• 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

OK, y'alls!
Hang on tight! Because here we go, on a tour of the VN galaxy!

First, in Lolita p207, after Lolita hatches her plan:

"Tried to reach you at home." she said brightly. "A great decision has been made. But first buy me a drink Dad."

She watched the listless pale fountain girl put in the ice, pour in the coke, add the cherry syrup -- and my heart was bursting with love-ache. That childish wrist. My lovely child. You have a lovely child, Mr. Humbert. We always admire her as she passes by. Mr. Pim watched Pippa suck in the cofection.
Then onto Pale Fire where John Shade and Charles Kinbote are talking, when Shade interrupts to tell of walking along the trail with one of his old firends, the good farmer:

"As we were skirting Dulwich Forest, he interrupted me to indicate a natural grotto in the mossy rocks by the side of the path under the flowering dogwoods. This was the spot where the good farmer invariably stopped, and once, when they happened to be accompanied by his little boy, the latter, as he trotted beside them, pointed and remarked informatively, "Here's where Papa pisses." Another, less pointless story awaited me the top of the hill.
And now onto Brian Boyd p87 in Nabokov's Pale Fire, The Magic of Artistic Discovery

"Whenever we hear something called 'pointless' in Nabokov, we should look for the hidden point. ...The comic image of the little boy's declaration may be point enough on first reading, but if we catch the amusing twist on the title of Browning's versed drama Pippa Passes (1843) we might suspect that by the time we return to the joke that there lies the point that passes Kinbote by."
and Boyd goes on to explain the considerable significance, for Pale Fire, of the idea of the little girl, Pippa, passing by.

So now we come back to that soda fountain in Lolita:

She watched the listless pale fountain girl put in the ice, pour in the coke, add the cherry syrup -- and my heart was bursting with love-ache. That childish wrist. My lovely child. You have a lovely child, Mr. Humbert. We always admire her as she passes by. Mr. Pim watched Pippa suck in the cofection.
All of that, including knowledge of a Browning play from 1843, just for five words in Lolita!

But Nabokov just couldn't resist!

Ordinary mortals have to get up very early in the morning, indeed, to try to get ahead of VN when he is in a playful writing mood!

Sheesh!
But thought you might enjoy,
Peder
 
StillILearn said:
StillI, pale, disheveled, alone in the silence of the courtroom restroom, presses a fistfull of cold water to her lips as she glances askance at the sticky that has been left on the mirror for her perusal. StillI sighs heavily -- she has so much she wants and needs to say right now. She wants to be there for her newfound friend and co-counsel, pontalba. StillI rips the sticky off the mirror; wincing with the pain of the truth that has been so simply and starkly revealed by it. Reeling in the general direction of the chrome-handled door, StillI is intent upon her mission; she must respond to Peder's briliant, albeit distorted, defense. StillI fumbles, dropping the sticky to the stained tile floor where it lies, staring innocently up at the ceiling, having spoken its irrefutable truth:

When I first read the body of above post in my 'thread alert' e-mail, I thought, how beautiful......and it is. But then I clicked on the link and read it again.............and was privy to the punchline.

I don't remember being so caught off guard, and knock down laughing in quite awhile! Now it doesn't show the quote within a quote above, but you all know that it was SFG's remark that was funny within itself...........but coupled with the above of StillILearn's..........priceless!

SIL The balance was perfection!:D
 
SFG75 said:
One of the items mentioned earlier in the thread was Nabokov's loathing of Freud and his pyshcological theories. The book is rife with sarcastic remarks about it. Did a simple search and came up with a 1966 NYT interview of Nabokov. Upon being asked why he detests Freud, he had the following to say:
NYT Links
Oh, way to go, SFG!
That really says it!
Many, many thanks, :) :)
Peder
 
Peder Glad I already have my copy of Pale Fire, looks like one has to read VN's work en mass.:) I was lucky enough to pick up a nice hard copy at a Library Sale.
 
I've only read a little into Speak Memory but already VN has expressed his loathing for Freud, P.20

I have ransacked my oldest dreams for keys and clues--and let me say at once that I reject completely the vulgar, shabby, fundamentally medieval world of Freud, with its crankish quest for sexual symbols (something like searching for Baconian acrostics in Shakespeare's works) and its bitter little embryos spying , from their natural nooks, upon the love life of their parents.

Ouch! :cool: :D

He does seem to love to call Freud medieval doesn't he...;).
 
pontalba said:
Peder Glad I already have my copy of Pale Fire, looks like one has to read VN's work en mass.:) I was lucky enough to pick up a nice hard copy at a Library Sale.
Pontalba,
I'm sure you'll enjoy Pale Fire. The poem is easy enough to read and tells a very touching story. The second half is whimsy such as you might never have expected from Nabokov.

And, yes, the more we read the more we know! But we'll never catch up with him!
Brian Boyd's book convinced me of that!

I liked Pale Fire, especially the poem, but the allusions and the interpretations are way beyond me!

Lolita I can enjoy much more with just my ordinary knowledge of human nature and how the world turns. So while many say that Pale Fire is his best (and I have no reason to doubt it), I prefer Lolita because it is much more my speed.

Happy reading, :)
Peder
 
StillILearn said:
pontalba



My advice would be to borrow somebody else's. Then you will have saved yourself all the grief, sleepless nights, and remorse about having made every mistake on the planet in raising their parents.

(Just joking! I think.)

:rolleyes: :D ;) :eek: :cool: :eek: :confused:

Even borrowing them the grief they cause is present. And the frustrating thing then is that you know (most likely) that at least you would not have made that mistake! Of course the one you (I) would have made would have been the other end of the pedulum! :rolleyes:

Over protective thy name is Pontalba! :eek:
 
Peder
I have tried to read Pale Fire, unsuccessfully. I have come to the conclusion that it takes a build up of Nabokov's works to read it. So, at present it is last on my Nabokov List.
 
pontalba said:
Peder
I have tried to read Pale Fire, unsuccessfully. I have come to the conclusion that it takes a build up of Nabokov's works to read it. So, at present it is last on my Nabokov List.
Pontalba
There is no doubt that it is different!
To me it looks like he pulled out all the stops when he wrote it.
And I 'm glad your reaction is sort of in the same direction as mine. I've been feeling like a lonely outcast whenever I read the commentary of those I would call the Pale Fire cultists. They are 'way out there!
NYT tried a forum on Pale Fire not so long ago, after much clamor, but there were us few novices and those few experts, and for some reason the experts weren't saying much. So the forum didn't really take fire and sort of fizzled.
Lolita seems to generate much more interest among general readers.

It does for me, :)
Peder
 
Peder
An interesting commentary on those that consider themselves 'experts' eh?

Cultists would be about right. :rolleyes:

Interestingly enough, although I was a little reluctant on my initial reading of Lolita, its now one of my favorites. But I really have to thank the one that originally put me onto Nabokov. :)
 
You know, we've discussed Lo with great detail. We've also haggled over the mental state of H.H. and have even delved into that mysterious figure known as Q. We have yet however, to discuss Delores!. What about big haze? What about *that mad bitch* as H.H. referred to her?? We've heard that she is an abusive mother. Is she really? Hasn't anyone raised moody teenagers before? Is sending your kid to camp or boarding school grounds for losing your child to your state's human services department? H.H. takes Lo's side in any and all disputes, but we certainly can't take an honest look at Delores's parenting skills from a guy who waited with abated breath by his window to lust after a 12 year old can we? Not only that, but there are no insinuations that she herself, was a corrupt figure. The old man died and she was faithful to H.H., though that feeling wasn't returned by H.

So, is Delores really the devil, or do we take H.H.'s words for it as gospel??:cool:
 
SFG75
Even if Charlotte's (Big Haze) dislike of Lolita (Delores on the dotted line) was somewhat embellished by HH, the one concrete item was the book mentioned on p.81 A Guide to Your Child's Development. In that book was a place to fill out year by year with an inventory of each birthday. :
On Lo's twelfth, January 1, 1947, Charlotte Haze, nee Becker, had underlined the following epithets, ten out of forty, under "Your Child's Personality": aggressive, boisterous, critical, distrustful, impatient, irritable, inquisitive, listless, negativistic (underlined twice) and obstinate. She had ignored the thirty remaining adjectives, among which were cheerful, co-operative, energetic, and so forth.

According to HH on p.46, Charlotte said that Lo had been spiteful since the age on ONE!!
when she used to throw her toys out of her crib so that her poor mother should keep picking them up, the villanious infant!

It seems to me that Charlotte was just plain jealous of Lo. At one point HH mentions that he sees some small resemblance between the two. Echos if you will. All of which of course does not make her a devil, just a jealous female that has barely any maternal instinct.

The only reason that Charlotte got so angry about the diary of Humbert's was that it denigrated her, not that it worshipped (creepily) Lolita.
 
January 1st...that's tomorrow!.:eek: I have just now been struck by an observation, however original(at least I hope) Remember Nabokov's hatred for that *medieval* twit Freud? Does not the relationship between Lo and big Haze mirror what Freud would term an oedipal complex? Freud did not believe in the kind of situation that Nabokov portrayed, he believed that a woman and her daughter would not be competing for a mate at all-perhaps intentional on the part of Nabokov to portray the tensions between a woman and her young daughter?, why not a father and his growing son? One vague slap to the face of old Sigmund?:confused: For more history and a good explanation of this, check out this article from the International Psychoanalytic Studies Organization.:cool:
 
SFG75 said:
Does not the relationship between Lo and big Haze mirror what Freud would term an oedipal complex?

I don't really see that Lolita is competing with her mother. It is Charlotte that is the aggressive one. Charlotte is the instigator in any unpleasant confrontation. Charlotte is the one that does not attempt to commiserate with her daughter in any fashion that I can see and holds her down anytime she is able and sends her away at every turn. Charlotte that is jealous of Lo's youth and even her figure. Note that Charlotte is always dieting.

Lo is looking for a father figure. Yes, she is curious sexually, even a dare devil of a kind, tempting HH as it were (at first). But I do not see that she is attempting to replace or supplant her mother with HH.

I see what you are driving at SFG, but its not a complete analogy. IMHO. But WDIK?
 
Wow, First of all can i just say Bravo - Peder, Pontalba, StillIlearn, SFG75 and Steffee, you guys have really amazed me. Not only is the thread still going strong but the discussion is still so darn passionate and well thought out. I'm itching to comment on some of the posts, but i'll have to come back tomorrow to do that.

Keep it at sailors!

:)
 
One thing I wondered about was Nabokov's total immersion in the English Language and how could he be so perfectly nuanced. Well, on p.28 in "Speak Memory" I see that actually he spoke English before he spoke his 'native' Russian! :)
 
SFG75,
I'll certainly echo Gem and say Bravo! for that post!

That is definitely going to take some digesting, but let me get some reactions down quickly before I forget them.

1. I always thought it was called the Electra Complex, and was a mirror image to the Oedipus Complex.

2. That paper did a good job of describing how the mother as caregiver, different from the father's role, causes girls and boys to see and react to their situations differently. So the mirror image is not correct.

3. It was fascinating to see how labelling it a Persephone Complex differs from a reverse Oedipal (Electra?) Complex. It is not just a matter of changing labels, as was my first reaction.

4. I was interested to see Gilligan's name mentioned among the references, the only name I recognized from her work at Harvard with young girls which got a big magazine article in the NYT years ago.

5. I happen to be a (much) bigger believer in Freud and psychiatry than Nabokov, probably because the field blossomed during my early formative lifetime, but later in his. (There's a psychological explanation if ever there was one!)

6. I wonder whether any professional psychiatrists have looked specifically at the Charlotte/Lolita/Humbert triangle, or Humbert's description of his history and his interest in nymphets. I imagine they would have a lot to say about VN, but that interests me a whole lot less, like not at all. (Just plain envy! :D)

7. All of that says nothing yet about Lolita or Lolita, or about your post or your questions; that is going to need some more digestion, thought and rereading.

8. It would be fascinating to know whether Nabokov 'got it right' or 'got it wrong.' Because Nabokov may have been no less a keen observer of the human situation than Freud was, even if not at all interested in Freud's interpretations and therefore rejecting them.

9. I suspect that many individual factual observations of that article ring true for many of us; they certainly do for me.

10. Many thanks for the article. The insights of professional psychiatrists have aways intrigued me, and that article offers a detailed view of the professional mind at work. Haven't seen many such articles.

Thanks again.
I'll be back :)
I'll need coffee at least!
What a bracing way to start the New Year!
Peder
 
Gem said:
... the discussion is still so darn passionate and well thought out. I'm itching to comment on some of the posts, but i'll have to come back tomorrow to do that.

Keep it at sailors!

:)

Gem.
By all means come back tomorrow/today.
And definitely bring your passions! :D
Seriously.
Peder
 
Depending upon the title to be used, was there any tension of an underlying sexual nature between big Haze and Lo? I thought I was taking a stab in the dark on this one, but there are some interesting lines that I think are applicable. Some people intoxicate themselves at new years, I stay at home and re-read a good classic for discussion, ah what they are missing!.:p

From page 56, H.H. talking about the frustration of having big Haze interfere with any and all interaction with Lo.

"But for almost three weeks I had been interrupted in all of my pathetic machinations(who, as the reader will mark, was more afraid of Lo's deriving some pleasure from me than of my enjoying Lo).

She's hypocritical for not being upset at H.H. about this, but keep in mind that the issue of tension is between the two females of this story. How bad does it get? H.H. ponders that when they are married, he can force the issue(as the issue is between the gals, not between big H. and H.H.) and ultimately force her hand in regards to access to Lo. He senses from the page.56 quote that she is weak in regards to competition and that although it might hurt her feelings, she will ultimately grant his unholy request. From page 70....

how eventually I might blackmail-no, that is too strong a word-mauvemail big haze into letting me consort with little Haze by gently threatening the poor doting big Dove with desertion if she tried to bar me from playing with my legal step-daughter.

Later on in page 80, H.H. mused to himself that if big Haze was expecting, that would leave him plenty of time with Lo for months on end without supervision from the old hag.

But what was Charlotte ever a sexual competitor? Oh yes dear reader, she was.....

"I am even prepared to tell my tormenters that perhaps once or twice I had cast an appraiser's eye at Charlotte's coral lips and bronze hair and dangerously low neckline, and had vaguely tried to fit her into a plausible daydream."
(page 70)

On page 51, the three main people head to the store in a car. Sensing that something wasn't right, Big Haze took care of the matter by having Lo sit behind her seat with H.H. in the passenger front seat. "Try holding hands now!" the old cow must have thought.;)

I have nothing else to report, save, primo: that big Haze had little Haze sit behind us on our way home, and secundo: that the lady decided to keep Humbert's Choice for the backs of her own shapely ears.

Not to be oudone by her mother, Lo foiled a potential encounter between H.H. and big Haze....

. . .Mrs. Haze strolled up and said indulgently: "Just slap her hard if she interferes with your scholarly meditations. How I love this garden. Isn't it divine in teh sun." And with a sign of feigned content, the obnoxious lady sank down o nthe grass and looked upa t the sky as she leaned back on her splayed-out hands, and presently an old gray tennis ball bounced over her, and Lo's voice came from the house haughtily: "Pardonnez, Mother. I was not aiming at you."

So, big H strikes her best pose and Lo just happens to lob a ball their way. Of course it was towards Humbert dear mother........:D This is a key confrontation IMHO. Just imagine this scene, how is not a portrayal of the *electra* or Persophonne complex? This would make one heck of a confession statement while reclining on the therapist's couch.:D

Big H. srikes back, page 67....

. . .Haze, with a dreary laugh, said she had told Lo that her beloved Humbert thoroughly approved of the whole camp idea "and now," aded Haze, "the child throws a fit; pre-txt: you and I want to get rid of her...

This action of hers hurts Lo's feelings and Lo feels "doublecrossed" by H.H. While it didn't sever their relationship, it certainly put a dent in it for a time. Why did big H. say it?, she saw the relationship and tried to foil it to the best of her abilities.

Haze then takes a page from Lo and tries to manipulate H.H. into revealing the hidden letters in a drawer:

She gave me one of those wounded-doe looks that irritated me so much, and then, not quite knwoing I was serious, or how to keep up the conversatin, stood for several slow pages.(Campus, Canada, Candid Camera, Candy) peering at the window-pane rather than through it, drumming upon it with sharp alomnd-and-rose-fingernails.

Who is the mother and who is the daughter in the above scene? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!.

The nature of "the game" is one that Lo understood very well, her own personal philosophy was dedicated to this game of competing for a mate. From page 114:

My duty is-to be useful. I am a friend to male animals. I obey orders. I am cheerful. That was antoher police car. I am thrifty and I am absoltuely filthy in thought, word and deed.

Oh yes, the tension is thick in the Haze house-hold.:cool:
 
Back
Top