Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[Peder]

Imagining a happily ever after with this guy? I'm tearing my hair here!

StillILearn,
No, not a happily ever after with this guy, a happily ever after with the reformed guy who emerges from his contrition.
And that would be her judgement to make.

And in the real world I would be saying "Don't do it !!!!!!!!!! You'll be sorry ever after.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
But this is a novel and poetic license is allowed, not to mention suspension of disbelief.

But that's not my answer.
Peder

 

[Peder]

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.)

StillILearn,
"...the experience of reading Lolita as being 'ravished'" Wow is that a quote I'd like to know more about. Unfortunately, no, I don't know the source. Google?

Tiny bit? I'm a whole lot, which was going to be the substance of my answer. But let me get it organized.

Good! As long as we keep talking we'll be friends.

You're only allowed to be President if you keep giving me a hard time. Adulation will go to my head and it will burst!

Peder

 

[StillILearn]

If you saw HH leering at one of your little kids, you'd grab her, throw her into the car and not stop driving until you hit New Zealand.

Guaranteed.

 

[Peder]

If you saw HH leering at one of your little kids, you'd grab her, throw her into the car and not stop driving until you hit New Zealand.

Guaranteed.

StillILearn,
Can't deny that at all. Wouldn't want to, and you are so right!
Peder

 

[Peder]

And now I've run out of energy, so I'm going to my thinking place, namely bed. But don't let that stop the party. You can conspire in my absence.
Good night all!
Peder

 

[StillILearn]

Found this!" StillI cries as she slaps a limp link up onto the counter. "It ain't Jonathan, but it's still pretty good." Without stopping to explain her behavior, she slides back out onto the internet highway in search of the elusive Franzen. She has failed to notice that Peder turned out the lights when he left for bed, and that the link has silently slithered onto the floor ...

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/nabokov/amis.html

 

[pontalba]

StillILearn posted:

If you saw HH leering at one of your little kids, you'd grab her, throw her into the car and not stop driving until you hit New Zealand.

I'd more likely run right up to him and start screaming in his face and draw all the attention in the world to him. HH would be at that point be so mortified he would in fact fulfull his wish to "leave the town, the country, the continent, the hemisphere,--indeed, the globe--"(p.123). And if he didn't, he'd wish he had.

Why give him the satisfaction of running away? Its your turf.

But thats just me.

 

[Peder]

Found this!" StillI cries as she slaps a limp link up onto the counter. "It ain't Jonathan, but it's still pretty good."

StillILearn,
There is no doubt that it is pretty good. In fact it is excellent! But somehow it doesn't sound like the book I read, even on first reading. And definitely not the different book that appears to me each time I re-read it. There is no doubt that a real-life Humbert deserves killing equally as much as Quilty. But are we also to say that Nabokov is a murderer because it is really he who wrote the killings? No, nor more to the point, are we to conclude that Nabokov is a cruel man because after all he did know how to write the cruel words actually on the page, whereas no blood actually did flow from the murders? No. Or, yet, was Amis's point to indict the reader for tolerance to cruelty and for approving every sexual degradation inflicted by Humbert on Lolita. I think not that either.
In fact, I'm not clear as to what Amis's point is. I see what he says,

Like the sweat of lust and guilt, the sweat of death trickles through Lolita. Iwonder how many readers survive the novel without realizing that its heroine is, so to speak, dead on arrival.........I shall point the way to its livid and juddering heart.

So was his reason simply to make sure the we were aware of all these things that went on (fictionally) in Lolita? He concludes with

Lolita has been partly isolated and distorted by its celebrity.

so are we left to wonder whether his purpose has been simply to take Lolita down a peg?

The people who don't want to read the book because of its subject matter already have heard enough (i.e. pedophilia!/gasp/) to form their opinions. This catalog is in the same direction to, what, convince any who are yet undecided not to read it? Or to convince those of us who do read it, that it doesn't deserve its fame? That latter one is a hard go. Because there is the other part of the book that we do read, and many another critic as well, in addition to Mr. Amis, which tells us that the book is a work of genius that invests perhaps our every emotion before it is done with us.

I will acknowledge his catalog when Mr. Amis acknowledges that the book is a work of genius, and not merely of celebrity, and an absorbing novel, not merely a catalog of horrors.

And I almost forgot! Yes, Humbert is among the most despicable of people that we will meet in fiction. Any novelty attaching to that proposition was also dead on arrival, long before reading Mr. Amis's piece.

Definitely looking forward to reading Mr. Franzen,
Peder

 

[Peder]

BTW StillILearn,
Please be assured that no post you write, no link you find, will ever slither silently to my floor. I far prefer the writing and reactions I have seen in this forum, to those of any critic who merely writes to fill out his column inches. We have genuine people in here.
Most sincerely,
Peder

 

[Peder]

light interlude

Finally getting curious enough to pursue a question, I did some casual googling for best selling books of all time. The first information I found said that reliable numbers are hard to come by. However, from a number of sources, the following numbers can be collected:

The Bible, with an estimated 6 billion copies tops all lists by far.

Non-fiction books of various sorts reach upward toward 100 million, with The Little Red Book of Chairman Mao topping that list by far at 900 million.

When restricted to books counted as fiction or novels, the number shrinks considerably:

1. Valley of the Dolls, 28-30 million copies sold.

2. Gone with the Wind, ~26 million copies sold.

GWTW had occupied the #! spot for the longest time. This demotion to #2 is a relatively recent occurrence (sadly).

So where does Lolita fit in?

In 1999, Brian Boyd began his Introduction to Speak Memory with these words:

Some facts, some figures. It is a hundred years since Vladimir Nabokov was born. It is fifty years since he wrote in his autobiography, 'I confess I do not believe in time.' It is just under fifty years since he wrote Lolita which has gone on to sell 50 million copies,....

And if one googles on the phrase "million copies of Lolita sold" one comes up with a collection of articles that also believe that 50 million.

50 million, Lolita! 50 million! Comfortably among the best selling novels of all time!

That's our gal.
Peder

PS I am far from an expert on book sales and there are others who can provide authoritative information -- probably right here on TBF. I would be glad to see it.
P.

 

[StillILearn]

BTW StillILearn,
Please be assured that no post you write, no link you find, will ever slither silently to my floor. I far prefer the writing and reactions I have seen in this forum, to those of any critic who merely writes to fill out his column inches. We have genuine people in here.
Most sincerely,
Peder

Oh boy. I can see that I am going to have to become a much more careful reader if I am going to remain a contributor around here. I guess I must have been blinded by the Amis name. Before I say even one word more, I am going to go right back and read that review again.

 

[Breaca]

PederSo 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?

I was in two minds about HH's love for Lolita. Was it lust? Yes. Was he obsessed? Oh yes. But bona fide love? I hate to say it but as the novel drew to its conclusion I must say YES. Yes, he did love his Lo. Was it a pure love? No way, love tainted with control, obsession and perversion could never be love in the romantic, tear-jerking way. But in the end he loved her enough to let go. It could be argued that he had no choice in the matter but he did have choices. We already know he had a temper and capable of murder. He could so easily have murdered Dick and Bill and whisked his Lolita off to some lecherous love nest. That he chose not to says something for his feelings for Lolita. But accepting this fact (of love) doesn't make me feel sorry for him - nope not one iota.

And as for loving the novel.... I'd love the novel even if I'd not accepted HH's love for Lo. The book itself is a seduction. VN's craft, his use of words and language... I was totally sucked in despite the unpleasant topic. What more can I say

 

[pontalba]

Found this!" StillI cries as she slaps a limp link up onto the counter. "It ain't Jonathan, but it's still pretty good." Without stopping to explain her behavior, she slides back out onto the internet highway in search of the elusive Franzen. She has failed to notice that Peder turned out the lights when he left for bed, and that the link has silently slithered onto the floor ...

StillILearn
If you don't earn your living writing........you should.

 

[Breaca]

StillILearn
If you don't earn your living writing........you should.

Most definitely

 

[pontalba]

Hi Breaca!
Glad to see that you finally realize that HH did indeed love Lo, "In his own fashion". After all the only way we can love is with the background we have, the sum of our lives. HH didn't have much of what most would term "real love", but how can we have the nerve to say that he felt any less love or pain of loss than anyone else? He constantly castigated himself over the very things he was compelled to do. Now that was partially after the fact, but not all.

 

[StillILearn]

StillILearn
If you don't earn your living writing........you should.

Obviously you haven't met StillI's dung beetles yet. In other words, you're much too kind!

 

[StillILearn]

Hi Breaca!
Glad to see that you finally realize that HH did indeed love Lo, "In his own fashion". After all the only way we can love is with the background we have, the sum of our lives. HH didn't have much of what most would term "real love", but how can we have the nerve to say that he felt any less love or pain of loss than anyone else? He constantly castigated himself over the very things he was compelled to do. Now that was partially after the fact, but not all.

In breaca's defense, one might say that OJ loved Nicole with all his heart and soul. In fact, I'm quite certain that he must have.

I feel sorry for HH in much the same way that I feel sorry for OJ.

 

[Peder]

Oh boy. I can see that I am going to have to become a much more careful reader if I am going to remain a contributor around here. I guess I must have been blinded by the Amis name. Before I say even one word more, I am going to go right back and read that review again.

StillILearn,
No, no, no. I wouldn't say you have to be a more careful reader at all. That article was an excellent catalog of Humbert's crimes, many more in fact than I remember having been committed, and I thought your purpose was to remind me/us how despicable he was. That article did a good job of exactly that, so it was a perfect choice.

I also see I should be more careful in so casually dismissing Martin Amis, who I now see referred to as "one of the leading writers of his generation." Especially since I see that elsewhere he has kind words to say about Lolita.

Neverthelss the article was a little off the different topic that I was interested in and I would say that the sum total of the difference between the book Lolita, and the enumeration of criminal charges by Martin Amis, is an exact measure of just how great the virtuosity of VN is, in being able to wrap, what to call it, a sugar coating, well at least a palatable coating, around such a bestial criminality.

So I shall indeed be interested to see Mr. Franzen's views of the matter. And by all means don't read them, if there is the slightest chance that it will prevent your posting them here!

Bated breath, StillI, bated breath
Peder

 

[steffee]

No, not a happily ever after with this guy, a happily ever after with the reformed guy who emerges from his contrition.
And that would be her judgement to make.

And in the real world I would be saying "Don't do it !!!!!!!!!! You'll be sorry ever after.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
But this is a novel and poetic license is allowed, not to mention suspension of disbelief.

In the real world that does happen all the time. Well, maybe not with grown men who seduce 12-year old girls, but men (and women!) can and do hurt their partners very badly, and change. And live happily ever after...

No, not quite. But take couples where one partner has had an affair, and the couple has reconciled. Or even something more complicated (more hurtful?), like domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse, or even something worse. I'm not just talking about these people that go on National TV shows and demand lie detector tests, and give out "it's me or the booze" ultimatums, but normal couples, in every street, in every extended family, probably every couple.

We've all had that major row, where we literally can't imagine being any more hurt by this man (or woman!), where we declare "it's over this time, I could never forgive him for x", and where, eventually, we do forgive them. For at least some of those occasions, the offending partner must have "reformed"?

But yes, for Lolita, this is a touch extreme. I'm not minimising her abuse(?) and likening her to normal adults having to cope with the aftermath of an affair, or something...

Will be back after Eastenders (fantastic British soap)!!

 

[StillILearn]

So I shall indeed be interested to see Mr. Franzen's views of the matter. And by all means don't read them, if there is the slightest chance that it will prevent your posting them here!

I don't suppose we could get the Baker Street Irregulars to go to work on this one, could we? If I don't stop typing variations of "Lolita" and "ravishment" into my google rectangle, the IBF and the AIC are surely going to be knocking on my door.

I just know I read it somewhere, and that it was by Franzen, and that he basically said somethng like this: Reading Lolita is (and I'm paraphrasing here) the equivalent of leaning back and being ravished by the novel, or by the author, or some such thing.

It just completely caught my fancy, for some reason. Perhaps it was the combination of the words Franzen and ravish in the same sentence that did it.

Maybe I read it in Reading Lolita in Tehran? I certainly hope I didn't make it up. Or, worse yet, dream it!