Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[Peder]

And SIL,
I see you have learned how, down in testing.
YAY YAY YAY
Peder

 

[SFG75]

Ahhhhhhhh Peder, I found yet a few other good critiques on our good man H.H. and Lo. Here's some interesting things to chew over.
Nomadic Subjectivity in Nabokov's Lolita

&

This one.

I'll admit it, I laughed-it's more of comedic relief than anything else. don't believe me? The nread this tidbit.

In Vladimir Nabokov's novel of 1955, the character named Lolita is the prize in a deadly struggle between two men. When Lolita was made into a film in 1961, a text that bore the name of a woman became a feminized commodity over which flesh-and-blood men struggled to gain possession. As in any such conflict when men compete for the same female object, there is an erotic tension tinged with sado-masochism.

 

[StillILearn]

Your advice:

a more visible place on TBF will get you an answer faster, I'm sure.
Peder

Okay. I've been doing everything but read The Enchanter.

Off I go.

 

[StillILearn]

Ahhhhhhhh Peder, I found yet a few other good critiques on our good man H.H. and Lo. Here's some interesting things to chew over.
Nomadic Subjectivity in Nabokov's Lolita

&

This one.

I'll admit it, I laughed-it's more of comedic relief than anything else. don't believe me? The nread this tidbit.

... but the linkage of masochism and sadism as theorized in conventional psychoanalysis helps explain the dynamics of sadistic mastery that Kubrick asserted over Nabokov as well as the masochistically submissive posture the director adopted with Peter Sellers.

SFG7 That's funny! How on earth did you find that? And the "Nomadic Subjectivity" whatsis. VN would have wet his pants laughing!

 

[Peder]

SFG7 That's funny! How on earth did you find that? And the "Nomadic Subjectivity" whatsis. VN would have wet his pants laughing!

Still, SFG
That quote about subecting Nabokov but being subject to Peter Sellers is so hilarious! It hits the nail on the head for what my reaction to Sellers' performance always has been -- that he was given the run of the set and allowed to go at it any way he wished. Probably not exactly so, but he is still wildly outrageous in each of the roles he plays. He out-Sellers Peter Sellers is the only way I can describe it!
Now to read the article,
Peder

 

[Peder]

SFG,
Those psychiatrists/psychologists, whichever, may talk in their own code, but when they let the real Peter Sellers shine through I still laugh. Sellers describing judo with Darkbloom to Swine, the hotel manager, is simply immense! Maybe they couldn't actually bring themselves to discuss Sellers parody of psychologists in his discussion of Lolita with Humbert. That much personal masochism they themselves probably couldn't muster!
Priceless!
Peder

 

[pontalba]

SFG You find the most amazing stuff!

In his account of judo matches with Vivian, Quilty may be most typical of the clinical scenario of the male masochist, who takes sexual pleasure in fantasies of being beaten (Schafer 88). If Kubrick has placed Nabokov in his film as Vivian Darkbloom, it is tempting to suppose that the director has reversed the role he plays with Peter Sellers. In a much more typically Kubrickian act of control and dominance, he has put Nabokov in a doubly humiliating situation as a rejected screenwriter and as a marginalized and mute if inscrutable woman.

from;The Circulation of Sado-Masochistic Desire
in the Lolita Texts

Krin Gabbard

Kubrick......Sellers...........Nabokov.
Classic one upmanship to the Nth degree. I think the title of the article says it all.

 

[pontalba]

Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, A Casebook

Ellen Pifer who is mentioned in one of the articles that SFG75 linked is the editor of the Casebook I've been reading. One of the essays is hers as well. It is a shortened version of one used elsewhere. On p.91 she says:

Nabokov's novels always describe a tension or healthy conflict between collective and individual life, between the conventional world that runs on common denominators and the singular consciousness of the individual. But at certain historical moments--as this Russian emigre and fugitive from Hitler well knew--the forces governing collective life become onerous. Seeking to supress, manipulate, or control the creative exercise of human consciousness, the ruling powers may conspire to destroy the individual altogether. In Nabokov's fiction this unhealthy state of affairs is often signaled by the plight of children, who are inevitably the most vunerable and easily victimized. As Lolita testifies, Nabokov did not require the conditions of a police state to depict the crimes committed against society's frailest members.

The article goes on to mention Invitation to a Beheading and Bend Sinister as being his most most politically explicit novels and how the character in ItaB, Cincinnatus C. is childlike in looks.

So, my point, and I do have one, is that early on in this thread, we spoke of the book Lolita being about freedom. Not too shabby for neophytes. I think we may all take a small pat on the back and a verra slight bow.

Good Night All

 

[Peder]

So, my point, and I do have one, is that early on in this thread, we spoke of the book Lolita being about freedom. Not too shabby for neophytes. I think we may all take a small pat on the back and a verra slight bow.

Good Night All

Pontalba,
Couldn't agree with you more!
Peder

PS You are whetting my appetite to get on with reading the Casebook, but I guess you knew that.

 

[SFG75]

The quoted section regarding Quilty was something else. I hadn't read it that closely when I first read the article-Quilty likes Judo because he likes to be beaten by Vivian. Kubrick dominates Nabokov. On a more serious note, Freud was always knocked for his viewing thing through the prism of male eyes and ignoring all other viewpoints. "penis envy" wasn't "vagina envy" as a more crude, yet telling point. In looking over the article again, I couldn't help but wonder if some writers in the house that Freud built still have blinders on when it comes to viewing things through a Victorian-male lens.

 

[SFG75]

Nonsense! I am feeling much reassured, not to mention flattered. And I always blame myself. It's my nature to obsess, so I'm very much relieved to hear that you don't do it too.

But maybe breaca has made an important point. Some of us may have been yelling so loud and throwing things around so much that we either ignored or scared off the saner members of the crew. It's even remotely possible that some of us did get the tiniest bit carried away once or twice there during the trial.

I thought the trial was one of the best things to come out of the discussion. I'll admit that my tactics(or was it antics?) was more bare-knuckled than my esteemed co-counsel Peder's defense, but it had to be done. H.H. is not a lovable guy and his "negatives" are just too high. Defending Attila the Hun or Saddam would be easier.

As for throwing things around-If I remember correctly, Peder only tossed two chairs and a vase.

 

[StillILearn]

The quoted section regarding Quilty was something else. I hadn't read it that closely when I first read the article-Quilty likes Judo because he likes to be beaten by Vivian. Kubrick dominates Nabokov. On a more serious note, Freud was always knocked for his viewing thing through the prism of male eyes and ignoring all other viewpoints. "penis envy" wasn't "vagina envy" as a more crude, yet telling point. In looking over the article again, I couldn't help but wonder if some writers in the house that Freud built still have blinders on when it comes to viewing things through a Victorian-male lens.

You're obviously right about Freud, SFG75. And, thank you for helping me to take another look at the relationship between Vivian Darkbloom and Quilty. In the Kubric movie (well, everywhere) the significance of the Darkbloom character flew straight over my head. But, with an name that's an anagram for Vladimir Nabokov, of course she isn't simply a cardboard figure. Boing!

 

[StillILearn]

pontalba = So, my point, and I do have one, is that early on in this thread, we spoke of the book Lolita being about freedom. Not too shabby for neophytes. I think we may all take a small pat on the back and a verra slight bow

.

No, kidding, pontalba. This little book has been a veritable education in itself.

I finished The Enchanter last night, and what that story did for me was to make me better appreciate the virtuosity of the actual Lolita. I'm now starting on Dmitri's section of The Enchanter and then I'm moving on to Vera's story.

At this point, I'm just simply awe-struck by VN's talent. I'm also probably hooked for life, although I've only read a small fraction of his work. I'm thankful for that, I guess - it means I still have so much to look forward to. Had it not been for this thread, I fairly shudder to think of all the fun I'd be missing.

(Not everybody in my world of non-readers would understand that last sentence, which is probably why this is the first place I visit in the morning - the Nut House! )

 

[StillILearn]

As for throwing things around-If I remember correctly, Peder only tossed two chairs and a vase.

I could go back and check, SFG75, but if I recall things correctly, I do believe that you were the one who started that trial off of on such a highly irreverent note.

I may even have a couple of witnesses.

 

[SFG75]

I could go back and check, SFG75, but if I recall things correctly, I do believe that you were the one who started that trial off of on such a highly irreverent note.

I may even have a couple of witnesses.

I plead guilty-at the time, I guess I was just concentrating on the whole lap dance on H.H. episode. Certainly a girl who would do that..... Nevertheless, H.H. was a perv and a weirdo. Sitting in a park so he could be near one of the *nymphs* or trying to angle himself so as to spy on Lo in the backyard. What a loser.

It's ironic that all throughout the book, she basically outsmarts the men she encounters. You have that dullard Charles at camp, who is only used to satisfy some intriguing urge. It could be argued that she flirted with Humbert outrageously in order to escape from "big haze." She fools Humbert into thinking everything is a o.k. and then she makes off with Quilty. He never blames her, just Quilty. She made plans with the hospital staff, lulled him into thinking everything was o.k. by having him carry her upstairs, and no suspicions abounded. Leave it to a dumb male to blame another dumb male when something like that happens. Now THAT would be a good write-up on the whole *alpha-male* psychoanalytic conflict premise. Not only that, but you also have the scene at the very end where he finally catches up with her. You have her, her dope of a husband, Humbert standing around like a dope, begging her to come back to him and what does she do? She sweeps everything aside and sends him away.....like a dope. She was right, he was a big dope. in the end, she ends up a tragic figure and a mess, but she seems to ride the wave known as chaos with H.H., QUilty, Charles, and other people under her. At least when it came to possessing her.

 

[StillILearn]

Admittedly, the banter with Swine can be understood simply as part of Kubrick's games with the censors, hinting at polymorphously perverse behavior and squeezing each phrase for optimum salaciousness (even the phrase "Type A Kodachrome" becomes highly suggestive in the mouth of Sellers/Quilty). But Quilty remains on many levels Humbert's double: both find sexual satisfaction in suffering and humiliation inflicted by a woman.

Puh-lease! These people are even nuttier than we are!

 

[StillILearn]

It's ironic that all throughout the book, she basically outsmarts the men she encounters. You have that dullard Charles at camp, who is only used to satisfy some intriguing urge. It could be argued that she flirted with Humbert outrageously in order to escape from "big haze." She fools Humbert into thinking everything is a o.k. and then she makes off with Quilty. He never blames her, just Quilty. She made plans with the hospital staff, lulled him into thinking everything was o.k. by having him carry her upstairs, and no suspicions abounded. Leave it to a dumb male to blame another dumb male when something like that happens. Now THAT would be a good write-up on the whole *alpha-male* psychoanalytic conflict premise. Not only that, but you also have the scene at the very end where he finally catches up with her. You have her, her dope of a husband, Humbert standing around like a dope, begging her to come back to him and what does she do? She sweeps everything aside and sends him away.....like a dope. She was right, he was a big dope. in the end, she ends up a tragic figure and a mess, but she seems to ride the wave known as chaos with H.H., QUilty, Charles, and other people under her. At least when it came to possessing her.

I think you can probably find enough evidence in the psycho-analytic link you found to demand a retrial.

But within moments Lolita is staring purposefully at Humbert as she reclines into her husband's arms. Without relinquishing Humbert's gaze, she coldly cancels Dick's invitation by declaring that her step-father cannot stay the night. Relishing her centrality in the sexual obsessions of so many men, Lolita is still toying with Humbert, sending out the same kind of conflicting signals she has throughout the film. Although Humbert soon sets off in a murderous rage to find Clare Quilty, the character has assiduously sought out this final encounter with Lolita in which he must surely have known that he would be rejected once again.

 

[SFG75]

Puh-lease! These people are even nuttier than we are!

LOL-in poker, they say if you can't find the *fish,* you are the *fish.* Thanks for highlighting that we are not......the duck-billed-playtypus' of Lolita discussion.

Admittedly, the banter with Swine can be understood simply as part of Kubrick's games with the censors

, hinting at polymorphously perverse behavior and squeezing each phrase for optimum salaciousness (even the phrase "Type A Kodachrome" becomes highly suggestive in the mouth of Sellers/Quilty).

But Quilty remains on many levels Humbert's double: both find sexual satisfaction in suffering and humiliation inflicted by a woman.

Yes, Quilty and Humbert were used by Lolita. Where are our female members on this one? (*tip-toes away after laying the bait*)

 

[StillILearn]

Peder = That quote about subecting Nabokov but being subject to Peter Sellers is so hilarious! It hits the nail on the head for what my reaction to Sellers' performance always has been -- that he was given the run of the set and allowed to go at it any way he wished.

This article that SFG75 dug up is priceless!

Of course, when shooting got under way, Stanley gave each scene a new dimension, as for example, in the few improvised exchanges between Sellers and Mason" (201). James Mason, however, has portrayed himself as an innocent bystander throughout most of the ad-libbed scenes with Sellers. He wrote that Kubrick "was so besotted with the genius of Peter Sellers that he seemed never to have enough of him" (430).

Nabokov must have been beside himself! Don't you think? And the rest of the cast must have wondered what they had got themselves into.

 

[SFG75]

With no disrespect intended at all to any listeners or other Forumites, I think this thread was more like a personal encounter with the book for all of us, and much less like (I'll be brave) 'cocktail conversation' which is more prevalent. I use that term in self-confession because it was used to, or at, me by a member in a previous forum who found a long conversation with me unusual (3 posts!). But people are different, and here we found us (we, the strange ones) who engaged the book deeply and discussed our genuine reactions. Not better, not worse, just different.

On any forum, you have a good degree of 'cocktail conversation' and I believe we all feed into it to a certain extent. I've made 'hows the weather?' posts and things like that, but you are exactly right. This book is very personal for a lot of people as we all have our own interpretations of it, not to mention we have a high level of interest in it. The many tangents one can go off on regarding the work, let alone weaving in and out of Nabokov's illusions and hints make for a thread that must be lengthy and detailed for converstaion beyond the superficial. This thread is exactly what TBF is about, at least ideally. Other people have, and are, enjoying book of the month selections, but what makes this book different is that it's such a classic.

Some have observed that I disappeared for awhile. I go in spurts when it comes to online participation. The 'cocktail conversation' wears on me and I'll drop out for awhile until I can find something that interests me again. I haven't posted a lot in the general discussion forum as quite frankly, I get that kind of watercooler talk every day at work-it gets old. You also have to remember that while people may not post a lot, they do read the thread-which is why it has 10,000 views and a mere 1,000 posts. I will lurk at the thread at down times on the job, not even logged in. I have felt that it's good to hold back until you just have to share your thoughts.