Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[Peder]

And is that the consensus of this forum?

We know molesters unfortunately exist. But in spite of that do nymphets actually exist as well? Inquiring Minds wonder..........

Pontalba,
I agree entirely with SFG.
The article suggests to me, as well, that the 'nymphet' category is the creation of a perverted way of looking at a normal girl. It's all in Humbert's mind, is the way I read it. That may take a little adjusting of 'normal' in that not many girls, if any, are as flirty as Lolita. I haven't seen any, and I have certainly never seen a 12 year old who should unbalance a man into wanton behavior. So I don't think they exist.
Peder

 

[Peder]

I basically agree with what the both of you are saying, but does that factor in the reality that some women (and men I suppose) sexually mature at an earlier age than others? Could that early maturation be what HH is claiming to be a sign of being a nymphet? And then HH takes that and blows it out of proportion.....

Pontalba,
No, I don't think that explains it either. I seem to remember his saying that they don't stand out to the average eye in a group of 12-yr olds, that only he can spot them. In a group photograph, for example.
Peder

 

[SFG75]

Yet another awesome post that crystallizes what takes most people ten posts to say.

The article suggests to me, as well, that the 'nymphet' category is the creation of a perverted way of looking at a normal girl.

Bingo!

It's all in Humbert's mind, is the way I read it.

Yep, and interestingly enough, is that view a personal one or one in which patriarchal hegemony plays a role? *Leads Karl Marx away from my typing fingers*

That may take a little adjusting of 'normal' in that not many girls, if any, are as flirty as Lolita.

In working with girls of this age, I don't know it's so much flirty as it is say....bubbly. They are very expressive, hyper-verbal, and not always aware as to how their non-verbal signals can be read the wrong way. To a well-adjusted individual, it's called *teenage years* and being naive. To someone like H.H., it means: "She wants me."

 

[pontalba]

Lolita was undergoing the "normal" process of well....being human before H.H. saw these flirty inclinations and assigned it an abnormal meaning, thereby invalidating her sexuality, but validating his own.

I don't see that Humbert invalidated her sexuality, he dominated her, he tried to replace a normal progression with an abnormal relationship. He attempted to validate his own sexuality, but even in his own mind could not succeed in that. He damaged her beyond repair, as we see in the end when he goes to her to attempt to persuade her to come with him again. The fact that she recoils so violently is testimony to her fear of him. If she had lived, I doubt she would ever have been able to fully put the past behind her.

But he could not invalidate her, as she proved by reverting to a normal relationship in the end.

 

[Peder]

Yet another awesome post that crystallizes what takes most people ten posts to say.

SFG
Oh pish, if you don't mind my sayiing! If I got anything concisely, it is the first time that I can think of!

In working with girls of this age, I don't know it's so much flirty as it is say....bubbly. They are very expressive, hyper-verbal, and not always aware as to how their non-verbal signals can be read the wrong way. To a well-adjusted individual, it's called *teenage years* and being naive. To someone like H.H., it means: "She wants me."

Bubbly is undoubtedly a better, more neutral, word. And hyper-expressive, hyper-verbal will certainly attract notice as having an 'up' personality, if I catch your meaning correctly. In olden times, tee hee, the standard for proper female behavior was something like: walk and sit demurely, eyes down, never notice a strange man, and definitely never speak to one! Which has changed in the direction you mention, as women have now moved out into the modern world, and are now allowed to have personality, bubbly and otherwise.

So, Lolita a modern woman in a frumpy setting? Which I think is also what the author suggests in different terms, now that I think of it? When he speaks of the then shocking notion of a deviant girl growing up into a normal woman? Hmmm.

Peder

 

[pontalba]

The center of what I am trying to get at, is what is the basis for VN or even HH's creation of the nymphet myth? It has to have some basis in somebody's reality.

I would have to say that I think it comes from observation of some young females that have sexually matured earlier than many of their peers. Now more than likely these young girls are not consciously aware of the sort of vibes they are sending. Maybe some are. But all it took was for one twisted individual to see this and think......oh, they want me. The myth is born.

I am not attaching any blame in any way, shape or manner to the young girl. She is inexperienced, and innocent, it is the adult that twists what he sees to what he wants to see. It is the adults responsibility to act in a morally correct fashion and not take advantage of a developing girl.

 

[Peder]

The center of what I am trying to get at, is what is the basis for VN or even HH's creation of the nymphet myth? It has to have some basis in somebody's reality.

I would have to say that I think it comes from observation of some young females that have sexually matured earlier than many of their peers. Now more than likely these young girls are not consciously aware of the sort of vibes they are sending. Maybe some are. But all it took was for one twisted individual to see this and think......oh, they want me. The myth is born.

I am not attaching any blame in any way, shape or manner to the young girl. She is inexperienced, and innocent, it is the adult that twists what he sees to what he wants to see. It is the adults responsibility to act in a morally correct fashion and not take advantage of a developing girl.

Pontalba,
I don't know the answer to that. So the best I can do is offer some of the thoughts that I have seen running through what I have been reading. First, and maybe best, I thought VN had researched the case of a child molester for the book, and maybe more than one. He used, for example, to take trips on buses at hours frequented by school children to note down their slang; and he did spend time talking to the young daughter of one of Vera's friends when she came to visit Vera, for further knowldge about 12 year olds. And I just came across the apparent fact that during his lectures he would exhibit matchbook covers from the motels he had stayed at during his butterfly trips to substantiate the factuality of his novel. So it sounds like he was a veritable vacuum cleaner for seeking out and picking up grist for his mill.

More generally, there is the Eve myth, which never had any connotations for me before the Goldman article, but is apparently out there. I am a little surprised I have seen no mention of Lilith (sp?). And there are the Poe and other real life stories of youthful 'brides' or paramours. And the notion of a femme fatale is apparently an old one. So there was apparently no shortage of models for supposedly devouring women, which I am sure you also are aware of. Oh, and of course, there was the night club singer in the Blue Angel movie who absolutely devastates a Professor, but she was older.

As to what exactly made the little light bulb go on, to give him the idea to take all of that (or some of it) and push it down into the little undeveloped body and inexperienced personality of a 12-yr old -- which I understand as your question -- I have seen absolutely nothing on. But yes I have seen remarkably precocious young kids also, and they were ready-made models for his thoughts also. And a younger one of them even moved like a woman, which made me rub my eyes to make sure I was seeing what I thought I was seeing. Maybe he saw one of them.
But I plead innocent your Honor, er, ignorant you Honor.

On the second part of your post, I agree very easily that a woman who smiles at a man, or in any other way appears friendly, even if just by talking to him, runs a risk of having her intentions misread. What is ordinary friendship between the same genders can appear like something else when between the opposite genders (to use the PC words). But why it is the men who should be afraid of the women strikes me as strange.

So, enough of a non-answer to your question,
Just some thoughts,
Peder

 

[Peder]

News Flash ! ! !

Pontalba, et al,
Just found this:

Whatever happened to Sally Horner?

Fascinating,
Peder

 

[Peder]

Also this

Pontalba, et al,
In March 2004 an earlier Lolita story, claimed to be published in Germany in 1916 was also found, and one can start reading the story of that discovery in the wikipedia article on Lolita

Earlier Lolita

in the Section, "Literary Allusions."

Peder

 

[pontalba]

Pontalba, et al,
Just found this:

Whatever happened to Sally Horner?

Fascinating,
Peder

Facinating indeed, is putting it mildly!! You know, if an author can weave news events of the time into his story without dating it, now thats real talent! An author has to write about what he knows, or can research successfully, and VN has that down to a science. More layers.

I'd seen the so called earlier German version (1916) mentioned in the wikipedia before when you linked it, but whether or not VN had that in the back of his mind or not doesn't really matter. I don't think he plagerized it, but if it planted a seed, well you might as well say the Sally Hoerner case did the same. Everything we experience goes into the creative pot.

As far as the Eve Myth Goldman talks about, I don't give too much credence to that, as I don't consider it carries thru enough. But the apples constantly being mentioned is at least a signpost of "forbidden fruit". Remember Lo had apples on her dress when HH picked her up at the Camp?

Peder wrote:

But why it is the men who should be afraid of the women strikes me as strange.

Are they? It seems that women are the more vunerable ones.

 

[Peder]

Ironing out some wrinkles

I've been rereading the Goldman article more carefully to answer a few questions. (There seems never to be an end to rereading!) And, in the course of it, I have discovered yet another insight into Little Lo.

Goldman advances the idea that Lolita undergoes a 'normal' sexual awakening in the novel and points to the presence of Kinseyan ideas in the novel that support such a contention, in opposition to Humbert's view that her sexual experinces were depraved. On the other hand the sexual escapades with Humbert don't seem normal to us by ordinary standards. So which sex is normal and which not? Goldman answers the question quite succinctly:

"Lolita's juvenile sexual experiences, which for Humbert are evidences of her 'depravity,' can be viewed in the light of such contemporaneius studies as Kinsey's ...as the normal sexual awakening and sex play of girls Lolita's age (barring her exxperience with Humbert, of course)."

So, her sexual experiences with her peers are normal; with Humbert they are not, even in the light of the Kinsey studies.

But huh? Which normal 'juvenile sexual experiences'? Where? Goldman goes on to say,

For Lolita the transition from sexual awakening to sexual perversion and deviance is brief....But Lolita's short-lived awakening is clearly distinguishable and distinct from Humbert's assimilation of her experiences into an Edenic myth of a fallen woman."

Again, which experiences? And what brief period? Goldman gives the answers to these questions by referring to her experiences with Elizabeth Talbot, the Miranda Twins, Donald Scott (who 'had done it with Hazel Smith,' ), and Kenneth Knight. She describes these experiences to Humbert on pp136-7 of the book, long after they took place. Looking at her descriptions in the book, these are seemingly situations where she was gaining second-hand knowledge from the direct sexual activities of her friends and classmates, without gaining direct experience herself (except for the 'Sapphic experience' with Elizabeth Talbot -- Humbert's term).

However the main point, not mentioned by either Goldman or, I think, Appel is the fact that these 'normal' experiences took place during camp the previous summer (when she was eleven) and during the school year before Humbert arrived at the Haze household. From which one concludes that she had some knowledge of sex prior to the couch scene, even if not yet any experience. The normal part of her awakening with Barbara Burke, and sex with 13-yr old Charlie Holmes, then takes place again at summer camp, just before Humbert picks her up, and not very long before the Enchanted Hunters episode, where Humbert claims they became lovers and "She seduced me."

So putting it all in time sequence: Lo gains knowledge about sex at camp and during the previous school year; Humbert arrives at her house and the couch scene ensues; she gains direct experience of sex, again during camp; and then she is at the Enchanted Hunters with Humbert almost certainly engaging in sex.

In summary she is more knowledgable about sex for the couch scene and more knowledgable and experienced about sex at the Enchanted Hunters than one might realize on only a single reading.

Another way to put it is that the little lady has "a past." That makes it more difficult to be apologetic about the couch and Enchanted Hunter scenes (as I have always tended to do), and easier to claim that she directly instigated both those scenes with sex specifically in mind.

I thought you all might be interested in knowing, in case you wished to readjust your images of Lo and what is happening in the story. For myself, I am still the apologist for Lo, despite all.

Peder

 

[StillILearn]

Pontalba, et al,
In March 2004 an earlier Lolita story, claimed to be published in Germany in 1916 was also found, and one can start reading the story of that discovery in the wikipedia article on Lolita

Earlier Lolita

in the Section, "Literary Allusions."

Peder

Oh, thank you for this link, Peder. If possible, it has made me love and respect Nabokov even more than I did.

During the last two days I put a couple of hundred miles on my own car, and I took that opportunity to listen again to the first half of Lolita on my CD player, and honestly, I was almost tempted to post under the "Laugh Out Loud" thread here a reference to Jeremy Irons's version of the misadventures of HH (pages 123/129) at the Enchanted Hunters. It's just so incredibly funny! But, then again, listening to Irons (as HH) rationalize his monstrous behavior for the next dozen or so pages was enough to wipe the smile off my face, as was the link you posted here.

This book has been a singular experience for me in so many ways. First off, I guess I now own practically every rendition of the novel in existence, and furthermore, I'm pretty sure that this is the longest and most interesting discussion I've ever participated in concerning a book. I don't know about the rest of you, but at this point Humbert Humbert is almost as real to me as most of my friends and relatives are!

Insofar as nymphets are concerned, I think you all have hit the nail exactly on the head. As HH himself says:

You have to be an artist and a madman, a creature of infinite melancholy, with a bubble of hot poison in your loins and a super-voluptuous flame permanently aglow in your subtle spine (oh, how you have to cringe and hide!), in order to discern at once, by ineffable signs -- the slightly feline outline of a cheekbone, the slenderness of a downy limb, and other indices of despair and shame and tears of tenderness forbid me to tabulate -- the little deadly demon among the wholesome children ...

pontalba has had him pegged since day one:

He is abnormal. He is not a gentleman.

 

[pontalba]

I just checked, and sure enough, the incidents she talks about (brags about) to HH did in fact take place the previous summer! I totally missed that, I'd been under the mistaken impression that all of her experience took place that particular summer.....Hah! So! That explains completely why she stayed on HH's lap during the couch scene, and was so flustered. Curiosity. She just had to see what he would do. In a girl such as Lolita, one undisciplined and unsupervised as she was, it is absolutely believable that she would go as far as she did at that time. She'd been given no parameters of acceptable behavior. Now the um, energetic instruction she gave HH at the Enchanted Hunters Hotel, is kind of explained in the telling, she just would not admit defeat (even when she probably wanted to).

You know Peder you have been for Lo all along, but I have to say that I have come around to backing her as well. The more layers that are uncovered, the more HH's evil is revealed. I considered her a forward little chit, and not worth picking up with tongs, but I have come to actually like her and yes, in a way admire her. After all one has to admire someone that has overcome such obstacles as she had to overcome. And become that frumpy little suburban housefrau.

 

[pontalba]

StillILearn!
Nice ta see ya! You were the one that talked about the CD of Lolita! I just received my copy from Amazon today!! Yay!

And you are so right about the reality of HH and Lolita et als! When I talk to some of my friends, I want to talk about it, and I get this little puzzled look, and an "Oh that book!" They don't know what they are missing! Only one of my friends is of the same mind as me regarding the book. At least only one that I can see physically. You guys are great!
And yes, this has been the best and longest discussion of any book. There has been no "reaching" for subject matter here...

 

[Peder]

Facinating indeed, is putting it mildly!! You know, if an author can weave news events of the time into his story without dating it, now thats real talent! An author has to write about what he knows, or can research successfully, and VN has that down to a science. More layers.

I'd seen the so called earlier German version (1916) mentioned in the wikipedia before when you linked it, but whether or not VN had that in the back of his mind or not doesn't really matter. I don't think he plagerized it, but if it planted a seed, well you might as well say the Sally Hoerner case did the same. Everything we experience goes into the creative pot.

As far as the Eve Myth Goldman talks about, I don't give too much credence to that, as I don't consider it carries thru enough. But the apples constantly being mentioned is at least a signpost of "forbidden fruit". Remember Lo had apples on her dress when HH picked her up at the Camp?


Are they? It seems that women are the more vunerable ones.

Pontalba,
Goldman's apple analysis is just amazing! And noooooo, I didn't remember she had apples on her dress when HH picked her up. I only knew of one apple before Goldman came along, the apple she was tossing up in the air to begin the couch scene.

Are men afraid of women in the myths they create? I have the feeling that is so. Certainly for the femme fatale whose name says it all. But also even for Lo as Eve. Humbert tries to put her down, which suggests to me that Humbert feels that she needs to be cut down to size. If he were confident in his own self I would think that he would let her be. Just my reaction. And I sense the (male) idea that it is women like Eve and Lo who get men into trouble, so one has to watch out for them. Which again means to me being fearful, and therefore feeling weaker. Humbert says "She seduced me." He doesn't say "Lo had this great idea!"

Thoughts of a convoluted mind,
Peder

 

[StillILearn]

Nice ta see ya! You were the one that talked about the CD of Lolita! I just received my copy from Amazon today!! Yay!

Omigosh, pontalbe, just you wait until you hear what Irons does for (and to) HH on that CD. He knows his man through and through, and he doesn't spare the horsepower, as it were.

Ooops. I've got more to say, but I've gotta go for now. Back later.

 

[pontalba]

Are men afraid of women in the myths they create? I have the feeling that is so. Certainly for the femme fatale whose name says it all. But also even for Lo as Eve. Humbert tries to put her down, which suggests to me that Humbert feels that she needs to be cut down to size. If he were confident in his own self I would think that he would let her be. Just my reaction. And I sense the (male) idea that it is women like Eve and Lo who get men into trouble, so one has to watch out for them. Which again means to me being fearful, and therefore feeling weaker. Humbert says "She seduced me." He doesn't say "Lo had this great idea!"

Thoughts of a convoluted mind,
Peder

Try as I might, I cannot argue with you on this score Peder. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I think you are right. Mostly. But I don't think that HH feels Lo needs to be "cut down to size" for any other reason but to have that control over her----not to make himself more confident-----but so he can keep her on the sexual leash...yes because he was insecure. There I agreed with you.

"She seduced me." Bloody egotistical if you ask me. What HH did not realize was at that particular point, it wasn't him she was seducing, it was any available, sort of interesting male in the area. I mean really, on paper HH looked pretty good. Educated, good looking, marvelous accent. What else would a 12 year old look for? Oy.

 

[Peder]

I just checked, and sure enough, the incidents she talks about (brags about) to HH did in fact take place the previous summer! I totally missed that, I'd been under the mistaken impression that all of her experience took place that particular summer.....Hah! So! That explains completely why she stayed on HH's lap during the couch scene, and was so flustered. Curiosity. She just had to see what he would do. In a girl such as Lolita, one undisciplined and unsupervised as she was, it is absolutely believable that she would go as far as she did at that time. She'd been given no parameters of acceptable behavior. Now the um, energetic instruction she gave HH at the Enchanted Hunters Hotel, is kind of explained in the telling, she just would not admit defeat (even when she probably wanted to).

You know Peder you have been for Lo all along, but I have to say that I have come around to backing her as well. The more layers that are uncovered, the more HH's evil is revealed. I considered her a forward little chit, and not worth picking up with tongs, but I have come to actually like her and yes, in a way admire her. After all one has to admire someone that has overcome such obstacles as she had to overcome. And become that frumpy little suburban housefrau.

Pontalba,
There is no earthly reason that you or I or anyone else should have noticed when those events occurred. It's just a little phrase that says so and it's significance is not apparent until one puts the timeline together. They might as well have taken place in the recent summer for any difference that would have made for what Lo was telling Humbert at that point. It's just VN being diabolical again in knowing how to totally mislead us unsuspecting innocent readers and hiding a part of the story from us. I didn't even know there had been a previous summer worth talking about.

As for the Enchanted Hunters, I think you also have hit on the only way of viewing it that makes sense: Lo had been given no bounds of proper behavior. She started out by wanting to mention the Charlie Holmes doings several times, each time in the sense that she had been a bad girl and was afraid of the possible punishment. As I recall she even asks HH if he'll be angry. When she finds out that there will seemingly be no punishment for her behavior, because he is feigning that he knows nothing abut it after she whispers it in his ear, then she figures it is OK to go ahead and show him what she was talking about. By that time I would imagine that her curiosity and sense of exploration, not to mention natural urges, would have taken over to see how it went with a man. That's the only way I can piece it together. Sort of like one of those plants that catches flies. After the first few steps forward, the fly is on the slope down and can't back up to get out of the trap.

So I think that, in fact, he did seduce her, by allowing her to go forward, and she knew no reason not to. All in all it was an opportunity far too good for her curiosity to resist. I can't on balance believe that she instigated the whole thing because she had acquired a liking for sex from Charlie Holmes and now simply wanted more from Humbert. Her lead-up doesn't sound like it.

Anyway, she was a spunky kid who liked living her life and she worked at it until she got free. Gotta admire that much of her.

Peder

 

[pontalba]

I think VN was snubbing his nose at everybody. And that its entirely possible that he used the Freudian, and Kinseyan behavior patterns to confuse and cause just the sort of debate that it has lo these many years! In other words, work both sides against the middle. Now that would be typical Nabokov.

Just because it is written about by some 'expert' doesn't mean that it is the final word on a subject. I am sure that we could find so called experts that have theories in every direction imaginable, plus some that are pretty unimaginable! And we've read 'em. So, in the end, we have to take all the opinions we can find, distill them down to something we can live with and believe possible. And really, I think we've come up with some pretty good analysis. It even agrees with some of the middle of the road 'experts'.
And after all, its only fiction.................isn't it?

 

[Peder]

What HH did not realize was at that particular point, it wasn't him she was seducing, it was any available, sort of interesting male in the area. I mean really, on paper HH looked pretty good. Educated, good looking, marvelous accent. What else would a 12 year old look for? Oy.

Pontalba,
Yes, I think she was still looking for that nice friendly accepting father who would be playful with her and would be fun to be around. And in the Enchanted Hunters he still seemed to be that, just as he had been at home. And she still thought she had a mother and a home to go to, so all would be restored. That he had the appealing characteristics you mention only made it better. Probably more like perfect in her eyes!
Peder