-
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
SFG75
Well-Known Member
Peder said:SFG75
Don't stop now!!!!!!!!!!!
My tongue is hanging out and I am panting!
But I still haven't had my coffee
Peder
Grab the coffee and check out a good read that I found entitled: Nomadic Subjectivity in Nabokov's Lolita. Pages 8 to 13 addresses the Oedipal conflict to some degree.
Peder
Well-Known Member
SFG, Pontalba
But, inching slowly along the ledge outside the thirteenth floor, let me offer my hopefully tiny initial thought re Persephone and the Haze/Humbert household.
It sounds to me like the author of that article was talking about the stresses that begin to occur when changes take place in households where normal bonds of affection and care-giving are in place. Then, when the daughter begins to move away from her mother (college, marriage, job, attraction toward father?, normal growing up) the daughter begins to feel stress because she is moving away from her care-provider also. While her mother continues to display normal mothering and care-giving affection toward her.
It sounds to me like the Haze household is in an advanced form of disintegration of mother-daughter affection, so that it is difficult to say whether Lo's behavior was the initiator of the situation or not. That Lo is feeling stress, yes indeed! And Charlotte too, yes indeed! But mother as care-giver seems also to have departed the scene emotionally, so the situation is beyond the Persephone complex described in the article. Charlotte's dim view of Lo in the checklist on Lo's 12th birthday seems to allow the possibility that the problem might have started with evaporation of Charlotte's affection for Lo and with pushing her away.
It sounds to me like the basic antagonisms were already in place and that Humbert's arrival only complicated it further, with Charlotte going after him in the normal (voracious) way of wanting a spouse, and Lo going after him in the normal way of wanting a father.
That was supposed to be a tiny thought
But sorting it out further requires coffee.
But keep up the fine analysis!
It's better than the book!
Peder
But, inching slowly along the ledge outside the thirteenth floor, let me offer my hopefully tiny initial thought re Persephone and the Haze/Humbert household.
It sounds to me like the author of that article was talking about the stresses that begin to occur when changes take place in households where normal bonds of affection and care-giving are in place. Then, when the daughter begins to move away from her mother (college, marriage, job, attraction toward father?, normal growing up) the daughter begins to feel stress because she is moving away from her care-provider also. While her mother continues to display normal mothering and care-giving affection toward her.
It sounds to me like the Haze household is in an advanced form of disintegration of mother-daughter affection, so that it is difficult to say whether Lo's behavior was the initiator of the situation or not. That Lo is feeling stress, yes indeed! And Charlotte too, yes indeed! But mother as care-giver seems also to have departed the scene emotionally, so the situation is beyond the Persephone complex described in the article. Charlotte's dim view of Lo in the checklist on Lo's 12th birthday seems to allow the possibility that the problem might have started with evaporation of Charlotte's affection for Lo and with pushing her away.
It sounds to me like the basic antagonisms were already in place and that Humbert's arrival only complicated it further, with Charlotte going after him in the normal (voracious) way of wanting a spouse, and Lo going after him in the normal way of wanting a father.
That was supposed to be a tiny thought
But sorting it out further requires coffee.
But keep up the fine analysis!
It's better than the book!
Peder
pontalba
Well-Known Member
SFG75 Granted this is fascinating stuff, and I am probably looking at all of it in too simplistic a manner. However, how is it an Oedipus, or Electra, or Persephone complex if it is the mother instigating the whole thing?
I have to agree with that take on the situation. Charlotte was an insecure small minded woman to begin with. And sorry, horney in the bargain.
Sorry if I have to leave awhile, I am having some problems with the computer virus thingy, and have to get them by phone......Already held on for a half hour!!
Peder quoted above.
I have to agree with that take on the situation. Charlotte was an insecure small minded woman to begin with. And sorry, horney in the bargain.
Sorry if I have to leave awhile, I am having some problems with the computer virus thingy, and have to get them by phone......Already held on for a half hour!!
Peder
Well-Known Member
OK SFG,
I've read the article, but with the names Deleuze and Guttarri (sp?) lurking in the background I couldn't avoid the feeling that somthing was up. And then sure enough it burst forth into a full feldged attack on the capitalist system. Fascist Capitalism is responsible for the Oepdipal Complex. Feh! And at the end Humbert is shattering the fetters of Fascist Capitalism. Double Feh! But, ignoring the political diatribe, the article was an aggressive discussion of an alternative to Freudian psychoilogy for interpreting Lolita. Mostly, howver, it was beyond my ability to absorb new jargon in such huge quantities. But a few thoughts did stand out.
A main point was the author's discussion of literary techniques that Nabokov uses to create ill-defined 'floating' (i.e. nomadic) personas for Humbert and Lolita, so that they will deliberately be difficult to characterize and pin down.
Now, there is a point which we might all be able to agree with!
In addition there is a neat quote that the author attributes to Barthes,
and PS, Humbert is responsible for Charlotte's death, also in line with the author's/Deleuze's/Guttari's political and social outlooks. More Feh IMO.
So, all in all, a very interesting article for our discussion,
Many thanks,
But don't you have any easier articles to read?
Peder
I've read the article, but with the names Deleuze and Guttarri (sp?) lurking in the background I couldn't avoid the feeling that somthing was up. And then sure enough it burst forth into a full feldged attack on the capitalist system. Fascist Capitalism is responsible for the Oepdipal Complex. Feh! And at the end Humbert is shattering the fetters of Fascist Capitalism. Double Feh! But, ignoring the political diatribe, the article was an aggressive discussion of an alternative to Freudian psychoilogy for interpreting Lolita. Mostly, howver, it was beyond my ability to absorb new jargon in such huge quantities. But a few thoughts did stand out.
A main point was the author's discussion of literary techniques that Nabokov uses to create ill-defined 'floating' (i.e. nomadic) personas for Humbert and Lolita, so that they will deliberately be difficult to characterize and pin down.
Now, there is a point which we might all be able to agree with!
In addition there is a neat quote that the author attributes to Barthes,
which the author applies to Humbert's desire for nymphets, but not necessarily a desire to posess them beyond their nymphancy -- to use a very nice word introduced into the dsicussion above. Humbert, at one point, says for example, "Let me be surrounded by them forever!"
and PS, Humbert is responsible for Charlotte's death, also in line with the author's/Deleuze's/Guttari's political and social outlooks. More Feh IMO.
So, all in all, a very interesting article for our discussion,
Many thanks,
But don't you have any easier articles to read?
Peder
SFG75
Well-Known Member
Now who would have thought to throw in a little conflict theory with Nabokov?
Big Haze would be the populace under *false consciousness* continually trying to please the ruling class(H.H.) but all the ruling class wants is more production and more profit. Enter Lolita who is another section of the working class. Q. and H. fight over her as they own the means of production and want *prescious resources*, which is what Lo symbolizes. No one has a little nymphet, hence the manic struggle to capture her. Since fascist capitalism is about exploiting *prescious resources* and controlling everything around it, Lo finds herself playing the nuances of the capitalist-patriarchal, hegemonic system that dominates the super-structure of society.Okay....too much coffee and Marxist theory..........
Nevermind that I ever posted this.
StillILearn
New Member
My power has been out for twenty-four hours (at present my laptop is sucking up the juice being supplied by gasoline and a generator, and I can think of no better use for either of them.) I seem to have have logged on just in time to witness Dolly's sixty-ninth birthday being celebrated in a truly grand fashion by friends and fans of the TBL.
Lo and her Creator (wherever they are) must both be simply loving this! Happy birthday, Dolores Haze.
(Now, where's the punch?)
Lo and her Creator (wherever they are) must both be simply loving this! Happy birthday, Dolores Haze.
(Now, where's the punch?)
Peder
Well-Known Member
SFG75 said:Now who would have thought to throw in a little conflict theory with Nabokov?
Okay....too much coffee and Marxist theory..........
SFG!
Now we are flying, man!
I loved that post. Whod'a thunk it?
This forum is sure stimulating imagination!
Abso-super-wonderful!
Abso-wunnerfully-loopy
Not even going to try to equal that one,
Peder
steffee
Active Member
Peder said:
Wouldn't you describe her as tomboyish? I had thought HH himself describes her as that... maybe not. I did think she was a 'tomboy' though, now I'm not sure. She wasn't very dolls-and-pigtails girly though...
*looks up coltish in wiktionary - oh no, it's not there, dictionary.com then*... playful? lively? frisky? I dunno, I don't think she seemed very playful (aside from her efforts to 'seduce' HH), and definitely not lively. Frisky>
Now I'm confused...
Peder
Well-Known Member
Also been thinking about the triangle in the household, with Big and Little Haze shooting at each other, and both going after chummy Hummy.
Big Haze going after him still makes normal sense.
Little Haze, I guess it depends.
If the little one is looking for a father figure and crying out for attention, then that (as already suggested) seems normal enough.
OTOH if the little minx is after him as a sex partner (even unconsciously), in competition with her voracious mummy, then I think we are exactly in the classical Freudian soup. That would seem to be the exact mirror image of the Oedipus conflict, and might properly have the name Electra attached to it.
Whatever the name, it all comes down to Little Lo's little motives. And that may be exactly what, a little more precisely, divides our ways of looking at that sweet innocent angelic little girl.
Just a thought,
Now that we are on the topic of topics
Peder
Big Haze going after him still makes normal sense.
Little Haze, I guess it depends.
If the little one is looking for a father figure and crying out for attention, then that (as already suggested) seems normal enough.
OTOH if the little minx is after him as a sex partner (even unconsciously), in competition with her voracious mummy, then I think we are exactly in the classical Freudian soup. That would seem to be the exact mirror image of the Oedipus conflict, and might properly have the name Electra attached to it.
Whatever the name, it all comes down to Little Lo's little motives. And that may be exactly what, a little more precisely, divides our ways of looking at that sweet innocent angelic little girl.
Just a thought,
Now that we are on the topic of topics
Peder
Peder
Well-Known Member
Steffee,steffee said:Wouldn't you describe her as tomboyish? I had thought HH himself describes her as that... maybe not. I did think she was a 'tomboy' though, now I'm not sure. She wasn't very dolls-and-pigtails girly though...
*looks up coltish in wiktionary - oh no, it's not there, dictionary.com then*... playful? lively? frisky? I dunno, I don't think she seemed very playful (aside from her efforts to 'seduce' HH), and definitely not lively. Frisky>
Now I'm confused...
I don't think she was very girly either. Either young girly (pre-teen), or older girly either (clearly teen). She seemed to be in-between but I always thought VN was quite spare with the details of what she looked like. I couldn't find many when I once looked. 12 years old, pale gray eyes, long auburn hair curled up, "....stature, 57 inches, weight, seventy eight pounds, figure, linear [!]...." (p107). She was a nymphet that only HH could recognize, and I think VN left virtually all the rest to our imagination. And, oh yes, 5 or 7 freckles, and snub nose. I'm not even sure that VN said anywhere that she was attractive in any ordinary sense of the word. In a group picture of twelve year olds she wouldn't stand out in any way. Although she was clearly personable enough to attract young men like flies to honey. So your guess is as good as mine.
That's more than I thought I knew,
Peder
pontalba
Well-Known Member
Peder Hmmmm....
IMHO (she said, ever the diplomat, (Hah!)
) Charlotte is supposedly the adult in the mother/daughter relationship. And as so, she must take the brunt of the blame for any conflicts between them. I know, I know........yada yada yada, can't blame the parents for everything. But in this particular case it appears to be Charlotte's fault that Lo is the needy child she is portrayed as. At every turn Charlotte diminishes Lo's existance. p. 39....."I noticed a white sock on the floor. With a deprecatory grunt, Mrs. Haze stooped without stopping and threw it into a closet next to the pantry."
Deprecatory grunt. That was an unnecessary adjective with which to describe the grunt. It could have been exasperated, irritated, any number of other things, but VN chose deprecatory. That is telling to me. Plus, later on a bit, she referes to Lo in the same uncaring, flat tone as she referes to her lilies. Hers. A possession.
Honestly, Charlotte reminds me of one of those spiders that eat their own young. We don't know much about Charlotte's background. So it is not obvious why she is so insecure within herself. But insecure she is to the nth degree. We do know she married an older man who died early in Lo's childhood. When that happens to a young girl, she is constantly looking for a fatherly replacement. However, if the mother is a strong supporter of the child, and a loving and giving person that search is not so desperate as Lo's turned out to be. If the mother is a secure person within herself she can pass that security on to the daughter. Lolita was very, shall we say unfortunate in that respect. She had a shallow selfish mother.
I doubt strongly that Lolita was looking for a sex partner. I think perhaps she was imitating her mother, as to how to get affection, but was unaware of the sexual overtones. Note later that HH refers to the young schoolmate of Lolita's Avis Byrd. Look at the interchange on p.285-286 regarding the scene between the father and daughter.......and Lo's reaction. This is what Lolita was looking for in life. Now we all know that Nabokov did not put that in for nothing. It is a clue to Lolita's motivations.
IMHO (she said, ever the diplomat, (Hah!)
) Charlotte is supposedly the adult in the mother/daughter relationship. And as so, she must take the brunt of the blame for any conflicts between them. I know, I know........yada yada yada, can't blame the parents for everything. But in this particular case it appears to be Charlotte's fault that Lo is the needy child she is portrayed as. At every turn Charlotte diminishes Lo's existance. p. 39....."I noticed a white sock on the floor. With a deprecatory grunt, Mrs. Haze stooped without stopping and threw it into a closet next to the pantry."Deprecatory grunt. That was an unnecessary adjective with which to describe the grunt. It could have been exasperated, irritated, any number of other things, but VN chose deprecatory. That is telling to me. Plus, later on a bit, she referes to Lo in the same uncaring, flat tone as she referes to her lilies. Hers. A possession.
Honestly, Charlotte reminds me of one of those spiders that eat their own young. We don't know much about Charlotte's background. So it is not obvious why she is so insecure within herself. But insecure she is to the nth degree. We do know she married an older man who died early in Lo's childhood. When that happens to a young girl, she is constantly looking for a fatherly replacement. However, if the mother is a strong supporter of the child, and a loving and giving person that search is not so desperate as Lo's turned out to be. If the mother is a secure person within herself she can pass that security on to the daughter. Lolita was very, shall we say unfortunate in that respect. She had a shallow selfish mother.
I doubt strongly that Lolita was looking for a sex partner. I think perhaps she was imitating her mother, as to how to get affection, but was unaware of the sexual overtones. Note later that HH refers to the young schoolmate of Lolita's Avis Byrd. Look at the interchange on p.285-286 regarding the scene between the father and daughter.......and Lo's reaction. This is what Lolita was looking for in life. Now we all know that Nabokov did not put that in for nothing. It is a clue to Lolita's motivations.