Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[pontalba]

In the foreword p. 5 the mythical John Ray, Jr., Ph.D. has this to say:

As a work of art, it transcends its expiatory aspects; and still more important to us than scientific significance and literary worth, is the ethical impact the book should have on the serious reader; for in this poignant personal study there lurks a general lesson; the wayward child, the egotistic mother, the panting maniac--these are not only vivid characters in a unique story: they warn us of dangerous trends; they point out potent evils.

Wayward, yes.....but only because [IMO] of the egotistical mother. If Lo had been given a quarter of the attention that Charlotte paid to roping and capturing some unsuspecting male, she'd have been not so suseptible to the 'panting maniac'.

So. Right up front we are presented with the character analysis. But just as we have no clue as to who Mrs.Richard Schiller is, the analysis doesn't sink in.

Hiding in plain sight.

 

[Peder]

In the foreword p. 5 the mythical John Ray, Jr., Ph.D. has this to say:


Wayward, yes.....but only because [IMO] of the egotistical mother. If Lo had been given a quarter of the attention that Charlotte paid to roping and capturing some unsuspecting male, she'd have been not so suseptible to the 'panting maniac'.

So. Right up front we are presented with the character analysis. But just as we have no clue as to who Mrs.Richard Schiller is, the analysis doesn't sink in.

Hiding in plain sight.

Pontalba,
That is one qreat quote! Showing very clearly that he knew what his characters were doing. They are of course drawn in such detail that he had to have had very definite ideas why he wrote them the way he did, as I assume every author does who creates any characters of any substance at all. Books certainly do not happen by accident, at all, but it is still nice to see it in his own words and confirming the situation that we clearly saw in the book. At least we can know for sure that we got that much right! /phew/

But wayward child? That's my favorite character he is talking about. He better watch what he says!

And if VN were asked why Lo was the way she was, I think he would agree entirely with you. After all her behavior was not caused by the panting maniac. Or at least I don't think I see any hint of a suggestion of that in the book, that she was this purely virtuous innocent child until HH came along. So of course (he says) VN would suggest that it was her family situation which caused it, and with her mother drawn the way she was, who else would be the first suspect?

So I think you had it right all along, and I think VN would think you did. Don't you think that he would think that, the way I think that he would think that? Don't you think?

But wayward child? I'm still frowning about that.

I would say she sounded like a normal child ro me, or at least much much closer to normal than to wayward.

Gotta read that book again!
Please don't throw me into that briat patch again, please don't
Brer Peder,
Er, Peder

 

[Peder]

BTW, re had it right all along.
Why am I not surprised!
Sleep tight, Gracie!

 

[pontalba]

Peder
Oddly enough, my first reaction to the term "wayward" for Lo was...I don't think so pal-ly. But upon consulting Mr. Oxford American, I had to change my tune.

wayward: difficult to control or predict because of unusual or perverse behavior.

Now Lo certainly was difficult to control, and would have done the opposite of whatever Charlotte desired in whatever department of life (such was her anger at Charlotte for basically ignoring her). So in spite of my initial reluctance it does fit. I think I had the meaning of the word 'wayward' shaded in my mind to include more sexual looseness in its meaning. Now it can, but in Lo's case, not.


The waywardness was brought on by Charlotte's neglect. It was an escalating situation, and had HH not appeared, something would have exploded anyway. Probably that Charlie situation.

(Now, George, I am going back to Sleep,
Gracie)

Mr. Sun is not up yet, and neither should I be.
(what a sentence!)

 

[Peder]

Peder
Oddly enough, my first reaction to the term "wayward" for Lo was...I don't think so pal-ly. But upon consulting Mr. Oxford American, I had to change my tune.


Now Lo certainly was difficult to control, and would have done the opposite of whatever Charlotte desired in whatever department of life (such was her anger at Charlotte for basically ignoring her). So in spite of my initial reluctance it does fit. I think I had the meaning of the word 'wayward' shaded in my mind to include more sexual looseness in its meaning. Now it can, but in Lo's case, not.


The waywardness was brought on by Charlotte's neglect. It was an escalating situation, and had HH not appeared, something would have exploded anyway. Probably that Charlie situation.

(Now, George, I am going back to Sleep,
Gracie)

Mr. Sun is not up yet, and neither should I be.
(what a sentence!)

Pontalba

That's the trouble with those dang definitions! They get in the way of the what the word really means. I had only ever heard the term used in the phrase 'home for wayward girls,' which never meant to me just a (slight) difficulty to control or predict. I always thought it meant 'way out of bounds, in actual bad behavior.' But live and learn!

I've been wondering if his use of the term might also reflect a more strict view of the times about how children, especially girls, were expected to behave. Attitudes about child raising have certainly moved from "Spare the rod and spoil the child," all the way to the "permissive" approach that came along just after my chiildren. So I wonder what a 100-year old dictionary would say about 'wayward?' Or however many years would bring us back to the year of his birth (1899). I suspect the definition would not permit bouncing tennis balls toward one's mother, or storming away from the table. Anyway, he says wayward I say to-mah-to.

Peder

 

[steffee]

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.

LOL! No, not to worry, I often lie awake mulling arguments for trivial (well, non-real-life based) factors.

I know I said I would post again "tomorrow" (which would have been yesterday)... I will, I just discovered I have an assignment (well, an annotated bibliography) due in TOMORROW! that I hadn't started yet, so am working on that, taking regular breaks to catch up on my new favourite forum, and trying (desperately) not to concern my (already) busy brain with thoughts of Lolita, and HH, and what Nabokov wrote that appealed to so many, and whether an author's piece of writing reflects everything (s)he ever read (or saw, or experienced, or whatever the definition was)... grrr, I think I just failed my non-thinking rule.

So if you happen to see my green light and think I am ignorantly neglecting this thread... I, er, am actually, but for very good reasons.

I will see you all very soon!!

 

[pontalba]

Well, I just happen to have in front of me a Websters Complete Reference Dictionary and Encyclopedia, copyrighted 1942. Haven't found the older one yet.

wayward: peverse, forward.

More later.

 

[StillILearn]

Please don't throw me into that briat patch again, please don't

StillI peers up from the pages of The Blind Assasin long enough to chuckle her assent.

 

[StillILearn]

Well, I just happen to have in front of me a Websters Complete Reference Dictionary and Encyclopedia, copyrighted 1942. Haven't found the older one yet.



More later.

You guys are amazing me. Has anyone ever had so much fun with one book around here?

 

[StillILearn]

Sshhh, I'm just quietly tip-toeing about. It's a brave new world this and being the shy type very difficult to take a stand amongst such esteemed HumLo connosseurs. What's a girl to do, (she sighs).

breaca, please dont'be shy. I have to believe that your observations will be every bit as much fun (and as heartily welcomed) as anybody else's in this rollicking and frolicsome thread.

Say away!

ruby, I know you're out there.

 

[pontalba]

So if you happen to see my green light and think I am ignorantly neglecting this thread... I, er, am actually, but for very good reasons.

above by Steffee

Unfortunately the "realities" of life tend to obscure and interfere with the really important things in life. Dunno why that has to be!!
So nose to the grindstone, and then you can come out and play.

however many years would bring us back to the year of his birth (1899). I suspect the definition would not permit bouncing tennis balls toward one's mother, or storming away from the table.

above by Peder

OK. I found an old dictionary, unfortunately the copyright page is gone, as the first half. I have to think there is a Volume I somewhere that I will find eventually. Its more than likely circa the date you mention, if not a little earleir. Zo..

wayward: Taking one's own way; disobedient; froward; peverse; willful

btw its Websters International Dictionary

 

[StillILearn]

I know I said I would post again "tomorrow" (which would have been yesterday)... I will, I just discovered I have an assignment (well, an annotated bibliography) due in TOMORROW! that I hadn't started yet, so am working on that, taking regular breaks to catch up on my new favourite forum, and trying (desperately) not to concern my (already) busy brain with thoughts of Lolita, and HH, and what Nabokov wrote that appealed to so many, and whether an author's piece of writing reflects everything (s)he ever read (or saw, or experienced, or whatever the definition was)... grrr, I think I just failed my non-thinking rule.

steffee: "Lolita ate my homework."

 

[Peder]

Pontalba! Pontalba!
Oh, mighty Queen of the Reference Finders!

I surrender, I surrender!
I break my sword over my knee and hand it to you!

I shall no longer be perverse.

If he says way, then that is the way it is going to ward.

Your humble Obedient,
/rubbing knee/

Peder

 

[Peder]

You guys are amazing me. Has anyone ever had so much fun with one book around here?

StillILearn,
We make tunnels with them and run the toy choo-choo trains through them, since you ask.
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Oh Mighty Peder Please get off of your poor knees (if they are anything like mine!) and listen to what I said.

I was agreeing with you!!!

See the progression of the definations? In the oldest one, probably similar to the one VN had it says "Taking ones own way".......Not So Bad is It?

 

[pontalba]

StillILearn,
We make tunnels with them and run the toy choo-choo trains through them, since you ask.
Peder

OMG! Peder Don't do that I nearly coughed myself to death laughing at you!

 

[pontalba]

At 12 (and a half) most girls are unformed, just the outline of what they will look like. On p. 65 Charlotte tells Humbert:

You see, she sees herself as a starlet; I see her as a sturdy, healthy, but decidedly homely kid. This, I guess, is at the root of our troubles."

Now, Humbert's description of Lo is surely slanted, but if one takes the bare bones of it, I still don't see how she could have been described as "decidedly homely"! And no loving mother, however supposedly 'realistic' would describe their daughter as such. IMHO

 

[Peder]

So if you happen to see my green light and think I am ignorantly neglecting this thread... I, er, am actually, but for very good reasons.

I will see you all very soon!!

Steffee
Well, I don't wish to be wayward or perverse, much less difficult to control, but it was very nice to hear from you.

And AFTER you get the real world shoved back into its proper place, maybe you can offer a thought on King Kong as the ultimate man-preys-on-woman archetype. The big Kong as the image of the mighty he-man, (obviously, tee hee), and poor Fay Wray as the slender defenseless little girl. And any other archetypes you care to contribute.

VN has to be squirming at the turn these comparison have taken. But if he is going to write a book then he takes his chances. So there!

And he may well have seen King Kong anyway -- in the original.

Peder

 

[StillILearn]

Peder, you are cracking me up! Apparently, you are incorrigible, if not actually wayward.

 

[Peder]

Oh Mighty Peder Please get off of your poor knees (if they are anything like mine!) and listen to what I said.

I was agreeing with you!!!

See the progression of the definations? In the oldest one, probably similar to the one VN had it says "Taking ones own way".......Not So Bad is It?

Oh Pontalba,
Mightiest of the Interpreters,

Actually you were speaking to my Dense Twin so, no, I truthfully have to say I didn't see that progression. I can only say it was hiding in plain sight. But that's wonderful that you did! 'Taking one's own way' is not so bad at all (as a definition, that is), especially if one is thinking of the 'perverse' flavor at the same time. So maybe VN was indeed thinking in terms like the older phrase 'home for wayward girls' that I remember.

That all causes me to think more about just how to describe Lolita -- a topic which is still wide open for contributions from late finishers of the book. (Breaca ?) And others.

Peder