• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Vladimir Nabokov: The Enchanter

Something else occurs to me. I suppose everyone else has computed this bit already, but here it is anyway. :p p.3
How can I come to terms with myself" he thought, when he did any thinking at all.
Click to expand...
italics mine.
So, introspection was not his gig was it. Isn't that one of the Main Differences between Arthur and Humbert? The difference that leads to all the other differences. If HH hadn't been so very introspective, he'd not have had such a guilty conscience. Not that his "conscience" did Lolita much good, but Arthur had NONE. So does introspection equal conscience? At least in this case it seems to IMO. Or at least leads to it (in HH's case).
Plus Arthur is totally in denial, as seen on the very next page:
Nonsense---I'm no ravisher.
Click to expand...
And yet he can say the following:
--and strangest of all, perhaps, is that, under the pretext of discussing something remarkable, I am merely seeking justification for my guilt.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm :confused: or even :eek:
 
pontalba said:
Something else occurs to me. I suppose everyone else has computed this bit already, but here it is anyway. :p p.3 italics mine.
So, introspection was not his gig was it. Isn't that one of the Main Differences between Arthur and Humbert? The difference that leads to all the other differences. If HH hadn't been so very introspective, he'd not have had such a guilty conscience. Not that his "conscience" did Lolita much good, but Arthur had NONE. So does introspection equal conscience? At least in this case it seems to IMO. Or at least leads to it (in HH's case).
Plus Arthur is totally in denial, as seen on the very next page: And yet he can say the following:

Hmmmmm :confused: or even :eek:
Click to expand...
Pontalba,
Arthur does seem to be the ultimate self-centered person, always calculating his own interest. And you are right, he wan't very good at introspection, when he rejected perhaps the most obviously true thing(s) about himself that could be said (although he hadn't yet turned into an actual ravisher). That's Denial with a capital D.

And conscience for Humbert? Maybe, but remember the project to find early evidences of remorse, (still in abeyance)? It is not as if he showed conscience so much in writing his confession. Least of all in his flat-out claim that she seduced him. Only at the very end, but I suppose better late than never(?) -- and in his case it was very very late, after all the damage had been done.

So, I'm not sure I would call either book very big on conscience, except Lolita by a narrow margin.

Maybe I'm just feeling grouchy, :(
Peder
 
One piece of evidence in favor of Humbert possessing a conscience is the fact that he attempted to possess her without her knowledge. Even after Charlotte's death, he still planned it that way. If he'd had no conscience at all it would have been different.

Circumstantial Evidence, but still.................:confused: Or am I just hoping for a conscience?

Of course the whole thing was inexcusable, but maybe the above counts a teeny bit.
 
pontalba said:
One piece of evidence in favor of Humbert possessing a conscience is the fact that he attempted to possess her without her knowledge. Even after Charlotte's death, he still planned it that way. If he'd had no conscience at all it would have been different.

Circumstantial Evidence, but still.................:confused: Or am I just hoping for a conscience?

Of course the whole thing was inexcusable, but maybe the above counts a teeny bit.
Click to expand...
Pontalba,
I wish it might and I am glad for any bit of conscience that can be found in Humbert, so in that I am on your side.
But posessing her without her knowledge always struck me as one of the more immoral concepts in the book. But now that you raise it the way you do, I guess I have to rethink a little and say it would depend on whose benefit he was doing it for. If only for his benefit, so that he can get away with it easier, let's say, (or even 'succeed,' at all, through sneakiness), then he gets low marks. If partly for her benefit (perhaps in having her able to preserve her sense of self-esteem, if that were possible) then yes one might think slightly better of him in what is still a very dubious siutation, to say the least. "Don't shoot! I was only doing it for you, hon!"
I'm willing to go with complete contrition beginning after he loses her as being satisfacory and sufficient. But, beforehand, having relations with a 12 year old seems a bad way to show character. So I think you are hoping, which speaks well for you, but you have a tough case IMO. My sympathies are definitely with you but my head has a hard time following.
I think it would be easier to argue that he was a more personable and sociable person than Arthur, who was trying to get along with Lo as well as he could to placate her (in effect to keep war from breaking out, or having her go to the authorities) But with Steffee's post still ringing in our ears, I think even that view has to be demoted to perhaps simply selfish cunning.
I think he wants to be viewed as "a criminal with a heart of gold," and sometimes I even think he behaves that way, but too many of his actions are against him, until the end. Then he finally realizes for himself the extreme and irretrievable wrong he has been doing.
Nabokov has created a very morally ambiguous character (IMO), :(
And it is true he always could have behaved much worse toward her,
Peder
 
You are right of course. For some reason, I have a difficult time letting go of the "end product". End product meaning in this case Humbert's contrition and guilty conscience. His feelings of guilt are tantamount to expressing sorrow for what he has done. Proven by the scene after he has murdered Quilty, and he realizes the missing voice of Lo in the children's voices is the worst of it all. I'm just a sucker for anyone being sorry for what they have done. If I think they are telling the truth about it. And IMO he was especially in the end truely sorry. And I feel as though his repentance for his actions would have lasted.

And that colors my entire perception of Humbert Humbert.
 
pontalba said:
You are right of course. For some reason, I have a difficult time letting go of the "end product". End product meaning in this case Humbert's contrition and guilty conscience. His feelings of guilt are tantamount to expressing sorrow for what he has done. Proven by the scene after he has murdered Quilty, and he realizes the missing voice of Lo in the children's voices is the worst of it all. I'm just a sucker for anyone being sorry for what they have done. If I think they are telling the truth about it. And IMO he was especially in the end truely sorry. And I feel as though his repentance for his actions would have lasted.

And that colors my entire perception of Humbert Humbert.
Click to expand...
Well, Pontalba,
I've been thinking about it also. And it might fall iin the category of mitigating circumstances. From what I have seen reported of trials, there is the guilt phase, where guilt or innocence is determined, and then the penalty phase, when the penalty for the crime is decided. Also from what I have seen, the system can in fact be unexpectedly flexible, depending entirely on circumstances. Even if the facts support statutory rape charges, there is always the possibilty that the prosecutor might only charge a lesser crime, say, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In the penalty phase, then, mitigating fators can more easily be argued and taken into account, instead of having to contend with the near-automatic and heavier penalties that would go with a statutory rape conviction. I knew a colleague, whose son got into such a jam with an under-aged girl and. instead of the boy going away for a long time, he was only given probabtion after convincing the prosecutor and the court that the girl was the instigator. So while "the law is the law" always, some surprising (and compassionate) things can happen. :eek: (And he was one lucky 18-yr old.IMO)
So, a determined defense lawyer would certainly argue Humbert's (and Lolita's) total behavior and who knows where it might settle out?

In addition I agree with you that a person's true contrition is not something that should be lightly ignored or set aside.
Peder
 
Peder said:
(And he was one lucky 18-yr old.IMO)
So, a determined defense lawyer would certainly argue Humbert's (and Lolita's) total behavior and who knows where it might settle out?

In addition I agree with you that a person's true contrition is not something that should be lightly ignored or set aside.
Peder
Click to expand...

He was lucky, but, reverse chauvanist that I am, its still not always the mans fault in a situation like that. Equal opportunity offending and all that. :(
 
pontalba said:
He was lucky, but, reverse chauvanist that I am, its still not always the mans fault in a situation like that. Equal opportunity offending and all that. :(
Click to expand...
Pontalba,
With hormones running high on both sides, I think it is very hard to sort out fault. Reminiscent of "She seduced me!" :eek:
Peder
 
Peder said:
Pontalba,
With hormones running high on both sides, I think it is very hard to sort out fault. Reminiscent of "She seduced me!" :eek:
Peder
Click to expand...

Oh come on, the little tart knew what she was up to the whole time.






Runs for the hills before the female members hunt him down.:D
 
SFG75 said:
Oh come on, the little tart knew what she was up to the whole time.






Runs for the hills before the female members hunt him down.:D
Click to expand...

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: (only allowed fifteen "eek"s, just as well, LOL)
 
SFG75 said:
Oh come on, the little tart knew what she was up to the whole time.






Runs for the hills before the female members hunt him down.:D
Click to expand...

You can run, but you can never hide!!!!!
 
SFG75 said:
Oh come on, the little tart knew what she was up to the whole time.
Click to expand...
SFG,
Sometimes I wonder whether Humbert was lying whenever he addressed us as "Ladies and Gentlmen of the Jury" or, on the other hand, only whenever his mouth was moving, as we say. :)

Gonna take both Lolita and Casebook with me on my trip into the City today and see what I can see on the train ride. But, as I recall, both books were absolutely, completely, totally, 100%, undeniably, irrevocably, unswervingly, unequivocally and implacably ambiguous on the matter. However, who knows, maybe closer rereading will reveal that they are actually only vague and evasive. :cool:

But, first, coffee, :)
peder
 
Peder said:
But, as I recall, both books were absolutely, completely, totally, 100%, undeniably, irrevocably, unswervingly, unequivocally and implacably ambiguous on the matter.
Click to expand...

That has to win 'The Sentence of the Day' award, non? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top