Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[pontalba]

Peder
What you say is true. But it also seems to me that Charlotte is punishing Lolita for Humbert's obsession. Logically speaking it could not be Lo's fault one bit. If Charlotte had been a mother that knew her child, Lo would not have 'explored' Humbert one bit. She'd have been given the parameters. IMO, Charlotte may as well have sent herself to the reformatory! More fitting.

She was simply jealous of her own child. Wretched woman.

 

[Peder]

Peder
What you say is true. But it also seems to me that Charlotte is punishing Lolita for Humbert's obsession. Logically speaking it could not be Lo's fault one bit. If Charlotte had been a mother that knew her child, Lo would not have 'explored' Humbert one bit. She'd have been given the parameters. IMO, Charlotte may as well have sent herself to the reformatory! More fitting.

She was simply jealous of her own child. Wretched woman.

Ah Pontalba!
You are "right as rain" as they say in my family.

I am about 200% in agreement there. Even 300 or 400%. Definitely! On all counts!

You have to draw pictures for me to understand things correctly.

Peder

 

[pontalba]

dim memory probing way back into the mists

Hah! Your memory is far better than mine, by any stretch! And I'm a lousy artist anyhoo.....

 

[Peder]

Hah! Your memory is far better than mine, by any stretch! And I'm a lousy artist anyhoo.....

Pontalba,
My memory is definitely better than yours!
I can remember things that never even happened.
Or, at least, quotes from Lolita that I can never find again
Time for supper,
Peder

 

[steffee]

It certainly was all encompassing, and he did say he was going to tell the whole true story, not to save himself but to save his soul. Which is an interesting thought, that honesty will save his soul while the facts revealed are as black and damning as they are. I'm checking to see if I got that right, it's so paradoxical. Yes, p308, "I thought I would use these notes, in toto, at my trial, to save not my head, of course, but my soul." So he confesses his sins (usually done to the Almighty, for absolution) and we the readers are left, by analogy, to decide whether to absolve him? VN works us into a tight position!

Yes, very clever, I feel very honoured to be one of these readers

I'm not sure about the honesty absolving him of his crimes, but I guess it sounds quite religious (Catholic) from that perspective. Was Nabokov religious? Or was that another of Nabokov's attempts to ridicule society, and establishments?

As to truthfulness, yes I do find him believable also. The only reasons I can think of not to, are two, and both lie outside the story in the real world. First of all his change of heart seems very sudden. Although there is the one place, which marks his transition, where he says he has lost interest in nymphets other than Lo, or words to that effect. (pontalba found it and posted it I believe).

I believe him...

Second, also from the real world, we have our doubts that a pedophile can change his spots. I don't think anything says that they, or serial killers, can be reformed. So I think that Nabokov there, then, was flying in the face of real-world reality as now understood. Emphasis on 'I think' however, because I'm no expert.

It's just too sad to believe that people can never change. It brings us back to the whole purpose of existence. People have to "learn their lessons" or whatever, else what else is there to wish for, and to live for?! LOL, I'm a bit too young, or naive, or suggestible, I think, to be cynical. I refuse the idea that some people are good, some evil, some in-between, and that's just life. And sincerly hope we all have it within us to show compassion towards others, and to aim to be "good", and that Nabokov knew this all along... how old was he when he wrote Lolita?

It's a very odd journey that the book takes, to get us to end up sympathetic to both characters, isn't it? If that is where we end up!

I think I am sympathetic towards both characters. I sway with whom I think deserves it the least, but always come back to feeling sorry for them both.

 

[steffee]

Peder
What you say is true. But it also seems to me that Charlotte is punishing Lolita for Humbert's obsession. Logically speaking it could not be Lo's fault one bit. If Charlotte had been a mother that knew her child, Lo would not have 'explored' Humbert one bit. She'd have been given the parameters. IMO, Charlotte may as well have sent herself to the reformatory! More fitting.

She was simply jealous of her own child. Wretched woman.

A Very Phillip Larkin approach to poor Big Haze, lol.

 

[pontalba]

By quick googling, I see Larkin is/was a poet....but I'd not heard of him before. Can you explain the comparison?

 

[steffee]

Philip Larkin - This Be The Verse

They f*ck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were f*cked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

It's really well-known in the UK, almost a cliche for casting blame onto parents for everything wrong with a child.

 

[pontalba]

Sounds like sensible advice to me!

He is right about one thing, it is an unending cycle of blame. And as far as nature vs. nuture......logically, it has to be a combination. Varying with the characters involved. IMHO.

Thanks for the info!

 

[steffee]

And a parody of it, by Adrian Mitchell...

They tuck you up, your Mum and Dad
They read you Peter Rabbit, too.
They give you all the treats they had
And add some extra, just for you.

They were tucked up when they were small,
(Pink perfume, blue tobacco-smoke),
By those whose kiss healed any fall,
Whose laughter doubled any joke.

Man hands on happiness to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
So love your parents all you can
And have some cheerful kids yourself.

 

[Peder]

Steffee,I love your two poems. Have never heard of them! With the Plagiarize poem (which I had heard of) they make a potent trio!

While I'm here, I have two other answers.

Lolita was published in 1955, took about 4 years to write, another yearish to get published, and he was born in 1899. So he was writing Lolita when he was fiftyish.

You are too young to be cynical? I am old enough to be cynical. Which doesn't make either of us right or wrong. But is a curious combination that we might actually both agree with.

Peder

 

[pontalba]

Firstly, isn't cynicism simply the loss of idealism? Simplistically speaking. Give it time, it'll come.

Steffee wrote:

It's just too sad to believe that people can never change.

I don't think people fundamentally change. They have certain capabilities that are brought out into the open by events surrounding them. Whether the good or the bad is brought out is the question, and yes, someone doing "bad" things can have the "good" things brought to the forefront, and eclipse the bad. Thats just been my observation over the years. And I've seen it both ways.

Now, as to forgiveness, the Bible says that God forgives someone that is truely repentant. Can we do less?

 

[StillILearn]

Oh my Heavens,StillILearn! Lan' sakes alive!

Where am I? The last thing I remember was listening to Jeremy Irons's voice, and then everything went blank.

Did I do or say anything to embarrass myself?

 

[Peder]

I'm not sure about the honesty absolving him of his crimes, but I guess it sounds quite religious (Catholic) from that perspective. Was Nabokov religious? Or was that another of Nabokov's attempts to ridicule society, and establishments?

Steffee
One distinction. It might be that his soul is absolved of his crimes, but that his neck is not, as he himself seemed to understand.

Regarding the rest, it is more than I can comment on with any clarity. I think it is fair to say he definitely believed in an afterlife, but in a way that was not to my knowledge conventionally religious. That is a complicated topic best read for one's self. It may actually be the subject of Transparent Things and it figures in Pale Fire.

As to how to one feels about the two characters at the end. They both tear at my heart, and then there is all the rest of the book with its conflicting signals. But by the end I am very sad, for both of them.
Peder

 

[Peder]

Where am I? The last thing I remember was listening to Jeremy Irons's voice, and then everything went blank.

Did I do or say anything to embarrass myself?

StillILearn,
By no means! In fact I am sure we all missed you! It may be that you don't recognize the discussion that you thought your last remark way back was going to start. But, hey, that's the risk you take in here Works for us, if it works for you!

Peder

 

[steffee]

Steffee,I love your two poems. Have never heard of them! With the Plagiarize poem (which I had heard of) they make a potent trio!

I haven't heard of the Plagiarise (or Plagiarize) poem.

But is a curious combination that we might actually both agree with.

I agree.

 

[StillILearn]

Peder to steffee = One distinction. It might be that his soul is absolved of his crimes, but that his neck is not, as he himself seemed to understand.

Miss Pratt says: (on page 194)

By the way, Mr Haze, her mother was --? Oh, I see. And you are --? Nobody's business is, I suppose, God's business.

Humbert is thinking: (on page 197)

Should I marry Pratt and strangle her?

Peder reassures StillI = By no means! In fact I am sure we all missed you! It may be that you don't recognize the discussion that you thought your last remark way back was going to start. But, hey, that's the risk you take in here Works for us, if it works for you!

StillI is thinking:

I think I must have been temporarily insane for a while there; hypnotized, maybe. I think I'll be okay as long as I don't listen to that voice on the CD. I'd better warn pontalba though!

 

[steffee]

Firstly, isn't cynicism simply the loss of idealism? Simplistically speaking. Give it time, it'll come.

I don't think people fundamentally change. They have certain capabilities that are brought out into the open by events surrounding them. Whether the good or the bad is brought out is the question, and yes, someone doing "bad" things can have the "good" things brought to the forefront, and eclipse the bad. Thats just been my observation over the years. And I've seen it both ways.

Now, as to forgiveness, the Bible says that God forgives someone that is truely repentant. Can we do less?

I understand what you're saying. I still hope people can change, entirely reform, else what is the point of rehabilitation programmes, even prison. I consider custodial punishments to be an attempt at reforming the person concerned, rather than a means of excluding the "bad" from society. Maybe that is "idealism"

It's easy to say God forgives those that are repentant, etc, but He (she, it, whatever) doesn't have to live with the aftermath of someone's actions. I can forgive Humbert the Horrible, as a reader, but it must have been very hard for Lolita to forgive HH, even if he had reformed.

 

[steffee]

Steffee
One distinction. It might be that his soul is absolved of his crimes, but that his neck is not, as he himself seemed to understand.

Regarding the rest, it is more than I can comment on with any clarity. I think it is fair to say he definitely believed in an afterlife, but in a way that was not to my knowledge conventionally religious. That is a complicated topic best read for one's self. It may actually be the subject of Transparent Things and it figures in Pale Fire.

Yes, so he is forgiven, generally, as a soul encompassing many past and future persons, as well as HH, but not forgiven in this lifetime, as HH, and for what he has done to Lolita (and others!) here and now. If one doesn't believe in some sort of afterlife, you're kinda stuffed then... Transparent Things may just become my next Nabokov choice then... Ada (or Ardor) will have to wait.

Off to Amazon.

 

[pontalba]

Peder said:

.....his neck is not, as he himself seemed to understand.

In no way did I mean to imply that his neck wasn't on the line. Forgiveness does not mean no punishment. He did the crime, and needed to do the time.

StillILearn Warning taken!