Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[beer good]

222 pages.

Spoiler

Man, that school mistress is a creep too. I like this. Sets it apart a bit from being "just" a story about a paedophile (not that it ever was JUST that, but bringing in a bit of extra social commentary never hurts).

 

[abecedarian]

222 pages.

Spoiler

Man, that school mistress is a creep too. I like this. Sets it apart a bit from being "just" a story about a paedophile (not that it ever was JUST that, but bringing in a bit of extra social commentary never hurts).

I really must find a copy of Lolita of my own..I'd forgotten about the school mistress! I'd dismissed her as just a side character..

 

[beer good]

I really must find a copy of Lolita of my own..I'd forgotten about the school mistress! I'd dismissed her as just a side character..

She is, but she's almost as slimy as Humbert himself - though her motives, obviously, are different, she seems to echo distortedly a lot of the things Humbert says of Lolita.

Spoiler

"Sighs a good deal in class. Chews gum vehemently. Does not bite her nails though if she did, this would conform better to her general pattern--scientifically speaking, of course.(...) Handles books gracefully. Voice pleasant. Giggles rather often. A little dreamy. Has private jokes of her own, transposing for instance the first letters of some of her teachers names. Hair light and dark brown, lustrous--well [laughing] you are aware of that, I suppose. Nose unobstructed, feet high-arched..."

Both Humbert and Ms Pratt are conforming Lolita - and their image of Lolita - to what they feel she should be; one to be his precious nymphet, the other to be a "normal" girl interested in "Dramatics, Dance, Debating and Dating". Both are objectifying her.

And "Handles books gracefully" is one of the most hideous sentences I've ever heard.

 

[abecedarian]

She is, but she's almost as slimy as Humbert himself - though her motives, obviously, are different, she seems to echo distortedly a lot of the things Humbert says of Lolita.

Spoiler

"Sighs a good deal in class. Chews gum vehemently. Does not bite her nails though if she did, this would conform better to her general pattern--scientifically speaking, of course.(...) Handles books gracefully. Voice pleasant. Giggles rather often. A little dreamy. Has private jokes of her own, transposing for instance the first letters of some of her teachers names. Hair light and dark brown, lustrous--well [laughing] you are aware of that, I suppose. Nose unobstructed, feet high-arched..."

Both Humbert and Ms Pratt are conforming Lolita - and their image of Lolita - to what they feel she should be; one to be his precious nymphet, the other to be a "normal" girl interested in "Dramatics, Dance, Debating and Dating". Both are objectifying her.

And "Handles books gracefully" is one of the most hideous sentences I've ever heard.

Why did HH choose such a creepy school for Lo? I know Nabakov was making social commentary about American schools of the day..but zikes!

 

[StillILearn]

You deserve your vey own copy of the Annotated Lolita, abc. You really do.

 

[abecedarian]

You deserve your vey own copy of the Annotated Lolita, abc. You really do.

Thank you, thank you Still

 

[beer good]

p. 235:

Spoiler

HH has been dropping hints of Poe all along (Annabel Lee, the numerous references to Poe also marrying a very young girl) and now he refers to Lo as "Lenore" just a couple of pages after realizing that she is growing up and thus becoming of less interest to him. NOT a good sign, I imagine.

 

[abecedarian]

p. 235:

Spoiler

HH has been dropping hints of Poe all along (Annabel Lee, the numerous references to Poe also marrying a very young girl) and now he refers to Lo as "Lenore" just a couple of pages after realizing that she is growing up and thus becoming of less interest to him. NOT a good sign, I imagine.

The phrase from "Lenore" that I remember most is when Poe repeatedly calls her his "lost Lenore." For HH, this might be a reckognition that he's already lost Lo.

 

[beer good]

^^ Oh, absolutely. After all, "The Raven" is about the horror of realizing not only that someone is lost to you, but that she is lost forever - to return "Nevermore".

P. 288:

Spoiler

"This book is about Lolita" - no it isn't. Humbert, you liar, you never even knew Lolita. Never cared to.

Yep, about 70 pages to go. Will try to finish tonight.

 

[StillILearn]

I feel secure in the knowledge that you all are not letting His Evilness slip anything past you. When's the hanging?

 

[abecedarian]

I feel secure in the knowledge that you all are not letting His Evilness slip anything past you. When's the hanging?

Hey, I was a Camp Fire Girl, not a Boy Scout! They never taught us how to make those kind of knots

 

[beer good]

OK, I'm done.

(There'll be more on that after I gather my thoughts a bit more.)

 

[Peder]

Christine Clegg - Guide to Lolita Literary Criticism

In this Lolita thread we have discussed a wide variety of ways to look at the principal characters and to respond to the story of Lolita. Christine Clegg in her book Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita - A reader's guide to essential criticism shows that literary criticism of the work has also had an evolving set of attitudes toward how to regard it. Following are excerpts from her Table Of Contents chapter summaries.

The Introduction outlines the publishing history of Lolita between 1955 when it first appeared in Paris, and 1959 when it was finally published in England.....

Chapter 1 (the '50s) examines the influential first reviews by Lionel Trilling, Fred Dupree and Howard Nemerov, which quickly establish the reputation of Lolita and safeguard its status as a canonical American text.....

Chapter 2 (the '60s) considers major readings from the period in which critical approaches are primarily focused on the formal, the aesthetic, and the literary qualities of the novel, but different interpretations are emerging....

Chapter 3 (the '70s) discusses the strength of Lolita's reputation as a modern literary classic, and the move towards a comparative approach to the text in outstanding readings of the period [including] Alfred Appel Jr's widely influential Introduction to The Annotated Lolita,....

Chapter 4 (the '80s) explores the significant shift that takes place...as new and challenging interpretations make their presence felt: Ellen Pifer's influential re-examination of the question of ethics in relation to H.H.'s crimes against Lolita; Richard Rorty's philosophical inquiry into the idea of cruelty in the novel; Linda Kaufman's sustained feminist analysis of the sexual politics of the novel and its critical context.

Chapter 5 (the '90s) examines key critical interpretations of Lolita...: Michael Wood's extensive discussion of the plausibility and persuasiveness of H.H's narrative; Rachel Bowlby's compelling analysis of the languages of literature and consumer culture in the text; David Rampton's nuanced account of the irresolvable questions of reading Lolita.

Perhaps some of these names or themes will ring a bell with the members of this forum. Clegg's book looks like an excellent guide for catching up with what informed opinion has been saying about the novel since its publication fifty years ago.

Peder

 

[pontalba]

In this Lolita thread we have discussed a wide variety of ways to look at the principal characters and to respond to the story of Lolita. Christine Clegg in her book Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita - A reader's guide to essential criticism shows that literary criticism of the work has also had an evolving set of attitudes toward how to regard it. Following are excerpts from her Table Of Contents chapter summaries.

Perhaps some of these names or themes will ring a bell with the members of this forum. Clegg's book looks like an excellent guide for catching up with what informed opinion has been saying about the novel since its publication fifty years ago.

Peder

Between the Clegg and Trilling......!
Having read the balance of Trilling's essay on Lolita, it appears that he contributed quite a bit to the success of the book in the long run.
Now for Ms. Clegg.....I can see I have to look that one over pronto!

 

[Peder]

Between the Clegg and Trilling......!
Having read the balance of Trilling's essay on Lolita, it appears that he contributed quite a bit to the success of the book in the long run.
Now for Ms. Clegg.....I can see I have to look that one over pronto!

Pontalba,
Yes, as Clegg indicates there was quite a battle early on to have the book regarded as literature rather than pornography, and the arguments swirled about such questions as 'What is literature," "What is pornography," "What is art" and finally "What is this book?" With those questions finally settled for Lolita, and the book safely ensconced in the canon of American literature, then literary criticism was freer to look at other aspects of the work. In addition, literary theory evolved with time so that other areas came in as legitimate areas for critical evaluation, such as feminist perspectives or, for example in the case of Edward Said's book on Orientalism discussed elsewhere, colonialism and its racist subjugation of peoples.
In a quick glance, which I cannot reproduce now, I believe that Clegg observed succinctly that the discussion about Lolita is not yet over. However, the following puts it much more elegantly (p13):

It is self-evident that all texts are subject to further interpretations and new readings. In this sense the response to Lolita, like the response to any other canonical text, is also a charting of the history of developments in literary criticism; from the rigid formalisms of American New Criticism; to the broader humanist concerns of New York Intellectuals, to the influence of psychoanalysis, feminism, semiotics and deconstructive criticism. If there are defining moments in the critical histories of canonical texts, there can be no definitive readings. In this light, Lolita moves into a new century as an exemplary text in debates about the literary representation of sexual acts and desires, the politics of literary criticism, and the ethics of reading.

"....the ethics of reading." There's a mind-bender, for example!

This is definitely a book for anyone wishing a broader and more sophisticated perspective on the issues raised by Lolita, beyond its enjoyment or dislike as a novel.

Peder

 

[kuroc]

Isn't Lolita about a grown man in love with a little girl?

 

[Peder]

Between the Clegg and Trilling......!
Having read the balance of Trilling's essay on Lolita, it appears that he contributed quite a bit to the success of the book in the long run.
Now for Ms. Clegg.....I can see I have to look that one over pronto!

Pontalba,
Yes, as Clegg indicates there was quite a battle early on to have the book regarded as literature rather than pornography, and the arguments swirled about such questions as 'What is literature," "What is pornography," "What is art" and finally "What is this book?" With those questions finally settled for Lolita, and the book safely ensconced in the canon of American literature, then literary criticism was freer to look at other aspects of the work. In addition, literary theory evolved with time so that other areas came in as legitimate areas for critical evaluation, such as feminist perspectives or, for example in the case of Edward Said's book on Orientalism discussed elsewhere, colonialism and its racist subjugation of peoples.
In a quick glance, which I cannot reproduce now, I believe that Clegg observed succinctly that the discussion about Lolita is not yet over. However, the following puts it much more elegantly (p13):

It is self-evident that all texts are subject to further interpretations and new readings. In this sense the response to Lolita, like the response to any other canonical text, is also a charting of the history of developments in literary criticism; from the rigid formalisms of American New Criticism; to the broader humanist concerns of New York Intellectuals, to the influence of psychoanalysis, feminism, semiotics and deconstructive criticism. If there are defining moments in the critical histories of canonical texts, there can be no definitive readings. In this light, Lolita moves into a new century as an exemplary text in debates about the literary representation of sexual acts and desires, the politics of literary criticism, and the ethics of reading.

"....the ethics of reading." There's a mind-bender, for example!

This is definitely a book for anyone wishing a broader and more sophisticated perspective on the issues raised by Lolita, beyond its enjoyment or dislike as a novel.

Peder

 

[Peder]

Between the Clegg and Trilling......!
Having read the balance of Trilling's essay on Lolita, it appears that he contributed quite a bit to the success of the book in the long run.
Now for Ms. Clegg.....I can see I have to look that one over pronto!

Pontalba,
Yes, as Clegg indicates there was quite a battle early on to have the book regarded as literature rather than pornography, and the arguments swirled about such questions as 'What is literature," "What is pornography," "What is art" and finally "What is this book?" With those questions finally settled for Lolita, and the book safely ensconced in the canon of American literature, then literary criticism was freer to look at other aspects of the work. In addition, literary theory evolved with time so that other areas came in as legitimate areas for critical evaluation, such as feminist perspectives or, for example in the case of Edward Said's book on Orientalism discussed elsewhere, colonialism and its racist subjugation of peoples.
In a quick glance, which I cannot reproduce now, I believe that Clegg observed succinctly that the discussion about Lolita is not yet over. However, the following puts it much more elegantly (p13):

It is self-evident that all texts are subject to further interpretations and new readings. In this sense the response to Lolita, like the response to any other canonical text, is also a charting of the history of developments in literary criticism; from the rigid formalisms of American New Criticism; to the broader humanist concerns of New York Intellectuals, to the influence of psychoanalysis, feminism, semiotics and deconstructive criticism. If there are defining moments in the critical histories of canonical texts, there can be no definitive readings. In this light, Lolita moves into a new century as an exemplary text in debates about the literary representation of sexual acts and desires, the politics of literary criticism, and the ethics of reading.

"....the ethics of reading." There's a mind-bender, for example!

This is definitely a book for anyone wishing a broader and more sophisticated perspective on the issues raised by Lolita, beyond its enjoyment or dislike as a novel.

Peder

 

[Peder]

Between the Clegg and Trilling......!
Having read the balance of Trilling's essay on Lolita, it appears that he contributed quite a bit to the success of the book in the long run.
Now for Ms. Clegg.....I can see I have to look that one over pronto!

Pontalba,
Yes, as Clegg indicates there was quite a battle early on to have the book regarded as literature rather than pornography, and the arguments swirled about such questions as 'What is literature," "What is pornography," "What is art" and finally "What is this book?" With those questions finally settled for Lolita, and the book safely ensconced in the canon of American literature, then literary criticism was freer to look at other aspects of the work. In addition, literary theory evolved with time so that other areas came in as legitimate areas for critical evaluation, such as feminist perspectives or, for example in the case of Edward Said's book on Orientalism discussed elsewhere, colonialism and its racist subjugation of peoples.
In a quick glance, which I cannot reproduce now, I believe that Clegg observed succinctly that the discussion about Lolita is not yet over. However, the following puts it much more elegantly (p13):

It is self-evident that all texts are subject to further interpretations and new readings. In this sense the response to Lolita, like the response to any other canonical text, is also a charting of the history of developments in literary criticism; from the rigid formalisms of American New Criticism; to the broader humanist concerns of New York Intellectuals, to the influence of psychoanalysis, feminism, semiotics and deconstructive criticism. If there are defining moments in the critical histories of canonical texts, there can be no definitive readings. In this light, Lolita moves into a new century as an exemplary text in debates about the literary representation of sexual acts and desires, the politics of literary criticism, and the ethics of reading.

"....the ethics of reading." There's a mind-bender, for example!

This is definitely a book for anyone wishing a broader and more sophisticated perspective on the issues raised by Lolita, beyond its enjoyment or dislike as a novel.

Peder

 

[Peder]

Between the Clegg and Trilling......!
Having read the balance of Trilling's essay on Lolita, it appears that he contributed quite a bit to the success of the book in the long run.
Now for Ms. Clegg.....I can see I have to look that one over pronto!

Pontalba,
Yes, as Clegg indicates there was quite a battle early on to have the book regarded as literature rather than pornography, and the arguments swirled about such questions as 'What is literature," "What is pornography," "What is art" and finally "What is this book?" With those questions finally settled for Lolita, and the book safely ensconced in the canon of American literature, then literary criticism was freer to look at other aspects of the work. In addition, literary theory evolved with time so that other areas came in as legitimate areas for critical evaluation, such as feminist perspectives or, for example in the case of Edward Said's book on Orientalism discussed elsewhere, colonialism and its racist subjugation of peoples.
In a quick glance, which I cannot reproduce now, I believe that Clegg observed succinctly that the discussion about Lolita is not yet over. However, the following puts it much more elegantly (p13):

It is self-evident that all texts are subject to further interpretations and new readings. In this sense the response to Lolita, like the response to any other canonical text, is also a charting of the history of developments in literary criticism; from the rigid formalisms of American New Criticism; to the broader humanist concerns of New York Intellectuals, to the influence of psychoanalysis, feminism, semiotics and deconstructive criticism. If there are defining moments in the critical histories of canonical texts, there can be no definitive readings. In this light, Lolita moves into a new century as an exemplary text in debates about the literary representation of sexual acts and desires, the politics of literary criticism, and the ethics of reading.

"....the ethics of reading." There's a mind-bender, for example!

This is definitely a book for anyone wishing a broader and more sophisticated perspective on the issues raised by Lolita, beyond its enjoyment or dislike as a novel.

Peder