• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

SFG75 = 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.

Oops. I didn't know these was a *fish*. That must mean ... I don't even want to think about what that means. :eek:

And as for reading without posting? Well, I don't appear to have access to the huge amount of duct tape that would be required for me to perform that little trick. :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
SFG75 said:
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*)
__________________

I do love a man that knows his place.....:D


I suppose fish = the mark?
 
SFG75 said:
Some have observed that I disappeared for awhile. I go in spurts when it comes to online participation.......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.
SFG
Whatever your secret is, it is great! Whenever you have contributed we have all responded to you and you have sparked the discussion. As a wild guess, I would say that all of us here wish that you could spend more time with us, you make the conversation move so. But however you do it, keep on doing it, because it is excellent when it happens. And when you leave, temporarily, we all wonder, "Wher'd he go?!"

And, a small request, could you please keep finding those fantastic articles?

Glad you came back for a bit, again, :)
It wasn't enough :(
Peder
 
pontalba said:
Who Me? Would I do that?
Pontalba,
You would. You did. And now I have. And I am blown away!
Just in Ellen Pifer's Introduction I see I have now made nine little ticks for views of hers that touch on things we have talked or wondered about here. And, as you said, she's the expert, but we ain't doin' too bad. But we ain't said it all, either. What a feast that book will be!
Again as you said, 'highly recommended!' Yesss!
Peder
 
Steffee,
We once briefly touched on Nabokov's possible views on religion/afterlife, and I added confusion by saying I thought his book Transparent Things was about the topic, but amazon only seemed to say it was about memory instead. Well, the train of thought changes direction once again!

Here's this from Pifer's Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, A Casebook,(p8)
"In her Introduction to a volume of her husband's Russian poems, Vera Nabokov announced the 'principal theme' of her husband's work to be the hereafter; since then a number of critics have traced the influence of the 'otherworld' on the lives of his characters......[e.g.] Boyd in Pale Fire....In Nabokov's late novel Transparent Things, for example, the voice of dead Mr. R. describes the way in which he and the novel's other shades tend to operate...".
And I'll leave it there, because a further selection by me of phrases from among Pifer's selection of phrases is undoubtedly not the way to summarize his views.

Boyd's book on Pale Fire requires that you read Pale Fire first -- not an unpleasant experience at all! :). The two of them together then make an unforgettable experience in seeing what imaginative criticism can bring to a new view of a work.

Transparent Things is a much slimmer read altogether, and speaks in Nabokov's own words.

Will be glad to hear what you find,
But keep the nose to the grindstone, :)
Best of wishes,
Peder
 
StillILearn said:
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.

StillILearn,
It does sound like the definition of "zoo" :) :) :)
Peder
 
StillILearn Amazon will begin to think I am obsessed with Lolita! Duh, I wonder why? The remark you posted about James Mason standing innocently by, was just like him, I can just see it. Now I have to buy that version........drat! He may have been an innocent by-stander, however I'll lay odds that his wheels were spinning behind that innocent facade. I'll certainly appreciate that film more now that I have read the articles posted by our resident detective and finder of neat articles SFG. I really enjoyed the second one.

OK!! Where is everybody.....off doing good deeds? Fighting Dragons? On a slow boat to China?
 
pontalba = Amazon will begin to think I am obsessed with Lolita! Duh, I wonder why? The remark you posted about James Mason standing innocently by, was just like him, I can just see it. Now I have to buy that version........drat!


Okay, but remember that :

... every Monday, Google publishes a list of the top 15 search words for the week.
and the gov'mint is checking it twice it. (Anyway, I just went online to my local library to request everything I could find about Mason, Sellers et al.)

Are we obsessing yet? :D
 
I just priced bios of James Mason at Amazon and Books A Million.............the cheapest is about 68 bucks, on up to around $100.00!!:eek: :eek: :mad:

I wonder why. btw, also ordered his Lolita:eek:
 
You know, in spite of Sellers being considered a genius (which I am not disputing) I don't really care for him. Yes, I liked the Pink Panther movies, but after all...David Niven was in those :eek: . There was just something off about him, and I don't mean amusing off, I mean Off off.
 
SFG75 said:
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.
SFG
You are thought-provoking, as ever! I think you and Nabokov make a good combination because your questions and comments make us wonder just what Nabokov meant after all.

I woke up this morning wanting to take a kinder view of Lo. After all, she is my girl, and I guess maybe she has wrapped me 'round her finger as well! Your view would absolutely make a good theme for that yet unwritten book called "Humbert," which has Lo as the central figure and tells the story entirely from her point of view, with Humbert as the character who only gets time to come and go, on and offstage, as she wills.

Without necesssarily taking issue with your view, I'll try to offer a different glimpse of the same young lady's character. (Perhaps it is the old defense attorney in me rising to a challenge again. :) )

I will directly dispute Humbert's view of her, that she was nothing much to look at, and that nobody else would be able to pick her out of a crowd except he who could see nymphets.

I will assert that she has all the earmarks of an attractive child and woman, and furthermore I wll go so far as to say that it is your description that actually proves it (esteemed and worthy Mr. Prosecutor).

It is only Humbert's testimony that makes her unnoticeable in a crowd, and of course Charlotte's, but not even you woruld offer her as a withness against Lo, she is so obviusly biased. (Take that! Thwack! But nice thwack. :) )

But, reviewing the evidence, early on before she was twelve, she was a favorite of her 'Uncle' Quilty's and, in turn she adored him, 'the only man she ever loved,' as she herself tells us. We do not have to assume that Quilty had any perverse interest in her then. She tells us that he would pull her playfully onto his lap (remember that, we'll come back to it), and it is only Humbert's later and rather biased view of Quilty that allows us to back-fill any sinister motive into that. On the face of it, it is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior for a (close) friend of her mother's, to show playful affection toward her daughter. And, later, we see what Lo's reaction is to men, even young as she is, who try to take improper advantage of her: "I'm outta here!" So, Quilty liked the kid she was, and she adored him as her superhero from the Dromes ads in her favorite magazine pages. In short she was a normal kid and likeable.

As to the next man in her life, it would be an understatement to say that Humbert found her likeable. He was totally enthralled by her, which I would offer again as evidence that she was likeable and attractive. We have seen any number of descriptions by Humbert of people whom he regards as unattractive, beginning with Charlotte and then Rita, and then going back further into the unacceptable women and girls of the demi-monde that he once inhabited looking for just the right one. No, he gave short shrift to the appearance of anyone not attractive to him. But quite the opposite for Lo, and Annabelle before her, both of whom he could not resist because of their attractiveness.

And while on the topic, it brings to mind the famous couch scene in a differrent light. With the affection shown to her by Quilty ever on her mind, as we may safely assume, she undoubtedly wished Humbert would pull her over onto his lap and show her similar affection. So she deliberately lays her legs across his lap, as much as saying "Hey, Mr. Man. Notice me! I'm over here, but that is where I want to be, on your lap"

After he had her in captivity, one of his principal problems was her immediate attractiveness even to strangers. She could chat up a conversation in a flash with anyone she met. I take that as an indicator of 'attractive' in both personality and appearance.

Charles, at camp, may have had only one thing on his mind, but even her inclusion in that trio speaks at least to her general personability and not aginst it. After all she did not have the same thing in mind as Charles, so that can't be offered as reason for her joining their excursions across the lake and into the woods. No, she was there because she was accepted by them.

Finally she marries, and as the saying goes "It takes two to tango." So we may safely assume that Richard Shiller also found her attractive. We don't always have to assume the worst of people and think that he figured he was lucky to catch anyone at all. So again, her attractiveness contributed to the match.

All of which is a way of saying that she was a very attractive young lady. And it is the fate of beautiful women to have men falling all over themselves to get to them for even so much as a smile. That's the way men are, and that's the way life is. But it takes an attractive women in the first place.

If Lo had ever made ito Hollywood, I would offer it as a safe bet that she would have been packing the movie houses in record breaking numbers.

And there is nothing sinister in any of that.

It all begins with an attractive girl.

Respectfully submitted,
Peder,
For the Defense
 
And it is the fate of beautiful women to have men falling all over themselves to get to them for even so much as a smile.

Are you implying that she asked for the attention!?:eek: Quick-where is pontalba and others? :p Just teasing Peder, I know what you mean and many would agree that Lo possessed some quality to fit most male schemas of what is attractive, at least among those around her. Many feminist theorists have written volumes about the "male gaze" that objectifies and doesn't consider the whole female within the cross-hairs of the gaze(appropriate analogy?) At any rate, it is quite telling that when men see an attractive girl, the first thought isn't: "I wonder if she is capable of a mature relationship and sensible conversation?" Humbert fails to see the emotional immaturity of Lo and chooses instead, to fixate on the growing body that so transfixes him.

If Lo had ever made ito Hollywood, I would offer it as a safe bet that she would have been packing the movie houses in record breaking numbers.

And there is nothing sinister in any of that.

It all begins with an attractive girl.

There is a real life example of that, I'd submit that it's Elizabeth Taylor. Talk about having men falling all over themselves. What was she, sixteen or something like that and she looked a lot older? The pictures of her from the late '40s(if I'm not mistaken) are essential to see why so many men flipped out over her.
 
SFG75 said:
Are you implying that she asked for the attention!?:eek: Quick-where is pontalba and others? :p Just teasing Peder, I know what you mean and many would agree that Lo possessed some quality to fit most male schemas of what is attractive, at least among those around her. Many feminist theorists have written volumes about the "male gaze" that objectifies and doesn't consider the whole female within the cross-hairs of the gaze(appropriate analogy?) At any rate, it is quite telling that when men see an attractive girl, the first thought isn't: "I wonder if she is capable of a mature relationship and sensible conversation?" Humbert fails to see the emotional immaturity of Lo and chooses instead, to fixate on the growing body that so transfixes him.

There is a real life example of that, I'd submit that it's Elizabeth Taylor. Talk about having men falling all over themselves. What was she, sixteen or something like that and she looked a lot older? The pictures of her from the late '40s(if I'm not mistaken) are essential to see why so many men flipped out over her.

SFG
Oy, you mention the feminist counterattack! Now you have me seriously quaking in my boots, because I have no doubt that post will convict me of a "male gaze." Who knows, that may bring women from all over into this forum. Yeah, like as if! But "male gaze?" I guess it is there in force. :eek:

It is enough that I fear what the women of this forum will say! :( I'll need a real defense lawyer to defend myself, here!

Elizabeth Taylor is not a bad example at all! Dating myself, I'll say that I saw her in the original release of National Velvet , her first (?) movie, and I especially remember the scene (and I think she was 14, but I'll check) where they discover she is a girl who has been impersonating a male jockey in the steeplechase. But I also remember being quite taken with her 'in general,' :rolleyes: and ever since. :)

Shirley Temple also came to mind, even though we now look back on her as the adorably sweet frilly little girl with the cute curly blond hair who was truly the Nation's sweetheart. Actually there were some movies (before my time) in which she scampered her sweet little self around in her cute white undies and sang some archly grown-up songs with rather grown-up body movements and poses, similar to if she were a grown chorus girl. But you have to see the reruns to understand what I'm talking about. I'm assuming it all just contributed to her general adorability, and nothing else. I'm assuming.

Now to get on with getting at your pdf file,
Where is that can opener?
Peder
 
Binngg - go!

SFG,
You hit the nail squarely on the head in all respects!

Elizabeth Taylor, date of birth, Feb 1932 (England)

National Velvet movie, 1944

Elizabeth Taylor - 12 years old

Nobody would notice her in a crowd. Rrrriiiiiiiiiiiiigghhhhhttttttt! :rolleyes:

Peder
 
This take on the assertive Lolita is far more attractive than the old victim role. And just to be perfectly clear, she was a victim, but a victim with claws, as HH so aptly remarked that she could claw something or other into the roadway. Can't find the quote at the mo :eek: . But lets face it guys, it has taken you longer to come to this juncture in the road. The power of Lolita affected you as well. :) It is just now in the cold light of day that you have come to the conclusion that Lo was a manipulative young female. :eek:

I just hate to say I told you so. But I will. ;)

As far as Elizabeth Taylor is concerned, yeah, she has always been gorgeous, and how, in National Velvet, she was supposed to pass as a young man is quite beyond me! I remember seeing her picture on a Ladies Home Journal, I suppose in the '70's, with no makeup, and a pink towel wrapped around her hair. She was incredibly beautiful. Now how many women would have the nerve to appear on a popular magazine with No Make-Up?
 
pontalba said:
It is just now in the cold light of day that you have come to the conclusion that Lo was a manipulative young female. :eek:

I just hate to say I told you so. But I will. ;)
Aw, now, Pontalba,
Does it really count as 'manipulative,' if a pretty girl just moves her little pinky just a little and all the men jump? :rolleyes:
Peder
 
Many feminist theorists have written volumes about the "male gaze" that objectifies and doesn't consider the whole female within the cross-hairs of the gaze(appropriate analogy?)
Very appropriate analogy. But when you guys stop looking is when I for one will start worrying.:D

Just enjoying said 'male gaze' is not an indictable offense either IMHO.
 
Peder said:
Aw, now, Pontalba,
Does it really count as 'manipulative,' if a pretty girl just moves her little pinky just a little and all the men jump? :rolleyes:
Peder
Usually does. Because its usually done with a view to the effect. With full knowledge of said effect. I didn't say it was always bad, just deliberate.

Been there, done that. And any girl/woman that says otherwise, is uninformed as to her own motives. IMHO.
 
Back
Top