Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[MonkeyCatcher]

I was intrigued by your reaction to the book as more graphic than you expected. I have typically told people, who said they weren't interested in reading the book, that it was less graphic than they might think, and not at all 'explicit.' And certainly not pornographic

Perhaps "graphic" wasn't really the term I was looking for. I just didn't think that his thoughts and feelings - most of the time rather inappropriate - for these young 'nymphets' would come to the forefront in the novel. I wasn't expecting his lust and desire for the young girls to be addressed so explicitly - one instance that comes to mind is of him watching girls come out of the local primary school, or watching Lolita's tennis partener as she played with Lolita. I also didn't think that they would go into so much depth with his sexual relationship with Lolita, such as the example that has already been mentioned of when he was on the couch with her.

There's no doubt about it - H.H is a sick, twisted man, but to be honest, I couldn't help but feel sorry for him. I think it was the way in which Lolita played him and toyed with his weakness that made me pity him. Just a bit, mind you, but it was definitely there. I'm stilling tossing up weither Lolita was consenual or not. I think that at first she was, and treated it like a bit of fun, a bit of a lark, but nearing the end I think that she felt trapped and was unwilling to be his plaything any longer. Just my opinion.

 

[Peder]

Perhaps "graphic" wasn't really the term I was looking for. I just didn't think that his thoughts and feelings - most of the time rather inappropriate - for these young 'nymphets' would come to the forefront in the novel. I wasn't expecting his lust and desire for the young girls to be addressed so explicitly - one instance that comes to mind is of him watching girls come out of the local primary school, or watching Lolita's tennis partener as she played with Lolita. I also didn't think that they would go into so much depth with his sexual relationship with Lolita, such as the example that has already been mentioned of when he was on the couch with her.

There's no doubt about it - H.H is a sick, twisted man, but to be honest, I couldn't help but feel sorry for him. I think it was the way in which Lolita played him and toyed with his weakness that made me pity him. Just a bit, mind you, but it was definitely there. I'm stilling tossing up weither Lolita was consenual or not. I think that at first she was, and treated it like a bit of fun, a bit of a lark, but nearing the end I think that she felt trapped and was unwilling to be his plaything any longer. Just my opinion.

MC
Maybe just your opinion, but the more I re-read, the more I would say that you are seeing it all completely accurately and factually! And I think you also raise an interesting thought that hasn't often been mentioned in forums I have seen, namely 'consensual.' For underage girls that is of course irrelevant as to guilt, but from the few sections I just finished rereading and my general memory, it certainly sounds accurate for describing the playing around that she and Humbert engaged in while living under the one roof, including maybe even the episode on the couch. I think it quite likely that her situations went all the way from consensual on the one hand. to imprisonment on the other hand, with all stages in between, including non-consensual, during the course of the entire story. She sure did see a lot of grief and unhappiness for such a young girl.

However, I really do like your clear-sighted view of the book. And I think your description of the ways in which the book was different from your expectations, and went beyond them, are also well thought out and well founded. You are right on target, whatever terms one might use to describe the book.
Sincerely.
Peder

 

[StillILearn]

... a high-spirited girl who was pushing the bounds of her space and testing the limits of parental control rather earlier than children generally do as part of growing up. And along the way I can imagine she might have been having fun learning that new game called flirting. Is this a case, again, where Nabokov is taking behavior that would be more normal for a teenager and pushing it down a few years onto a pre-teen, where it seems totally outrageous? I'll really have to check the book when I can see it again, but in the meantime I'll be glad to hear objections.

Lolita turned out to be a fairly sturdy young woman. She may not have been a completly innocent child (she did fool around with that boy at camp), and she enthusiastically "pushed the boundaries" of the adults around her - but after having been abandoned to the tender mercies of (I should say in the clutches of) those warped and demented geniuses, HH and Q, she appeared to have managed to survive with her sense of self still fairly intact, don't you agree?

I called the twelve year-old Lolita a brat, and she was, but what else might one expect from a child who had Charlotte for a mother?

I wonder if Lolita might not have turned out to be a more sensible and less vulnerable (and pathetic) version of Charlotte if she had lived. After all, Charlotte was only an ogre in HH's eyes. She may have suited her late husband right down to the ground.

 

[SFG75]

The consensual element is a very debatable one. The couch scene is one where he is just beside himself, while she obviously doesn't "get" what she's doing to him. In real life, I don't believe that even the most precocious 12 year old would be that brazen and not have an idea as to what she is doing. At the same time, perhaps it was just a bit of fun wrestling to her and from the passage, Nabokov implies that she was just playing, not being amorous as H.H. obviously read the situation.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

The consensual element is a very debatable one. The couch scene is one where he is just beside himself, while she obviously doesn't "get" what she's doing to him. In real life, I don't believe that even the most precocious 12 year old would be that brazen and not have an idea as to what she is doing. At the same time, perhaps it was just a bit of fun wrestling to her and from the passage, Nabokov implies that she was just playing, not being amorous as H.H. obviously read the situation.

In that instance it may not be clear weither or not she "got" what they were doing, but I think that there were other moments in the book where she did understand what she was doing. She knew the effect that her sexuality had on men after the incident at the camp, and used this very sexuality as a ploy to get money and presents from H.H. It's mentioned on a few instances where she refuses to give H.H what he wants unless he takes her to the movies or some such thing, and so I think that Lolita knew entirely what she was doing and the effect that she had on H.H.

 

[Peder]

Lolita turned out to be a fairly sturdy young woman. She may not have been a completly innocent child (she did fool around with that boy at camp), and she enthusiastically "pushed the boundaries" of the adults around her - but after having been abandoned to the tender mercies of (I should say in the clutches of) those warped and demented geniuses, HH and Q, she appeared to have managed to survive with her sense of self still fairly intact, don't you agree?

I called the twelve year-old Lolita a brat, and she was, but what else might one expect from a child who had Charlotte for a mother?

I wonder if Lolita might not have turned out to be a more sensible and less vulnerable (and pathetic) version of Charlotte if she had lived. After all, Charlotte was only an ogre in HH's eyes. She may have suited her late husband right down to the ground.

StillILearn,
Now that I have reached the scenes in my rereading were Lolita storms away from the table, and even 'accidentally' bounces a wayward tennis ball toward Charlotte (!), after being interrupted in her snuggling with HH, yes, I have to revise my estimate to agree with you. She was also a brat!
And I had also forgotten about her learning experiences at camp, so I also have to start thinking of her as less innocent.
So your observations, and the others that I now see posted here, refresh memories I had forgotten and clearly suggest that I had better get on with my rereading and catch up with you all, before crawling out on too many more limbs!

But, yes, a pretty sturdy young girl after all she had been subjected to. No doubt. She didn't end up 'in sin' for example.

And the thought of a longer term relation, or more like an 'encounter' between charlotte and HH, that your comment hints at, never ever crossed my mind and is almost impossible for me to imagine! Going to have to work hard to imagine what the situation might have been if they all grew up together and Lolita left home in the normal course of affairs (no pun perhaps!).

The book is certainly one collection of aborted futures, isn't it? Out of which only Lolita manages to salvage something, and even that only briefly. A very sad book, with pathetic people in so many ways, that Lolita stands as almost a shining heroine in all that wreckage. Can that fit? I've never thought of her that way before.

The last we see of her, she is standing there trying to get on with a more normal life, one that might have a future. I guess that is why the final words of the book affect me so. In our imaginations she might finally have her only reward.

But more reading, more reading!
Peder

 

[Peder]

PS, A further thought on Lolita as heroine.
I've never really thought of the book as being about Lolita, despite its title. Humbert puts himself front and center -- after all, 'he' wrote the book -- and my attention has always been absorbed in his version of what was happening and trying to unravel that. But perhaps Humbert is only the dominant character while the book is 'about' Lolita. Duh, perhaps , or maybe just plain wrong.
But if so, that would definitely be one more Nabokovian twist in the novel.
Just musing,
But I like that girl
Peder

 

[SFG75]

In that instance it may not be clear weither or not she "got" what they were doing, but I think that there were other moments in the book where she did understand what she was doing. She knew the effect that her sexuality had on men after the incident at the camp, and used this very sexuality as a ploy to get money and presents from H.H. It's mentioned on a few instances where she refuses to give H.H what he wants unless he takes her to the movies or some such thing, and so I think that Lolita knew entirely what she was doing and the effect that she had on H.H.

Her actions show a personality that is very split IMHO. I just read a scene where at Beardsley, she states that she is feeling somewhat romantic and wants H.H. to carry her upstairs to their room. Contrast that with H.H. talking with the school staff about Lo's lack of desire for dating or being social.

 

[StillILearn]

My youngest g'daughter being twelve years old right now, I am surrounded by twelve year-old girls. These kids are just beginning to 'get it' when it comes to their own sexuality, never mind the sexuality of (ick) old people. And these are modern day girls, not fifties girls.

Did Nabovov ever mention Lolita's menstrual periods? Did Lolita's menarche even play a role in the book? Think of the fun Nabokov could have had with the word. It sounds like a wonderful name for a butterfly!

 

[Peder]

Humbert, the Novel

Hi all,
I've just finished Part I in my reread, so I am not nearly well-enough informed yet to rejoin the wonderful further discussions now going on. There are so many things I have forgotten, about which I wish I could refresh my memory instantly; but rereading it will have to be. However Lolita sure sounds like a fabulous book from what I read here!

I may also be too groggy to attempt posting anything complicated right now, but I'm going to try anyway, to get an idea off my mind that has come to me dimly through my grogginess.

You must surely have noticed by now that I have a soft spot for Lolita! And that I have been trying to figure out how to unwrap her from Humbert's view of her, in order to see what she was 'really' like.

It occurs to me, at least conceptually, that a creative writer could put together a novel, or at least a novella, which was told by Lolita, in the first person, as a child living in Ramsdale with her mother Charlotte Haze, which had this guy Humbert coming into and out of her life story. Just as Lolita itself is a story told by Humbert in the first person with this girl Lolita coming into and out of his life story.

The events for Humbert, The Novel, would of course be only the events involving Lolita taken from Lolita the Novel, but told with her knowledge and from her point of view and with her (plausible) inner thoughts; seeing Humbert and his overt actions toward her only from the outside, without any knowledge of his previous life or his leering inner obsession. Of course a certain amount of her life would have to be filled in for continuity and interest, but not necessarily (he says) that much as to distort a plausible picture. Different authors would of course see the story differently, but I would be interested in seeing the result(s) anyeay. They would make interesting reading as a companion piece to Lolita (clearly he dreams, now!). Maybe there might even be a thread down in Creative Writing right here on TBF.

Whether or not anyone might actually write such a story, it finally strikes me as an appropriate framework for trying to sort out what sort of girl Lolita was. We get way too much of Humbert, and not enough of Lolita IMO, and from time to time I try to redress that imbalance in my own mind by careful sorting out of the text. And I'll continue to try to do that here. But I now can also dream of what an insightful author might do with Humbert, the Novel.

Sorry for the interruption,
I'll go back to sleep now and get sensible again
CU later
Peder

 

[Peder]

PS I suppose that might be called a pastiche, which sounds so ugly for such a young girl, and it would face formidable copyright issues. But it is still a nice dream, I think.
P.

 

[pontalba]

peder
Something like that has been, not with Lolita, but with Jane Eyre. I can't remember the authors name (female), but the title is The Wide Sargasso Sea. It purports to be the story of the 'first' Mrs. Rochester. It seems to have been quite successful with readers, although I did not care for it, and frankly could not finish it (at the time). Maybe later.

Some in this thread have remarked that Lolita may have, given the chance, turned out to be another Charlotte. Of course its possible, but to my eyes Lolita was more (successfully) manipulative than Charlotte. But in the end was loyal to her husband and I suspect would have been a much more caring mother to her child than Charlotte was capable of being. I put a great deal of blame on Charlotte for what happened. She was no innocent, she'd flirted her way around and was not stupid where men were concerned. Although look at the huge blind spot where HH was concerned!! Oh well, she was at the least a selfish and inattentive mother. I mean really! bringing a strange man into her home with a girl child of Lo's tender age. What an idiot.

 

[Peder]

peder
Something like that has been done, not with Lolita, but with Jane Eyre. I can't remember the authors name (female), but the title is The Wide Sargasso Sea. It purports to be the story of the 'first' Mrs. Rochester. It seems to have been quite successful with readers, although I did not care for it, and frankly could not finish it (at the time). Maybe later.

pontalba,
That's amazing! I have read Jane Eyre, a long time ago, and have heard of The Wide Sargasso Sea, but I never imagined they were connected! Sometimes it's a small world, but sometimes it is a very big one! And sometimes I get two books added to my read list at once! Many thanks, I am sure! But yes, many thanks.

Thinking further about my recent posts, with respect to Lolita, I guess that my nagging unhappiness comes down to the imbalance between the protrayals of HH and Lolita.

In a love story, we get rounded and detailed characterizations of both parties. In Lolita, written in the first person, we get Humbert's side of the story and only as much of Lolita as he saw, even ignoring his perverted vision. So following that line of thought, Lolita is more like a one-person story, namely a biography, where we get the major and detailed portrayal of the subject of the biography, with (probably) lesser descriptions of others as they appear in the overall story. From this perspective, then, Lolita is unfortunately the biography of a pedophile, with only incidental coverage of Lolita, his victim. And when I read such a story my sympathies are automatically with the victim, not with the perpetrator! So now I think I am finally getting to understand why I really wish we would hear more about Lolita and (much) less about Humbert, and why I spend so much time trying to figure her out and not him.

I'm still thinking about how to put together their three-way triangle, but one of the glaring things that stands out is how oblivious Charlotte was. Exactly as you say! Not only did she allow Humbert into her home. But when Lolita was flirting with Humbert, once, all that Charlotte said to Humbert was something like "If she gets in the way of your work, just swat her away" As if she, Charlotte, didn't quite really see what was going on. At the least I thought she might have said "Lolita! Stop that!" For all the good that would have done, I know, but still it was Lolita she should have admonished for her behavior (if we accept Humbert's fevered view of her behavior).

Many thanks for your suggestions(s)
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Not only oblivious, but perhaps there is some jealousy as well? Hah! She treated the child as unimportant until she found HH's journal and found that Lo was the one he desired. Only then did she show any real emotion towards her child. And that was to banish her. Effectively seperating HH from his obsession.

 

[Peder]

Not only oblivious, but perhaps there is some jealousy as well? Hah! She treated the child as unimportant until she found HH's journal and found that Lo was the one he desired. Only then did she show any real emotion towards her child. And that was to banish her. Effectively seperating HH from his obsession.

Pontalba,That is something that was much less noticeable to me when I first read the book, but which is just so noticeable on rereading -- that Big Haze is after HH as well as Little Haze, right from the git go. And the line after HH hears that Charlotte is planning some other use for Lo's room, and asks but where will Lo stay, just cracks me up. Charlotte says super sweetly, "Oh, but Little Lo doesn't come into it," because she is going straight away to school after summer vacation. Little Lo, doesn't come into it! Hah! Not as far as HH is concerned is that so, but I guess VN hadn't heard the espression "In a pig's eye!" otherwise, pardon the slang, that is where he would have used it. The funny thing is that neither of the Haze women noticed the other's competing interest, as far as I recall. I thought women would have had keen antennas for picking such things up. At least in fiction, he hastens to add. /but running fast nevertheless/

Peder

 

[pontalba]

Pontalba,That is something that was much less noticeable to me when I first read the book, but which is just so noticeable on rereading -- that Big Haze is after HH as well as Little Haze, right from the git go.

Yes, on p 37 when HH first arrives, and swears to himself that "there is no question of my settling there."

HH describes Charlotte in such mundane terms; "She was, obviously, one of those women whose polished words may reflect a book club or bridge club, or any other deadly conventionality, but never her soul; women who are completely devoid of humor;....................indifferent at heart...................but very particular about the rules of such conversations,........I was perfectly aware that if by any wild chance I became her lodger, she would methodically proceed to do in regard to me what taking a lodger probably meant to her all along, and I would again be enmeshed in one of those tedious affairs I knew so well."

Charlotte seems to use the same tone of voice to say "That was my Lo, and these are my lilies." Only possessions to her. Hrumph, she probably expended more energy cultivating the lilies!

 

[pontalba]

Her actions show a personality that is very split IMHO. I just read a scene where at Beardsley, she states that she is feeling somewhat romantic and wants H.H. to carry her upstairs to their room. Contrast that with H.H. talking with the school staff about Lo's lack of desire for dating or being social.

But shortly before that they'd had a huge fight and she'd run off.........and used the telephone. She said she was calling HH at home......not true. The romantic scene was a manipulation which will become clear later. She also said she hated the play, also not true. (p.207)

Lolita was probably a manipulative person to begin with, but HH forced her to become more so. Ah, the adaptability of youth.

 

[Peder]

Charlotte seems to use the same tone of voice to say "That was my Lo, and these are my lilies." Only possessions to her. Hrumph, she probably expended more energy cultivating the lilies!

pontalba
Oh, does she ever use the same tone of voice!
And Shelley Winters caught it perfectly! She was magnificent as Charlotte, an overwhelming force of life who could fill a room and dominate anyone in it with her forceful personality. Big Shelley defines Big Haze perfectly for me! Simply unforgettable!
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Peder Yup, agreed, although Melanie Griffith (sp?) was good, but Shelley Winters was more on the squarish build, and soooo superficially repressed along with it.

 

[SFG75]

Not only oblivious, but perhaps there is some jealousy as well? Hah! She treated the child as unimportant until she found HH's journal and found that Lo was the one he desired. Only then did she show any real emotion towards her child. And that was to banish her. Effectively seperating HH from his obsession.

Even the emotion she showed, was probably more about her than it was about Lo. Certainly she must have felt that her *worthless* daughter upstaged her during the brief time of anger that she had shortly before the accident. In regards to the "banishing," I had to chuckle whenever H.H. tried to dodge the mother while trying to be near his sweet Lo. Reading of his pained efforts to get out of going shopping with the mother, and his ultimate relief as Lo came as well, really highlighted that point for me. Not to mention that in that scene, Lo sneaked her hand into H.H.'s. To me, that was the first overt move towards him on her part. As the jury, we must remember H.H.'s pleading that if you yell "she started it!" you are excused of any sudden inability to control yourself. It was quite telling how lacking H.H. was in terms of remorse for what happened to the mother.