• 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

Peder said:
Right on, Steffee! Right on!

Plus it looks like they were chasing each other around the table and jumping over the back of the couch from what I can make of it.

:)
Peder
Click to expand...

I say there, what do you mean they? :eek: :D

"From what you can make of it"? Hah! ;)
 
Steffee You brought out a whole 'nother (fascinating) side as far as I am concerned. My favorite scene between HH and Q though was the one on p.127 of the annotated version:

"Where the devil did you get her?"
"I beg your pardon?"
"I said: the weather is betting better."
"Seems so."
"Who's the lassie?"
"My daughter."
"You lie--she's not."
"I beg your pardon?"
"I said: July was hot. Where's her mother?"
"Dead."
"I see. Sorry. By the way why don't you two lunch with me tomorrow. That dreadful crowd will be gone by then."

Later when Q lights the cigarette, the flame illuminated not him, but another, so he doesn't see Quilty.
:cool:
 
pontalba said:
Steffee You brought out a whole 'nother (fascinating) side as far as I am concerned. My favorite scene between HH and Q though was the one on p.127 of the annotated version:

"Where the devil did you get her?"
"I beg your pardon?"
"I said: the weather is betting better."
"Seems so."
"Who's the lassie?"
"My daughter."
"You lie--she's not."
"I beg your pardon?"
"I said: July was hot. Where's her mother?"
"Dead."
"I see. Sorry. By the way why don't you two lunch with me tomorrow. That dreadful crowd will be gone by then."

Later when Q lights the cigarette, the flame illuminated not him, but another, so he doesn't see Quilty.
:cool:
Click to expand...

This bit of dialogue was brilliant, wasn't it? Especially in retrospect, and when you consider just when the converstion was taking place? With Lo upstairs and supposedly succumbing to the effects of the wicked purple pill?

I have watched both movie versions in the past few days, and have come away thinking that the Jeremy Irons one is probably my favorite of the two. HH appeared to be a more sympathetic character in that one -- he was more appealing, and had more depth, I thought. The entire story seemed more poignant to me somehow. I've even come to appreciate Melanie Griffith's portrayal of Charlotte. And they stayed much closer to the original story. I now feel that the Kubric version went way over the top, even though it appears that Nabokov had quite a lot of influence on how his story was portrayed -- casting and all.
 
I believe it was in the Lolita link that Peder posted yesterday that I read that while Nabokov did write the screenplay, or at least most of it, a great deal of what he wrote was thrown out. :eek:

As far as the films, I am on the fence. I agree that the Irons version was truer to the book, but Mason as HH was perfect to me. Irons was wonderful though. Now as far as Winters vs. Griffith, I find that Winters has the edge mostly because she managed to portray the uptight but desperate feelings of Charlotte. Plus, when she is described by HH on p. 37, it fits SW to a 'T".: "The poor lady was in her middle thirties, she had a shiny forehead, plucked eyebrows and quite simple but not unattractive features of a type that may be defined as a weak solution of Marlene Dietrich."

Thats our Shelley!

Griffith, while excellent in her way, was number one too attractive, and didn't project the uptight/desperation factor as well as Winters. IMHO.

Another thing about Irons..............the other night "The French Lieutenant's Woman" was on t.v. I didn't catch the first part but saw probably the last half or so. I mostly watched because of Irons to compare his character. Well, he seemed to play the character much the same as HH. Of course the character was fairly pitiful.........but still.
 
Breaca said:
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.
Click to expand...
Breaca,
You have already contributed to the discussion because your comment has just raised a new slant on things (at least for me, duh), and got me up from thinking, as we now call it around here. :)

We have been wrapped around the axle here on two questions: does he ever feel sorry for what he has done, and does he ever really come to love her.

Not to be forgotten is exactly what you say! In the court case he is guilty, guilty, guilty, regardless of Lo's part in it -- no matter what his state of mind may be regarding love or contrition IMO. So that even if he has a change of heart and loves her and is completely sorry, he will still not (necessarily) be absolved of the criminal judgement and the punishment that goes with it. Maybe the pubishment, but not the judgement.

On step further back, that is exactly the kind of story that our media love to run -- the murderer (or murderess) facing execution who has had a (seemingly genuine) change of heart in prison, who is therefore portrayed very sympathetically by the media in the days before their execution, as if hoping to change the course of events. In our judicial system as it is, the one doen't (necessarily) excuse the other.

But getting back between the covers of the book, you will have the opportunity to exxpress your opinions on what we have not yet decided, which are just two of the main issues of the book. :D

So welcome aboard, again, :)
Now I can go back to thinking, :rolleyes:
Peder
 
Well, Peder what you and Breaca say regarding HH's guilt is certainly true. With this type of crime, there really are no mitigating circumstances. I don't know if there are 'degrees' of rape as there is with murder, but truthfully, wouldn't the court be able to charge him with unjust inprisonment, or kidnapping? After all, what court awarded him custody of Lolita.............none. Thats really what I meant back up the thread when I said something about not being able to just take off with a child without Social Services or somebody coming after the perpetrator. Nowadays, with the endless paperwork and computer traces, HH wouldn't be able to act as he did. There is so much more awareness today.

And certainly he was morally responsible and reprehensible for his actions. Contrition is not grounds for absolving a person of crimes. As you say Peder it could affect the punishment though.
 
Peder said:
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.' :rolleyes:

CU later,
When my thoughts are straighter, :)
Peder
Click to expand...


StillILearn This is the post I was referring to, the Lolita link.

It seems that we are going over this book at just the right time to be able to have such fresh new articles such as the one you linked!
 
There really should be a smilie with crossed-eyes that would denote "puleezzeee"! :D


and btw Peder don't burst my bubble now, and tell me you don't know everything!! :eek: :p

And yes, its me up before light...........6:13 a.m. here!
Bah! Humbug!
 
pontalba said:
There really should be a smilie with crossed-eyes that would denote "puleezzeee"! :D


and btw Peder don't burst my bubble now, and tell me you don't know everything!! :eek: :p

And yes, its me up before light...........6:13 a.m. here!
Bah! Humbug!
Click to expand...

Too stunned to ROTF and LOL
By Jove, Pontalba! By the dawn's early light! :eek:
Well, I won't burst your bubble, but I am going to go off to that wikipedia article to look up a number that I seem to remember from someplace for the number of copies sold.

Back in a min,
Peder
 
To Peder and Pontalba - your welcomes are welcomed :D

I've only managed to get through first 20 or so pages. Had to refresh my french a little. Hopefully as I get further along I'll stop having to take deep breaths and recover from bouts of indignation. Just as well I don't have high blood pressure.

See ya'll later
Breaca
 
Peder:
We have been wrapped around the axle here on two questions: does he ever feel sorry for what he has done, and does he ever really come to love her.

As I've only just started the book and am only 20ish pages into it I can't really comment on whether he is 'sorry' or whether he truly 'loved' his Lolita. He knowingly desires that which he should not and admits he understands it to be wrong. First para in Chapter 5 - he labels his relationships with women as 'sanitary' – leading us to believe he knew that his desire for Lo (et al) was unsanitary. Further on he talks about a 'normal' man's response to photographs of schoolgirls. Those that see schoolgirls in a different light (as opposed to 'normal') have 'poison' in their loins and have a 'perverse' delight at the sight of them. He then goes on to 'rationalise' his desires – is this his way of feeling sorry for what he has done – is this how he excuses his behaviour. Of course, it’s sooo easy to feel sorry in retrospect, sooo easy to feel sorry when your life is drawing to its conclusion. Feeling sorry doesn’t detract from the crime – doesn’t lessen the crime. Feeling sorry doesn’t help the victim(s).

I know, not very profound, hardly intelligent but I’ll try and get my prose into gear and do better next time :eek:
 
Breaca said:
Peder:
We have been wrapped around the axle here on two questions: does he ever feel sorry for what he has done, and does he ever really come to love her.


I know, not very profound, hardly intelligent but I’ll try and get my prose into gear and do better next time :eek:
Click to expand...

Looks to me as if you have an excellent grasp of the issues at hand, Breaca. Has all this discussion added to your enjoyment of the novel? I would imagine so.

:D
 
Breaca said:
Peder:
We have been wrapped around the axle here on two questions: does he ever feel sorry for what he has done, and does he ever really come to love her.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of evidence to suggest he does love Lolita. I don't think so. I do feel sorry for him, and I do think he was deeply anguished and ashamed of his actions (and thoughts), and so I do believe he was deeply sorry for what he did, but I don't agree he loved her.

Which is very strange, because the whole thing comes down to empathy, being able to put someone else's needs before your own, being able to step into someone else's shoes. And throughout, we see evidence that he could do that, but often he chose not to. I don't know the reason why, perhaps (to go back over the previous discussions on this board), because he was traumatised so of the death of his wife, the early demise of his own mother, even the death of Charlotte -- however planned, or fortunate he saw this at the time.

I think because of these reasons he was incapable of loving anyone. His mental state fluctuated tremendously -- why didn't he kill Dick, for example? Was that out of love for Lolita? Or was it purely because at that point he was sane(r). Or maybe because he had his sights on someone else, someone bigger and more appropriate. Quilty.

I do think he tried to stop himself, he is very remorseful, particularly on the last page.... I won't say what happens for fear of spoiling the ending for those who haven't got that far...

I do think it very strange that Nobokov was so anti-Freudian, yet Lolita (the book) drips of Freudian ideas... unless, it is meant to ridicule Freudian principles, and scholars!?
 
Peder said:
Too stunned to ROTF and LOL
By Jove, Pontalba! By the dawn's early light! :eek:
Well, I won't burst your bubble, but I am going to go off to that wikipedia article to look up a number that I seem to remember from someplace for the number of copies sold.

Back in a min,
Peder
Click to expand...
Peder
Heh, Heh, Heh, don't worry, I remedied that sorry situation! So pick thyself up and carry on! :D

Hi Breaca I didn't nick onto the unsanitary/sanitary play on words. But boy oh boy does it apply! There is lots of evidence that he well knew that he was entirely wrong in his actions, and struggled with what he'd done. But, as they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. He did the deed anyway. So.

But Steffee, I really do think that he loved Lolita, as much as he was capable of love. I know I am stating the obvious, but everyone is so different, bringing their own baggage to the relationships of their lives. However one-sided or inappropriate that particular "relationship" was. Sort of like "we are what we eat", we are what we experience. He'd not had anything resembling a so called normal relationship. I suspect he was born leaning that way to begin with and the events of his parents, and Annabel further warped him.
 
Breaca said:
Hopefully as I get further along I'll stop having to take deep breaths and recover from bouts of indignation. Just as well I don't have high blood pressure.

See ya'll later
Breaca
Click to expand...

Hi Breaca, and Pontalba too
Good to see you again and so far I think you are right in there with us all on just how evil Humbert is. And at the end how, like so many criminals, he is sorry.

I have been thinking about your'alls recent posts about Humbert.
I coulldn't find the number I was looking for in wikipedia (and I don't know it either :p ) for the number of copies Lolita has sold since its record-breaking first day of publication in the US. So I must have been dreaming the number while I was 'thinking' last night. But it must be a large number, spread also as it is over a large part of the world.

Anyway, he has committed so many crimes in the book that they would probably take pages to list, beginning with federal kidnapping charges and violations of the Mann Act; then followed by statutory rape charges in all of the states that he drove them through; followed only then by 'lesser' charges of violating all the laws about perverse sex, and imprisonment, and contributing to the delinquency, in all those states, and so on and on. And nowadays on top of it all, probably the biggie: a federal violation of her civil rights. Add to all those factual crimes his utterly immoral and unconscionable behavior (like the purple pills), and pedophilia hardly comes close to summing up his sordid criminal behavior.

And yet people have bought the book in droves!

And, in forums like this, we end up not focusing especially on his criminality, but discussing whether finally he shows some, or any, trace of genuine humanity.

It boggles the mind and almost defies rational explanation!

But, if I had to start groping for an answer, I would begin by attributing the attraction to Nabokov's sheer genius in being able to get us interested, despite all, in the lives of these two people, Humbert and Lolita.

It sill boggles the mind,
Peder
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top