Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[MonkeyCatcher]

"What did you think about Lolita?" I meant what did you think about the child herself, not what did you think about the novel. You already answered that!

Ah, right. I was a little confused about that

Lolita annoyed me at the start of the book - I couldn't stand her vanity or arrogance - but I really pitied her near the end. I really felt for her when he was speaking about how she would cry during sexual acts. I never really warmed to Lolita, I still found her to be a bit arrogant and snobbish, but I did pity her for her position.

How about you?

 

[StillILearn]

She really was a terrible brat, but just look at her mother! And she was only twelve years old, after all...

But yes, she was a brat all right. I wonder what kind of a woman she might have become had she not died so young. She wasn't so bad when HH found her again.

 

[SFG75]

MC, I think that Humbert Humbert was nuts. I think he was quite literally insane. (He actually suggests this himself - remember how he casually drops mention of checking himself into asylums from time to time?)

In reading the first two chapters, I was looking at things through a pscyhological lens as well. The passing of the mother and the affair his father had with his aunt(?) led me to conclude that perhaps it was a molding influence, at least that's what my inner cognitive psychologist said. According to a good source, Nabokov loathed Freud and his psychoanalytic views.

But this is one book that should be read more than once - although maybe not at one sitting!

Indeed!, How would you catch the following if you browsed through it one swoop!

Immediately noticeable are the intriguing names he uses. "Humbert" recalls the Latin "umbra," or "shade." Indeed, the foreword hints at the many dark shadows in Humbert's tale. Moreover, "Humbert" is close to the Spanish "hombre" for man, and "ombre" is also a 17th-century European card game.

Humbert's association with a game is important, because Nabokov plays countless games with language. Humbert Humbert, of course, has a double name. John Ray, Jr. also has a double name of sorts (his initials are similar to his junior status). Nabokov parodies the German-influenced Doppelgänger tale throughout Lolita. The Doppelgänger tale pits one character against some kind of doubled version of himself; Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde is the premier example (and one greatly admired by Nabokov, who otherwise had great disdain for the Doppelgänger, calling it a "frightful bore"). One of his gripes is that the Doppelgänger makes moral divisions between the doubled pair absolutely clear; already we are subversively informed that the hero of Lolita is an immoral man.

(Source hyper-linked earlier)

 

[StillILearn]

In reading the first two chapters, I was looking at things through a pscyhological lens as well. The passing of the mother and the affair his father had with his aunt(?) led me to conclude that perhaps it was a molding influence, at least that's what my inner cognitive psychologist said.

And here I was, thinking that HH enjoyed a pretty pampered childhood.

What else are seeing that may have warped him? I mean, aside from pretty little Annabelle Leigh dying, of course.

 

[SFG75]

And here I was, thinking that HH enjoyed a pretty pampered childhood.

What else are seeing that may have warped him? I mean, aside from pretty little Annabelle Leigh dying, of course.

Just as a side note-according to gradesaver, Annabelle Leigh is a reminder of Edgar Allen's poem of phonetic likeness

I guess that I was looking more at his mother's demise, as well as his father carrying on with the aunt(or was it the maid-should look, but too lazy!) Later on, you also have his divorce and at least three references to being confined to a sanitarium.

The criticism of Freud and psychology in general is a real riot-I loved this passage from chapter 9:

I discovered there was an endless source of robust enjoyment in trifling with psychiatrists: cunningly leading them on; never letting see that you know all the tricks of the trade; inventing for them elaborate dreams, pure classics in style (which make them, the dream-extyrotionists, dream and wake up shrieking); The sport was so excellent, its resullts-in my case-so ruddy that I stayed on for a whole month after AI was quite well..

 

[Shade]

"Humbert" recalls the Latin "umbra," or "shade."

Which recurs in his subsequent novel, Pale Fire, where the subject of the book is John Shade. (And from whom I took my own humbert - I mean humble - username...) My own thoughts on the book itself are in the existing Lolita thread. Wherever that is.

 

[StillILearn]

Hello, Shade!

I was sitting on my hands to prevent myself from prematurely PM-ing you. I was pretty sure that was where you got your name.

Do you think we should just wait patiently to see if we hear anything from Peder?

 

[SFG75]

Do you think we should just wait patiently to see if we hear anything from Peder?

Just finished PMing him. I know that he lurks more than he posts as of late, but hopefully he'll pay us a visit-one of the most stand up members we've ever had.

 

[Peder]

Just finished PMing him. I know that he lurks more than he posts as of late, but hopefully he'll pay us a visit

SFG
No, you won't have to wait patiently, stretched out in agony, holding your breaths, counting to a million
Thanks for thinking of me and I'll be here.
Just too groggy to think or post now. (Boy could we use a smiley for groggy!)
Sincerely,
Peder

PS Good to see you all again!

P.

 

[Peder]

Lolita. My favorite!

Hello everyone, after a bit of a hiatus!
It is good to be back again, among so many friends.

I am overjoyed to see that Lolita is being discussed! The book and, in a very real sense, she herself are among my all-time favorite literary creations and I hardly know where to begin in offering my reactions. In short, I am an enthusisast for both the book and for its author (and also for his wife, Vera, to whom we shall get later).

But where to begin? At the beginning of course! We all know (I hope) that once upon a time "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times." We also probably have other favorite or memorable sentences that won't go out of our mind for one reason or another. But I think I myself will go a long way before I even come close to seeing an opening paragraph as memorable as the one here.

"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul....."

Would the women here in the forum wish that some man, or woman, might say that to them? And the men wish that they could come up with such words for the occasion? I think the answer to both questions is probably an emphatic "You bet!"

And then there is simple exposition:

"...She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line..."

For so-called simple exposition, that recital of facts is simply amazingly wonderful to me as literature. Just read it out loud! And then the conclusion:

"...But in my arms she was always Lolita."

That summary sweeps me away every time I read it. Why?

Because all those sentences taken together would be the perfect beginning for a huge and passionate screen-filling epic love story -- if only she were older, and if only he wasn't perverted.

But that is the genius of the paragraph to me, that Nabokov signals to us quite openly that this is going to be a love story when, from everything we know before we even open the book, it can't be a love story, and certainly not the kind that we can like. Nabokov knew that! So, in the very opening paragraph, he challenges us to read on, take the journey of the imagination, and see what we finally really think when we are done. In effect, I see him saying "I am author enough that you will like the story!"

To me, it is an amazing journey and it is more wonderful each time I read it.

So, I am your resident enthusiast!
(And I haven't yet even told you about my other favorite paragraph )
Peder

 

[G4G]

He's back!!!

 

[Peder]

You are all crazy! Which is why I love you all.
And feel so at home. Thank you for the welcome.
Peder

 

[pontalba]

I am soooo glad to see such a wonderful discussion of Lolita! A little over a year ago, there was a discussion on another fourm of her, and that was the first time I'd read Nabokov's gem. I have to say that at the time I was a little reluctant to read it as all I remembered was the first (James Mason) version. And dim memories at that. But even though it was a little difficult for me to read at times, and I had to put it down and go back later, it was well worth the effort. At that time (a year ago) I simultaneously watched both versions of the film, and read the book. I don't recommend that method, as it can cause confusion.

As much as I adore James Mason, I do think the Irons version is, if not 'better', at least more to my taste, and I think truer to the book.

I look forward to this new discussion!

 

[SFG75]

A few thoughts.....

Just a few odds and ends, figured it would be best to put them into one post.

Monkeycatcher wrote:

Nabokov tended to explain things in an over-complicated way, which was a challenge at first, but after was a real joy to read.

I tried to read this book once before, but gave it up due to being busy and in being uninterested in the first couple of chapters. The part about moving his wife out and the uncouth nature of the Russian taxi driver really turned me off to it. In reading that part, I began to wonder when the book would be about an older man in love(if you can call it that) with Lolita. I guess that I found it to be very distracting and wandering around on other tangents, but in reading it now, I wonder how in the world I came to that conclusion months ago.


StillIlearn wrote:

I think that Humbert Humbert was nuts. I think he was quite literally insane. (He actually suggests this himself - remember how he casually drops mention of checking himself into asylums from time to time?)

The psychological themes are fascinating, especially since Nabokov hated Freud. Technically, "insanity" doesn't exist(at least in the DMV) but in doing some research, it turns out that there is a step-above(if you can call it that) from pedophelia known as hebephelia--the fascination with young adolescents. This brings up some interesting points as well

-Was H.H. a pedophile or a hebephile?

-Does the above distinction matter at all?, or can we not know the answer even with Lo's age?


Peder wrote:

Because all those sentences taken together would be the perfect beginning for a huge and passionate screen-filling epic love story -- if only she were older, and if only he wasn't perverted.

Right you are about Nabokov's eloquence and way with words. To tell you the truth, I merely went past those words and didn't think them to be anything out of the ordinary, though I have to admit that this book is very stigmatized. It's hard for me to see the literary greatness of his art in-between reading about how Humbert positions himself to watch Lo run through the sprinklers or walk around in the backyard. The last line of the quoted statement is what is really holding me back from truly appreciating the *greatness* of this work, but I'll try and look for the more impressive lines in-between the fixation of the author. I cant help but think that H.H. is really Nabokov and that perhaps he let his guard down a bit to let it out.

 

[Shade]

It's hard for me to see the literary greatness of his art in-between reading about how Humbert positions himself to watch Lo run through the sprinklers or walk around in the backyard.

I don't see this, though that may just make me morally degenerate. Am I the only person who finds an amount of (toe-curling) humour in Humbert's attempts to spy on Lolita, like a reversal of an adolescent boy watching the grown woman in the apartment across the road?

The last line of the quoted statement is what is really holding me back from truly appreciating the *greatness* of this work, but I'll try and look for the more impressive lines in-between the fixation of the author.

I suppose the corollary of this is, would you say that a book written from the point of view of another kind of immoral character, eg a murderer, could similarly not be great? Say, Crime and Punishment? If so then I have to respectfully disagree.

I cant help but think that H.H. is really Nabokov and that perhaps he let his guard down a bit to let it out.

Now this really is too much! 'Let his guard down a bit' over three hundred pages of exquisitely tooled prose? Such a comment thinks very little of Nabokov as a writer and is really not worthy. If Nabokov is a paedophile/hebephile, does that mean he is also a homosexual (Pale Fire), incestuous (Ada) or an adulterer (King, Queen, Knave)?

 

[SFG75]

Am I the only person who finds an amount of (toe-curling) humour in Humbert's attempts to spy on Lolita, like a reversal of an adolescent boy watching the grown woman in the apartment across the road?

Now that you mention it, I'd have to say that the scene in the park where a girl bends over to tie a shoe(I think that's what she was doing) and Humbert "told" of her features while feeling transfixed in the moment was rather humorous. To me, it is similar to when you have a trained dog with a treat on it's nose(in this case perhaps a tart? ) and it's just dying to get the treat.

I suppose the corollary of this is, would you say that a book written from the point of view of another kind of immoral character, eg a murderer, could similarly not be great? Say, Crime and Punishment? If so then I have to respectfully disagree.

Can't argue with you here-I'll try and remember that.

 

[pontalba]

I don't see this, though that may just make me morally degenerate. Am I the only person who finds an amount of (toe-curling) humour in Humbert's attempts to spy on Lolita, like a reversal of an adolescent boy watching the grown woman in the apartment across the road?

In retrospect I see your point, but at the time it simply made my skin crawl. As Peder mentioned, it would have been a passionate love story, if not for the age of Lo. That puts it beyond the pale.

Does anyone have thoughts on whether Old Europe was seducing New America, or the other way around?

 

[Peder]

Hi SFG,
Glad to hear from you, but the site just ate my post.
So I'll recompose both it and myself and be back with you in a bit.

And Hi, too, to pontalba,
Good to see you here; I'll try to smooth your crawling skin

And, Shade,
Yes, I'm with you on Nabokov's exstraordinary sense of humor. Definitely!

Later,
Peder

 

[Peder]

Hi SFG
OK, we try a second time.

"if only she weren't so young, and if only he wasn't a pervert."

Right you are about Nabokov's eloquence and his way with words....The last line of the quoted statement is what is really holding me back from truly appreciating the *greatness* of this work.

And right you are, SFG, that those two facts have been the sticking point for many people who approach the novel for the first time with a view toward reading it. They have, in fact, been the points at issue throughout its entire publication history.
Prior to publication, four publishers refused to have anything to do with the work. Nabokov conjectured that:

"Their refusal to buy the book was based not on my treatment of the theme but on the theme itself, for there are at least three themes which are utterly taboo as far as most American publishers are concerned."

(He goes on to name the other two themes, but they are not relevant here.)

He argued that the book was neither lewd nor pornographic, and he strenuously differentiated his treatment of his theme in Lolita from lewd and pornographic writing. He went on to say:

Certain techniques in the beginning of Lolita (Humbert's journal, for example) misled some of my first readers into assuming that this was going to be a lewd book. They expected a rising succession of erotic scenes; when these stopped, the readers stopped, too, and felt bored and let down."

(Talk about an author's assessment of his reading public!)

In these distinctions between the theme of his book and his treatment of the theme, he is in effect arguing for the literary merit of the book apart from its theme.

So I would say, first, that his "eloquence and his way with words," to borrow your phrase, are not to be dismissed too lightly in estimating the greatness of the work, because they are fact a part of its greatness.

In addition, I would offer Nabokov's rare sense of humor, already noted by Shade, which, among other things, leads to some deliciously satiriic writing in Lolita on the ways of life in America. He was a keen observer and he had an exceedingly dry wit, which was never far from the tip of his tongue or his pen.

And finally I would offer as part of his greatness his creation in our minds of an imaginative story peopled by two unforgettable characters, but especially his creation of Lolita herself.

Whenever I think of Lolita, I see here standing there in front of me, about twenty feet away, not far, not near, all four feet ten of her, wearing a faded blue smock, and one white sock, hands at her sides, staring straight at me with her pale gray eyes, calm, and with a quizzical half-smile on her face, wondering what I think of her.

Or, stating Nabokov's goal in his own words

"..one wanted...to make you live in the minds of later generations. I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita."

That last sentence just knocks me down everytime I read it!
So, I ask, is any immortality achieved without a great work?

Sincerely,
Peder

Note: The quotations from Nabokov are from his own essay, "On a Book Entitled Lolita," pp. 313-314, in The Annotated Lolita. And the final sentences quoted just above are the last words of the novel itself, p. 309.

 

[abecedarian]

Nice to have you back Peder!