Vladimir Nabokov: The Enchanter

[Peder]

PS re the lady in black

Please ammend my comment to say that there was no conversation related to bereavement that might have caused the woman in mourning to leave the park bench. Unless it was the mere mention that the governess was not the girl's mother, so maybe that could prompt the thought that the girl didn't have a mother, and so on.
But I still think that pure symbolism has it for an explanation,
And it is a pretty stark and powerful symbol,
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Please ammend my comment to say that there was no conversation related to bereavement that might have caused the woman in mourning to leave the park bench. Unless it was the mere mention that the governess was not the girl's mother, so maybe that could prompt the thought that the girl didn't have a mother, and so on.
But I still think that pure symbolism has it for an explanation,
And it is a pretty stark and powerful symbol,
Peder

On page 10 the conversation right before the woman ran off was as thus:

"your daughter," he remarked senselessly, "is a big girl already." "Oh, no--we're not related," said the knitter. "I don't have any of my own, and don't regret it."
The old woman in mourning broke into sobs and left. The knitter looked after her and continued working.......

IMO the "old" woman (how old is old?) was upset because she'd lost either a daughter or granddaughter, and the idea of the knitter not being sorry she'd had children (or grandchildren) was so upsetting to her that she had to flee the scene. Or some variation on that theme. But
sfg's theory could be another layer.....certainly could be.

Now as for you Peder....the butterfly analogy is perfect. Now re-reading the bit where he claims that "he is no ravisher" does sound a great deal like the backpedaling and denial that Humbert suffered from. So I suppose the characters are closer than I thought. But still, Arthur never admits what he is. Never (had the chance really) showed any remorse that I could see. And there is more of a cold almost impersonal quality about Arthur.

Your remark about bringing the Old World attitude regarding Freud to New York makes perfect sense. I ascribe to that theory.

 

[pontalba]

Actually, upon closer examination, in a way it seems as though Nabokov simply brought out and stressed different sides of the same character, yes? Arthur died before he could show proper remorse, and HH had the chance of a long drawn out illness with plenty of warnings thereof to come to terms with what he was.

Same character with different possibilities. Humbert evidently had the "cold qualities" of Arthur, but more chance to compensate.

Parallel Universe Humberts?

 

[Peder]

Same character with different possibilities. Humbert evidently had the "cold qualities" of Arthur, but more chance to compensate.

Parallel Universe Humberts?

Pontalba,
Going to have to think about that. Arthur just suffering the luck of the draw and having no time to reflect? And Humbert in his Annabel days being quite a bit like Arthur? Well .... Even if Humbert's interactions were not always of, shall we say, the 'highest' quality he did get out and around much more than the really solitary Arthur it would seem. At that point, though, I think Arthur may stand 'better' for being able to keep his urges contained. Really not too much to choose between them when it comes to their dark sides. It was mainly that Humbert had an 'other' side, more articulate, maybe more genial, maybe more contrite. But what sort of confession would Arthur have written in prison? One trying to con the reader. And what was Humbert doing? Maybe exactly the same thing. hmmm. Have to reread Pifer's casebook more closely on that one, because the first author suggests that, at the end, VN allows us to see a true Humbert.

It takes a wiser man than I to penetrate those levels, is the safest conclusion I can draw, I think.

Peder

 

[pontalba]

I'm just throwing out ideas at this point. At first glance, there are few similarities, aside from the peversion section of their lives. But both of them stalked, at varying degrees, but were given very different objects of desire to pursue. While the TE girl could have morphed into Lo, the odds are not too high IMO, as it was her automatic reaction to scream bloody murder. Lo's reaction was Hey, thats Fun, how about this?! Vastly different. And I suspect strongly ingrained different.

Thats why I said parallel universe Humberts. In the parrallel universe theory, the same people run into certain events or people and according to who they encounter react and are reacted to. But the outcomes can be quite different. If that makes any sense at all! I know exactly what I mean, but find it difficult to get it over on paper.

I think the main difference in the novels is the girl. Everything else hinges on her personality doesn't it?

 

[pontalba]

StillILearn Hellooo out there! I'm still not finished Vera yet, but have read the ending some......not many books make me cry. This one did. The ashes being mingled just bonked me right in the head! At some points I have found my attention wandering, and then something will grab me and pull me right back into the lives of this wonderful couple. Couple in the truest sense and meaning of the word possible. I cannot recommend this bio strongly enough!

 

[Peder]

I know exactly what I mean, but find it difficult to get it over on paper.

I think the main difference in the novels is the girl. Everything else hinges on her personality doesn't it?

Pontalba,
I follow you on parallel universes. And the two men do start out quite similar. And they do run into different kinds of girls. And it is different from there on out. Can't knock that view, that far, at all.
It is the different reactions of Arthur and Humbert afterwards that stand out to me. But suppose Lo had called the police. What would Humbert have done in such a dire situation? And what if the daughter had been as compliant as Lo? How would Arthur have reacted? Certainly not as he did.

So maybe parallel universes work quite well, with the major forking point being just the kinds of girls that the two men run into. That would really distill it down. So, pedophile marries mother to get at girl, finds she is naughty, versus, pedophile marries mother to get at girl, finds she is nice.

There's a lot else in the books that one can think about, but it seems to me that framework will be hard to upset. What did you put in your tea this morning anyway? You are really cookin'!

Peder

 

[pontalba]

LOL, you remember how HH quaked in his boots when Lo threatened to do just that? (call the police). Thats when he started coming up with the reformatory stuff. Now if she' (LO) had started screaming at the hotel.....wow!

When you originally posted the question about both of their reactions to nymphets while sitting on a park bench, I pictured the both of them on the same bench at the same time.........Oy!

 

[Peder]

When you originally posted the question about both of their reactions to nymphets while sitting on a park bench, I pictured the both of them on the same bench at the same time.........Oy!

Pontalba,
No Oy! That was exactly what I had in mind! But then I didn't see that there should be any difference whether they were on the same bench or not, so that the individual scenes from the two books should give the same answer, when put together, for them sitting on the same park bench.
I wasn't trying to be deliberately obscure, just the usual amount.
Peder

 

[pontalba]

I wasn't trying to be deliberately obscure, just the usual amount.
Peder

Oh! Well as long as thats the case......... rotalol...

Can't you just see it, two 40ish year old pervs sittin' on a bench..........d-r-o-o-l-i-n-g............

Thats all both of them were supposed to be! 38-40 years old!

 

[StillILearn]

StillILearn Couple in the truest sense and meaning of the word possible. I cannot recommend this bio strongly enough!

See? To you they were a wonderful couple!

Spoiler: I began to think of them as being amazingly insular, incredibly arrogant, insufferably egocentric (not that they didn't both have the right to be incredibly proud of what they created, accomplished and produced) narrow-minded, supercilious and pompous, just to name a few. Spoiler.

I did very much enjoy Schiff's writing.

And, to be fair, I'm certain they would both have considered me and all of my opinions to be beneath their comtempt on every level imaginable.

Nabokov was certifiably a genius in every sense of the word; an everlasting gift to the world of literature. I just didn't like him very much after reading Schiff's book.

 

[pontalba]

Is that really and finally how you came to think of them??

That simply blows me away.

I suppose they are/were the type of couple/people that so strongly affect the way people think of them, it goes to either end of the spectrum. No Inbetween. To me they were the ultimate love story realized.

 

[pontalba]

SIL

I keep thinking of the look on his face when Vera dashed across the street in Paris to see that car she was interested in, he turned absolutely green with fear........for her........

 

[StillILearn]

SIL

I keep thinking of the look on his face when Vera dashed across the street in Paris to see that car she was interested in, he turned absolutely green with fear........for her........

I thought that he had become pathetically dependent upon her by that time. They were beginning to remind me of Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson.

 

[StillILearn]

Is that really and finally how you came to think of them??

That simply blows me away.

I suppose they are/were the type of couple/people that so strongly affect the way people think of them, it goes to either end of the spectrum. No Inbetween. To me they were the ultimate love story realized.

You suthren gals are just hopeless romantics, that's all. We Californian women are as cynical as they come.

 

[pontalba]

SIL I don't think cynical, romantic, or geographical location have anything to do with it. I still think as I said previously:

I suppose they are/were the type of couple/people that so strongly affect the way people think of them, it goes to either end of the spectrum. No Inbetween. To me they were the ultimate love story realized.

And I don't mean it in a "romantic slosh" sort of way. When I say ultimate "love story" I mean two people that moved in tandum with each other and supported each other all the way. And they managed to do it without excluding their child, which is a high compliment to them. Maybe instead of 'ultimate love story' I should have said a true marriage. In any marriage there is some certain amount of sacrifice on both parts. Its always uneven as well. She was able to give more, but she received what she needed as well.

Its so much more than "love". And before you mention the affairs in the beginning of the marriage, they both got past that too. If they could get past that, who am I to say they were wrong? From everything I have read about them, I admire the both of them. And I don't give that easily or often.

 

[pontalba]

And thats not to say they were not snobs to the nth degree. They were. But they were honest about it. Look how kind they were to that girl that stayed and stayed when they were in Paris.....gently trying to move her on. Kindness is not a common commodity.

OK, now I'll remove myself from the soapbox.

 

[StillILearn]

SIL I don't think cynical, romantic, or geographical location have anything to do with it. I still think as I said previously:


And I don't mean it in a "romantic slosh" sort of way. When I say ultimate "love story" I mean two people that moved in tandum with each other and supported each other all the way. And they managed to do it without excluding their child, which is a high compliment to them. Maybe instead of 'ultimate love story' I should have said a true marriage. In any marriage there is some certain amount of sacrifice on both parts. Its always uneven as well. She was able to give more, but she received what she needed as well.

Its so much more than "love". And before you mention the affairs in the beginning of the marriage, they both got past that too. If they could get past that, who am I to say they were wrong? From everything I have read about them, I admire the both of them. And I don't give that easily or often.

Well, you know me; I'm likely to start yelling "Lynch 'em' at any given moment, and then to change my mind later.

 

[Peder]

Well, StillILearn,
I'm very sorry to hear that you came to feel that way about them. It's a book I tend to recommend unreservedly, as you know, so now I see that I shall have to be more careful about that. And I am glad that you explained the breadth and depth of your feelings; I originally thought it was his womanizing alone that put you off. To me the book sounded like an admirable love story and the marriage of a truly devoted couple, and she truly sounded like an extraordinary woman to me. But you have already heard that from Pontalba so I won't belabor the point. I'll just leave it at that. I am even more sorry that it has meant we don't see so much of you around here any more. That is a big loss because I always looked forward to your posts and I still hope that we will hear from you from time to time.
Yours most sincerely,
And thanks for the happy times,
Peder

PS If you think it is un-PC of me to recommend such a book, or think of it as I do, I would sincerely appreciate hearing your honest views on that also. It is certainly from a different era.
P

 

[pontalba]

Well, you know me; I'm likely to start yelling "Lynch 'em' at any given moment, and then to change my mind later.

Thats right! You were the one that wanted to lynch poor little ole Humbert! I'd rather lynch Arthur personally.