Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[Peder]

Afterthought: Lo actaully also refers to the word she pronounces "delickwent" as I recall, so 'delinquent' was also know to VN, in case he had wished to use it. Hmm.
P.

 

[Baddie]

Haven't read any postings in this tread yet, since I haven't read the book yet.
Just ordered it from www.play.com, guess I'll have it in a week or so.
So you might see me here later on!

 

[Peder]

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

Still,
It's only the girls who are made of sugar and spice and everything nice. The boys? Well.......you know.

Peder
(boy)

 

[Peder]

Haven't read any postings in this tread yet, since I haven't read the book yet.
Just ordered it from www.play.com, guess I'll have it in a week or so.
So you might see me here later on!

Baddie

That is great news. G-R-E-A-T-!

I sincerely hope you stick with it despite the topic.

And yes the thread is full of spoilers so reading the book first is definitely the right thing to do. When you are ready, just jump in. But you don't have to wait until the end of the book. I am sure there are one or two things that will arouse your reactions way before then.

And Welcome!
Peder

 

[Breaca]

Hellooo, hellooo, sorry I disappeared yesterday. Bookstore was a calling. And then of course, upon arriving home, had to spread out my new treasures (albeit only three) and just take a little peek (or two, or three), and have a sniff. Yes folks I am a book sniffer!! Oh woe is me but what the hay. And when all that was done I had to try and find space in my over populated - scratch that - my well stuffed bookshelves

As for THE book in question.... the waywardness of Lo. I shall again reiterate that she was just a kid. I've yet to meet a teenager who hasn't rebelled over one thing or another, who hasn't tried to control their own lives but I don't think that makes them wayward - and even those oh so very rebellious ones usually turn out to be upright members of the adult world.

And as for HHs description of Lo - most definitely perverted IMHO - he would see his nymphet through the eyes of a pedophile. And I'm convinced that all of his arguments/comments/musings come about only to justify his own actions even though he slates them too (if that makes any sense)

Well, that's my two pennies worth for now. I shall return - I promise.

 

[Breaca]

Just had another thought On the subject of freedom and love. Waiting patiently in the wings is my next read - Reading Lolita in Tehran. It will be interesting to see what angle the author puts on 'freedom'.

Short and sweet but it was just a thought

 

[Peder]

...the desperate extent of all human need and desire.

There are diamonds on any page of the book picked at random!
Up above, looking for VN's date of birth, I turned to the last page hoping to find an author's bio. But, no, instead it was the last page of notes by Appel, p456,

Nabokov had said,

My private tragedy, which cannot, and indeed should not, be anybody's concern, is that I had to abandon my natural idiom, my untrammeled, rich and infinitely docile Russian tongue for a second rate brand of English [!]....

Appel, passing by the comment about English, takes a different tack,

Nabokov's "private tragedy" is our concern, for in varying degrees it involves us all. Nabokov's search for language adequate to Lolita is H.H.'s search for language that will reach Lolita, and it is a representative search, a heightened emblem of all our attempts at communication. "'A penny for your thoughts,' I said, and she stretched out her palm at once." (p.208) It is the almost insuperable distance between those thoughts and that palm which Nabokov has measured so accurately and movingly in Lolita: the distance between people, the distance separating love from love-making, mirage from reality -- the desperate extent of all human need and desire. "I have only words to play with," says H.H., and only words can bridge the gulf to Lolita's palm. H.H. has failed once --"She would mail her vuilnerability in trite brashness and boredom, whereas I used for my desparately detached comments an artificial tone of voice that set my own teeth on edge." (p.284) -- but it is a necessary act of love to try, and perhaps Nabokov succeeds with the reader where H.H. failed with Lolita.

...perhaps Nabokov succeeds with the reader where H.H. failed with Lolita.

What a metaphor for the relation between us, the readers, and Lolita, the novel! And if we love the novel, do we wish analogously that H.H. had succeeded with a genuine love for Lolita? Are those propositions one and the same?

They definitely speak to me, and to my heart. Not only has Nabokov written literature among the finest I have read, but in addition he has also attracted the finest literary criticism I have ever read.

Just had to say that,
Peder

 

[Peder]

As for THE book in question.... the waywardness of Lo. I shall again reiterate that she was just a kid. I've yet to meet a teenager who hasn't rebelled over one thing or another, who hasn't tried to control their own lives but I don't think that makes them wayward - and even those oh so very rebellious ones usually turn out to be upright members of the adult world.

Hi Breaca,
Why the apology? We allow visits to bookstores in here. Boy do we ever!

Isn't it amazing that all the different kinds of kids we went to school with also grow up and become upright members of the adult world. And some of them may be saying the same thing about us.

About Lo, I think you are right on target.

The more I think about her, the more I see different Lo's. Of course, I am also getting further from my last detailed read of Lolita, so my memory may be collapsing a considerable initial variety down to just a few remaining ideas. But I see Lo in three phases, or four.

First, she is the teenager in kids clothing -- a seventh grader as I just found out -- who fights with her mother and flirts with Humbert.

Second, she is the kid who begins to indulge her sexual curiosity at camp and later with Humbert at the Enchanted Hunters.

Third, she is the captive putting up with the demands of life in captivity and trying to escape.

Fourth, she is married.

And I think it is entirely natural, when we talk and think of what Lo 'was like,' that we all tend to think of Lo the kid, at home and at camp. There she easily fits exactly the description you give, and there she is most 'herself,' a growing teenager. It is the scene where she 'teaches' Humbert what she learned at camp that is really a sticking point, for me anyway. But, more and more, I have come to think of it as a 'transitional' scene between her younger self and her self in captivity, where her still-young self still tries to relate to Hummy as earlier, but isn't sure whether this new way is a right way or not. Later, when she learns what his interests really are, we see the totally disinterested and constained Lo who finally flees. So I tend to be apologetic with respect to both the couch scene and the hotel scene, and to discount all else.

But that's tonight. When I read the book again, who knows?

Peder

 

[steffee]

...perhaps Nabokov succeeds with the reader where H.H. failed with Lolita.

What a metaphor for the relation between us, the readers, and Lolita, the novel! And if we love the novel, do we wish analogously that H.H. had succeeded with a genuine love for Lolita? Are those propositions one and the same?

Do you mean, what if HH and Lolita had managed to stay together, to fall in love properly, and spend many years together? Which would, of course, mean no Quilty -- unless she had a brief fling with Quilty before realising that HH was "the one" and that she was now "mature" enough to have a relationship with him fully. Or do you mean, he loved her so truly, that he never would have hurt her and abused(!) her the way he did? Or do you mean something else entirely...?

 

[steffee]

Haven't read any postings in this tread yet, since I haven't read the book yet.
Just ordered it from www.play.com, guess I'll have it in a week or so.
So you might see me here later on!

Yes, Baddie, do join in once you've read a little of Lolita and just can't hold your thoughts in any longer.

 

[steffee]

steffee: "Lolita ate my homework."

 

[pontalba]

Baddie
I certainly hope we see you next week, or whenever you are able to come on in here. As you can see we are a rather 'wordy' bunch, and welcome more of the same. But you are quite right to want to read the book first, as you want to have your own impressions in place beforehand. Just hurry up!

Breaca You say quite correctly:

.......he would see his nymphet through the eyes of a pedophile. And I'm convinced that all of his arguments/comments/musings come about only to justify his own actions even though he slates them too (if that makes any sense)

Thats true, but above I was speaking of her physical attributes only. i.e. Chestnut hair, grey eyes, slim...........How plain can that be? Her mother was prejudiced against Lo, and it even extended to denigrating her looks. Otherwise, yes, HH saw Lolita thru his own lens. /shiver/

Peder You said:

What a metaphor for the relation between us, the readers, and Lolita, the novel! And if we love the novel, do we wish analogously that H.H. had succeeded with a genuine love for Lolita? Are those propositions one and the same?

Yes, and Yes. I know that HH is a really nasty customer in many ways, well, most ways. But the presentation of VN's almost forces us to believe that Humbert, the part of Humbert that was honest and true, loved Lolita the woman beyond all reason. I also know that undoubtedly Humbert the molester, the pervert needed to be locked away for the rest of his life, but that true part of Humbert, the Humbert that he should have been should have been free to love.

Thats my main trouble, I look at what a person should have been, what potential I see in them that has been lost, and sometimes forget what they actually are. Reality Bites.

 

[pontalba]

Peder said:

First, she is the teenager in kids clothing -- a seventh grader as I just found out -- who fights with her mother and flirts with Humbert.

Second, she is the kid who begins to indulge her sexual curiosity at camp and later with Humbert at the Enchanted Hunters.

Third, she is the captive putting up with the demands of life in captivity and trying to escape.

Fourth, she is married.

Great break down. I'd not really analyzed the stages of Lo.

And this:

...the scene where she 'teaches' Humbert what she learned at camp that is really a sticking point, for me anyway. But, more and more, I have come to think of it as a 'transitional' scene between her younger self and her self in captivity, where her still-young self still tries to relate to Hummy as earlier, but isn't sure whether this new way is a right way or not.

This was really what had me stumped and it is also the main section that made me think of her as a lot more worldly than she actually was. But looking at it as a transitional scene, brings her character more into focus. This is a great example of how Humberts view of her slants the readers perceptions. Mine at least.

 

[StillILearn]

And as for HHs description of Lo - most definitely perverted IMHO - he would see his nymphet through the eyes of a pedophile. And I'm convinced that all of his arguments/comments/musings come about only to justify his own actions even though he slates them too (if that makes any sense)

Yes! breaca, exactly! That rascally HH knows that he is holding all the cards in that he can tell us anything he wishes and we have to take his word for it. We only get to see Lo (or Charlotte, for that matter) through his eyes, and he can whine and complain all he wants about their atrocious behavior.

What a metaphor for the relation between us, the readers, and Lolita, the novel! And if we love the novel, do we wish analogously that H.H. had succeeded with a genuine love for Lolita? Are those propositions one and the same?

They definitely speak to me, and to my heart. Not only has Nabokov written literature among the finest I have read, but in addition he has also attracted the finest literary criticism I have ever read.

Excellent point, peder. I am unrelenting in my scathing blame of HH, but I'm in love with the book itself. But wait! Without HH there would be no story and no book. It is HH's book!

What a dreadful dilemma to find myself in.

 

[StillILearn]

Welcome to the madhouse, Baddie. Read fast! Rereading is not only permitted, but may end up as being mandatory.

 

[Peder]

Do you mean, what if HH and Lolita had managed to stay together, to fall in love properly, and spend many years together? Which would, of course, mean no Quilty -- unless she had a brief fling with Quilty before realising that HH was "the one" and that she was now "mature" enough to have a relationship with him fully. Or do you mean, he loved her so truly, that he never would have hurt her and abused(!) her the way he did? Or do you mean something else entirely...?

Steffee,
All good questions! And all good questions for the Prosection to ask, so to speak, because what do we do with the fact that he abused her so thoroughly? I don't have a consistent answer, really.

But I guess the wish would go something like this. At the end of the book as we have it, he is professing a true love for her. But that comes too late, because she has found a different future and doesn't want to go back to what she already went through with him. Reasonable enough. Alternatively, earlier, after he has lost her, he claims that he has lost his urge for nymphets and (I think) claims he now sees that Lolita is the one for him. (I am relying on a hazy memory of an earlier post, by Pontalba I believe) But that is also too late, because he has already lost her there too.

So I guess that leaves us with two logical (or illogical) possibilities.
Either somehow he realizes his love soon enough, sooner than he does in the story, when he can still express it to her and have it accepted by her. Or, on the other hand, that the story proceeds as we have it, but at the end she is somehow still available and willing to lsten to his plea and accept its sincerity.

The first alternative of course leaves just about no story remaining, as you point out. The second alternative leads to the big clinch at the final scene, up music, down curtain, and the classical feel-good happy ending with all forgiven. Or with all forgiven, but with him going off to the gallows -- the classical heart-rending final scene.

In connection with either of those endings I would offer the radical thought that, laws aside, it would not be impossible that true contriton and remorse on his part could lead to genuine compassion and forgiveness on her part, and that they could have the happy future together, no matter what had transpired in the past. That archetype has also been heard, and would certainly not be impossible within the realms of fiction. For all I know, many genre romances are constructed on that model.

However, returning to the ending we do have, the best we can do is wish that his love is genuine and that she had been able to hear it earlier. Which is the heartrending ending. If we don't believe his love is genuine, then of course it all makes no difference. He pens his ode and goes off to justified execution (or lifelong imprisonment).

So I guess my two propositions come down to: we love the novel and we accept HH's belated love as genuine and we stand there with our hearts aching, wiping our eyes, and saying "If only!"

Or, if we do not accept Humbert's belated love as genuine, do we then have any reason for loving the novel? And do any of us?

Clearly I'n the guy who likes happy endings and brings hankies to the movies.
Peder

 

[StillILearn]

I'm tellin' ya.

This guy:

1. swills gin all day long (and has done throughout the entire book)

2. drugs people left and right

3. lies

4. lies

5. continues to letch after little girls

6. lies about it

7. murders people and isn't even sorry

8. I could go on, but you get the general idea ... (Where did I read that last line?)

and you, Peder, are still giving him the benefit of the doubt? Imagining a happily ever after with this guy? I'm tearing my hair here!

 

[Peder]

And I now see there were a bunch of posts while I was thinking and typing. It will be fun sorting them all out.

 

[Peder]

I'm tellin' ya.

and you, Peder, are still giving him the benefit of the doubt? Imagining a happily ever after with this guy? I'm tearing my hair here!

StillILearn,
I knew there would probably be somebody! Or more.
But I'll make you a bargain.
I'll wonder about your question (because I wonder about it myself) and you figure out if you like the novel and hate Humbert. Because I think I would be very frustrated with that combination. I think my reaction would be "All that, for this?!"

Still friends?
Or does that depend
Peder

 

[StillILearn]

I love the novel.

I've been trying to find the quote by Jonathan Franzen -- do you know the one I mean? Where he describes the experience of reading Lolita as being "ravished"? I know I just saw it somewhere.

Perhaps I'm being just the tiniest little bit schizoid here.

(Not only are we still friends, but I am probably best qualified to be the president of your fan club.)