Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[Peder]

Despair

And now for a second new book!

This is not quite on topic, nor is it quite off topic, but parts of Nabokov's style in writing Lolita have been noted to resemble a detective story, especially the devilish ways he hides clues in plain sight, all over the place, until it seems we have been ankle deep in them all along! Well, it turns out that Nabokov has also written an actual detective story! From the back cover:

"Extenseively revised by Nabokov in 1965 -- thirty years after its priginal publication -- Despair is the wickedly inventive and richly derisive story of Hermann, a man who undertakes the perfect crime, his own murder."

with a comment by Newsweek:

A beautiful mystery plot, not to be revealed."

So, I'm not going to reveal it, but I am going to read it!

What amazing luck!
A detective story by Nabokov!
Peder

 

[Peder]

Kenny
Very glad to hear that you are lurking!
Ibsen, eh? I've been thinking of James. I have a colleague who has been a friend for many years, and he reads only Henry James, over and over again, for the writing. And he is still doing it. So maybe I'll be trying Washington Square or Portrait of a Lady (a genuine tome!) one of these days. My fantasy dream is to one day see Rosmersholm by Ibsen, presented at the National Theater in Oslo, in the native language of my ancestors. Good man that Ibsen!
Peder

 

[steffee]

Do you notice a similarity in the names Hermann and Humbert (Humbert), or maybe I'm thinking too much...

I've read Washington Square. I think you'll like James (based on what I've seen on here so far).

Going back to the cover pictures, I didn't expect HH to look like that either

 

[Peder]

To all who come this way a-wanderin'.....

There's a question I have had that won't go away, or more like a couple questions.

I've heard it said that all truly great works of art are different. That no author or artist of any sort is famous because they copied some other famous artist. They are famous because the did something different. And I don't think I'd get any argument that Lolita is different!

On the other hand, I have read How to Read Literature Like a Professor, by Thomas C. Foster, which was recommended by Miss Shelf, in a thread she started on how many different kinds of stories there can be, after all. How many genres, or categories, or whatever? If you google you'll find various answers. 5. 7. 13, pick a number. Well, Thomas G. Foster, says this:

"We've spent quite a while thinking about specific tasks in the activity of reading, such as considering how this means x, that signifies y, and so on. Now of course I believe "this" and "that" and x and y matter, and on some level so do you, else we would not be at this point in the discussion. But there is a greater truth behind all these specific interpretive activities, at least as I see it.....[and] it's no very great secret. Moreover it's not my personal invention or discovery, so I am not looking for credit here, but it needs saying again, so here it is:

There is only one story.​

What's it about?

That's probably the best question you'll ever ask, and I apologize for responding with a really lame answer: I don't know. It's not about anything. It's about everything. Its not about something, the way an elegy is about the death of a friend. It's about everything that anyone wants to write about. I suppose that ur-story is about ourselves, about what it means to be human. I mean, what else is there? ...we are interested in ourselves in space, or in time, in the world. So what our poets and storytellers do for us -- drag a rock up to the fire, have a seat, listen to this one -- is explain us-and-the-world or us-in-the-world."

So I offer that for everyone's consideration. Is Lolita so different as to defy Foster's claim that all stories are one? It is not about 'ourselves' we will all say. Or is some part of it about ourselves in some way? Does it explain to us, in some way, us-and-the-world?

And for those of us who come to like it, why do we do that? Are we ressponding just to Nabokov's formidable style and story-telling abilities, or are we perhaps finding out more about us-and-the-world?

There are no grades. But considering how some people hate the book and some people love it, I think the reason for asking is pretty evident. Why?

Just asking,
Peder

 

[Peder]

Do you notice a similarity in the names Hermann and Humbert (Humbert), or maybe I'm thinking too much...

I've read Washington Square. I think you'll like James (based on what I've seen on here so far).

Going back to the cover pictures, I didn't expect HH to look like that either

Steffee,
Glad to hear your endorsement for James! Many thanks! Now I don't have to agonize about making up my mind. Seriously Just go do it!

ROTFALTIC! No, I never thought of that before either! I never would have expected Humbert to look like Jeremy Irons! Impossible! With a name like Humbert, heavier and more like a friendly uncle. But if Irons were Quilty, then I sure could see her leaving HH in a flash for him! Even if Humbert were treating her well!

Impossible to think too much when reading VN! My initial reaction without any thought was more that VN might have been meaning he was just a 'mann/man.' But VN sure does pick out-of-the-way names, doesn't he? And yup, Herman/Humbert, they sure have the h,r,m,e sounds in common, and ponderous. More similar than different. Unfortunately there's no Appel to tell us the answer for why Hermann.

Peder

 

[Peder]

That's enough words for one day! More than.

 

[pontalba]

Peder
Despair is one of VN's that came in my recent Amazon haul. But I also have Sebastian Knight. From the back cover :

The Real Life of Sebastian Knight is a peversely magical literary detective story--subtle, intricate, leading to a tantalizing climax--about the mysterious life of a famous writer. Many people knew things about Sebastian Knight as a distinguished novelist, but probably fewer than a dozen knew of the two love affairs that so profoundly influenced his career, the second one in such a disastrous way. After Knight's death, his half brother sets out to penetrate the enigma of his life, starting with a few scanty clues in the novelist's private papers. His search proves to be a story as inriguing s any of his subject's own novels, as baffling , and, in the end, as uniquely rewarding.

Hmmm.....

I love the quote from Foster's book. Particularly the centerpiece of course.
"There is only one story."
The quest for love and freedom. Are the two so different? In Lolita there is Humbert's quest for love, the love he lost in such a paralyzing manner, and of course Lo's quest for freedom from both the obsessive passion of Humbert, but firstly from her mother. Perhaps thats why she so willingly went to Humbert. At the first of it, she didn't know her mother was dead, so she wanted freedom from her mother, then she had to be free from HH. Then freedom from Quilty. Had Lo found the love she would have stayed with with Dick? Well, we will never know.

I think if all of us look within ourselves, we can see some part of ourselves in Lolita. Even if its the road not taken or inflicted as it were.

Love of Freedom, or Freedom to Love............same difference?

Its late, and I am rambling...........

 

[Peder]

Its late, and I am rambling...........

Pontalba,
I love those ramblings!
But it is way early and I am not yet coherent
So, later
Peder

 

[Peder]

Pontalba,
I still haven't managed the Great Awakening, but at least I can try a reply to the first part of your /long pause to find a word..........I'll try/ beautiful post. That doesn't quite catch it, but I'll proceed.

I am very pleasantly astounded to hear that Sebastian Knight, for short, is a detective story. For as much as I have read about Nabokov, mostly in connection with Lolita, but not entirely, I have never ever heard any mention that he explicitly wrote detective mysteries (in the more conventional sense of the term). And now I have heard of two! Which given my interest in the genre is truly wonderful news! Not only that, but I know it is on the shelf at Borders, so you know what happens next.

/goes rummaging for 30% off coupon/

The second part of your post still needs some time for a response. My thoughts have been completely whirling since reading it, and I am still groping for the appropriately admiring way to respond.

But hang in there,
It'll happen,
Peder

 

[steffee]

I've heard it said that all truly great works of art are different. That no author or artist of any sort is famous because they copied some other famous artist. They are famous because the did something different. And I don't think I'd get any argument that Lolita is different!

Agreed. Lolita is very very different.

There is only one story.​

What's it about?

That's probably the best question you'll ever ask, and I apologize for responding with a really lame answer: I don't know. It's not about anything. It's about everything. Its not about something, the way an elegy is about the death of a friend. It's about everything that anyone wants to write about. I suppose that ur-story is about ourselves, about what it means to be human. I mean, what else is there? ...we are interested in ourselves in space, or in time, in the world. So what our poets and storytellers do for us -- drag a rock up to the fire, have a seat, listen to this one -- is explain us-and-the-world or us-in-the-world."

I so wish I had never seen this post last night

After a very restless night mulling over those words, arguing with myself, arguing with him, Thomas C. Foster, whoever he is, and arguing with myself again. There can't possibly be only one kind of book... ok, so I see why novels about murder or other crimes might fit the bill, because none of us are all good or all bad, and we all have 'limits' or levels "social responsibility". I can see why insights into the lives of certain characters might, or possibly love stories, accounts of wars, or accounts of anything really.

So then I thought what about books featuring animals, like Black Beauty, or The Jungle Book, even. And I realised that these books almost exclusively feature people too, and those that don't, are written from the view of a person, because that's all you can ever get.

So then I pondered on the sci-fi and fantasy genres... briefly, since I don't tend to read much of those, but I wondered if this 'one type of book' suggestion fits Lord of The Rings, or Narnia books, and I got a bit lost...

And then I focussed on individual titles, ones I had read, randomly:
- Dubliners, by Joyce - a resounding yes
- Life of Pi, by Yann Martel - yes again
- We Need To Talk About Kevin, by Lionel Shriver - definitely
- Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder - yes, yes, yes
- The Color Purple, by Alice Walker - yes
- Lord of the Flies - YES!!
- To Kill a Mockingbird - sadly, yes
- Lolita...

So I offer that for everyone's consideration. Is Lolita so different as to defy Foster's claim that all stories are one? It is not about 'ourselves' we will all say. Or is some part of it about ourselves in some way? Does it explain to us, in some way, us-and-the-world?

I guess Lolita does fit the rule. We have all been Lolita, a twelve year old, in need of a reliable parent, curious, rebellious. I don't know that we have all been HH, exactly (I don't really want to ponder too long on that one), but we all have regrets, we all have desires, many that we know are purely selfish, perhaps immoral. We all have the ability of convincing the reader (ourselves, and others, if necessary) that our actions are with good intentions.

I read somewhere that people have an inane need to confess our sins. Whether that's by writing a journal or diary, praying, telling a real, live confidant(e), or disclosing to the world by writing a novel, or appearing on Trisha (Jerry Springer(?)). We all have a Quilty in our lives...

And for those of us who come to like it, why do we do that? Are we ressponding just to Nabokov's formidable style and story-telling abilities, or are we perhaps finding out more about us-and-the-world?

I'm guessing it's both. The subject, of course must be conceivable (for Lolita), but also important is the style Nabokov writes, his sensitivity, non-judgmental (or more equally judging all parties involved) attitude, his empathy.

I'm not clever enough to answer this question any fuller, so I'll just sit back and read other replies

 

[Breaca]

It is with trepidation that I now quietly tiptoe in - in the hope that if I speak nothing but drivel it will slip quietly into the shadows and not sit for long in the glaring light of informed knowledge and insight that you've shared with us all.

So far, enjoying the book immensely. The story itself is interesting especially for those who enjoy exploring the many facets of human nature - whether in all its glory or perversions. But I'm amazed and in awe at the sheer creativity displayed. I usually read a book in 1 to 3 days depending on size but this is not a book to dive into at high speed. And I must confess that on the whole I read a book for the story alone. After all a good yarn is a good yarn. But with Lolita I have been stuck on the author’s play on words and the interaction between the characters and the reader.

I'm currently of the opinion that HH is the beast in this story. OK, so he lost his first love at an early age. Poor thing But there is more to his character/personality than the unrequited love/passion that was lost to him in his youth. And why not other 'Annabels' in the course of his younger life. He behaved like a typical pedophile - sneaking his way into situations that involved youngsters (church, education), sitting on park benches feigning innocence. Sorry but no sympathy here. He wanted his nymphet regardless of the consequences. Also HH comes across as being rather full of himself. There are many instances where he comments on his own good looks. He makes derogatory comments about many others which alludes to himself as being far superior - bit of a snob methinks. And he's a bully. And how many 'normal' people contemplate murder?

As for Lo - what can I say? She's 12-14. A product of life without nurturing? A mother who could have done with some parenting skills to say the least. As for the older brother - I'm wondering what kind of relationship would there have been between mother and son. MMmm struggling now to put feelings into words but the gist of it is some women prefer men... mmm still struggling... some women act differently towards the male species. Their expectations are different - may be it's a 'competition' thing; I'm certainly not clever enough in that area to really say. But I do wonder why Big Haze was the way she was with Lil' Haze. As for Lo, to me she's just a precocious young lady who had the misfortune of coming into contact with adults who were far more interested in their own wants and needs (and obsessions). She was at an age where you'd expect some curiousity in the other sex. And if we're to take HH at his word, why wouldn't she be charmed by an older 'handsome' man. He certainly paid her more attention than her mother. Why wouldn't she be testing her powers on him. We'd have to get into the mind of a 12 year old - she would not react to situations in the same way as an adult. Her perspective on life is that of a youngster. Would she have understood the full ramifications of her actions. And when things did get too 'grown up' how, in her child's mind, does she then get out of it? It's not an old story. Pedophiles use control and fear to force their victims from seeking help, from speaking out. I don't think Lo ever had control over HH - there's a difference between being in control and taking advantage of a bad situation.

Deep breath.... That's me done for now. I'm now going to quietly slip into the shadows and I'll peek in later - if I'm brave enough

 

[StillILearn]

steffee:

I'm not clever enough to answer this question any fuller, so I'll just sit back and read other replies.

Ha! But you're clever enough to ask the question, and that's clever enough by far. I just love it that you lay awake pondering last night. I thought maybe this thread was (ohgodohgodohgod - I simply have to make this pun, forgive me, Peder!) pedering out, but apparently not!

So, back on the Nabokovian carousel I have hopped. Unless Peder tosses me off, head first.

 

[StillILearn]

breaca:

Deep breath.... That's me done for now. I'm now going to quietly slip into the shadows and I'll peek in later - if I'm brave enough.

Welcome, breaca! It'll be so much fun to have another brain working through the nights on this dastardly mystery.

I'm enthusiastically on your side: HH = pedophile/predator Lolita = dumb kid

All the rest is simply Nabokov leading us up the garden path. And back down again. And onto the carousel. With the brass ring being hidden in a hedgerow, completely out of sight (and, if I'm not mistaken), somewhere beyond page 310.

 

[pontalba]

WOW!!
The above posts put my lil ole ruminations to shame!
Bravo!

Steffee
Extremely well put. You asked questions that we each need to ask ourselves. And very insightful questions at that.

Breaca
Slink back into the shadows eh? Not likely! Your post is a wonderful synopsis of character analysis! Come out, come out, where ever you are!!

StillILearn
Thrown off!? Not bloody likely! Not while I have breath!

Now as for youPeder, you are the instigator in this situation......and all I can say is:

Yay! Ya did good honey chile...

 

[Peder]

I'm in hiding. Now I really really have a problem how to put a post together. All I can say so far is Gasp! Holey Moley! Leaping Lizards! and Jumpin' Jehosaphats! And I wish there were an even smaller font than this. I am feeling very over-awed right now, but that pedering out was good and got a roaring out-loud belly laugh! I'm going over to Borders to get normalized!

 

[pontalba]

The man goes to Borders to normalize??

StillILearn

All the rest is simply Nabokov leading us up the garden path. And back down again. And onto the carousel. With the brass ring being hidden in a hedgerow, completely out of sight (and, if I'm not mistaken), somewhere beyond page 310.

And around the corner, and under the tree with the Sergeant Major no doubt.

 

[Peder]

To all who did come a-wanderin' this way

I hardly know what to say or where to begin. I think that which would make me happiest of all, would be for your conversations to continue on free-flowing, unabated, without interruption from me. I have never seen anything so glorious on any forum! So if it helps, just please try to ignore the existence of this post that you are now reading. And I say that in all seriousness, not in false modesty, because my own thoughts on the question have been so meagre -- except as they have now been sparked by your posts -- which you will shortly see.

To answer one question, from the biographical note,

Thomas C. Foster is a Professor of English at the University of Michigan at Flint, where he teaches classic and contemporary fiction, drama, and poetry as well as creative writing and composition. He is the auuthor of several books on twentieth-century British and Irish fiction and poetry. He lives in East Lansing, Michigan.

"
One of the blurbs says, further,

Based on twenty five years of experience.

Truth to tell, he did go on in that chapter to provide a discusion why the "one story" proposition was a valid one. But none of that spoke to me, especially with respect to Lolita, so I just left it out of my post. He speaks about two things, though, with two fancy names "intertextuality" and "archetype." The first notion is that everything an author writes is connected in some way to everything else he has ever seen or read .... and it may

contain echoes or refutations of novels or poems ..[we] have never read.

'Archetype' is a little more interesting.

'Archetype' is a five dollar word for 'pattern' or for the mythic original on which a patterrn is based. It's like this, somewhere back in myth -- a story component let's call it -- comes into being. It works so well for one reason or antoher, that it hangs around, and keeps popping up in subsequent stories. That component could be anything: a quest, a form of sacrifice, flight, a plunge into water, whatever resonates and catches our imaginations, setting off vibrations in our deepest consciusness, and makes us want to hear it again. And again and again and again. You'd think these components, these archetypes, would wear out with use the way cliches do, but they actually work the other way: they take on power from repetition, finding strength in numbers.

Well, I didn't notice similarities to other authors, or typical story components, when I thought about Lolita. It seemed so opposite to everything I had ever read that I floated the question out for thought. And you saw the brilliant outpouring that resulted. I am so happy at that! Completely thrilled!

What did I think? I thought Lolita sounded like the exception to the rule, so little am I aware of the more sophisticated literary ways that Prof. Thomas would look at it.

I thought about triangles, and realized that Lolita has two of them -- one of each kind. It has two women after one man and then shifts into two men after one woman. The story begins with a coming of age remembrance, followed by the two triangles, followed by a chase and vengeance, followed perhaps by repentance, love and remorse.. I began to appreciate the structural complexsity of the story and why we were able to see so many relations and perspectives to discuss. Especially since the personalities and situations of two main characters continually changed as they translated from one triangle across to the other. That there were extreme issues of good and evil, morality and immorality, certainly intensified our interest and discussion.

And that is about where I left it when I went to bed.
Pretty meagre, and rather mechanical.

I was tuckered out, p )
Peder

 

[Peder]

To all who did come a-wanderin' this way

Oops. this would have been a duplicate.

 

[Peder]

Interlude

As an interlude, here's one more Lolita, from The Enchanter



Might she be the dark-haired Lolita from the book?

Peder

 

[pontalba]

I thought about triangles, and realized that Lolita has two of them -- one of each kind. It has two women after one man and then shifts into two men after one woman. The story begins with a coming of age remembrance, followed by the two triangles, followed by a chase and vengeance, followed perhaps by repentance, love and remorse.. I began to appreciate the structural complexsity of the story and why we were able to see so many relations and perspectives to discuss. Especially since the personalities and situations of two main characters continually changed as they translated from one triangle across to the other. That there were extreme issues of good and evil, morality and immorality, certainly intensified our interest and discussion.

Peder

With Lolita always the hinge.
Love the cover.....you know Amazon is my next stop.........