that (among you) you've got the most excellent take on Lolita. I'll bet that both Nabokov and Appel would be nodding their heads in vigorous agreement.

:)

Humbert Humbert is going to be a harder nut to crack.
 
StillILearn said:
I suspect that (among you) you've got the most excellent take on Lolita. I'll bet that both Nabokov and Appel would be nodding their heads in vigorous agreement.
Click to expand...
StillILearn,
It is nice to hear from you and to hear nice words, but I think the most excellent thing about this forum is the variety of different takes that I have heard, and the amazing number of truly pertinent quotes that I don't remember reading. :( Truly. I have concluded so far, that I am going to have a list of questions for my next reread, not a list of answers. Lolita has certainly come into a different focus for me, but nailing it down around the edges, or revising it yet again, for me will take careful staring at scenes and words, my recollection is so hazy.
And as for Nabokov nodding his head in vigorous agreement over a psychological interpretation of Lolita, I have my doubts. :)
StillILearn said:
Humbert Humbert is going to be a harder nut to crack.
Click to expand...
Yes ndeed! I oscillate completely back and forth on him and I am not even sure there is an answer. If there is one, however, I think it is going to have to hinge on understanding two unfinished thoughts he expressed.

First, when he asked Lo to come with him, he had on the tip of his tongue to add the word "reprieve." (p 278)

Second, when he asked if she really wouldn't come with him, and she said no again, he said dejectedly "It would have made all the diifference." (p 280)

When our members can spare some time from their Holiday preparations -- Hopeful Harry said heartily :) -- I think those would be two thoughts for all of us to have a whack at. That second sentence has such pathos embedded within it that it affects me even as I type it right now. I think that the entire interpretation of Humbert, and indeed the entire interpretation of the whole novel, may reside within those seven or eight words.

But if someone has a clear take on Lolita, I would be glad to read it, along with the other members here, I am sure. Not that it is impossible that there be one, I would just like to see one and read it. Complete and in one place. Yourself perhaps? To lead off perhaps, if there are more than one? I am sure they will cause each of us to clarify further what we make of her. And, yes, maybe be a crowning achievement for that part of the discussion.

So, who has a Lolita? :confused:
Eh? :)
Peder
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top