Vladimir Nabokov: The Enchanter

[SFG75]

SFG,
Can a person be good wth children and still be a monster?
I see no reason to doubt the possbility, nor to take the opposite view, given the extreme variability in human behvior that is possible.
But I thought we were talking about VN. That someone else might be good with children and still be a monster, seems to me to have no relevance for the question you originally raised.
That a fictional character might be good with children and still be a monster has even less relevance IMO.
Peder

The relevance comes via Pontalba's post(#14) relating to Arthur speaking about being a good further, yet having these lustful tendencies. Reminded me of the old question posed to me in psych class-is there such a thing as a well-adjusted nazi?

 

[Peder]

SFG.
I'm dense. I still don't see the connection to VN.
Peder

 

[SFG75]

SFG.
I'm dense. I still don't see the connection to VN.
Peder

Sorry.... ...two different lines of thought there. One had to do with him, the other had to do with the contradictions of Arthur, hence the WWII analogy.

 

[Peder]

Sorry.... ...two different lines of thought there. One had to do with him, the other had to do with the contradictions of Arthur, hence the WWII analogy.

Then I can see that I am lost.
May I ask which one we are discusssing?
Peder

 

[SFG75]

Then I can see that I am lost.
May I ask which one we are discusssing?
Peder

Ahhhh, let's tackle the one about the seeming contradiction between Arthur the *warm and fuzzy* and Arthur the predator.

 

[Peder]

Ahhhh, let's tackle the one about the seeming contradiction between Arthur the *warm and fuzzy* and Arthur the predator.

SFG,
I was actually quite fascinated by Arthur. His thought process at the beginning of the book was very convoluted and not at all trivial. And I thought it was fascinating how he worked up a plan and moved steadily forward toward his goal. But I never saw a warm side to him. I saw him dealing with people more like a con-man, effectively but manipulatively and with a hidden agenda. And the inside of him said predator, predator, predator. So I saw him as painted black from one end of the book to the other.

As far as his claim that he was good with children, I saw that mainly as an unproven claim of his with no evidence in the story to back it up. In fact, I saw him stymied around children in the few scenes there were.

Peder

 

[SFG75]

From Arthur to Humbert; From widow to Big Haze

As far as his claim that he was good with children, I saw that mainly as an unproven claim of his with no evidence in the story to back it up. In fact, I saw him stymied around children in the few scenes there were.

Peder

In reading your response and looking in the book, I ran across a passage that had escaped my notice last night. It turns out that while the widow was a good woman, she had a tinge Big Haze parenting style.

...for the girl's presence only irritated the widow, who was exceptionally decent but had grown somewhat self-indulgent.

(page 16)

Hmmmmm, from a good parent in TE to a fully neurotic mother in Lolita? The mother's character at an earlier stage here evidently.

Arthur also "grows" into Humbert as the pathetic attempts to spy upon his prey takes an almost comical aura.

The day after, and the days that followed, he sat in thE same place, doing an amateurish but quite tolerable impitation of an eccentric loner: the usual hour, the usual place.

(page 15)


O.k., now getting back on track-you're right, there is little to no evidence that he interacted with other children well. All we have is his helping a classmate's sister with her math which almost knocked out, not to mention having his wrist grabbed and making his day.

 

[Peder]

All we have is his helping a classmate's sister with her math which almost knocked out, not to mention having his wrist grabbed and making his day.

SFG,
Indeed both Arthur and the grl got much rounder personalities in their trip from Enchanter to Lolita. Lolita definitely learned a thing or three!
I think the most telling scene(s) about Arthur were his long cups of tea with the mother, where he was amiable enough toward her that she never suspected anything amiss, while inside he was completely bored to tears. That's a good trick if you can do it, but it is the kind that the con-man brings off time after time in real life.

Peder

 

[SFG75]

One big difference between TE and Lolita is the lack of sarcasm towards psychology. No references at all in pages 1-30.

 

[pontalba]

SFG You mentioned the widow in TE being a sort of pale watered down version of Charlotte in Lolita. I agree to some extent, but you must remember that she was terminally ill. I suspect something like uterine or ovarian cancer, which especially in that time frame was practically untreatable except in the most barbaric of ways. She well knew she was dying. Thus her attitude, although I would have thought that a loving mother would cling all the more to her child instead of being so irritated by every move the child made. But everyone is different, so her attitude is somewhat understandable. Charlotte suffered no such illness. Her 'illness' was selfishness and insecurity. Period.

And Peder is quite right in saying that Arthur only talked the talk so to speak regarding his so called good rapport with children. There is no evidence that is the truth.
As far as Arthur morphing into Humbert. Thats quite a long trip, so long as to be a totally different critter IMO. Arthur is all cold calculation. Humbert is calculating to some extent, but everything HH does and thinks is colored with a warm real passion. He has a conscience, and struggles with it mightly. Even occasionally wins.

 

[Peder]

One big difference between TE and Lolita is the lack of sarcasm towards psychology. No references at all in pages 1-30.

Wow SFG!
Didn't realize that! That's a big difference!
I don't recall any in the remaining pages either, but will have to wait til tomorrow to check.
Boy, if that is so it strongly suggests an attitude he picked up when he got to the US! (Since Enchanter was written just as he was leaving Europe I seem to recall.) Hm , hm, hmm!

Good catch!
Peder

 

[SFG75]

You mentioned the widow in TE being a sort of pale watered down version of Charlotte in Lolita. I agree to some extent, but you must remember that she was terminally ill. I suspect something like uterine or ovarian cancer, which especially in that time frame was practically untreatable except in the most barbaric of ways. She well knew she was dying. Thus her attitude, although I would have thought that a loving mother would cling all the more to her child instead of being so irritated by every move the child made. But everyone is different, so her attitude is somewhat understandable. Charlotte suffered no such illness. Her 'illness' was selfishness and insecurity. Period.

Excellent point-I neglected to remember that key fact about her. I have to re-read the beginning again as the process of Arthur moving in seems to be so....smooth. A little haggling about furniture and it's done.

 

[pontalba]

Peder said--Boy, if that is so it strongly suggests an attitude he picked up when he got to the US! (Since Enchanter was written just as he was leaving Europe I seem to recall.) Hm , hm, hmm!

Thats right, remember he did the reading I think in Paris for a few friends.

SFG I didn't catch that either. I'll have to go back and look, but I don't remember any real remarking on anything like that. I wonder what set him off on Freud.

 

[pontalba]

SFG,
I was actually quite fascinated by Arthur. His thought process at the beginning of the book was very convoluted and not at all trivial. And I thought it was fascinating how he worked up a plan and moved steadily forward toward his goal. But I never saw a warm side to him. I saw him dealing with people more like a con-man, effectively but manipulatively and with a hidden agenda. And the inside of him said predator, predator, predator. So I saw him as painted black from one end of the book to the other.

As far as his claim that he was good with children, I saw that mainly as an unproven claim of his with no evidence in the story to back it up. In fact, I saw him stymied around children in the few scenes there were.

Peder

I think Arthur was far more like a spider stalking than HH ever thought about being. And 'con-man' is a very good comparison. The child the objective/prize, and the widow the mark.

 

[Peder]

SFG As far as Arthur morphing into Humbert. Thats quite a long trip, so long as to be a totally different critter IMO. Arthur is all cold calculation. Humbert is calculating to some extent, but everything HH does and thinks is colored with a warm real passion. He has a conscience, and struggles with it mightly. Even occasionally wins.

Pontalba,
Hi, welcome back!
Well, yes, a long trip but I would still call that part of becoming (much) more rounded, since they were still two guys with the same basic inclination. The trip from the girl to Lo was about as equally dramatic I would say. From a really normal quiet kid to an outward going uncontrolled extrovert, to say the least.
For conscience, didn't that come up mostly after she left him as the major feature in the last relatively few pages? I'm asking just because I don't remember the specifics that well. I remember the scene where he crawled up to her on all fours; and generally speaking he did take care of her welfare; and he continually tried to get her to read better literature than she did. tee hee; and he gave her gifts on her birthdays. And all the sodas were on him. But my memory just needs refreshing. Because I also recall that both of them thought they were going to get their pleasure unbeknownst to the girls. (Another striking similarity, and a particularly evil notion as far as I'm concerned.) And both thought they might bump off the mother to hasten things along.

But the fact that conscience came up at all for HH is yes indeed a very major difference between the men. And the stories. And the reader reactions to the stories.

I just had a wild thought of the two of them sitting on a park bench as a girl comes skating up. Any difference in reactions?

Baffled by my own question,
Time for sleep,
Peder

 

[pontalba]

I suppose you could call it a rounding out. But to me 'morphing' is perhaps more descriptive of the change between characters. There is the basic coldness and calculative aspects of Arthur that we've discussed, as opposed to HH's emotional outpourings. I don't think the former could change into the latter.

But with the transition from 'girl' to 'pre-teen or teenager', the progression of the girl in TE to Lo is more plausible. Probably.

As to the last question:

by Peder--I just had a wild thought of the two of them sitting on a park bench as a girl comes skating up. Any difference in reactions?

Wow! Maybe not right off the bat, but in (possible) follow up? Hmmmmm


And I think you are correct in that the 'conscience' mostly came after the fact. Although right after the Enchanted Hunter Hotel um, scene, HH sort of felt as though he'd entered the Twilight Zone............

'night all.......

 

[Peder]

I suppose you could call it a rounding out. But to me 'morphing' is perhaps more descriptive of the change between characters. There is the basic coldness and calculative aspects of Arthur that we've discussed, as opposed to HH's emotional outpourings. I don't think the former could change into the latter.

But with the transition from 'girl' to 'pre-teen or teenager', the progression of the girl in TE to Lo is more plausible. Probably.

As to the last question:

Wow! Maybe not right off the bat, but in (possible) follow up? Hmmmmm


And I think you are correct in that the 'conscience' mostly came after the fact. Although right after the Enchanted Hunter Hotel um, scene, HH sort of felt as though he'd entered the Twilight Zone............

'night all.......

Pontalba, SFG,
Well, now I am more or less awake again and I realize that I forgot completely that there are answers to my question in each of the books already. A little girl does skate up to each of them, and their reactions, or lack thereof, are recorded. It's one of the points of similarity we had been discussing. I must really have needed sleep to have forgotten that. I suppose I was thinking more of their later selves, but it really was an ill-posed sleepy-headed question.

As for that twilight zone, I think that is worth trying to find, but I never got that far into the book in my slow looking for any early traces of HH's remorse.

But Pontalba it is your opening remarks that intrigue me completely and I really really hope you don't take this the wrong way. As to whether cold can 'round out' into warm, that has a very familiar ring! And whether the one kind of girl can smoothly change ino the other kind, that also has a very familiar ring!

Our protagonist in the opening pages was wondering exactly the same sort of thing -- whether his "unique flame" was just a part of his supposed tenderness or was something totally different. Those three questions are all the same! And they are what made me see the hand of VN the butterfly collector in writing that part of TE, -- VN knowing what it was to try to decide whether a butterfly he had caught was different enough to be a new species, or was just a part of an existing one.

Exactly the kind of question anyone wrestles with in trying to decide whether "same" or "different" in many different contexts, even here. And that's why I thought the opening paragraphs of TE were so out of the ordinary in VN showing Arthur's mind actually at work! Even Arthur was trying to figure out "same" or "different" with his question. But for a much different purpose as he finally realizes and says. And that I would call a truly Nabokovian twist.

And now that was enough to wear me out
And make me want to climb back into bed,
CUL,
Peder

 

[SFG75]

Interesting musing Peder. Not only that, but what are we to make of the woman in mourning who leaves the park bench in tears? Perhaps a sign of what is to come?

 

[Peder]

Interesting musing Peder. Not only that, but what are we to make of the woman in mourning who leaves the park bench in tears? Perhaps a sign of what is to come?

SFG,
She is one of the most remarkable cameo appearnces of anyone in any the three Nabokov's that I have read. I skimmed by it and eventually thought that it must have been because the conversation had turned to the girl's mother being a widow and the sadness of the topic reminding her of her recent loss. But checking just now, I see there was no conversation. Nada, nil, zilch.

So, in terms of symbolism I think you hit the nail right on the head! I never came close to imagining any such thing but, now that you mention it, I can't even think of anything else more likely. She heard her phone ringing? j/k j/k
Pure symbol has to be it. Unless keen-eyed Pontalba can come up with something.

And while I am still thinking of it, let me get onto another post that you might also have a though about, since you seem to inhabit the psychology links.

Be right back,
Even without coffee,
Peder

 

[Peder]

SFG I didn't catch that either. I'll have to go back and look, but I don't remember any real remarking on anything like that. I wonder what set him off on Freud.

Pontalba, SFG,
I have only one very old and musty tidbit that I might contribute.
Once, long ago, on another planet, I remember reading that Freudian psychology never really caught on in Europe whereas in America it caught on like wildfire, especially in New York (among those who could afford to pay for it).
In Europe, again second-hand, Freud was not regarded as a repsectable Doctor because of the, shall we say, 'unwholesome' kinds of thoughts and images that he invoked in his interpretation of psychiatric abnomality. He was looked down upon more or less as a 'quack' doctor and his thoughts derided with mocking and often vulgar abuse among the medical fraternity.

In New York, on the other hand, it became almost fashionable (again among those with money, and better educated) to be able to have a psychiatrist to help with life's miseries.

So, to answer Pontalba's question, it may just be that the prevalence of Freudian thinking here in the US hit him square in the face when he reached these shores. And perhaps he also brought along a latent European view of it as well

Dunno more than that, and can't really even vouch for how acurate that is,
But he sure didn't like it!
Peder