-
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
- Thread starter Love4OneAnother
- Start date
pontalba
Well-Known Member
I happen to be reading one of the nominees for February BOTM, Reading Lolita in Tehran, and found one of the authors remarks to be connected to the "freedom" issue we've discussed.
P. 19 "I remember reading to my girls Nabokov's claim that 'readers were born free and ought to remain free'"
Freedom was a key issue to Nabokov. Was Humberts mental finishing off of Lolita's remark a reflection of that passion of Nabokov's?
There is a lot more there, but we are not discussing that book now. But the connections are interesting and telling and actually made me appreciate Lolita's situation even more.
P. 19 "I remember reading to my girls Nabokov's claim that 'readers were born free and ought to remain free'"
Freedom was a key issue to Nabokov. Was Humberts mental finishing off of Lolita's remark a reflection of that passion of Nabokov's?
There is a lot more there, but we are not discussing that book now. But the connections are interesting and telling and actually made me appreciate Lolita's situation even more.
Peder
Well-Known Member
Humbert
So! Humbert, finally.
I think it may have been MonkeyCatcher, way back, who commented that the end of the novel seemed disconnected, hurried, and also chaotic, maybe. She, or someone, said it just at the time I was rereading and noticing that there were indeed not many pages left to wrap up all the things that I remembered happening before it was all over.
That makes it more difficult to get a good fix on Humbert, because it shrinks out the time necessary to have seen any character development in him, if indeed there was to have been any. He is Humbert the Monster before he finds Lolita, and Humbert the Penitent from there on.
His sudden contrition and his sudden love would have been more believable if we had been able to see them developing over time, instead of just appearing suddenly. Along this line of thought, however, there is still the intriguing possibility prompted by Appel's note about Humbert having solipsized Lo. Perhaps, through a careful textual reading one might see a gradual lessening of self-absorption in Humbert and a gradual awakening of a greater realization of Lo's existence as a real living person with her own wants and needs and hopes. Perhaps, but it does not come readily to my memory without rereading. Which isn't to say it doesn't exist.
Looking at it fom the other end, we would find them more believable if the story went on and we could see his love and contrition played out in the future, in a truly loving relationship toward her and a suppression of his sexual hunger. That we are not given to see either, of course, because the story ends.
But, but, but! There is one thing that he does do for her! And it is found in the confessional manuscript that he leaves with his jailers for later publication. In that document itself, he says that, early on, he decided to abandon any attempt to write it to exonerate himself, but rather to write it honestly and truly, "to save not my life, but my soul.". At the end he clearly has abandoned any hope of exoneration, and in fact expects to be executed.
But the one last thing that he hopes he accomplishes is to achieve immortality for his best, one and only, beloved, Lolita, in the only immortality she will ever have.
"Aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art .... "
I see the ending as Humbert in effect saying to the State: "Here is my life. Take it! But in return I give you this manuscript for the immortality of my beloved Lolita."
Which brings to mind Sidney Carton's words, "Tis a far nobler thing I do than ever I have done before, and a more restful sleep I go to than ever I have had before."
Which, going one step back again, is a riff on "What greater thing can a man do than to lay down his life for another?"
--
So, did he love her? I am a pushover for a sob story and my answer has to be yes. Else why have I read the whole thing?
Did he conquer his obsession? That is less clear, but I think it hinges on what one is prepared to believe about those eight words.
"Reprieve" is a word he did not utter, but which raises two questions. Reprieve of whom? And reprieve from what? I suggest he meant reprieve of her, Lolita, from his demands, both on her freedom and sexually. I don't think he went there simply to recapture her for his own selfish ends.
And would it "have made all the difference?" Yes indeed it would have.
So, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
That's my Rohrschach answer
Peder
So! Humbert, finally.
I think it may have been MonkeyCatcher, way back, who commented that the end of the novel seemed disconnected, hurried, and also chaotic, maybe. She, or someone, said it just at the time I was rereading and noticing that there were indeed not many pages left to wrap up all the things that I remembered happening before it was all over.
That makes it more difficult to get a good fix on Humbert, because it shrinks out the time necessary to have seen any character development in him, if indeed there was to have been any. He is Humbert the Monster before he finds Lolita, and Humbert the Penitent from there on.
His sudden contrition and his sudden love would have been more believable if we had been able to see them developing over time, instead of just appearing suddenly. Along this line of thought, however, there is still the intriguing possibility prompted by Appel's note about Humbert having solipsized Lo. Perhaps, through a careful textual reading one might see a gradual lessening of self-absorption in Humbert and a gradual awakening of a greater realization of Lo's existence as a real living person with her own wants and needs and hopes. Perhaps, but it does not come readily to my memory without rereading. Which isn't to say it doesn't exist.
Looking at it fom the other end, we would find them more believable if the story went on and we could see his love and contrition played out in the future, in a truly loving relationship toward her and a suppression of his sexual hunger. That we are not given to see either, of course, because the story ends.
But, but, but! There is one thing that he does do for her! And it is found in the confessional manuscript that he leaves with his jailers for later publication. In that document itself, he says that, early on, he decided to abandon any attempt to write it to exonerate himself, but rather to write it honestly and truly, "to save not my life, but my soul.". At the end he clearly has abandoned any hope of exoneration, and in fact expects to be executed.
But the one last thing that he hopes he accomplishes is to achieve immortality for his best, one and only, beloved, Lolita, in the only immortality she will ever have.
"Aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art .... "
I see the ending as Humbert in effect saying to the State: "Here is my life. Take it! But in return I give you this manuscript for the immortality of my beloved Lolita."
Which brings to mind Sidney Carton's words, "Tis a far nobler thing I do than ever I have done before, and a more restful sleep I go to than ever I have had before."
Which, going one step back again, is a riff on "What greater thing can a man do than to lay down his life for another?"
--
So, did he love her? I am a pushover for a sob story and my answer has to be yes. Else why have I read the whole thing?
Did he conquer his obsession? That is less clear, but I think it hinges on what one is prepared to believe about those eight words.
"Reprieve" is a word he did not utter, but which raises two questions. Reprieve of whom? And reprieve from what? I suggest he meant reprieve of her, Lolita, from his demands, both on her freedom and sexually. I don't think he went there simply to recapture her for his own selfish ends.
And would it "have made all the difference?" Yes indeed it would have.
So, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
That's my Rohrschach answer
Peder
pontalba
Well-Known Member
peder
p. 279.
""No, she said."it is quite out of the question. I would sooner bo back to Cue. I mean----"
"She groped for words. I supplied them mentally ('He broke my heart. you merely broke my life")"
Wasn't that the one you paraphrased above?
As far as HH's love for Lolita. I believe he transfered his love for Annabel to her the moment he met her.
p. 279.
""No, she said."it is quite out of the question. I would sooner bo back to Cue. I mean----"
"She groped for words. I supplied them mentally ('He broke my heart. you merely broke my life")"
Wasn't that the one you paraphrased above?
As far as HH's love for Lolita. I believe he transfered his love for Annabel to her the moment he met her.
StillILearn
New Member
pontalba writes:
I found this in the Annotated version.
... Nabokov claims as his inspiration a drawing sketched by an ape (in his afterward to the book, penned in 1956):
I found this in the Annotated version.
... Nabokov claims as his inspiration a drawing sketched by an ape (in his afterward to the book, penned in 1956):
Peder
Well-Known Member
Pontalbapontalba said:
Oh that remark, said the blind man as he picked up the hammer and saw.
Yes it was, and 'paraphrased' is a kind word; 'mangled' would be better.
But I like the quotes the way I say them. tee hee At least they come out the way I remember them. /shameless/
But yes, Naboov wrote them better
and yes indeed they were about life.And the immediate transferrence from Annabel to Lo? Yes indeed, that too.
You're really cookin'
Mind like a sieve,
Peder
Peder
Well-Known Member
StillILearn,StillILearn said:
I finally did my due diligence research and did find that MonkeyCatcher way back in the beginning was indeed the one who said latter parts didn't flow.
But look what I found also in the very next post!
Yes indeed! There is that about Humbert! He may actually be insane, as you said, and put that way I don't quite know what to say about it. Is any other view of him really just wishful thinking, for example? Nabokov sure has the capacity to rope us in, I would say. Or at least me.
Scratching head,
Again,
Peder
Breaca
Member
Aw shucks.... I guess Ms Cornwell's two latest novels will have to wait because curiosity has got the best of me. Plus a little bookworm gave me a copy of Lolita today (you know who you are and I'm eternally grateful 
)
I did think about reading Lolita awhile back but just couldn't bring myself to read something on a subject so vile (in my opinion). But following your discussion and comments my curiosity has been piqued so that I now want to form an 'informed' opinion rather than a 'blind' opinion. Hopefully I'll have read enough to join in this discussion/debate.
As for the court case - guilty, guilty, guilty - regardless of Plain Lo's part in it all.
) I did think about reading Lolita awhile back but just couldn't bring myself to read something on a subject so vile (in my opinion). But following your discussion and comments my curiosity has been piqued so that I now want to form an 'informed' opinion rather than a 'blind' opinion. Hopefully I'll have read enough to join in this discussion/debate.
As for the court case - guilty, guilty, guilty - regardless of Plain Lo's part in it all.
pontalba
Well-Known Member
Welcome Breaca! I know you will be as captivated by this story as I have been. I was a reluctant starter of this book some year ago, when someone talked me into reading it. On the second or third reading it comes together nicely. Although I suspect that one could read all of VN's books many many times. If you have the Annotated version it will be nicer/easier too.
On the second or third reading it comes together nicely. Although I suspect that one could read all of VN's books many many times. If you have the Annotated version it will be nicer/easier too.
pontalba
Well-Known Member
Steffee
Well! Peder is right. What a good question/statement. I had to scramble to take a look see in my newly aquired Annotated Version, and on p. lx of the Introduction some interesting features of VN's writing in general are brought out. Evidently 'doubling' characters is one of VN's pleasures.
However, literally, as far as the story goes, Quilty is certainly not anybodys imagination, but he certainly does mirror or double HH's actions, and they do work in tandem, so does that qualify him as a doppelganger? His further qualification is that he's always there in the background hovering.
However not in the truest sense of the word. But what do I know?
Well! Peder is right. What a good question/statement. I had to scramble to take a look see in my newly aquired Annotated Version, and on p. lx of the Introduction some interesting features of VN's writing in general are brought out. Evidently 'doubling' characters is one of VN's pleasures.
However, literally, as far as the story goes, Quilty is certainly not anybodys imagination, but he certainly does mirror or double HH's actions, and they do work in tandem, so does that qualify him as a doppelganger? His further qualification is that he's always there in the background hovering.
However not in the truest sense of the word. But what do I know?
Peder
Well-Known Member
Pontalba. Steffee
And Hi Breaca! Good to see you here, where we all wander around trying to make head or tail of this book. Your questions, comments, thoughts will be as welcome as the flowers in May! So please do join in whenever.
--
Well, I am back from a lightning tour of the universe, and my local coffee shop, which ended me up back at home looking up doppelganger in wikipedia. And guess which favorite discussion book of ours I found a reference to? And, no, its not Playboy! But my eyes almost fell out of head anyway, because there was Nabokov's Lolita! And when I checked that cross-reference, it matter-of-factly said that Quilty was a doppelganger for Humbert, as if all right-thinking people already knew that. And confirming what pontalba has already found out by a shorter, more direct route. The links are
Doppelganger
and
Lolita
The Lolita article is fascinating in itself, especially after having discussed the book as much as we have here. I found it rather like reading the answers to the exam after taking the exam. I would recommend it to all here.
But back to the matter at hand, Doppelganger.
With the definition and the article in hand, now the thinking begins, otherwise called the 'hard part.'
CU later,
When my thoughts are straighter,
Peder
And Hi Breaca! Good to see you here, where we all wander around trying to make head or tail of this book.
Your questions, comments, thoughts will be as welcome as the flowers in May! So please do join in whenever.--
Well, I am back from a lightning tour of the universe, and my local coffee shop, which ended me up back at home looking up doppelganger in wikipedia. And guess which favorite discussion book of ours I found a reference to? And, no, its not Playboy! But my eyes almost fell out of head anyway, because there was Nabokov's Lolita! And when I checked that cross-reference, it matter-of-factly said that Quilty was a doppelganger for Humbert, as if all right-thinking people already knew that. And confirming what pontalba has already found out by a shorter, more direct route. The links are
Doppelganger
and
Lolita
The Lolita article is fascinating in itself, especially after having discussed the book as much as we have here. I found it rather like reading the answers to the exam after taking the exam. I would recommend it to all here.
But back to the matter at hand, Doppelganger.
With the definition and the article in hand, now the thinking begins, otherwise called the 'hard part.'
CU later,
When my thoughts are straighter,
Peder
pontalba
Well-Known Member
Gem Get right back in here and put your thoughts on 'paper'! Whaddya think about this doppelganger business?
Peder Dynamite links!! Wikipedia has come back up in my estimation for their coverage on those subjects. Like everything else connected with Nabokov, its a twisty road to the "truth". But whose truth was it again??? Oy!
Steffe See what ya went and done!
Peder Dynamite links!!
Wikipedia has come back up in my estimation for their coverage on those subjects. Like everything else connected with Nabokov, its a twisty road to the "truth". But whose truth was it again??? Oy!Steffe See what ya went and done!
Gem
kickbox
Darn, I thought i could sneak away quietly, its not fair - nothing gets past you Pontalba
This Doppelganger business is very exciting. We all know that Quilty is debauched, nasty etc - could this be Nabokovs way of telling us that Don't fall into HH's trap - as he is all those things too - as doppelgangers are a version of oneself - we musn't sympathise no matter what HH says and how he says it.
I think i'm going to have to read up a little more on Doppelgangers before i can develop my thoughts further.
This Doppelganger business is very exciting. We all know that Quilty is debauched, nasty etc - could this be Nabokovs way of telling us that Don't fall into HH's trap - as he is all those things too - as doppelgangers are a version of oneself - we musn't sympathise no matter what HH says and how he says it.
I think i'm going to have to read up a little more on Doppelgangers before i can develop my thoughts further.
Gem
kickbox
Just a quick add on - the doppelganger, could it perhaps be a symbolisation of HH's really really bad debauched side (ok, i haven't expressed that in the best of terms but it is 4.10am here) which he has struggled with but managed to keep control of - if thats the case then perhaps he does deserve some sympathy???
but it is 4.10am here) which he has struggled with but managed to keep control of - if thats the case then perhaps he does deserve some sympathy???
StillILearn
New Member
Gem said:Just a quick add on - the doppelganger, could it perhaps bem.e a symbolisation of HH's really really bad debauched side (ok, i haven't expressed that in the best of terms
I think you are on to something, Gem. Now go to bed.