Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[Peder]

"There is only one story."
The quest for love and freedom. Are the two so different?

And then came the morning, and I woke up to read that question!!!!!
And I thought "OMG I am going to have to go back to bed! Which I was going to do anyhow, I was so tired. But that question really tied a knot in my brain! The two most passionate needs of a human being, and you managed to see them and focus on them in the context of a book that does everything it can to be their very denial, and then to collect them into a single question! Such a mind-bending insight was too much for me at that hour of the morning! And I still don't know what to say in three million words or less, that question has been so thought provoking!

And is the quest for love and freedom the only one story -- as I think you meant the answer to be. I can't think of a better one! And again, to see that as a thread in Lolita I think is just marvelous. Much better than their denial that I was focusing on!

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.

And I have to agree with all of that, especially the difference that Lo thinking her mother still to be alive makes. She had to still be viewing Humbert as part of their earlier 'flirtations,' especially when she says "you still haven't kissed me." I'm surprised he didn't swerve right into the nearest tree! Only gradually did she begin to see what he was really up to. She didn't seem to really believe it all that seriously to begin with.

{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...........

Perhaps it is not such a small part of ourselves that we see? Love of freedom, and freedom to love, being such a large part of our makeup that perhaps they explain why the novel excites such strong reactions?

Never heard better ramblings!
Peder

 

[Peder]

...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...

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

Oh Steffee,
Why do you think you haven't answered the question? That sounds like a very complete and insightful answer to me -- and probably the right answer. Lolita does reflect part of us in all the ways you say. You convince me of that!
Plus your comcise summary of Nabikov's style puts it very well, and differently than i have ever heard it.
And your systematic inventory and review of literature is very impressive. If all of that hasn't confirmed the answer, I don't know what has.

Would it surprise you greatly if I said that yours is also one of the posts that we here are all sitting around reading with admiiration? It is, and we are.

But I'm sorry you had to read the question before bed time
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Peder You said:

Perhaps it is not such a small part of ourselves that we see? Love of freedom, and freedom to love, being such a large part of our makeup that perhaps they explain why the novel excites such strong reactions?

Right. Both are prerequisites for humans to fully realize themselves. Without either one, what is there? Earlier on in the thread, I mentioned something about life being a series of "prisons" and the trick was not to want to slip the bars, well thats what I meant. The freedom to choose where we wish to be in our lives. A measure of contentment. No one is ever completely free to do what ever they wish, there are parameters in life, either dictated by laws, family, or situations beyond our control. But if we can be content within those parameters....that is freedom. We make our own. IMHO.

Nabokov was in fact a genius. Not only does he layer beautifully, he plays upon our most basic needs/wants. Marvelous.

VN forces us as the reader to examine ourselves in ways that perhaps we would not have done.

 

[Peder]

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.
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?

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

Breaca,
How nice it is to hear your voice among this enthusiastic throng! It is way too seldom that we do!

I am especially glad to see how accurately you nailed Humbert's behavior as the truly villainous predatory pedophile that he is. I for one needed reminding of that! It is too easy (for me) to lose sight of the detailed blackness of his behavior in the midst of all the conflicting signals and all else that goes on in a very busy story. Handsome or not, personable or not, velvet glove or not, he was very definitely evil personified.

As for Lolita, I have to agree with your sympathetic view of her situation.
Two things really stand out. At her age, she was indeed still a youngster. And it is amazing how young youngsters can be! And deferential to grownups. But it is your final question that is so on target. How indeed does she get out? Getting out always seems to be the problem in abusive situations. And Nabokov caught that as a major part in his story.

Come back soon.
Peder

 

[steffee]

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

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

Peder

That one seems so much more the-picture-in-my-head-y, thanks for finding that!!

NB. I had such little sleep last night due to this Thomas C. Foster bloke that I refuse to allow myself to ponder 'intertextuality' and 'archetype' tonight (this morning!), so think about that tomorrow (a few hours later), and post again. (It's 1.28am here and the coffee is no longer doing the trick...)

 

[Peder]

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

StillILearn,
Not a chance I would even think of trying to do anything like that. First of all, everybody else would object. Second of all, this ain't no carousel, where some little engine makes the little horseys go round. This is a big rowboat and we definitely need everybody pulling on the oars if we are going to get anyplace close to the big mother ship Amazon. Third of all, where would your wonderful posts come from? Bottles with messages floating by? Bad idea! And fourthly I don't think TBF allows pedering out.
And then there are all the humorous reasons. And fifthly, you left your purse behind so I knew you'd be back.

Do really wish you stay,
Peder

 

[Peder]

NB. I had such little sleep last night due to this Thomas C. Foster bloke that I refuse to allow myself to ponder 'intertextuality' and 'archetype' tonight (this morning!), so think about that tomorrow (a few hours later), and post again. (It's 1.28am here and the coffee is no longer doing the trick...)

Steffee,
I am so sorry that that question bothered your sleep. Really I am. I hope you recover from a lost night's sleep faster than I do. It takes me several days at least, so I really hope you can get the snooze hours in. And we are always here. The forum does accept posts during reasonable hours even if some of us seem not to know that I hope you are not reading this right now. Did I say that? I need some sleep.

CUtmw
Nighty nites
Peder

 

[Peder]

Both are prerequisites for humans to fully realize themselves. Without either one, what is there? Earlier on in the thread, I mentioned something about life being a series of "prisons" and the trick was not to want to slip the bars, well thats what I meant. The freedom to choose where we wish to be in our lives. A measure of contentment. No one is ever completely free to do what ever they wish, there are parameters in life, either dictated by laws, family, or situations beyond our control. But if we can be content within those parameters....that is freedom. We make our own. IMHO.

Nabokov was in fact a genius. Not only does he layer beautifully, he plays upon our most basic needs/wants. Marvelous.

VN forces us as the reader to examine ourselves in ways that perhaps we would not have done.

Pontalba,
Sleepiness is spreading actross the time zones from Steffe to here, so I hope this hangs together till the end.

I very definitely saw your earlier mention of prisons where we would not want to slip the bars, and I didn't comment (through oversight). I think that is a very poetic way to put it, and a great way to describe it. And rare it is if we can say this is finally really OK. There's an in-built restlessness in us that lets us know very quickly when we are not free. And we sure know whether we have love or not, either giving or receiving. As I started counting up the number of imprtant aspects of life and relations between people that were included in Lolita in one way or another, I began to realize how rich a work it was. I don't know how to compare it to other works, but he seems to have hit upon just about everything that is important in life. So I guess that makes Lolita an excellent example of the one story that is ever told. I was far from seeing that at the beginning of this discussion, and Foster's approach to the question was in a way that I couldn't connect to Lolita, but this discussion has certainly given me the way to think about the question, and the answer.

So now I have to sleep,
This has been a rollicking good time,
Many thanks to all who joined the party,
But the night is still young,
Peder

 

[StillILearn]

The man goes to Borders to normalize??

Laughing!

And fifthly, you left your purse behind so I knew you'd be back.

Durn. You know what they always say about that.

So. Just for the fun of it -- and to further obfuscate the matter -- having agreed and concluded that this tale is indeed all about love and freedom (freedom and love); and since we know that the admittedly all-consuming love of Nabokov's life was lepidopterology, could we now apply that knowledge to allow ourselves to delve just one more layer deeply into the drama before us?

Is our not-so-fragile enchanter (I do love the image that Peder posted above) actually a butterfly on rollerskates? Was this HH person attempting to "collect" her? Did she nearly perish beneath his clumsy impalings, and was it only because of her youthful flexibility, and her immense will to survive, that she finally managed to fly away?

What vould Herr Doktor Freud make of this analogy, do you think?

Hmmm?

 

[StillILearn]

TIME TO WAKE UP LET'S GET THIS SHOW ON THE ROAD

 

[pontalba]

Peder
I wish I could take credit for the "slip the bars" comment, but I read it in a Dick Francis mystery of all things at least 20ish years ago, and it stuck with me. The "hero" of the story had been thru an extremely debilitating experience, and his nerves were quite shot, and he made that comment. I thought it was an excellent analogy.

StillILearn
oooohhhhh.....you actually gave me the shivers with this...

actually a butterfly on rollerskates? Was this HH person attempting to "collect" her?

I can't remember the author at the moment.....didn't read the book, but years ago there was a movie....The Collector. I believe Terrence Stamp played said collector, and I remember Samantha Eggar played the victim.
And as far as.....

Did she nearly perish beneath his clumsy impalings, and was it only because of her youthful flexibility, and her immense will to survive, that she finally managed to fly away?

Man oh Man! Talk about layering.....I didn't see that one at all, but verra appropriate. Brava!

But then again.........OY!

 

[pontalba]

TIME TO WAKE UP LET'S GET THIS SHOW ON THE ROAD

And take it to Vegas?

Yay!

 

[StillILearn]

I can't remember the author at the moment.....didn't read the book, but years ago there was a movie....The Collector. I believe Terrence Stamp played said collector, and I remember Samantha Eggar played the victim.
And as far as.....

John Fowles. And yes, that image was also in my mind as I typed. I'll never forget that book/movie either. I can't remember whether I saw it or read it anymore ...

I wish I could take credit for the "slip the bars" comment, but I read it in a Dick Francis mystery of all things at least 20ish years ago, and it stuck with me. The "hero" of the story had been thru an extremely debilitating experience, and his nerves were quite shot, and he made that comment. I thought it was an excellent analogy.

I'm a Dick Francis fan too. I'd buy his books "sight-unseen".

 

[StillILearn]

And take it to Vegas?

Yay!

Say goodnight, pontalba.

 

[pontalba]

StillILearn
I have all of the Dick Francis. I just remembered the title of the one with that quote. It was Blood Sport.

 

[StillILearn]

StillILearn
I have all of the Dick Francis. I just remembered the title of the one with that quote. It was Blood Sport.

I always say of Dick Francis : All you have to do is to open the book; he does the rest.

What time is it there?

 

[pontalba]

I have 10:19 p.m.
Early.

 

[pontalba]

I agree about Francis. I love his characters. I know that the hero is always in a way 'the same difference', but he (francis) is a solid story teller.

Time to go finish S is for Silence.

 

[Peder]

StillILearn,

John Fowles' The Collector! Eeeeeewwwww, is right!
And that certainly sounds like one for the "one story" pile. Never even thought of it!

And now that your pick-axe has hit the vein and shown us where it is, would you probably also agree to add the Hannibal Lecter stories? But somehow maybe not the vampire stories. Or maybe yes there also, now that I think of it? Vampires are bad and every body knows it. Everybody knows pedophiles are bad news also, but am I crazy to think that Lolita was somehow a more interesting 'personable' book? Or am I simply responding to the fact (?) that the characters are more rounded?

Clarissa is a pure good heroine, easy to identify with, while Lecter is definitely evil (and he gets some wonderful scenes showing it!), but Lolita is harder to make out (no pun intended ) ) and Humbert is presented as a very passable gentleman.

But all in all, the man-preys-on-woman theme is definitely there.
As far as collecting and smothering butterflies, I wonder what connection Nabokov made, a butterfly even being his signature mark?
And, relative to the one-story proposition, he did mention his idea of the "three kinds of stories that could never be published in Ameica." So he just probably did have some "archetypes" consciously in mind that he was ringing the changes on when deciding to start Lolita.

Slowly, but surely, even the 'objective' evidence for Lolita being a one-story creeps out, in addition to the psychological and emotional connections.

Ya' see Still? I knew it would be a good thing we fished ya' back out of the drink when ya' tried jumpn' overboard, long wet stringy hair n'all!

Peder

 

[pontalba]

All of the stories you mention above are the man-preys-on-woman theme, but what about the opposite end of the stick? Female-chauvinist that I am, I have to admit that happens a lot as well /sigh/. Black Widow and all that.

But seriously, the 'one-story' theme applies to stories like The Adventurers (Harold Robbins) as the rebels were simply looking for freedom to live as they wished. Any dictator seeking power is only doing so to establish the freedom he needs to carry out whatever agenda he wishes.

So it seems that the seeking of freedom does not necessarily mean pure and altrustic motives. They can be corrupt, as HH's were when he sought power over Lolita, giving himself the freedom to do as he wished.