Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[pontalba]

Peder
Yes, you are not hallucinating.....they do (as far as I can see) contradict each other. I think in the end, we have to take Humbert's 'confession' seriously, but believe that he has not exorcised his guilt. Because really how can he? He cannot leave the guilt he feel behind. So, if thats wrong, well then I believe wrong.......

 

[StillILearn]

The reader sees Humbert move beyond his obsessional passion to a not altogether straightforward declarraation of genuine love (pp. 277-278) and finally to a realiization of the loss suffered not by him but by Lolita (pp.307-308). It is expressed on the next to the last page in a long and eloquent passage that, for the first time in the novel, is in no way undercut by parody or qualified by irony. Midway through this "last mirage of wonder and hopelessness" the reader is invoked again, because Humbert's moral apotheosis, so uniquely straightforward, constitutes the end game and Nabokov's final trompe-l'oeil. If the reader has long since decided there is no moral reality in the novel, and in his sophisticated way has accepted that, he may well miss this unexpected move in the farthest corner of the chessboard and lose the game after all. It is the last time the reader will be addressed directly, for the game is about over, as is the novel.

Omigosh. This gave me gooseflesh. No. I must have skimmed over this because it was simply too much to contemplate.

 

[Peder]

Peder
Yes, you are not hallucinating.....they do (as far as I can see) contradict each other. I think in the end, we have to take Humbert's 'confession' seriously, but believe that he has not exorcised his guilt. Because really how can he? He cannot leave the guilt he feel behind. So, if thats wrong, well then I believe wrong.......

OK Pontalba!
Ya got me there!
I have nothiing but the greatest respect and admiration for a person who can answer a riddle with a riddle.
I am going to have to sleep on that all night AND have coffee in the morning before my brain cells are up to sorting it out.
But, honestly, I never thought of your question before.
Meanwhile I'll think simpler things.
But I'm glad you are getting a kick out of the Introduction!
Guess I'll reread that before I read more of Grisham.
Peder

 

[pontalba]

I'll p.m. ya some chicory, that'll get the brain cells revolving! LOL!

Certainly mo bettah than Grisham!

 

[Peder]

I'll p.m. ya some chicory, that'll get the brain cells revolving! LOL!

Certainly mo bettah than Grisham!

Well yes, Pontalba,
Right again!
I was going to be using Grisham to sort of deaden them a bit.
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Ah! I had it backwards.... whoops!

 

[Peder]

Ah! I had it backwards.... whoops!

Pontalba,
Naw, I see that in my semi-conscious state here I was being contradictory. Grisham would deaden my brain cells, true, but they are alreay not alive enough to figure out your answer, although I'm making progress over this cup of decaf right here. Therefore one ounce of chicory would help!
Peder

 

[pontalba]

OK Pontalba!
Ya got me there!
I have nothiing but the greatest respect and admiration for a person who can answer a riddle with a riddle.

I'm not deliberately obscure, just comes naturally.

De-caf!! Thats the problem. That stuff'll kill ya!

 

[Peder]

I'm not deliberately obscure, just comes naturally.

De-caf!! Thats the problem. That stuff'll kill ya!

Pontalba
I can see I'm going to have to call in sick to both these threads; I'm just not up to handling ideas yet . But I have a vague recollection of having heard that thought about obscurity before.
Can't quite place it.
CU all after coffee,
Don't want to give anyone a cold here,
Peder

 

[steffee]

Pontalba
CU all after coffee,
Don't want to give anyone a cold here,

Aww, do get well again very quickly! Hope the coffee does the trick.

 

[Peder]

Aww, do get well again very quickly! Hope the coffee does the trick.

Steffee,
Many thanks for the well wishes!
I have had the coffee and am beginning to feel more human. Also beginning to make progress, I think, on creeping up to an answer for the two seemingly contradictory paragaraphs in the Introduction, about "losing the game" in Lolita.. Pontalba's clue is beginning to look like the answer (as usual ). Then it will be onto SFG's post and his question about how the definitions fit against our protagonists.
See? I can say that much, so it means I am improving!
Now for the hard part -- the actual responses.
Glad you are thnking of me,
It all helps,
Peder

 

[Peder]

Peder
Yes, you are not hallucinating.....they do (as far as I can see) contradict each other. I think in the end, we have to take Humbert's 'confession' seriously, but believe that he has not exorcised his guilt. Because really how can he? He cannot leave the guilt he feel behind. So, if thats wrong, well then I believe wrong.......

Pontalba,
No, I don't believe that you are wrong at all, especially in your beliefs, but neither in Appel's sense of 'losing' the game.

In fact, I think you have provided the exact key to the puzzle, that you are exactly right, and therefore that you have 'won' the game, not lost it.

The key is your insight that Humbert finally realizes his guilt but does not thereby rid himself of it, or shirk it.

And if I may I'll take that step by step.
On p.xxi

If one believes that Humbert's confession is "sincere" and that he exorcises his guilt....then one has lost the game.

With particular note of the word 'exorcises,' I take that to mean pretty clearly that one cannot win the game if one believes that Humbert has rid himself of his guilt, even if his confession is sincere as far as it goes.

On p. lxiv

If the reader has long since decided that there is no "moral reality" in the novel ... he may miss the final move at the corner of the board ... and lose the game after all.

So, writing off the novel as having no moral foundation, and being comfortable with that, definitely loses the game also. From which on concludes that the author intends the story to have a moral reality.

On p. lxiv, it would seem that "final move" and the "moral reality" appear when

The reader sees Humbert move ... to a realization of the loss suffered by Lolita ... in no way undercut by parody or qualified by irony.

Without parody or irony, Humbert's realization is therefore clearly and accurately as stated, namely, that he realizes the loss he has brought to Lolita. It also seems fair to say, without any indication there that he feels relieved of his guilt, that it stays with him and reconciles him to the underlying justness of his impending punishment.

So I think that you are exactly right on all counts, and that you have clearly seen your way to understanding the author's intention and to winning the game.

Sorry if that all sounds belabored, but the only way I can really understand something is by explaining it to myself. However, I also hope it agrees with your way of of seeing the story. So any comments are very welcome.

And I sincerely appreciate your help in unraveling a greater understanding of Appel's and the author's viewpoints for me.

Peder

 

[StillILearn]

Had I come before myself, I would have given Humbert at least thirty-five years for rape, and dismissed the rest of the charges.

Endgame?





.......................

 

[pontalba]

Peder I may have "known", but I didn't analyze and articulate the reasoning behind how I knew. You did. Exceedingly Well I might add.

SIL I think someone, maybe you? posted that link before. It is interesting. I like this quote especially...

In a sense Lolita is too great for its own good. It rushes up on the reader like a recreational drug more powerful than any yet discovered or devised. In common with its narrator, it is both irresistible and unforgivable. And yet it all works out.

Amis is interesting. This is exactly how the book affects one.

 

[Peder]

Endgame?

Still,
I had seen that article before and I thought Amis had simply collected up a bunch of isolated cruelty statements to simply put together a cruelty picture.
Now, with Steffee's post over on the other thread, I see much more relevance to Amis's collection.
At least for Humbert they are now totally imaginable as part of the man,
Brrrrrrrr,
Peder

 

[steffee]

Fantastic link, Still

I'm "promoting the Everyman's Library edition of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita" with this post, as it's a requirement of copying parts of Amis' article.

Marvellous quotes...

It is kind in the sense that your enemy's enemy is your friend, no matter how daunting his aspect.

And whatever it is that is wrong with Humbert, not even his short-lived mother--'(picnic, lightening)'--would claim that her son was playing with a full deck. (Actually his personal pack may comprise the full fifty-two, but it is crammed with jokers and wild cards, pipless deuces, three-eyed queens.)

I don't think I agree with this bit...

Quilty's death is not tragic. Nor is Humbert's fate. Nor is Lolita [the book]. But Lolita [the character] is tragic, in her compacted span.

I think Lolita, the book, has to be "tragic".

And this?

However cruel Humbert is to Lolita, Nabokov is crueller to Humbert--finessingly cruel.

 

[StillILearn]

Amis certainly does have a way with words:

... this three-hundred-page blue streak ...

I can hardly imagine a more concise (or accurate) description of Lolita, the book.

 

[Peder]

Fantastic link, Still
Marvellous quotes...


I think Lolita, the book, has to be "tragic".

Steffee,
Peder the Cynic here says that he thinks that people who are good with words sometimes let their words run away with them.
Was VN finessingly cruel to Humbert? I'm not even sure what that means. Was VN crueller to Humbert, with any adjective, than Humbert was to Lolita. I doubt that, until I am shown reasons for believing so. 'Abusing' her every night and then dragging her off by the neck to abuse her some more in the morning before he could settle down to enjoy breakfast is pretty cruel in my mind.

Is the book tragic? I hate to sound like a President, but it depends on what one means by tragedy. There is the classical definiton that I learned, namely the story of a noble and respected man of high honor suffering and brought down by a tragic flaw of his own, and the Greeks wrote many classic tragedies around that definition. Lolita is so far from a standard story, however, that the classical definition probably has a hard time fitting. Humbert was not a noble man of high honor, much less was Quilty. And Lolita, though she has an untimely end, was not presented as a girl of high or admirable standards early on. So her death doesn't quite seem to fit that definition of tragedy either, unfortunately.

So a very sad story yes, a classic tragedy not really. A tragedy in a more modern looser sense maybe, in that the hero(ine) suffers and dies innocently for reasons beyond her control. A good google link might clear this up /hint, hint to our master linker /

Peder,
Cynic at Large

 

[steffee]

Was VN finessingly cruel to Humbert? I'm not even sure what that means. Was VN crueller to Humbert, with any adjective, than Humbert was to Lolita. I doubt that, until I am shown reasons for believing so.

Me neither... I don't know about Nabokov being more cruel to Humbert the Horrible, than HH was to Lolita, but true or not, it's a fantastic statement for new pondering

Is the book tragic? I hate to sound like a President, but it depends on what one means by tragedy. There is the classical definiton that I learned, namely the story of a noble and respected man of high honor suffering and brought down by a tragic flaw of his own, and the Greeks wrote many classic tragedies around that definition.

The tragic/tragedy stuff reminds me of Educating Rita, by Willy Russell. If you haven't seen the film or read the play then you must do so at once, it's fantastic, and so ideal for this discussion I'm gonna go searching for the bit I need... of course, it's English, too, and I believe has a lot of Shakespearen definition of "tragedy", rather than the ancient Greek definition. I dunno, here's where my memory of A level English Lit. fails me, maybe they're the same.

 

[pontalba]

But, OTOH.....in modern terms tragic 'merely' means "causing or characterized by extreme distress or sorrow /or/ suffering extreme distress or sorrow."

Oh Steffee I just saw your post....yes, I've seen the film Educating Rita. Enjoyed it tremendously. I'm not sure I'd call that tragic though, sad, frustrating, makes ya want to shake the husband by the neck, but tragic?

And Peder I agree with you that HH was far crueler to Lolita than VN was to HH. But also it seems to me that VN was an equal opportunity employer as far as cruelty to all the characters. Just like life.