Vladimir Nabokov: The Enchanter

[SFG75]

In a way it comes back to the Nature vs. Nuture theme. But humans can only work with what we have. If Humbert didn't have the fundamental "underpinnings" imbedded when he was a child, and didn't have a strong enough sense of self or simply mental or emotional strength........well, anything could result. And did.

I did a little research and found something that might be interesting. Evidently there is a differentiation between a pedophile and a child molester. Not to take the topic into the morbidity of the world, I feel that the link is a good one for the discussion as discussing Humbert/Arthur's past is relevant as to who they were and what they did in the book. VN dwells on Humbert's failed relationships in the past, but not so much with Arthur. Then again, we must remember that perhaps the lack of detail was do to the fact that the story didn't "grow" into Lolita until much later.

From the bolded part below, it sounds as if Arthur/Humbert are *situational* offenders. Opinions?

Molesters engage in sex with children for a variety of reasons and sometimes these reasons have little to do with sexual desires. This type of offender, called a situational child molester, does not possess a genuine sexual preference for children. Rather, the motivational factors are criminal in nature. In some cases, the offender’s sexual abuse of young people is a natural outgrowth of other forms of abuse in his life. That abuse is a continuation of a process by which he has mistreated his friends, colleagues, spouse and family members. He will have low self-esteem, maintain poor moral standards and view sex with children as an opportunity to prolong the violence that is already an active component of his existence. Other situational offenders see children as a substitute for an adult partner. Although these types of offenders do not harbor a singular sexual desire for children, they may react to a built up sexual impulse or anger, that to them, is irresistible. However, the victim is incidental. It could have been a store clerk, an elderly person or simply a woman walking down a lonely street. Because of the circumstances at hand, such as the Polly Klass incident, the victim happened to be a child. His main criteria for a victim is availability. The situational child molester will usually have few victims, sometimes only one, and never repeat the event again. He could be a social misfit or a psychopathic personality who harbors a seething resentment and hostility toward society in general.

The second classification of sexual offender is defined as a preferential child molester. These offenders have a sexual preference for children and usually maintain these desires throughout their lives. Preferential child molesters can have an astounding number of victims and these crimes can remain undiscovered for many years. In 1995, a child molestation case in Texas caused a national uproar when the suspect was due to be released from prison after serving a six-year sentence for the rape of a 6year-old boy. He told the police that he got away with abusing over 240 children before getting caught for molesting a single child and if released, would do it again(4). One long-term study of hundreds of sex offenders found that the pedophile child molester committed an average of 281 acts with 150 partners. These types of offenders wreak havoc upon society far out of proportion to their numbers.

Linky

 

[pontalba]

SFG
I am not sure that Humbert fits into any of the classifications. On one of those pages you linked, one headed "Pedophilies" it mentioned something about the usual targets were under 12 years old. Both Humbert and Arthur's targets were 12 years old. And the youngest mentioned in The Nursery Tale was 14.

Maybe Nabokov purposefully made the characteristics of his men ambigious so as not to fit any criteria? Arthur more closely fits, but Humbert is way out in left field IMO.

More thinking to be done. Good links SFG.

 

[Peder]

SFG,
No, I don't think that link is not too morbid, but rather that it is perfectly appropriate for the books under discussion. Nor is it sensational either which is even better. Perhaps if I watched more Court TV the information would have been more familiar to me but, following only the general media, I really have to say I have not heard any of it before. So I am very glad you posted it; it is an excellent example of an informative link.
However, I am still staggering about without coffee and am going to have to post a little later before I can even think about digesting it and answering your question.
Peder /bleary eyed with a cold/

 

[steffee]

Not to take the topic into the morbidity of the world, I feel that the link is a good one for the discussion as discussing Humbert/Arthur's past is relevant as to who they were and what they did in the book. VN dwells on Humbert's failed relationships in the past, but not so much with Arthur. Then again, we must remember that perhaps the lack of detail was do to the fact that the story didn't "grow" into Lolita until much later.

From the bolded part below, it sounds as if Arthur/Humbert are *situational* offenders. Opinions?

I would be inclined to agree.

He could be a social misfit or a psychopathic personality who harbors a seething resentment and hostility toward society in general.

That is HH to a tee, for all he may try to minimise this. He doesn't have many (or any?) friends, and he openly admits, and even, dare I say, boasts that he has fooled many people, including psychiatrists, as well as those closer to him, like Charlotte and even, his love, Lolita herself. He was very, very calculating, marrying Charlotte, travelling to pick Lolita up from her school, but not informing her of her mother's tragic death, and there are many more examples... right to the end, when he kills Quilty. Throughout the book he paints the picture that he is a reformed character by the end, yet his actions have the same predictability (intense scheming).

In all likelihood, he is resentful towards society. His first wife's tragic death, his parents, the fact that he is clearly far cleverer than his psychiatrists, the very people who are there to "cure" him, and throughout the book, you don't really see him have a "proper" conversation with anyone... Quilty he detests, Charlotte he detests (and mocks), even Lolita, when speaking to her he is not really conversing for the sake of just talking to one another, but has underlying motives in his encounters with everyone. It seems he really doesn't enjoy the company of other people, as people, even Lolita, who may purely be an obsession.

Arthur is slightly different. Nabokov doesn't give the impression that he is "psychopathic" or has a "hostility towards society in general", as much as he does with Humbert the Horrible, but as you say, maybe that's because the story was, at that time, undeveloped.

Saying that, HH didn't just choose one young girl to "molest", but had numerous prior encounters with them, though if I'm not mistaken, they were all slightly older than Lolita?

As it happens I am studying infant to adult attachment as we speak, it's all becoming clearer

 

[StillILearn]

You guys are simply amazing. I must say that this entire thread has been a continuing education to me (on so many different levels), and is showing no sign of threatening to flag.

Thank you, thank, you, thank you!

 

[SFG75]

You guys are simply amazing. I must say that this entire thread has been a continuing education to me (on so many different levels), and is showing no sign of threatening to flag.

Thank you, thank, you, thank you!

That's the beauty of this forum and the great members we have. While general chat is good for b.s.'ing and getting to know folks, it's a breath of fresh air to have threads like these where you can get into in-depth conversations and occassional debates about books. All too often, threads are like "yeah, I read it, I liked it" and never progress beyond that point. We also have to give credit to Nabokov, whose works go beyond the surface.

 

[Peder]

I would be inclined to agree.



That is HH to a tee, for all he may try to minimise this. He doesn't have many (or any?) friends, and he openly admits, and even, dare I say, boasts that he has fooled many people, including psychiatrists, as well as those closer to him, like Charlotte and even, his love, Lolita herself. He was very, very calculating, marrying Charlotte, travelling to pick Lolita up from her school, but not informing her of her mother's tragic death, and there are many more examples... right to the end, when he kills Quilty. Throughout the book he paints the picture that he is a reformed character by the end, yet his actions have the same predictability (intense scheming).

In all likelihood, he is resentful towards society. His first wife's tragic death, his parents, the fact that he is clearly far cleverer than his psychiatrists, the very people who are there to "cure" him, and throughout the book, you don't really see him have a "proper" conversation with anyone... Quilty he detests, Charlotte he detests (and mocks), even Lolita, when speaking to her he is not really conversing for the sake of just talking to one another, but has underlying motives in his encounters with everyone. It seems he really doesn't enjoy the company of other people, as people, even Lolita, who may purely be an obsession.

Arthur is slightly different. Nabokov doesn't give the impression that he is "psychopathic" or has a "hostility towards society in general", as much as he does with Humbert the Horrible, but as you say, maybe that's because the story was, at that time, undeveloped.

Saying that, HH didn't just choose one young girl to "molest", but had numerous prior encounters with them, though if I'm not mistaken, they were all slightly older than Lolita?

As it happens I am studying infant to adult attachment as we speak, it's all becoming clearer

Steffee,
Allow me to slip in my admiration for one amzingly insightful post that cuts through Humbert's preening presentation of himself to the likely realities of his unsavory personality. One of the comments in Pifer's Casebook was that, by VN choosing to cast Lolita as a confession, Humbert occupies center stage throughout and gets to tell the story his way and present himself his way (European gentleman, etc). The further comment is that VN nevertheless allows us intermittently to see through the cracks in that facade to the contradictions beneath (e.g. Lolita crying every night because of his 'mistreatment,' to use a mild word for his continually raping her). You have completely ripped though his facade to present a Humbert such as we have never seen him -- not in the book, nor in the two movies -- and I think VN would have said "right on!"
Peder

 

[SFG75]

Not to get too technical about it, but psychologists do differentiate between pedophiles(who pursue children) and ebophiles(who pursue teens) I believe H.H. had a comment in Lolita about the teenage years where the hips widen and weight gain occurs. The language used to describe it caused me to think that he found teens revolting and somewhat *ruined* by the onset of hormones and aging. Freud believed that the ages of 8-12 were the latency stage of development, where the body somewhat rests and the passions have not yet influenced the body's growth and development. For more on that, click hereto see Freud's psycho-sexual stages of development. This sounds like the stage that H.H. had an eye for. Once again, we know little of Arthur other than the fact that he had re-occuring thoughts of eyeing the young 'uns. I'm not certain what type of 'phile he is, but a situational one he most definitely is!. The girl was what.....13? Perhaps he was a latency-situational-pedophile?

 

[Peder]

SFG,
No, I don't think that link is not too morbid,

Correction
I can see I was bleary-eyed!

I hope everyone took that sentence to mean what I intended, namely

No, I don't think that link is too morbid

or else perhaps the super-ultra-negated

No I don't not think that link is not too morbid

But you get the drift, I hope

It was a great link, and now to think about it.

Peder

 

[steffee]

You guys are simply amazing. I must say that this entire thread has been a continuing education to me (on so many different levels), and is showing no sign of threatening to flag.

Hear, hear. Great posts, on here and on the more (in)famous Lolita thread

That's the beauty of this forum and the great members we have. While general chat is good for b.s.'ing and getting to know folks, it's a breath of fresh air to have threads like these where you can get into in-depth conversations and occassional debates about books. All too often, threads are like "yeah, I read it, I liked it" and never progress beyond that point. We also have to give credit to Nabokov, whose works go beyond the surface.

Agreed, some books you read and all you really can say is "I read it, I liked it", Nabokov gives you some food for thought. And of course, you can't discuss a book with yourself (well, I dunno... maybe HH or Arthur, or even Nabokov might give it a good try), so it's fantastic that there are so many like-minded people here.

One of the comments in Pifer's Casebook was that, by VN choosing to cast Lolita as a confession, Humbert occupies center stage throughout and gets to tell the story his way and present himself his way (European gentleman, etc). The further comment is that VN nevertheless allows us intermittently to see through the cracks in that facade to the contradictions beneath (e.g. Lolita crying every night because of his 'mistreatment,' to use a mild word for his continually raping her).

That's kind of what I meant, with my long and rambling post, LOL... which is why I would definitely consider a (well-written) Lolita-version of Lolita... maybe Nabokov actually wrote one, and it hasn't as yet been discovered! I doubt it but imagine the thought

You have completely ripped though his facade to present a Humbert such as we have never seen him -- not in the book, nor in the two movies

The first film, the Kubrick one, really opened my eyes. He portrayed HH as much more controlling that I had pictured him, like those scenes where Lolita wants to participate in the school play, and he's not too happy, and then the day they have a huge row and a neighbour calls round. He seemed desperate, and rather pathetically obsessed there, much more so than in the book, where I thought HH acted rather cool, and at least showed some sensitivity towards Lolita.

Just how many more sides can one person have to them?!

 

[pontalba]

Well Guys, it is morning, and I see I have a whole raft of posts to read thru, and have done so but not slowly. However, Steffee I have to say that the way you present your case regarding Humbert.......excllent! Well Put! You actually made me see thru the sort of emotional haze (really, no pun was intended! LOL) to the Real Humbert. And I will have to reverse my opinion for the larger part. At least 90%. I do hate to admit when I am wrong, but when presented with such evidence as SFG has, and interpreted by Steffee, I have to throw up my arms and surrender!!

And yes, it is wonderful to participate in such thread as this one and the Lolita thread. The brain storming and give and take of real opinions is refreshing to the Nth Degree!

Applause....

 

[SFG75]

Well Guys, it is morning, and I see I have a whole raft of posts to read thru, and have done so but not slowly.

That can be quite daunting. I don't know how many times I got home from work or managed to get on the computer and found that I was two or even three pages behind. We're going to need to put a keystroke limiter on some folks here.

 

[Peder]

Not to get too technical about it, but psychologists do differentiate between pedophiles(who pursue children) and ebophiles(who pursue teens) I believe H.H. had a comment in Lolita about the teenage years where the hips widen and weight gain occurs. The language used to describe it caused me to think that he found teens revolting and somewhat *ruined* by the onset of hormones and aging. Freud believed that the ages of 8-12 were the latency stage of development, where the body somewhat rests and the passions have not yet influenced the body's growth and development. For more on that, click hereto see Freud's psycho-sexual stages of development. This sounds like the stage that H.H. had an eye for. Once again, we know little of Arthur other than the fact that he had re-occuring thoughts of eyeing the young 'uns. I'm not certain what type of 'phile he is, but a situational one he most definitely is!. The girl was what.....13? Perhaps he was a latency-situational-pedophile?

SFG,
I'm still scratching my head feverishly, especially now that there are two excellent links to consider. Where were these when I had to write papers in college? There's no justice!
Common to both men seems to be a long term interest in young girls, but a full (adult) appearance of that iinterest only in an opportunistic situation. Those are the two features I would have identified before reading either link, and now I see they sort of cross categories.
I wouldn't really have associated the anti-social or criminal urges of a situational pedophile with either man, but Steffee's post now certainly sounds convincing to me for Humbert.
Arthur was titilated by young girls, but was moved to action only in the one case, so he sounds more clearly like "situational," and maybe there was a resentment at the world for never allowing him to have his fantasy. In his final words he referred to the "no-longer-needed, already-looked-at, idiotic world."
In both men, I had the impression that it was just at the end of the latency period that they got interested, just when the 'bud' was beginning to show signs of maturing further -- from a quote I vaguely remember. Arthur speaks of the daughter's still "narrow but already not-quite flat chest." Humbert describes Anabel as "pre-adolescent." Neither sounded interested in girls who were already developed teens, but I think Humbert gave them two-years of interest (generous he!) in that earliest transition to teenhood.
In any event I think it is the continuous antisocial/criminal attitude/behavior that was not so prominent for me, until Steffee's post.

Without regard to categories, I originally thought that VN simply presented a romanticized notion of pedophilia, namely men with typical sexual urges that were simply focused on the wrong age group. Your links show it is more complicated than that, and Steffee's post shows clearly that Humbert is more complicated than that. Live and learn, and you are right: these are excellent threads for wide-ranging serious discussions, not least because of your links.

Now to read those links more carefully and then try to figure out some labels. :eek

Peder

 

[Peder]

That's kind of what I meant, with my long and rambling post, LOL... which is why I would definitely consider a (well-written) Lolita-version of Lolita... maybe Nabokov actually wrote one, and it hasn't as yet been discovered! I doubt it but imagine the thought

The first film, the Kubrick one, really opened my eyes. He portrayed HH as much more controlling that I had pictured him, like those scenes where Lolita wants to participate in the school play, and he's not too happy, and then the day they have a huge row and a neighbour calls round. He seemed desperate, and rather pathetically obsessed there, much more so than in the book, where I thought HH acted rather cool, and at least showed some sensitivity towards Lolita.

Just how many more sides can one person have to them?!

Steffee,
Please don't minimze the quality of your post. Casebook only said there were cracks one could see through. You showed magnificently what one could see through those cracks, and what VN intended to be seen. And, along with Pontalba, I am going to have to look much more cynically at Humbert and revise downward a large part of what I thought about him. And just maybe the Kubrick movie is a good place to start!

A Lolita-view from VN? Never heard of such a thing, and wonder if he even considered it. Maybe it was as simple as feeling much more comfortable writing men? But that would really have been something, we can dream!

Anyway please continue your marvelous posts. No one here is going to complain I am sure (key-strokes or not! )

Peder

 

[steffee]

Without regard to categories, I originally thought that VN simply presented a romanticized notion of pedophilia, namely men with typical sexual urges that were simply focused on the wrong age group.

I had thought that too, at first. I found a site somewhere when I first read Lolita, about "sexual addiction". It was quite informative, and although it referred to "pedophiles", that is young children, rather than teenagers or almost-teenagers, it explained just how they come to actually "mistreat" (to use your example of a mild term for it) their "victim". in the first place, as opposed to having the temptation but being able to control it. I can't recall whether this was "situational" or "preferential", if any, but I'm under the impression that "preferential" pedophiles don't ever see their wrongdoing... and that, coupled with "an average of 281 acts with 150 partners" (from SFG's quote^^) is definitely not HH or Arthur.

But the site on "sexual addiction" referred to "pedophiles" who try very hard to control the "urges" but fail to, and usually admit their wrongdoing immediately, and show remorse immediately, (although fear of being punished may prevent that in some instances) and generally have normal lives, normal interactions and relationships etc, can show affection appropriately or whatever... So, I dunno, is that HH or Arthur?

But the term, or the disorder, if it is a recognised disorder at this moment, is relatively new... Lolita was published in 1955? And The Enchanter was written way before that, in 1939? How could Nabokov really have been that far ahead of the rest of the world?

 

[SFG75]

But the term, or the disorder, if it is a recognised disorder at this moment, is relatively new... Lolita was published in 1955? And The Enchanter was written way before that, in 1939? How could Nabokov really have been that far ahead of the rest of the world?

Freud wrote most of his material in the late 1800s and early 1900s. There are plenty of sources that document VN's dislike for Freud and that he intentionally wrote in the psychological element in Lolita. By the 50's, psychoanalysis was all the rage in America, at least in the academic world. You don't see any mentioning of psychology in The Enchanter, mostly due to the fact that before WWII, psychoanalysis was a somewhat esoteric subject in America.

 

[pontalba]

Steffee wrote-But the term, or the disorder, if it is a recognised disorder at this moment, is relatively new... Lolita was published in 1955? And The Enchanter was written way before that, in 1939? How could Nabokov really have been that far ahead of the rest of the world?

Nabokov was an observer of Man. He was interested in what made people tick and investigated. I doubt that he was that far ahead of the rest of the world, simply ahead of publication of same.

And as far as actor portrayal of Humbert in the films, I think we must separate ourselves from those as far as analysis is concerned. Thats mostly how I fell into the trap of sympathizing too much with Humbert. The book alone is Nabokov's vision of HH. Its hard to remember that.

 

[pontalba]

Freud wrote most of his material in the late 1800s and early 1900s. There are plenty of sources that document VN's dislike for Freud and that he intentionally wrote in the psychological element in Lolita. By the 50's, psychoanalysis was all the rage in America, at least in the academic world. You don't see any mentioning of psychology in The Enchanter, mostly due to the fact that before WWII, psychoanalysis was a somewhat esoteric subject in America.

Well, thats true too, but how aware of that was Nabokov? He certainly didn't think too much of it did he..
I believe it was Peder that brought out the difference between European and American views on that subject earlier in one of the theads. I believe Europeans thought it was bunk, and Americans lapped up up like heavy cream.

 

[Peder]

Europeans thought it was bunk, and Americans lapped up up like heavy cream.

Pontalba,
Erm, ..Europeans actually used a much nastier four-letter word (five in German)
Peder
The Stickler for Accuracy

 

[pontalba]

ROTFALOLTIC! Just like a German to use more letters.....

And I can say that safely, being a goodly portion German myself!