Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[pontalba]

manipulative

You know, when I called Lo manipulative, I meant it in a very negative way....at first. But really, in a very real sense, it was positive in her case. It was an attempt to control what was happening to her. Now as far as I can tell, Charlotte was manipulative in a negative way, trying to make Lolita appear...less than she was. It seems that Charlotte was a pretty pitiful character, moreso than I realized even. Think about it. The only way she could make herself feel better about life or herself in general was to make Lolita the scapegoat for all her problems. C. probably blamed Lolita for not being married again. I believe its true that many (selfish) men will not date or marry a woman with any children. C. took great pleasure in sending Lo away from her. Couldn't wait to get rid or the kid.

 

[steffee]

Do you think Lolita only wanted a father figure in her life?

It strikes me that the mother-daughter relationship between Lolita and Charlotte is not really a typical parental one. Of course, Lolita may have been at that rebellious and/or curious stage in her life, we have already discussed at depth here...

But is there not an element of competition between them, not merely a I'm prettier / I've got more friends / I'm going to get better grades than you did, kind of thing, but more of a 'I'm going to take from you exactly what you have now, what you want right now' kind of thing. Only being 12 years old, Lolita couldn't quite grasp how serious and complicated this situation would spiral into.

The flirtation before going away to school, and in the car before she knew of her mum's death... maybe she knew what she was doing, she was competing with her mum, but she could not have been aware of the consequences.

And of course, there's the typical teenager's reaction of a parent gaining a new spouse -- they merely try to split their parents up, not to make their parent unhappy, but due to jealousy/resentment/protection whatever, though in Lolita's case it comes across as being jealousy as the crux. Maybe.

 

[Peder]

Glad to see that the world is slowly assembling itself for another day!

Now for the promised flaying of Mr. Hitchens. Actually not quite that bad, but my reaction to his article still hasn't changed, even on rereading. Overall it is an extended riff on the perverse sexuality that is in Lolita with no consideration of other aspects of the work, such as literary merit. The man, after all, is entitled to his view of the matter, but I definitely start diverging from him when he says

Then we must approach the question of how innocent we are in all of this.

Oh, really?! As if to drive the point home, he goes on to say

"I once read of an interview given by Roman Polanski in which he described listening to a lurid account of his offense even as he was fleeing to the airport. He suddenly realized the trouble he was in, he said, when he came to appreciate that he had done something for which a lot of people would furiously envy him."

A comment to be taken seriously from that noted moralist Mr. Polanski?! Feh.

A few column inches on, Mr. Hitchens quotes one of the early reviewers of the book,

"Do not misunderstand me," said Amis pere when he reviewed the first edition, "if I say that one of the troubles with Lolita is that so far from being too pornographic, it is not pornographic enough."

Oh, of course we don't misunderstand a comment like that. Of course.
Mr. Hitchens then goes on to quote one of Mr. Amis's grown children (a son),

"Parents and guardians of twelve-year-olds will have noticed that their wards have a tendency to be difficult. They may take Humbert's word for it that things are much more difficult --are in fact entirely impossible --when your twelve-year-old girl is also your twelve-year-old girlfriend. The next time you go out with your daughter, imagine that you are going out with your daughter."

Excuse me, Amis fils? Are we living in the same world?!

And it doesn't help matters that Hitchens quotes, in support of his case, that Humbert famously
'

"at one point addresses us, too, as 'Reader! Bruder!'

Taking off on that, Mr. Hitchens later speaks to "hypocrite lecteur."
Hypocrite? Really?

Enough! My reaction to the article is about the same as it would be to ayone, who in extolling our common humanity, might say, "Well, after all, we are all sex maniacs aren't we?" I don't believe that is true any more than a statment that "After all, we are all axe-murders aren't we."

And my reaction is, and has been, "Well, Mr. X, you may certainly have your view of the world, but don't too generously include me in on it. I prefer to have my own view of the world, thank you!"

And that, I think, must exactly be the basis for VN's hostile reaction to Freud and his view of human nature.

But apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

Peder

 

[steffee]

Glad to see that the world is slowly assembling itself for another day!

Ha ha, it's 3.48pm here, but that couldn't be more true!!

 

[Peder]

So, against that background of my reactions to the Hitchens article I, at least, think we are justified in wondering, apart from Mr. Freud, whether Little Lo is (ever) looking at Humbert in a flirtatious and sexual way, or whether she is simply looking for a father who will be affectionate toward her. Simply a personal opinion.

Peder

 

[Peder]

Ha ha, it's 3.48pm here, but that couldn't be more true!!

Ha, ha yourself! Just because you Brits have always risen earlier than we have.
But I like your signature line. I haven't noticed it before; have you changed it? In fact, it aplies very much to the discussion we are having.

Have a good supper
Peder

 

[pontalba]

But is there not an element of competition between them, not merely a I'm prettier / I've got more friends / I'm going to get better grades than you did, kind of thing, but more of a 'I'm going to take from you exactly what you have now, what you want right now' kind of thing.

Steffee First off, you have my total sympathy having to get going at that hour of the morning!!
Secondly, I do see the competitive streak in Charlotte, but not in Lo. I think that Lo's actions towards her mother were defensive in nature.

The flirtation before going away to school, and in the car before she knew of her mum's death... maybe she knew what she was doing, she was competing with her mum, but she could not have been aware of the consequences.

Partially true IMO, but what about Charlie? I think that probably her flirtation with HH in the time frame you mention was all part of her curiousity about sex, and not a real competition with her mother. She just (how mistakenly!) figured he was 'safe'.

And of course, there's the typical teenager's reaction of a parent gaining a new spouse -- they merely try to split their parents up, not to make their parent unhappy, but due to jealousy/resentment/protection whatever, though in Lolita's case it comes across as being jealousy as the crux. Maybe

Lolita doesn't strike me as the jealous type, although there was one little French girl that she seemed to get rid of during their sojurn at Beardsley. But of her mother, no I don't think so. She and her mother did have a sort of strange relationship. But I think thats because Lo wanted to cling to Charlotte, but was not allowed to.

 

[pontalba]

So, against that background of my reactions to the Hitchens article I, at least, think we are justified in wondering, apart from Mr. Freud, whether Little Lo is (ever) looking at Humbert in a flirtatious and sexual way, or whether she is simply looking for a father who will be affectionate toward her. Simply a personal opinion.

Peder

I don't know if it would qualify as 'flirtations', but feel that unrestrained curiousity is more the proper way of looking at her actions. But it is certainly something to seriously consider.

And as far as Roman Polanski is concerned. I don't see how any media person could quote him in this matter in any good conscience.

A comment to be taken seriously from that noted moralist Mr. Polanski?! Feh.

And Double Feh! And even an Oy!

'Reader! Bruder!'

Yeah, when I read this, I thought to myself........(gender aside)...not me old boy!

And my reaction is, and has been, "Well, Mr. X, you may certainly have your view of the world, but don't too generously include me in on it. I prefer to have my own view of the world, thank you!"

Yup.
And btw, the play was superb!

 

[StillILearn]

pontalba:

I'd remembered another episode that it appeared that Lo had some sort of power, look on p.133 near the bottom. That was a "power" of sorts.
And there were times later when they were at Beardsley that she tried to rend power from HH. She made him pay.....but he usually stole the money (and power) back. Beastly bugger.

Yes indeedy. And it is due to this scene that HH (the BB) is able to proclaim:

Did I deprive her of her flower? Sensitive gentlewomen of the jury, I was not even her first lover.

And to (ever so coyly) confide in us that:

Pride alone prevented her from giving up; for, in my strange predicament, I feigned supreme stupidity and had her have her way -- at least while I could still bear it.

However, now I'm wondering exactly what he meant by this?

But really these are irrelevant matters; I am not concerned with so-called "sex" at all. Anybody can imagine those elements of animality. A greater endeavor lures me on: to fix once for all the perilous magic of nymphets.

Then he goes on to add this to that:

While eager to impress me with the world of rough kids, she was not quite prepared for certain discrepancies between a kid's life and mine.

And we don't want to let that last sentence get lost in the crush, either.

 

[Peder]

Pontlba, Steffee,

I see that I missed a whole raft of posts up above. Somehow the browser just started me in after all of them and I didn't realize they were there. So if I sounded 'out of it,' this time I can blame the browser. The other times, well .....

But apropos flirting vs father figure, I realized after I posted that I was only thinking of the couch scene and what went before. Later there was of course the scene in the hotel where she told Humbert about that new game she had learned. That sounds definitely like sex to me! But then, still later, there is the scene where Humbert describes/complains that Lo is sitting on his lap totlly unconcerned and uninterested in what's going on. Reading a magazine as I recall. (What a put down for a man's ego!)
So to me it gets to sound like one ambiguous, one definite sex, and one definitely uninterested. VN sure doesn't make it easy. Very changeable this young girl

Peder

 

[StillILearn]

When answering HH's questions about her girlfriends, Lo very often begins to talk about their fathers, and HH just as often interrupts her. Do you all remember that? Or would it help for me to go find those places in the book?

 

[StillILearn]

Peder, it's very easy to miss "a whole raft of posts" around here by simply blinking!

 

[Peder]

However, now I'm wondering exactly what he meant by this?.....And we don't want to let that last sentence get lost in the crush, either.

StillILearn,Sorry your quotes don't show but, boy oh boy, have you found two sentences I never noticed before! Lolita continues to surprise, even after so much rereading and discussion.

Have to put the thinking cap on. But first the eyeglasses.

Of course, if Pontalba cares to answer the questions first, I'll be glad to wait and just read what she says. Your post was addressed to her, after all.

Peder

 

[Peder]

When answering HH's questions about her girlfriends, Lo very often begins to talk about their fathers, and HH just as often interrupts her. Do you all remember that? Or would it help for me to go find those places in the book?

StillILearn,
My what eagle eyes you have!
Anything would help poor old doddering me I'm getting to think!
But especially taking some time out to really reread the book.
If you would like to add the locations in for the general discussion that would be great. But what an observation you made! Both times in fact.

Peder

 

[pontalba]

Of course, if Pontalba cares to answer the questions first, I'll be glad to wait and just read what she says. Your post was addressed to her, after all.

Peder

But then, still later, there is the scene where Humbert describes/complains that Lo is sitting on his lap totlly unconcerned and uninterested in what's going on. Reading a magazine as I recall. (What a put down for a man's ego!)

Sorry Peder that scene really cracked me up! Perhaps this was one of her forms of retaliation that was in a sense Power?

StillILearn

I can't bring to mind the type of passages you refer to above. The one at the end with Avis and fat little daddy made an impression on me, but that's it. So far.

While eager to impress me with the world of rough kids, she was not quite prepared for certain discrepancies between a kid's life and mine.

That could um, have many different meanings.......I just don't know where to start.

Did I deprive her of her flower? Sensitive gentlewomen of the jury, I was not even her first lover.

Personally, I think its pretty nervy of him to consider himself her "lover". That word brings to mind sweet, lovely, and above all consentual relations.

I thought when he spoke of not being concerned with the sex, he was speaking as the author, not the subject. IOW, let the reader imagine what must have taken place.

 

[steffee]

But I like your signature line. I haven't noticed it before; have you changed it? In fact, it aplies very much to the discussion we are having.

It applies to everything!! Every day, every book, every discussion... but yes, especially to Mr. Anti-Freud, especially to Lolita.

 

[steffee]

I do see the competitive streak in Charlotte, but not in Lo. I think that Lo's actions towards her mother were defensive in nature.

Yes, it is true that Charlotte seems particularly competitive with her daughter... she really was a completely unlikeable character. Lolita, HH, Quilty... weren't really all that likeable, but you could sympathise a little (or a lot, depending which one) with each, but I had no sympathy at all for Charlotte.

She just (how mistakenly!) figured he was 'safe'.

Yes! Yes!

Lolita doesn't strike me as the jealous type, although there was one little French girl that she seemed to get rid of during their sojurn at Beardsley. But of her mother, no I don't think so. She and her mother did have a sort of strange relationship. But I think thats because Lo wanted to cling to Charlotte, but was not allowed to.

Yes, you're right. Jealous was the wrong word, maybe resentful...

 

[steffee]

When answering HH's questions about her girlfriends, Lo very often begins to talk about their fathers, and HH just as often interrupts her. Do you all remember that? Or would it help for me to go find those places in the book?

Yes, I remember... it came across (at least to me) that she thought he was only interested in any competition he might have, not really in who her closest friends were. Maybe he was... I took that as the first, of relatively few, signs that he did love her, if he did (did we ever get to the bottom of that discussion?)

 

[pontalba]

Yes, I remember... it came across (at least to me) that she thought he was only interested in any competition he might have, not really in who her closest friends were. Maybe he was... I took that as the first, of relatively few, signs that he did love her, if he did (did we ever get to the bottom of that discussion?)

The vibes are familiar, but where???

 

[pontalba]

Yes, you're right. Jealous was the wrong word, maybe resentful...

Resentful is exactly the right word!

btw, I can't find the passages mentioned earlier regarding Lo attempting to make HH jealous. But I did find something I'd missed before. Quilty's two appearances. One at the tennis court, and then the pool where Lolita 'performed' for him. I think its about p.235ish, or 236. The book is in the other room right now.....